User talk:Ealdgyth

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

FACs needing feedback view • Ethics Review it now Susanna Hoffs Review it now Aston Martin Vanquish (2012) Review it now Jozo Tomasevich Review it now

Featured article removal candidates PowerBook 100 Review now 1981 Irish hunger strike Review now Battle of Red Cliffs Review now Mariah Carey Review now Pokémon Channel Review now Concerto delle donne Review now The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask Review now Geography of Ireland Review now

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Currently, no arbitration cases are open. [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024 Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 25 July 2024 Arbitrator motions Motion name Date posted Historical elections 21 July 2024

Oxford Seasons

Thanks for the comment. I don't know why FCHD is a reliable source, but the first two seasons articles that are FLC that i have just looked at (York and Gillingham) both included it. Rage Online isn't reliale and i will try to phase that out with TwentiethApril's help. Eddie6705 (talk)#

Reliability

Are these sources reliable?

• http://www.contactmusic.com/
• http://www.mvdbase.com/
• http://www.about.com/

Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is being discussed here: Talk:Some Girls (Rachel Stevens song)/GA1. --Efe (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Efe, I'm on the road and in Texas and trying to get things arranged at the ranch I'm at in time for Ike to come visit. I'll try to get to this this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. I'll wait. --Efe (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ealdgyth. I tried to ask Sandy. I think you're still busy. Thanks by the way. --Efe (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On contact music: this is thier submission guidelines. I think it would be reliable enough for a review, if what you were quoting was the review itself, not for general facts. On mvdbase, note at the bottom of the page it says "is produced and maintained by Alex S. Garcia" which leads me to believe its is a personal/fan site. This is their submission guidelines, which basically tell me they aren't very picky. Nothing at all about fact checking on there. About.com is covered here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com. Sorry it took a bit of time to get back to you, life has been REALLY hectic. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied to Sandy's page. Thank you Ealdgyth. --Efe (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown

Hi!, my name is William and it is nice to meet you. I have the article Lockdown (2008) under a peer review so that I can get everything fixed to meet FA standards. Would you be so kind and review it, that is if you have the time.--WillC 10:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces

At FAR, three premature Keep delarations, warrants a close look: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Russian Ground Forces. (No hurry; it will be there several weeks.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Horses and storms

Hi Ealdgyth, I hope you and the horses made it through okay. I'm finally back home and have power again! Minimal damage, luckily. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

not only did we make it through fine, we are back home in Illinois with two of the horses. Need to get them settled in but should be back to normal at Wikiland by early next week, hopefully. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you made it home okay. I learned a valuable lesson - don't evacuate to north Houston! The eye passed pretty close to where we were. I don't know that I'll be reviewing hurricane FACs for a while - I am tempted to just oppose on principle. Karanacs (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I totally understand. it is probably my fault you guys got hit, I lived in SW houston for 19 years, and in that time, the only time anything hit near us was when I was out of town (I was gone for Allison and Rita). I leave and two years later, Ike. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Odwalla FAC

Hi. I saw the comment about the questionable ref, and I'm just letting you know that it's been removed. I also noted this on the nom page. Thanks for reviewing it. SandyGeorgia and I have been eagerly awaiting your comments. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, sorry I was on the road a bit longer than I expected. Ike caught me in Texas and I ended up staying two-three extra days I didn't expect. (I didn't get in danger, just had to suspend some things I needed to do until later than I thought.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad Blood Peer Review

Is it possible to comment on the sources on the above peer review? Thanks.--S_RX 22:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your time, I completed your tasks.--S_RX 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

LMS FAC

I know you are busy, so please take a look at this whenever you are free. Steve, one of the reviewers of the nomination, has provided rationales for the five remaining external links that were not confirmed as reliable in the first FAC. I was wondering if you could look over the rationales and determine if the links are now deemed reliable. Thanks again for your help, you really helped to improve the quality of the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to get to this Monday morning. I'm busy with an art fair and Monday looks like the best chance of me being free. That work? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, whenever it's convenient for you. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Verifying the foundations of an old bridge

