User talk:SilkTork

/Beer Archive  • /AMA Archive  • /Dispute Archive • Image archive • /Start • /April 2006 - Dec 2006 · /Jan 2007 - March 2006 · /April 2007 - Dec 2007 · /Jan 2008 - June 2008 · /July 2008 - Dec 2008 · /Jan 2009 - March 2009  · Old dusty stuff · 13 · 14 · 15 ·

Current messages

Drum (2004 film)

Hi. I've replied to all your concerns at the GA review. I included every drop of information I could find, so length is not an issue. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Same with Hell's Gate National Park. The length issue is beyond my control. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing Maurice Kouandete? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly committed at the moment. But if nobody has got round to it when I have some more time, I'll take a look. SilkTork *^YES! 00:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can wait. thanks for the award, by the way. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Drum (2004 film)

You put Drum on hold until January 10. Today is January 11. There is nothing more (at least that I know of) that can help expand the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On hold for another 7 days. I've done a little bit of work on it to show examples of how the article can be developed further. The reviews here may help you with material, both in terms of writing about the critical response, and in terms of building up the Plot section. I will help out in writing the article when I can. There's no rush for me to make a final decision on the article, as long as work is being done in a positive direction I'm happy to keep the review open. I'll only close when either I feel it meets the GA criteria, or when you and/or I truly feel no more positive work can be done in a reasonable time frame. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement. I've heard of Rotten Tomatoes, and even checked out its webpage for Drum in the past. Only now are reviews actually appearing on my screen. I guess I need to get my computer checked out - it's slow and unreliable too. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cryptol

Sounds good. Give me a few days. --KP Botany (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Failing a GA

We've been waiting for two days for you to respond to Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Greece_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2008/1 so I'm surprised that you went and failed Portugal as we were waiting for your next response. We put any bold editing of the Portugal article on hold pending the outcome of the discussion. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem. I don't think we can agree on how to proceed with the article, and I don't feel I can pass the articles as GA against the GA criteria. As such it is better for me to withdraw from them than to get into a conflict. It is your decision now as the best way to proceed.

• You could proceed with your development of them against your own criteria and go for A-Class in the WP:Assess scheme - or even FA status. Not passing at GA does not impact on that at all - indeed there is some dispute as to GA's place in the WP:Assess hierarchy.
• You can take Portugal to another GAR to see if there's a fresh viewpoint.
• You could consider what I and Geometry guy are saying and look to see if you can develop the article in the direction we are suggesting, and then resubmit for another GAN.

It is difficult for me to see what else I can do in this situation now to help you. I tried some editing to point the way that I felt the articles should be going, but this editing was seen as unhelpful, and taking the articles in a direction you guys didn't want them to go. I appreciate what you guys are saying, but we are at a point at which it's useful to say that we have a difference of opinion. When the people involved in the articles are saying that they are unwilling to make the edits suggested to bring them in line with the GA criteria, then a GAR is the best way forward. Unfortunately the only impartial commentator in the GAR has been Geometry guy, and his view seems to match mine. I think we'd like another impartial person to comment (that is, someone who is not involved in editing any of the articles under question). Failing that happening, I think the conclusion will be that Geometry guy will have to make the decision himself when he closes the GAR. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm ok, I don't know if you checked up on the Greece article lately, but Geometry guy is satisfied with the changes other than his wish that there is a little more info on the song. I would appreciate it if you could give Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 one last quick look before you withdraw completely and point out any major problems with the new layout which we could take into consideration. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll take another serious look later. SilkTork *^YES! 17:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Greetings, SilkTork. Have you any ideas what we should do with this article and its GA Review? It does not look like the author will be returning from his involuntary holiday anytime soon. The article has great potential and I'd like to find someone else to take over the rewrite of it (I might have a conflict of interest in doing so as the reviewer). It would seem a shame to fail it for prose and then abandon it to decay. Thoughts? Skomorokh 15:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that. I'll be happy to help out, though it's also OK for you to correct stuff in the article. The article appears to be very close to GA, and may even be a contender for FA without too much work. I'll take a look at it later when I have some time. SilkTork *^YES! 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thanks very much. I will probably address the prose issues; perhaps you might want to tackle the technical terminology. I'll review it against the GA criteria then and hopefully any outstanding issues can be resolved. Thanks again! Skomorokh 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai is being allowed to edit the article. I'll check in on it now and again, but hopefully Manhattan should be able to address the issues himself. SilkTork *^YES! 20:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Devon hedge

