User talk:Steve: Difference between revisions
→Silent Alarm FAC: reviewing |
Ring Cinema (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
Steve we're trying to think of a film article that includes its primary source. Can you help? --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
Steve we're trying to think of a film article that includes its primary source. Can you help? --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
Thanks for the response. I am well aware that the film is the primary source for film articles (it's not "treated as the primary source" as Erik erroneously phrases it). I think you may be missing something, though. Erik's draft includes material from wp:psts that lays out when it is permissible to include primary sources in Wikipedia articles. So the question naturally arises, What material is thereby referred to in the context of a film article? You, for example, suggested that Changeling's film article includes its primary source. Personally, I don't find it there but I'd like you to tell me where to look for the primary source material for Changeling in the article on Changeling. I hope that's clear. --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema]] ([[User talk:Ring Cinema|talk]]) 17:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:22, 13 July 2009
 |
 |
 |
 | ||
- To keep discussions centralized, any new subjects posted to this page will be replied to here.
- If I leave a message on your talk page, I prefer to continue the discussion where it began, but reply wherever you see fit; here or there, I'll make sure I see it.
- Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
- New discussions start below old; you can start a new topic.
- If you wish to talk privately, you can email me.
- Discussions are archived periodically.
July 2007–December 2007 (88kb) | December 2007–April 2008 (57kb) | April 2008–October 2008 (75kb) | October 2008–December 2008 (58kb)
December 2008–February 2009 (62kb) | February 2009–May 2009 (53kb) | May 2009–July 2009 (60kb)
| FACs needing feedback view • | |
|---|---|
| Ethics | Review it now |
| Susanna Hoffs | Review it now |
| Aston Martin Vanquish (2012) | Review it now |
CUT
Well done dear boy. Very good article. I hadn't actually realised how much credit they had earned and deserved for what they'd achieved. I'd tended to assume that events just kind of caught up with them organically. --bodnotbod (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. And no, I didn't realise either until I started trawling for sources. And I still half suspect you're right, that maybe new technologies were the "major driving forces" we should be crediting. But in this case, all we can go with is what the sources say (even if The Register isn't always the best for a NPOV). Steve T • C 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Go for DYK dear boy! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- A fine suggestion, er, old chap! (Did it within two minutes of creating the article.) Steve T • C 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank-you!
On behalf of all the editors, I just wish to convey thanks for the help you gave in getting the SECR N class article to FA, and for being a patient reviewer in the process. There was a lot of work that needed doing to the article, but now it will provide a yardstick for future railway-related FA attempts. Once again, thank you! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, Karanacs recommended asking you for an FA review.
The article I've linked hasn't gathered new comments in days and is also lacking supports/opposes. I would be grateful if you had a look and gave your verdict. I think it's worth the promotion, even though I'm totally biased, but I think that may be the reason people aren't commenting since most only like to write negative comments or things to improve.
Thanks in advance. Rafablu88 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm editing at a significantly reduced rate at the moment due to an abominable real-life workload, but if I get the chance to look over the article I will. It might not be a full review, but hopefully I'll at least be able to throw some useful comments your way before Tuesday's pr/ar. All the best, Steve T • C 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I should be able to give you something of use either this evening or tomorrow. All the best, Steve T • C 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Campaign for Unmetered Telecommunications
|
On July 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Campaign for Unmetered Telecommunications, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Rewrite of "Plot" section for guidelines
I know you only stepped in briefly to clarify the "specialist knowledge" element to another editor, but I was wondering if you could review the rewrite so far and share any additional thoughts before I implement the draft. Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Steve we're trying to think of a film article that includes its primary source. Can you help? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I am well aware that the film is the primary source for film articles (it's not "treated as the primary source" as Erik erroneously phrases it). I think you may be missing something, though. Erik's draft includes material from wp:psts that lays out when it is permissible to include primary sources in Wikipedia articles. So the question naturally arises, What material is thereby referred to in the context of a film article? You, for example, suggested that Changeling's film article includes its primary source. Personally, I don't find it there but I'd like you to tell me where to look for the primary source material for Changeling in the article on Changeling. I hope that's clear. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)