Hi, Ealdgyth! It is me again. This time, I would like to pre-FAC check on the sources I used for Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge. It is mostly books (published sources), so I think it mostly should be fine (but just to be safe). If you have the time to go through the article and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge/archive1, that would be real super! Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Monday work for you? I really should be doing REAL work not goofing off on Sandy's page... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Anytime within the following two weeks should be fine. It is under peer review now, and Dabomb87 has been finding several prose issues, so the article would not be going to FAC quickly... (but I hope for it to be in tip-top shape when the time comes for nomination). Jappalang (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Barbera FAC

This link is dead: dealinks and I don't understand what I'm supposed to do with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If its just an external link, you can cut it since it's dead now. Or you can try to find out where the page has moved on the site. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

AH, you meant deaDllinks, you wrote dealinks, so I at first didn't get it. Yes I know what to with deadlinks. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Typos for the win, I blame my lack of caffeine. Sorry about that. It's morning, my fingers don't always type that hot this early. I swear the edit box needs a spell checker... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Horse

I'm a little confused... There are so many discussions going on in so many locations (see the GAN talk page for another one, if you don't have that watchlisted) that I can't keep everything straight. On Sandy's page the consensus seems to be that we should re-GAN it, on the article talk page people seem to want to either GAR it or take it straight to FAC, and Una seems to be trying to stir up trouble on the GAN talk page by accusing us of trying to "dictate who may review an article", which may end up with a bunch more comments by various people on various pages.

What are your thoughts? I'd really like to get this article to GA status before we go to FAC, but if this doesn't seem to be possible, then we should probably go ahead with the peer review and take it to FAC. I've made a new post on the talk page discussing the proposed layout changes, with my proposal, so we'll see what happens with that. I'm in favor of either re-GA noming it and taking Malleus up on his proposal to review, or taking it to GAR, although that could be a bit of a circus.

Let me know what you think and I'll go through the proper procedure this afternoon. Dana boomer (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote GAR, simply because I think it's an important point to establish that you don't review articles written (even if not nommed by) people you've had several disputes with in the past. But it's your choice, I'm mainly on the sidelines. I tried to bring in outside folks who are familiar with GA/FA to give outside opinions, and hopefully that helps. I'm fine with reorging the article, I don't think we should pare it to the level Una thinks, nor do I think that's a valid choice at GAN, either. I could see putting the pure taxonomy stuff at Equus caballus, but I'm not really in favor of making Domestic horse the main article, I prefer it stay at Horse, where folks will look for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with your points on paring the article and the Horse/Domestic horse suggestion. Honestly, there's not that much taxonomy stuff in the article, and so I don't really think it needs to be moved, although I could be swayed in this opinion. I've got a few minutes, so I'll put the article up for GAR right now. I'll be heading to class soon though, so hopefully nothing blows up in my absence as a result of the GAR :) I'll be back this afternoon to check... Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Who thought this would end up blowing up like this? I certainly didn't. Luckily, I'm home until mid-November, so hopefully we can crank out some horse articles in the next two months! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...actually, upon reading the criteria for GAR, which include:

1. If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
2. It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it.

I think we may just want to renom it. Then possibly drop Malleus a note taking him up on his offer to re-review? Dana boomer (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Up to you, you're the nominator! (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thaaaaankkkksss, put me out in front of the firing squad, why don't you :) Just kidding, I don't really mind, and since Malleus has agreed to do the review, it should go better this time. Thanks for your opinion. Dana boomer (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. 1) Equus Caballus redirects to horse, but see Equidae for the taxonomy stuff. 2) I say get GA before FA 3) Horses are, other than about 500 Prewalski's, ALL domesticated horses. We have wild horse, feral horse, Przewalski's horse and Tarpan for the rest. 4) I really find the taxonomy stuff rather annoying, I think it is boring and should not be leading the article. That said, if it's a deal-breaker, OK, what the #%@$! but I think readability and accessibility for the most likely audience (fourth- through sixth- grade girls) has something to be said for it too. All for now, catch ya later. Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources check

Can you check the sources for No Way Out (2004) on it's peer review? Thanks.--S_RX 02:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Stigand TFA

