User talk:Khazar2

Please postpone Imru' al-Qays review period

Hi Khazar,

Thanks for starting a review of the Imru' al-Qays article and providing some helpful suggestions. As I mentioned on the talk page of the review, it would also be very helpful if you could postpone the review period so that it begins after 9 July 2013. Until that day I will be studying for candidate exams for my doctoral program and will not have any time to dedicate to the article.

Thanks for your understanding! Maitham d (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good luck with your exams! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Jack the Giant Slayer GA Review

Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at Talk:Jack the Giant Slayer/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've pretty busy but was planning to get back to this. I hope you will reopen the nomination once I'm done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but at this point it would be best to just renominate; I'd like to get another editor's eyes on it. I'll be glad to chime in there, though, if there's any questions I can answer or way I can help. Thanks again for your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I just wanted to say thanks for all the edits you do with AWB to copyedit articles, especially mine. Those checks are gratefully appreciated. Miyagawa (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thank you for continuing to improve our Star Trek coverage--I've been really impressed with your output lately. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis

FYI, I have re-nominated Jefferson Davis for GA. Thanks for your previous input; I believe all of those issues, plus more, have been dealt with now. Omnedon (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That's great to hear. I'm going to let someone else do the second review to see what concerns they can spot that I missed, but I'll watchlist the new review and see if there's any way I can pitch in. Thanks for your work on this--it's a massively viewed article, so it's good to see it getting polished. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

	Catnip high cat & some roses for you!
	A token of appreciation for your help in reviewing Law School of Beirut and for your patience :) Many thanks Eli+ 05:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, my pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Non free posters

Do you really think that non free poster should be in the body of the article? I thought non free posters should only be in infoboxes but maybe i'm wrong. Koala15 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My edit on Jurassic Park (franchise) you sent me warnings about it. Koala15 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see the confusion. My note was only about using edit summaries (which you really should do--it's a big help to other editors you're working with). You're looking at the notice from User:GSK about unconstructive editing, underneath. You'll have to ask him about that on his talk page. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:GA advice request

Hi there Khazar. To answer your question, instead of going through the archives, you could look at the Checklist that's been assembled by past discussions. One thing I can definitely say is reliable is Computer and Video Games. GamerPro64 14:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks--I'll have to bookmark this. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Article about Kai Holst as GA?

Hi, saw you contributed to Operation Claw and as that article is related to Kai Holst I thought it may be possible to ask you for some help in improving it so it could become GA as it is in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål and Swedish versions of Wikipedia. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

All I did there was change a single typo with AWB; it's not a particular area of interest for me. I wish you luck in your revisions, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Drowning Girl

Thanks for your recent editorial assistance at Drowning Girl. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, but all I did was add a single hyphen with AWB; though I do like that painting, the article's not a particular area of interest for me. Good luck with the FAC, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup points and star chasing

Hi there- I just read through your userpage, and I just wanted to leave you a note about the WikiCup. I agree with you about the fact that editors often seem more concerned about obscure topics (and yes, I have too, though I've made an effort to write about important fungi as well as newly described ones- Phellinus ellipsoideus, Jew's ear and Fomes fomentarius are all pretty significant in their own ways) and I completely agree that this is a real problem. I'd like to point out that the WikiCup has worked to combat this. It definitely started out with the "all articles are equal" mantra that is so maligned by TCO, but it has made efforts (a leading figure in this has been Casliber, who also runs the Core Contest) to award far more points to important topics than to unimportant ones. For the 2010 competition, all articles were equal. For 2011, this rule was added:

Any article which exists on at least 20 Wikipedias, as of 31 December 2010, as well as any article which appears on the vital level 3 list, scores twice as many points if it appears on did you know, or is promoted to good article, featured article or featured list. Any portal which exists on at least 20 Wikipedias, as of 31 December 2010, scores twice as many points if promoted to featured portal status.

