User talk:750h+/Archive 1

BMW 5 Series (G60)

Hi. I really liked your big edit on the BMW 7 Series (G70). Can you check the BMW 5 Series (G60)? I think it needs a big edit on the Powertrain table, but any other edit will also help as every edit is an improvement. Kind regards, SideMaster (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aw thanks! I’ll go check it out though I think the 7 Series page might still need a bit of copy editing :)) 750h+ (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I’ve started working (sandbox: User:750h+/sandbox, if you’d like to see the progress). I’ll do the table after I do some other things. 750h+ (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay done. If you'd like to make any alterations than go ahead. 750h+ (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit. The article looks so much improved now. If you think the Specifications and BMW i5 sections need updates, go ahead, but it looks done for now. SideMaster (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cadillac XLR, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roadster. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Chevrolet Volt (first generation)

The article Chevrolet Volt (first generation) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chevrolet Volt (first generation) for comments about the article, and Talk:Chevrolet Volt (first generation)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arotparaarms -- Arotparaarms (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? Are you sure? It seems like the GAN was nominated for deletion. 750h+ (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in lead sections

Please see WP:LEDECITE RickyCourtney (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holden VE Commodore photo

Hey there,

I personally think the VE photo I added is more appealing and eye catching. The silver VE photo is smaller and just looks a bit boring, has the same type of colour as almost all of the other Commodore photos featured on their pages. The striking red colour is much better looking and I plan to change the images for more of them going forward as they are quite dated at this point. Also, it’s a photo that I took myself, I’d love to see it used as the main image on the page.

Regards. HoldenFan1104 (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the picture is more striking or appealing to readers. A picture is a picture, and I’d admit maybe yours would look better on a magazine but for Wikipedia, OSX’s clearly wins. It is a high quality image showing the car, a good amount of both side and front, no distractions in the back. The age/datedness of an image does not matter; the Elizabeth II article uses an image from nearly seventy years ago even though we have numerous newer images of her. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we are here to give information, not to make our pages look fancy or cool by adding an “appealing” image. I am not saying yours if bad, I am just stating that OSX’s is superior if we’re considering encyclopaedia-ish-ness. Keep in mind that this is a former featured article and that if it were still a featured article, we’d expect formal images such as OSX’s, not your red one. However, even though it is not an FA anymore, we still want to keep it as formal as possible. I will say now that I would rather your photo over this though. Best, 750h+ (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination of History of The New York Times (1851–1896)

Please reopen your nomination. The citation needed tags were not added by me and are not valid tags, because every statement is verifiable. It appears as though Sideswipe7th has added citation needed tags for every sentence, which is not necessary, because the citations cover the sentences prior. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the citation needed tags, make sure all paragraphs are appropriately referenced and make another nomination. 750h+ (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah, I began reviewing History of The New York Times (1896–1945) for good article status, ping me when the concerns are addressed. 750h+ (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAN/I

Repeating something I asked at the GAR you just closed as you didn't answer it. When you're reviewing GA nominations, are you preforming the spot check on the sourcing, as required by WP:GAN/I#R3#1? The page number issues I uncovered on the History of The New York Times articles should be almost immediately evident if you're doing so, and those would indicate a fail per WP:GACR#2. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a relatively new reviewer, and I don't usually review the pages with books, mainly just the articles with magazines, websites, or cited newspapers. Ethics I mainly reviewed the prose--the person who created that page has made numerous high-quality articles. 750h+ (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend that you stop preforming solo reviews for a while, and take a look at how other more experienced reviewers are reviewing GA nominations. If there's one or two sources that are extensively used in an article, you absolutely should spot check those, alongside some of the other lesser used citations. The Ethics article is one that extensively cites book sources, and a handful of those (like 4-6) should be checked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ethics article's books have links that can take you to that page, however. But I can do an integrity check anyways, the review isn't finished. 750h+ (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick Lamar/GA1

Hello,

I have tried to respond to your questions and concerns regarding your good article review of Kendrick Lamar. I just wanted to let you know that I am currently updating the article to resolve any concerns and will reach out to you for any other questions.