Hi Ealdgyth, please let me know if there is anything I can do to help get it ready for TFA (and congrats!) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be, the article hasn't had that much change since it was promoted. Just need eyes on its day in the vandal eyesight... I'm going to add a bit from a new book I JUST got, but I don't think it'll be that much, most of the information is covered already. I can't say I'm completely excited... I dread the time spent fighting vandals... (I help out by watching Sparta, that's no fun!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist and I will keep an extra eye on it when it is TFA. I thought it looked fine, but wanted to see if I could help in any way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to check over my additions for prose flow, that'd be great. Mostly just small tidbits, another quote about Stigand's artistic patronage, and some filling in of background. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You might be amused: Stigand got a little extra exposure for 48 minutes. Gimmetrow 16:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ealdgyth

		Thank You!
		for your assistance in helping Virus to become a Featured Article today. It's much appreciated, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 13:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Horses for courses...

I wouldn't worry about GAR; there is plenty of good feedback coming now to work on, and it all gets the article closer to FAC anyway..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

GA was more a step to get feedback and see what happens. We weren't exactly expecting a quick fail, given that there are three pretty dedicated editors who can and do get things fixed fast when we want to. But, yeah, PR is probably an option soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanced upon this conversation & I looked over the article. Everything seems good, but the one thing you need to fix is size - the article is waay too big. Me and Cas had the same problem with Vampire, but left it too late IMHO when the FAC was underway, and it was a big rush/hash/hassle to select text to move to subpages. Don't leave it that long; start chopping now and even consider just leaving the bare essentials of each topic. You'll thank yourself later on when the article comes to FAC and you don't have to make such major changes. Otherwise, the article seems well-referenced and topical - although I did just quickly skim through. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dr pda is 8400 words for Horse, within WP:SIZE 10,000 guideline. Sheep, 10,000 words for comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about page size: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose." Currently Horse is over 100KB, and people said Vampire, which was 80KB was too long, regardless of word space. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The 30 to 50 KB is readable prose. The 100KB of the horse article is total length, which includes references, hidden comments, images, infoboxes, etc. The readable prose of the Horse article is just over 48KB, which is on the upper range, but still within the guidelines. Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I know readable prose. I'm talking about total length and my personal experience with vampire... Nevermind then... Spawn Man (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, check horse talk page. I'm TRYING to stay out of the discussion. Please...? Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're fine. I replied, again, and because she favors one layout does not mean that we will necessarily follow that. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Okies. But note this also. I added a short response and will need to go offline for a while, now. I will try to be good and not say more for now. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Germanium FAC

Sorry! --Stone (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC visit

As far as I can tell, no one has reliably reviewed sources at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Legal disputes over Harry Potter. ON the other hand, some of these FACs lately are so messy I could have missed it. Every FAC regular should have to read through all 50 messes someday and think about how they might better keep their FACs on track and readable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

David got it up towards the top of the page. I did do a looksee at this one at PR also... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; I see Awadewit reviewed them after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Paul Kelly awards at FLC

At List of Paul Kelly awards FLC, you've accepted the reliability of all but one queried reference: mvdbase.com

Whilst I believe it is reliable and gave a rationale for its reliability, I decided to use another ARIA ref as the primary reference for the claim that Claudia Castle directed the award winning video for "To Her Door". The mvdbase.com ref now acts as a secondary ref for Castle being the director. I hope this is acceptable for this article and will not stand in the way of it achieving FL.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Quark

I've attended to every citation issue you raised. Just thought I'd give you a heads up in case there was anything else. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm headed that way on my "morning rounds"... thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F. FAC

Hi Ealdgyth, your residual issues within Real Madrid C.F. FAC have been resolved. Please check them as soon as you can. Thanks.--KSA¹³ 08:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The usual RS check before FAC

Hey, if you have time could you look over the sources in Pilot (House) and respond on the talk page if you have any issues? Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Harry Potter FAC

Hi there,

Thank you for you comments on the Harry Potter FAC, I'll get right on them. I'm unsure of your first comment,

You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. - could you explain further either on my talk page or at the FAC nomination?