Small, but a step in the right direction. For 2012, it was kept the same, but triple points were awarded for any article on 50 Wikipedias, and quadruple for any article on 100 Wikipedias. This helped encourage the improvement of a great number of highly important topics. To name a few: Frog, Corona Australis, Betelgeuse, William the Conqueror, Pelican and Lettuce all made it to FA status thanks to the efforts of WikiCup participants. This year, bonus points were made linear and more universal, meaning super-important articles receive loads of points, and even articles only on five Wikipedias (so, of a little more significance than your average garage band, moss species or road) gain a few extra points. We've seen loads of people taking advantage of this and working on highly important topics. This last round alone, we've seen an FA on Middle Ages, GAs on Battle of Hastings, James Chadwick, Stanislaw Ulam, Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, a massive expansion of sea (which I'm happy to see you're reviewing at GAC!) and featured portals on sport and geography. That's in the third round- the really big hitters will probably come out in the next couple of rounds. Koala and Norman conquest of England, for instance, are currently at FAC. Of course, I don't want to take away from the incredible work of the various writers of these articles- all were doing excellent work before they became involved with the WikiCup. However, I do hope you can see that the WikiCup does motivate people to work on big topics, as well as star-chasing, and in fact I can say that most of the strongest WikiCup participants are going for these big-hitting articles. It was predicted that the new rules may result in the final round coming down to a competition as to who could get the most points from a single featured article, and as that basically translates to who can promote the most important topic to FA status, that certainly can't be a bad thing for the encyclopedia! J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the note. It's true I was looking more at past WikiCups in making this comment, and I'm glad to hear of the rule changes; I'm only vaguely aware of what happens with it based on what comes through GA. I've tweaked my user page note accordingly. Thanks for all you're doing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: GA review

Thanks a lot for the review. I wasn't really the only responsible one for most of the article. I've just changed it up a bit when I finished playing the game. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		Haven't given out a barnstar in a while, and you're at top of my list. Not sure you've got this one yet? Cheers for all your work at WP:GA. – Shudde talk 12:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I sure haven't. Thanks for thinking of me--I always enjoy adding to my collection of shinies. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Check your edits

I know you're under a lot of pressure to bang out edits as fast as you can, but may I suggest you check them afterwards? [This one] completely breaks the refimprove template at the top of the article (it should be refimprove|date=September 2008 and not just refimprove=September 2008). You clearly didn't bother to look at the page after saving the edit 'cause the mistake is very conspicuous. I suggest you (a) fix it (b) go through some of your recent edits to see what else you've messed up (c) slow down. 87.112.189.139 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the error; I do make an effort to double-check these, but occasionally one slips past me.

Have you considered creating an account? Please remember that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit--if you see an error, you can jump right in and fix it. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Loring article

So, almost five months after you closed the review, I think I may have finally started giving full attention to it. There has been almost 4K of text removed from the article, so I think some of the issues have been addressed. I'll tackle the family section later, but I just wanted to update you on the progress of everything. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're still working on it. I'll let somebody else take the second review, just to see what suggestions they have that I may have missed, but I'll be happy to see it renominated--good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Your project is breathtaking

Your project to review a GA a day is breathtaking. I hope you can do it in a way that it does not become a slog, but entertains or widens you. Maybe picking the GAs that more appeal to you or concentrating in an area for a while, avoiding topics that bore/annoy you, or whatever.

Good luck on the human rights topics too. I'm quite a criminal, so may need some ACLU librul to protect me from the state in the future (Wiki-metaphorically speaking).

Anyhow, good luck with your health and the little Miss K!

TCO (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind! And yeah, I've been switching up topics a lot and trying to balance ones I really want to review with older submissions. It's actually been quite fun so far; even reviewing topics like fungi species, US highways, etc., is surprisingly educational.

As you probably guessed from my user page, I'm a fan of your work as well--I'm pushing your essay on anyone I can get to read it. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Like. Not to mention a lot of the fungus articles are really well written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Recruitee

Hi Khazar2, I'm interested in learning how to review good article nominations. I used to edit under a different username, but that was 2 years ago, and I've forgotten how to do most things, hah. Thanks for your consideration! Stratocaster27 (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to--thanks a lot for your interest in reviewing. It's a pretty easy process--we'll chat a bit about the criteria, I'll show you a few sample reviews I've done, you'll do two or three reviews with me looking over your shoulder, and you'll be all set. I'll set up a centralized page for our discussion sometime today or tomorrow and we'll get rolling. Looking forward to it, -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your readiness. Sounds good. Feel free to contact me on my talk page. Stratocaster27 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again for taking the time to review A Thousand Splendid Suns for Good Article status. Also, thank you for the barnstar. I really appreciate both. --1ST7 (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Thanks again for all your hard work on the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

JTHJ GA

Hello, are you willing to review Jab Tak Hai Jaan for GA? Thanks, ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 08:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This only seems to have been nominated a week ago. You'll probably have to wait much longer than that for a review, I'm sorry to say; GAN has a 2-4 month backlog. I might take this one in the future, but it'll be a while. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic

The article American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic for comments about the article. Well done! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust

Do you have Hilberg's Destruction (2003)? If not, you want me to go through and summarise it for you, with page numbers, for you to pick and choose from if you want to when you go through and get the Holocaust article up to GA? LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's an incredibly generous offer. Let me think about it and get back to you, though--it's a lot of work for you to do before I'm sure that I'll need it. I'd certainly welcome your collaboration at any stage. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it with you. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume in the negative, of course! When I see you hacking Holocaust about in my watchlist, I may jump in and assist. Adieu! LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be great if you plan to work on the Holocaust article. When Diaanna planned to do this I wrote: Editing the Holocaust "The Longerich book is excellent as is the Snyder book, The Bloodlands. They both have Kindle eds. I would encourage you to do some work on this piece. I would be glad to help in any way I can. I have tip toed around substantive edits for a long time now: it is a can of worms full of wiggling personal agendas. One of the reasons it is so long is the inclusion of at least ten subsections under Non Jewish. They don't really belong in this piece, and each has its own WP article, but attempts to remove calls forth accusations of not giving significance to the millions of others who were murdered etc. It is a pity that such an important article has been such an unwieldly mess for a long time already.--Joel Mc (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)" And my comment after Diaanna decided to postpone: A GA Standard for The Holocaust "Thanks for giving this a try. I do understand your decision. It is a weak point in WP that competing agendas can prevent the reasonable development of an article even when one of those agendas is to improve the encyclopedic qualities of an article. I did not know that there was a DRN discussion (I have never done that before) or I might have added something although it is hard for me to understand that a 1977 personal opinion by Simon Wiesenthal--an important historical figure, but not a historian--should be accepted as an authority on the issue at hand when compared to the eminent historians referred to, thus preventing any movement ahead.Joel Mc (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)" I would be glad to help if I can. I have a good personal library and access to a university Library when I am home (about 50% of the year).Joel Mc (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate the note. It seems like there's a lot of editors willing to jump in on this one, but we're all holding off because the obvious difficulties... maybe in August or September we can make a concentrated effort to get a team together and make some progress. I'm sure we'll all disagree on some things, but just having several experienced editors on hand should be a big help. I've been meaning to read Bloodlands for a while now--I'll have to pick up the Longerich, too.

My current project is some improvements at United States Bill of Rights, and when that's done, I'll get some discussion started at Holocaust. (Though obviously you'd be welcome to start sooner than that if you're inclined!) -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

GA

Hi Khazar, I hate to see your nominations languishing in the waiting list for so long, so I thought I'd ask here if you'd mind if I took another one of your nominations on, seeing as the last one went by so quickly :P? Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 19:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. We're hammering a few final things out 13th Amendment this weekend (a co-nom for me and Groupuscule), so today might not be the best day for that. I'd be glad to see you pick up any other, though! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Slavery by Another Name

Hello! Your submission of Slavery by Another Name at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It looks like I've given you a barnstar for your articles, but not a barnstar for the tweaks you make to the work of others. Here's me solving for that :). Copyeditors and GA reviewers do sterling work, we need to spend more time appreciating them. Your reviews are always detailed and thoroughly useful - hopefully I'll see more of them! Ironholds (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind of you--thanks much! -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Good luck with your GA-review-a-day; it's like the Wiki Cup in reverse :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I may have to add that as a quote to my user page... -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

About Tawfik Okasha

No, His Full Name Is Tawfik Yahya Ibrahim Okasha, He Said It Himself ..

Thanks for the reply. The problem is that Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. Is it possible to add a source for your statement? Don't forget, by the way, to sign your posts like this: ~~~~ . That way people can see who's talking. Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review

Although u made an edit to the article Thuppakki which is awaiting a GA review (I am the nominator), do u still think u can review it? If yes, pls do so. the article's remained a nominee for nearly a month. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you've probably noticed on the nominations page, it's not uncommon for articles to wait 2 to 4 months for review, though some are reviewed sooner. I may review this at some point in the future, but no promises. Thanks for your work on this one either way! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a very thorough GA review of Sea and additionally for the barnstar. It was fun working up the article (in collaboration) from its limited previous size. Much more interesting than trying to find references for unattributed statements! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It really is so much easier to work from scratch. I know it's un-Wikipedia-like in some ways, but in a few of my major article overhauls lately, I've just been moving in from-scratch drafts from my user space if no one actively objects on the talk page.

Anyway, my pleasure! I learned quite a lot working on this one, which was fun. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

POV tag Iruña-Veleia

Hi Khazar2, I've seen you removed the POV tag. I can just remove the content, or add the tag again. The issue remains the same, with ongoing development on the events and different positions in the academy. This is a kind of issue that arouses passions around it, and the citation provided of a known Spanish newspaper with vested views on all political and cultural Basque topics is a quick and feeble support, not to mention the "fabricated pieces" section heading and the wording used. RegardsIñaki LL (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can fix the issues you see, that would be great. I'd say be bold and go for it.

