Jump to content

User talk:Brískelly~enwiki: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎FAC: post on the FAC page please
Line 18: Line 18:
::I'd like to echo the other editors here in asking you to reconsider your "Strong oppose" recommendation for [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imagination (magazine)|the FAC of Imagination (magazine)]]. Length is [[WP:WIAFA|not a requirement]] for a featured article. It would also be helpful to the nominator and other editors if you could provide more details as to what specifically you think makes the article not comprehensive. Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/69.202.60.86|69.202.60.86]] ([[User talk:69.202.60.86|talk]]) 16:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
::I'd like to echo the other editors here in asking you to reconsider your "Strong oppose" recommendation for [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imagination (magazine)|the FAC of Imagination (magazine)]]. Length is [[WP:WIAFA|not a requirement]] for a featured article. It would also be helpful to the nominator and other editors if you could provide more details as to what specifically you think makes the article not comprehensive. Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/69.202.60.86|69.202.60.86]] ([[User talk:69.202.60.86|talk]]) 16:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
:::"(too short) and not comprehensive. OK?" Um, yes, I know that's what you said. See my above post. I asked if you could provide more details (on the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imagination (magazine)|FAC page]] preferably) on what makes the article not comprehensive. Justifying your opinion is different from repeating it. [[Special:Contributions/69.202.60.86|69.202.60.86]] ([[User talk:69.202.60.86|talk]]) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
:::"(too short) and not comprehensive. OK?" Um, yes, I know that's what you said. See my above post. I asked if you could provide more details (on the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imagination (magazine)|FAC page]] preferably) on what makes the article not comprehensive. Justifying your opinion is different from repeating it. [[Special:Contributions/69.202.60.86|69.202.60.86]] ([[User talk:69.202.60.86|talk]]) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Like I said, please post your justifications on the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imagination (magazine)|FAC page]], not my talk page. [[Special:Contributions/69.202.60.86|69.202.60.86]] ([[User talk:69.202.60.86|talk]]) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Like I said, please post your justifications on the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imagination (magazine)|FAC page]], not my talk page. Also, you keep referring to things being "too short", which is not actionable. What specifically is too short about the sections/article? I have a hard time believing that "all the sections are too shorts". Describe what "fundamental informations" is. Seeing as how you're using the phrase "away-from-good-prose", I'm having a hard time believing that you're the best judge of "good prose". [[Special:Contributions/69.202.60.86|69.202.60.86]] ([[User talk:69.202.60.86|talk]]) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


== [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski]] ==
== [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski]] ==

Revision as of 17:33, 24 December 2007

[[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] - Italian Talk, write me there.

Ciao Brískelly, e benvenuto a Wikipedia! Your Featured picture nomination was incorrectly posted. The instructions for creating a subpage and transcluding it to the candidates page can be found here. I have fixed the template for you, so all you need to do now is add a description. Note that the image must also appear in an article to be eligible for featured picture status, see the Featured picture criteria. Grazie! -- Chris.B | talk 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I'd just like to let you know about Wikipedia Picture Peer Review, which I think you would benefit from, the next time you feel you have a photo worth nominating for Featured Picture Candidates. I noticed a large number of opposes in the Louvre nomination you made, which suggests perhaps the nomination wasn't prepared as well as it could be. The peer review is a much more constructive (as opposed to deconstructive!) assessment, suggesting a number of ways you could improve your image's chances before you nominate it for FPC. Hope to see you there! --mikaultalk 08:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hi Biskelly. Thanks for your contributions at FAC, but I have to wonder how you can come to an assessment of articles in a minute or two. In addition, comments such as "Support: it's OK" are contradictory. To be worthy of promotion to FA status requires more than an OK standard.

I wonder whether you can offer more information to justify your supports or opposes in the future. Tony (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you've opposed a few FA candidates for being too short. As long as the articles are comprehensive, there is no minimum length for an FA. You might want to check out the Featured article criteria to see what kinds of things can stop an FA. Thanks for participating in the process - we need more good reviewers! Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your Oppose vote for the FAC of Ian Svenonius. You criticized the article as being "too short", but length isn't really a factor for FA, comprehensiveness is. I'd really appreciate if it if you gave the article another look. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo the other editors here in asking you to reconsider your "Strong oppose" recommendation for the FAC of Imagination (magazine). Length is not a requirement for a featured article. It would also be helpful to the nominator and other editors if you could provide more details as to what specifically you think makes the article not comprehensive. Thanks, 69.202.60.86 (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"(too short) and not comprehensive. OK?" Um, yes, I know that's what you said. See my above post. I asked if you could provide more details (on the FAC page preferably) on what makes the article not comprehensive. Justifying your opinion is different from repeating it. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, please post your justifications on the FAC page, not my talk page. Also, you keep referring to things being "too short", which is not actionable. What specifically is too short about the sections/article? I have a hard time believing that "all the sections are too shorts". Describe what "fundamental informations" is. Seeing as how you're using the phrase "away-from-good-prose", I'm having a hard time believing that you're the best judge of "good prose". 69.202.60.86 (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comments there and carried out an edit hopefully addressing your concerns. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought it may be Italian after I looked at your user page :) I thought it had a negative meaning due to "malin" part. Leave and learn :) Looking forward to hear if you have any other comments about the article! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]