Thanks,

The Helpful One ^Review 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I have completed all of your comments, the article history shows what I have done. Thanks, The Helpful One ^Review 11:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done your other comments! :) The Helpful One ^Review 14:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [1]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I can tell that you spent a generous amount of time and effort to give us a thorough peer review and I want you to know that I am sincerely grateful for your help. I will be addressing your comments over time and I especially appreciate your help and suggestions for trimming. NancyHeise ^talk 00:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I have answered your first four comments but need some guidance before I go on. I have used the cite encyclopedia template but am not sure if it is supposed to look the way it does and am wondering if I have made a mistake somewhere. Can you take a look at refs 9 and 10 and let me know if they are in proper form? I also left a message for you on the peer review page under your fourth comment and would like to know what you think. Thanks again for your time. NancyHeise ^talk 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting that out for me, I have one more question relating to that same subject. Do I use the template in the Bibliography section only and put the reference that is in the body of the article in the same format as all my other references? That seems like a stupid question but I just want to make sure before I go and change all those refs. NancyHeise ^talk 03:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Already caught your queries. I've actually watchlisted the peer review (but not the RCC page) so I'll see queries as they come in and will be checking in there, so no need to drop me a note on my talk page everytime you have a question. I'll see them at the PR and will get to them as soon as I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and format them like you would all the other book refs. (So... Wilkin "Christianity" Geography of Religion p#) If it helps you, check out Stigand, which uses the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (formatted as a {{cite encyclopedia}} in the references and as a short note in the footnotes) which is an encyclopedia. That should help you with an example. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I know I have already said it but I am very grateful for your help. Thanks.NancyHeise ^talk 03:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review on Thomas

I saw that you'd made some edits at Thomas of Bayeux. I answered the request for a non-medievalist's peer review, and because Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas of Bayeux/archive1 doesn't show up on the talk page unless you look for it, I wanted to make sure you knew about it. JamesMLane t c 21:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it, and it's on my list of things to do. My summer got very unexpectedly busy right after I put it up for PR, and it's been hanging around waiting for me to get to poor Thomas. He's on my radar to work on soon. I did very much appreciate the comments, they will be very very helpful. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I almost never get involved in the PR/GA/FA stuff, so I'm not familiar with the process, and I was surprised to see that someone looking at the talk page wouldn't know about the PR except by clicking one of the "Show" links. I just wanted to make sure it hadn't vanished down the memory hole. BTW, after I did that PR, I surprised a friend of mine with the depth of my knowledge concerning the dispute over the primacy of Canterbury.  :) JamesMLane t c 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For my sins, I know entirely too much about the GA/PR/FA process! And EVERYONE should know about the great York-Canterbury primacy fight... right? (In reality, I'm always vastly entertained by the whole spectacle... it dragged on and on and on... and some of the stories are great.) I'm glad you impressed a friend! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Epikleros

Hi, I saw you made a couple of minor edits to Epikleros today; just to let you know, I haven't forgotten my promise to help improve it :) I got a bunch of books out from the library just the other day, which I'm about to start reading through and taking notes from. I'll probably do my drafting offline, so it might be a while before any changes propagate to the article. Dr pda (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they were mainly housekeeping edits, making sure the redirects don't multiply too badly, etc. I've still got it on my to do list also... just been really busy! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And it's nice to know that no matter what length requirement we settle on at FAC, at 1600+ words, it's good to go... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Footnotes

Yup, I caught your changes to Appaloosa and HiW on my watchlist run-through this morning. I like the changes, although I haven't totally figured out how the coding works (I probably just need to sit down and actually study it for a few minutes). Nice job...and thanks for all your help and hard work in getting Horse to GA! Dana boomer (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You can use it two ways... 1) which doesn't allow you to use a footnote on it, to do this you go <ref name=blah>Blah<group=notes|/ref> (or something similar, I never use this since I always need footnotes). 2) which allows you to add a source note is {{#tag:ref|(information)<ref>Sourcing</ref>|group=notes}}. I always use the later, since I can remember it, and it allows sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Neat feature

I wanted to thank you for drawing attention to the ref group feature over at the FAC. While I haven't chimed in yet, I am very exited to learn of this feature in its own right. Could you tell me what template or page it is under, where the documentation for usage is located? I would love to get more acclimated with this tool. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out right above where I give the quick and dirty explanation on how it works. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that. I was looking for more detail and not finding it in Template:tag, but have since found this and this. Thanks again. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

