User:FerdinandLovesLegos

Introduction

Hello! I'm FerdinandLovesLegos! I might help out with this wiki sometimes and will help with mostly history articles. I will try to get them to their full potential and maybe do some promotions for some. I have worked on wikis the past 2 years so I'm an experienced editor (need to get used to editing here), but I think I'm ready and it's time to make Wikipedia a better place to get information!

What I'm working on right now

I'm working on the 10th millennium BC. I know it's already classified as a good article, but I want to make the page even better and maybe get into FA. Holocene Epoch "The main characteristic of the Holocene has been the worldwide abundance of Homo sapiens sapiens (humankind)." (this needs a citation) "The epoch began in the wake of the Würm glaciation, generally known as the Last Ice Age, which began 109 ka and ended 14 ka when Homo sapiens sapiens was in the Palaeolithic (Old Stone) Age.[1]" (In page 59-60, it talks about the Last Ice Age and that was in 10,000 BC, but those 2 pages did not show when it began and when it ended.)

I'm also working on the 8th millennium BC and starting to make a 11th millennium BC page. I will copy and paste the 11th millennium BC draft to the actual 11th millennium BC page once the draft reaches Class C (I think it's by a bot but I don't know).

My newest project is working on the 12-20 millennium BC pages. My goal is for all of those millennium BC pages to be articles. I will submit them for review if they have 10 notes each.

I'm starting to think of revamping the 11th millennium BC page again, but the page will have lesser choppy sentences and hopefully it will be more like the 10th millennium BC and 9th millennium BC. The reason why I'm saying this is because I want the articles from 11-20 millennium BC soon have a GA which will be very hard since the earlier millenniums have even smaller amounts of information.

Looking at GA/1 11th millennium BC review

• The lead section has no summary of material in later sections (WP:GACR #1b).
• The "Geography" section is super-local to Europe and the Mediterranean, and would need significant expansion to be in any way representative (WP:GACR #3a and maybe #3b).

Comment: I have added Iceland and England to the Geography section which means there is now 4 countries thus I think that is completed.

• The second paragraph of the "Humans" section has no citations, and is tagged with two valid citation needed tags (GACR #2c and GAFAIL #3).

Comment: There was only 1 citation in that paragraph and I deleted the 2 sentences that have the valid citation needed tags due to it not having a source in months. Will be added back when there is more information about it.

• Some of the material is cited to a self-published and likely-unreliable book by Maddison (the only source used for the "Agriculture and population" section; GACR #2b).
• Sykley is also very obviously not a reliable source.
• The only image (a Jomon pot) has a description page that dates it to a 4-millenium range, with this one at one end of the range, making it dubious for inclusion (GACR #6b).
• The "Other cultural developments" section is a haphazard collection of factoids, jumping back and forth between the Middle East and the New World seemingly at random (with no mention of any other place), and with a lot of detail about one very specific site (GACR #3 again).

Comment: You mean New World, Near East, and Middle East. You are right that there needs to be more information though. I don't know what you mean when you say, "a lot of detail about one specific site", because the only one I can find is Tower 5 and it also has one sentence stating that it may be a shrine and/or "common house". It has another sentence saying that it's the fifth oldest tower. Otherwise, I think I will mark this complete.

• Earwig found no significant copyvio, only titles of shared references, but I did not do the more careful check of all sources for whether they really say what they are claimed to say that I would for a more complete review.
• conclude that this is very far from meeting multiple GA criteria, and was not ready for a GA nomination.
• It is hard to tell whether the sparse set of pieces of information listed in this era are because the information known about this time really is that sparse, or because the article was not thorough in tracking down more complete sourcing.
• The citation needed tags are not widespread enough across the article to make this a GAFAIL by themselves, but the rest makes this a GAFAIL #1.

Articles I've helped to develop

Non-FA and GA

8th millennium BC - 11th millennium BC - 12th millennium BC

GA

10th millennium BC

FA

None