Thank you! DiaMali (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chevrolet Volt (first generation)

I was thinking of taking this on as a review, but I was curious about two things that stood out to me right away. One, I notice you don't mention the controversy and criticism in the lead, and two, although I may have missed it, I don't see anything about the ugly design (unlike the Bolt which is quite beautiful) which deterred a lot of customers from buying it. As for the first part, there are additional criticisms regarding it being over-engineered and overpriced. As for the second part, surely there must be sources about the so-called ugly design that deterred consumers from buying it? This design complaint was solved with the Bolt. Just wanted to raise these points. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to mention all of the essential parts in the lead (Development, Production, and Powertrain) without going too far in; four paragraphs is the recommended limit. As for "Controversies and criticism," it includes official concerns such as EPA and NHTSA testings, rather than going into how the car's design impacted its sales. But I can add that if wanted. 750h+ | Talk 01:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. I understand your position. However, I do want to point out a few things from my perspective:

If you're concerned about lead length, your second paragraph can be trimmed back in many ways, as you go into excessive detail about Lutz and the background development. Also, calling the EV1 "unsuccessful" is a bit ironic, as GM did everything possible to run it into the ground. I actually tried to buy an EV1 on the lot when they first released it, only to be told to my face (along with everyone else) that "GM doesn't sell the EV1". So calling it "unsuccessful" is a bit funny to those of us who aren't asleep and are six feet above the ground.
The third and fourth paragraphs do not really summarize the main points of the body.
Unless I'm going blind, you have 13 or 14 paragraphs pertaining to controversy and criticism that are not summarized in the lead.

Thanks for the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply Viriditas, but I don’t think I’ll be continuing with the Volt page (it wasn’t very well written or summarised), so I’ve began rewriting the General Motors EV1 (aiming for a WP:FAC). When I take it to GA, maybe I’ll let you know about that. 750h+ | Talk 13:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sfn/Harv no-target error in Career of Lionel Messi

Hello, @750h+. Your recent addition to Wikipedia has lead to sfn/harv no-target errors due to missing work in a Bibliography/Work Cited area of the article. Please add "Balagué 2013", "Lisi 2011", "Hunter 2012", "Caioli 2012", and "Tomkins 2007" to ensure verifiability of sources. Thank you, Thecowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 May 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks for the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ed Bradley/archive1, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ——Serial Number 54129 12:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You have much to learn. Onwards and upwards! But there is not enough eagerness, or enjoyment, around here so it is a refreshing change to see someone actually enjoy themselves :) Forward! ——Serial Number 54129 12:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for this. 750h+ | Talk 12:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

assertions in edit summaries

are usually elusive, they disappear rather quickly in heavily edited article histories, and it raises some concern, as there are Bayswater_railway_station,_Perth Armadale_railway_station,_Perth and then Ellenbrook_railway_station,_Perth - quite a few don't need the qualifiying term as they are unique - It could be very good practice, imho, to actually put out the usually WP:AGF alert at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia as to a move - some do, some don't. I cannot see where the qualifier in brackets predominate, but then I get things wrong, keep up the good work! JarrahTree 12:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For more context, we've got Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations), which says that comma disambiguation is used for railway stations in Australia. Any change to that would require changes to many articles, not just one article. Steelkamp (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice @Steelkamp and JarrahTree: didn't realise that. Noted 750h+ | Talk 12:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also the consistency with the naming scheme is found as being kept to as a standard in the range of the stations in oz and nz. Note also the reverting editor, and his edit summaries - he is well worth taking note of as he is an admin... JarrahTree 12:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Million award

I am the second highest author as well as one of the highest editors of the article Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Furthermore, I responded to the GA reviewer more frequently than the nominator himself (not to say the nominator did less work but I had equally contributed). Keeping the above points in mind, I should also have been presented with a Million Award for getting the article to GA-class. The nominator has previously shared a Million Award for my GA promotions and it would be only fair for me to be awarded as well. @750h+ I hope you take up this matter soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]