One for your files

Lovely. One for you to bookmark for the next time the question comes up. I just saw this over at the mess on WP:MEDRS. The FA Baby Gender Mentor (you don't see my Support on it) uses this source: http://multiples.about.com/cs/medicalissues/a/vanishingtwin.htm The author's qualifications to write about medical topics (click on her link) are ... ta da ! She is the mother of twins ! Yea, About.com!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gods above. While you're at being superwoman today, can you convince my kitten to quit being psycotic? She's tearing around the house, driving us all nuts. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

See, Ealdgyth, you can now write about.com articles on cat psychology and then cite them in WP articles. I will write the ones on potty training and the most effective way to bribe toddlers (unless Maralia wants them). Sandy's probably too busy to write articles on anything right now. Karanacs (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Can I do horse psychology too? (Spent the morning with the farrier and the horsies... fun was had by all). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Even about.com might refuse to let me write about potty training :/ Maralia (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Imagine my house: I'm laughing at my computer screen and my husband keeps saying, "What?" "What?" What should I tell him? Well, I told a friend about a reliable source and she answered about a psychotic kitten ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Best book ever; I even saved it. Still have it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Really though, how am I supposed to work on poor Robert of Jumièges when I am playing superhighway for a kitten???? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, is the psychotic cat potty-trained? Maralia (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely you can find a quarter tab of Risperdal laying around somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Children's Benadryl makes dogs sleepy...surely it works on kitties too (it unfortunately makes toddlers hyper, though)? And Maralia, my secret to potty training is buy Elmo underwear, put it someplace conspicuous, and wait 6-9 months for your toddler to decide it's time to wear them. That, and bribe said toddler with a "big kid bike" which unfortunately will not work if the rider wears diapers. Toddlers believe anything. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

All of these drugging suggestions assume I can CATCH said kitten/lightning bolt. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you need to invest in some mice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to check my tack room? Ever since my parents adopted our barn cat, I think I have a ready supply! Montanabw^(talk) 05:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkin' sources

Heya. I'm thinking about helping you out with the really dull and tedious task of checking links. Partly because I should get off my fat butt and do something, but also because I don't ever think there should be one person to interpret the rules of anything. That's no knock to you - I think you're doing a fine job, but it's more of a personal philosophy of the benefits of checks and balances. At any rate, for giggles and grins, I was looking at Virginia, which at first glance seems to be chock full of reliable sources, but they are almost all web-based and very general ones at that. There must be volumes of print information about the history of Virginia as the birthplace of American republic democracy, issues of slavery, and all sorts of good stuff. What kind of commentary do you make about the quality of sources that could be used? Is this an issue that is still being explored?

In a recent GA review of Martin Luther King, Jr., the article used Google Books sources (as does Virginia) as well as replicating information I had written in Birmingham campaign. I don't think it's a good idea at all to copy the lead from Birmingham campaign for King's article, but I'm having similar difficulty with the reliance on the scanning of information in Google Books when the actual books are much better to use. I recognize my own preference for print sources, but is that a standard to which I should hold all editors who come to FAC? Is this more of a question that should be asked at FAC? --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. Look at the old FAC for Virginia and you'll see that I ripped the thing to bits, as I recall. I have to step out for a bit, but I'll try to answer you in more depth when I get back. It basically boils down to I will point out that they probably aren't accessing the best sources, and that using Google books snippets gives you issues with not getting the full context, but it's not an easy fight to win, lots of folks think you should NOT use printed sources because you can't "verify" them. Of course, you can't "verify" any information on a web page either, if it doesn't give it's sources... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To expand some, there is definitely resistance to going with printed sources over web sources. And lots of folks seem to think that because you can read a snippet on Google books, that that is as good as using the whole work. As far as specifics, I generally will post a note that an article relies mostly on internet sources, but unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done other than that if the sources are reliable enough. Some help from other reviewers would be beneficial, if more people were willing to step up and say "You should investigate other sources, including print ones" (like you've done) the culture might change more. Let's let the whole "Short Article" controversy fade out before we add another one to FAC (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to help fight this war whenever I run across it. To me, it is an automatic oppose on comprehensiveness grounds if a user does not consult print sources when they are available. They have no way of knowing if they've actually gotten all the information they should have and put the article at a disadvantage. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I have a limited amount of "controversy" I can handle, so I like having backup (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thrilled to see back up for Ealdgyth on such a difficult and thankless and important chore ! 1c and 2c are my secret favorites as rarely does a serious writer neglect serious sourcing; don't tell 1a, though :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert of Jumièges