I've reverted your redirect from Devon hedge, if you want to make the move could you please ask for consensus first? The Devon hedge is an important characteristic of Devon and a biodiversity haven, important enough even to be mentioned in the Biodiversity Action Plan for Devon. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAC

I replied to your comments at the FAC. My hands are somewhat tied here: the armament was a part of the construction, it needs to be addressed in this article somewhere; at the same time, their are other articles than are better able to handle the weaponry information. I've made a suggestion on the FAC page, and I will base my next move on your reaction to my suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on the FA talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented two of the three suggestions you left. You mentioned that a mention of the ship being panamax size would be nice, and I would like to know if there is anything else you may put in the construction section, the goal being to create another paragraph rather than add one awkward sentence in the construction section concerning panamax capability.

I've made some suggestions on the FAC talkpage. However, I don't wish my concerns to impede the FAC - I was simply raising the matter as a comment rather than an objection. I would agree with the GA reviewer that the Construction section doesn't seem right. It is likely that other readers would have a similiar reaction. I am not taking part in the FAC, I was just making what might be considered a "drive-by" comment. There was a choice of making the comment or not making the comment - I decided to make the comment, but make it in such a manner as not to impede the FAC. I now leave it up to your discretion as to what to do with the observation. I do not intend to return to the FAC or the article unless you request me to. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bradman

thanks for the review. I've tried to do the fixes and clarify my position. Thanks, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a real nice article. Glad to help out in a small way. I've passed it as a GA. SilkTork *^YES! 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Finnegans Wake GA Review

Hi SilkTork,

firstly thank you very much for taking the time to write your in depth and insightful GA review of Finnegans Wake. I've spent the last couple of weeks digesting your comments, and trying to reconcile them with my own reticence toward giving a "straightforward" and "authoritative" plot synopsis of the book; something which even its most erudite experts cannot do. However, your point is well taken, that Wikipedia is intended for the first time reader as much as for the expert, and I've tried to compromise as much as possible, pretty much along the lines you laid down in your review.

• I've cut (nearly) all critical commentary from the plot synopsis and moved it into a newly expanded response and themes section. However, starting this new section will require expansion with a few more critical comments to give it better shape, and I plan to do this over the next couple of days.

• Removed weasel words and unreferenceable claims as much as possible, but still need to track down a cite for the Irish mythology stuff. However, if I can't get a cite, I think it could be cut without too much of a loss for the article.

• I've added a publication history section, although it might have too much detailed information at the moment. I'm considering how best to manage it - I'd love to hear any of your suggestions, if possible.

• Trying to trim the Allusions/References section - my least successful endeavour so far. Essentially, this used to be a list, and in order to compromise (keep other editors' contributions), I just transformed the list into prose and tried to link and ref it up as best I could. However, I'm not really behind all of the content, so I'm not sure if I should be ruthless and cut most of the content, or just organise it more coherently? Please advise.

• The last matter is the lead, which I've expanded in the aim of including all the main points of the article, but I'm still not happy with it. I don't have much experience writing leads - could you perhaps advise where I need to take it form here?

Thank you once again for your very fair and constructive review, I hope I'm somehow managing to move the article in the direction of your suggestions. peace Warchef (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Confused templates

Hi, do you mind having a look at this and telling me what you think as an admin? ciao Rotational (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but the aim and end result is the same, and the usage would depend on the circumstances, so there is no need to alter the wording on the templates. I have left a comment. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cryptol & DRV

Hi, this one was on DRV kept delete/endorse. I kind of want to see it brought back in via DRV. I think the sourcing is too light still.[1] rootology (C)(T) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, having reviewed the sources, I've found they don't show notability. I don't want to just put a CSD tag on it (which would be justified but pointless). Would you be willing to move it back to KP's user space or initiate a DRV? I would be willing to start a fresh DRV for you, if you prefer. 205.241.49.130 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)