I don't have any specific knowledge of this situation; I'm just removing some old POV tags where the discussion has been abandoned. The tag is only meant to be used when editors are in the process of working out an issue. If conflict breaks out again, of course, you could re-add the tag until the discussion is resolved. Thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, unfortunately this is marginally a topic I deal with, but will try to re-arrange the section when I have time. Thank you for the feedback! Iñaki LL (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Slavery by Another Name

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like this one made it to GA before getting featured at DYK :P Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it happen before but this is the first time it's happened to me, I think! A rare and nice surprise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen it.. Congratulations! Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Trust me, Mohamed, it's always a nice surprise. Now, FA (though not TFA) before DYK... I think that's only happened once. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• How did it happen at all? That's pretty astonishing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Frank's Cock was in holding for April Fools' Day, went through FAC and passed (then a group decided it was too delicate a subject matter to use for April Fools', so it ran in DYK on 1 December [World AIDS Day] instead) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I should have figured it was a special event DYK. Still quite impressive. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm still quite giggly about it. Mind you, I'm also impressed at how you've worked on numerous book GAs recently... very good job. And your high profile biographies... cripes, I wish I could do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! Basically I'm trying to get double-duty out of my sources--I write an article from it, then write another article about the source itself. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Like Very nice indeed. I've only done ... two articles on non-fiction books, and the one is far behind your standard work. Alright, back to work for me (my lecturer has me translating one of Riffaterre's books. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review

Hey Khazar,

Wanted to let you know that I've completed addressing the GA you reviewed for me. [1] Easy pass this time, which is nice and greatly appreciated. You've been doing such good work here, so I appreciate your time. Best of luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Your articles are always a pleasure to work on: well-written, interesting, and practically ready for promotion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And thank you, especially for the pass and for the shiny barnstar, too. I like it when my articles get a smooth pass like this one. I believe strongly that it's my responsibility to make sure that the articles I submit for any review are ready. Too many editors, I think, use GAN and FAC to get feedback on their articles. There are other places for that, like simply asking another editor you respect to copy-edit an article for you. The feedback you receive in GAN and FAC are invaluable, but it bugs me when an editor puts up an article that's badly written and sourced and expect extensive assistance. As a reviewer, I go ahead and review those articles anyway, and spend too much time doing so, all because I want to help make these articles better. I'm in the Wikicup (made it to the fourth round!), and it's so much more time than the 4 points a GA review is worth. Ah well, what can you do? Rant over, thanks for letting me share. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've started being stricter about failing nominations that have glaring and persistent copyediting problems, or which are nominated by drive-by editors who haven't worked on the article yet, but still there's a lot of weak nominations that eat up a lot of time. It's hard to know what to do about them.

On a side note, congrats on advancing so far in the WikiCup! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I should probably be as mean as you are. ;) I've never quick-failed a nom, but I've come close. I can't bring myself to it, because many of the editors who submit articles to GAC are relatively new, and I think it's important to mentor those folks. I mean, I certainly was guilty of the same thing until I learned that making sure an article is ready makes everyone's life easy, especially mine. Yesterday, I had two GAs fly through with very little trouble. Like I say, ah well. And thanks for the congrats; I squeaked through Round 3 almost at the last minute. I don't really expect to get further, since the competition is really rough. It's fun, and I've fulfilled my goal of getting to Round 4. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiJaguar

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		For being there when I'm not, especially relating to Mindy Dirt and Jordan Older. buffbills7701 02:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I'd never even heard of such of thing, but will adopt it with pride--thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

William Keating review

Thanks for another review. Keep up the hard work, it's much appreciated by everybody. —Designate (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Feedback request

I'm not sure if you have time, but I've created this large article Al Khawalid. I think it could use some improvements. I'd appreciate if you or any of your page stalkers (wink at Crisco 1492) would help with it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be really interested, but it may be a while before I get to it--tomorrow I'm going on a weeklong wikibreak while my stepson visits us for a week. (I may be on answering questions, etc. in the meantime, but won't be doing any substantial editing). I'll put it on my post-return to-do list, though, so I won't forget. One initial suggestion I have a glance is that it seems a little recentist; almost all of the article seems to be about post-1999, particularly the last few years. I may change my mind when I read it in more detail, though.

Thanks for working on that one! You've improved our coverage of Bahrain so much. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy your time. Will be waiting for your feedback ;) Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Dwayne Wade edit request

Please add this:

Wade married his high school girlfriend Siohvaughn Funches but filed for a divorce in 2007. He has two sons, Zaire Blessing Dwyane Wade (born February 4, 2002) and Zion Malachi Airamis Wade (born May 29, 2007). Since 2007 he has been in a relationship with actress Gabrielle Union.

Thank You. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)