I will be glad to look at - somewhat busy so it will be in the next day or so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No great worries. I worked a bit on William of Corbeil this morning before my sinus pills kicked in. Right now, I wouldn't trust myself to touch an article, who knows what drug-induced edits I might make...Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lipis

Hi E, Dana and I have been doing some cleanup work on Lipizzan to move it, albeit slowly, toward GA. There is now a discussion at Talk:Lipizzan, with another editor who has a long history with this particular article. We have a mild difference of opinion over emphasis, sources and a POV question. The POV is put forth in a fair manner and I think all can be resolved amicably, but as you are the goddess of verifiability and NPOV, could you be so kind as to peek in and offer us some advice from the perspective of someone who is not often an editor on this particular article (we will want your feedback later on anyway, but maybe if you can remind us of the rules on sources...?) Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba

Thanks for your comments. Have addressed your concerns. Please strike out comments that you feel are addressed satisfactorily. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Have answered your queries.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Can this source, [2], be considered reliable. This source references title histories of every professional wrestling promotion on earth. (No lies). Also, I find the source reliable because it gets information from major sources, promotion's websites, and from websites that are third party that are from reliable sources (i.e. people who are considered prominent). It also get's it's information from a reliable book that has sourcing from early 1900s to 2000.--S_RX 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this may sound petty, but the fact that TWO popups immediately popped up (past my popup blocker, no less) doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies about the site. It's been my experience that a site that is THAT aggressive about popups, isn't going to be highly reliable right off the bat. I'd really like to see some information on reliable sources (preferably big media companies) using it as a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, I have a pop blocker and none bypass it. Sigh, well I couldn't find any that used it, oh well. Forget about it, anyways I responded to your comments at WP:FAC#No Way Out (2004).--S_RX 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Caught them, you're good to go on sourcing! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2002 NFL Expansion Draft

Please see if current revisions have addressed your concern and improved the list enough to change your mind. The intro section was considerably revamped. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Does your strikethrough mean you are voting to Support now?--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 02:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the other FLCs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FLs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Checking sources at FAC

Hi Ealdgyth, sorry to bother you. I've been making an effort recently to review sources for reliability and otherwise at FAC, and I'm afraid I'm not doing a good job at it. For example, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Location of European Union institutions, it seems I missed quite a bit. If you find the time, could you give me some suggestions about checking sources? Thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This will give you a start, and I'll try to give you some more pointers tomorrow when I have more time. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to know is to always question if you have any thoughts that it might be self-published. Looking at the EU one you linked above, the reason I questioned the ecotrips one, is because it looks like it's an advocacy group, and the story was itself written by them, thus it's "self-published" and needs to satisfy the SPS guidelines. It may be reliable, but it's always better to question and get told why it's reliable than to let it slide. Our sourcing guidelines are pretty easy, honestly, especially compared to academia. For this I questioned because it's a "webzine" and I didn't find any sign that it actually publishes anything. Webzines are easy to set up, and in my mind, fall into SPS territory, thus are a question all the time, better safe than sorry type of site. YouTube is tricky. A LOT of the time, the video being linked to is copyrighted and needs to be queried on that basis. Also, it's subject to bias, because a lot of time snippets of things are cut in such a way to eliminate context. This is probably reliable, but again, easier to ask than to risk letting a sticky source past. This, same deal. Doesn't appear to be a site by a big media company, so question it and see where things go. That's the best advice I can give you, is question question question. Also, lulu.com is a vanity publisher, anything published by them should be regorously questioned. If you've never heard of a publisher, try to tack the book down through the ISBN. Folks are really bad with not giving authors and getting things like books of collected articles by many authors wrong, they often give the editor as the author. Always question use of Google Books, it's very easy to miss context there. As a general rule, I click on every website, and I compare the publishers listed by the link checker with the publisher listed by the article. If anythign doesn't match up, you need to question THAT also. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are great tips, thanks. Just one more question. When an FAC nominator gives you evidence to prove that a source is reliable, is there a general rule as to when to accept it as reliable? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For me, I weigh the evidence and if I'm persuaded convincingly yes, I'll strike. If it's REALLY good evidence, I add a note on my cheatsheet noting that a whole site has been shown reliable, and linking to the FAC that did it. (Note I don't do this lightly, there are a LOT of folks that watch that list and it has to be reliable beyond question for me to put it there.) If I'm not convinced, I point out why, and don't strike. If it's borderline, I'll leave it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, and leave a note to that effect. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for your time, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, good to know. :-) I'll be sure to keep an eye out for the mixing of those formatting templates. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Julian, I know that Ealdgyth knows this, but I want to be sure you do, so I'll add my two cents. There is no such thing as a definitive best reliable source; that depends on the text being sourced (and to my dismay, very few reviewers at FAC are actually going beyond what Ealdgyth does and checking for that; Ealdgyth's work should be considered only the first cut). For example, the fact that a particular source appears on Ealdgyth's list as reliable for a pop culture article wouldn't mean it is necessarily reliable for a bio or medical article. I'm afraid that, as a result of the considerable hard work that Ealdgyth is doing, FAC has gotten lazy about going to the next step and making sure that the best possible sources are being used, and that each source is actually reliable for the specific text being cited. I've been shocked at how often Ealdgyth leaves a source for reviewers to evaluate, and no reviewer even comments, which forces me to check myself and drags me into the review, which compromises my position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sandy here. I think what I'm (and you're trying to get into) doing is important, but it's really just a first step, and shouldn't be taken as meaning that the sources are acurately represented or such like. That's one reason I bring up using Google Book Searches so often, that's a really lazy way to do research, and you can't know that you're accurately reflecting what the source is getting at. I often wish that we had a "use the best possible sources and survey the whole of the scholarship available" as a criteria at FAC, that might cut down on some of the hassles. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that should be proposed ... um ... after all of the curren kerfuffle dies down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good choice Sandy (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Are these reliable?

Can you help me determine whether these are reliable or not?

• http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/mvp_cya.shtml
• http://www.hickoksports.com/history/cyyoung.shtml
• http://www.athomeplate.com/awardshistory.shtml

Thanks in advance! iMatthew (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The first is, the second and third I'd want to see more data on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MTV video as a source

Hi Ealdgyth, I'm currently working on HIStory and it's corresponding singles and album tracks that have their own article. Jackson gave a very rare but informative interview to MTV here. Unfortunately it's just the video and I haven't been able to find a transcript of the interview. Could I still use it as a source, since it's an official interview with MTV and if so, how would I go about sourcing it? Cheers — Realist² 13:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the reliable sources noticeboard decision. Since it's hosted on the MTV site, it's presumed that they approve of it and that they stand behind it, thus as long as you remember that it's a primary source, it can be used with caution. Sorry it took a bit to get to this, been busy this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beyoncé Knowles

Thanks for the note. I left a message there. --Efe (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Thank you for your support vote and especially for your thorough peer review and source check. I know you must have spent a lot of time and effort on this and I appreciate your diligence. NancyHeise ^talk 13:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Hi! As per your advice and comments here, I tried to find more sources but found only one so far. Would http://www.uklankatimes.net/Insidepages/OpenFile/OpenFile.aspx?SID=1 do as a replacement for the lankalibrary link? It provides the needed information in detail, but I'm not sure if this is a reliable source. Chamal ^Talk ± 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a published magazine in the UK, correct? If so, I'd call it reliable enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I;ll add it too, then. Thanks for the help. Chamal ^Talk ± 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comment on Louvre...brief follow up

Hey there, thanks for your comment. I've got a brief question: what do you think about the distribution of the citations? I've heavily relied on Mignot's book; which, I believe is the best overview of the museum. However, do you think that particular work is cited too much? Just curious, as it was something concerning to me. Btw, I have the same watchlist problem. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about relying too much on it, it's a travel guide, but that just makes it more likely to be more neutral. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on Strawberry Fields PR

You said on the PR for Strawberry Fields Forever that about.com is not a reliable source. I replaced three of the four citations with other reliable sources. My question is that one of the sources that I replaced the website with is Mike Pinder's website. Since the info that the citation refers to is about Mike Pinder, would that source be reliable? Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 20:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)