User talk:BlueMoonset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This editor is a Labutnum of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, Sticky Note, Bookmark, and Note from Jimbo.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20


I see that Emir of Wikipedia has gone ahead and passed the article for GA, regardless, as I strive to improve my project articles as much as possible, I'd still like the "full" prose review if possible. You can leave it on whichever page you wish, my talk, your talk, my sandbox if you'd like it off the talk pages, or the review page for Macrinus even though it has been completed. I appreciate the time you took to give your second opinion, and, like I said on the review page "prose is generally my main concern" with my submissions. I think research and coverage are my strong points here and I strive for NPOV and stability. Brevity, also, is a weakness as you will notice that even the simplest request ends up being 5 lines longer than necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, thanks for letting me know. I was very surprised to see that he'd listed the article, and also somewhat disappointed. I have posted there, but it will be my last post; it is not appropriate to run what's effectively a post-review shadow review once the nomination has closed. However, if I find there are significant issues when I work through the article, I may open an individual GA reassessment. This is no comment on you; I'm sure that, if requests had been made in the course of a typical review, you would have made all the fixes and the article ultimately listed anyway. The goal will be, as such reassessments are meant to do, to get the article to the point that it meets all the GA criteria. By its nature, an individual reassessment gives a chance for the article to be covered in a systematic way by reviewer and editor. I'm not a fast reviewer, but whether as comments on your talk page or as a GAR, I'll do my best to be as expeditious as possible. Speaking of GARs, will you be opening an individual one on Tycho Brahe soon? I think it makes sense given what you outlined on Emir of Wikipedia's talk page (he's just responded to you there, by the way); it might help future reviews to show where previous ones missed issues with the criteria. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I intend to open an individual re-assessment for Tycho Brahe, it however, has to wait till probably the weekend as I have other duties to attend to that impact my actual life. I would appreciate an individual re-assessment (for Macrinus) if you'd like to commit to one. I haven't performed an individual GAR before (community GAR's are quite different), but, I believe that it is almost the same procedure as a standard GA review giving the editor the ability to make necessary corrections before the review is closed, the main difference being it will either be closed as Keep or De-list rather than as Pass or Fail. That is at least how I will run Tycho Brahe's GAR as I don't think it would be fair to the nominator to quick-fail it. It's also a well written article and fails only some of the criteria. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
One more thing on the topic of eagerness; Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/August 2016 should be self-explanatory. As with any competition, standards occasionally sloop a little in the race for a prize. Perhaps that will explain the eager, yet, inexperienced reviews. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Great. Glad to hear Tycho Brahe is still on your radar, Mr rnddude. Based on my understanding of WP:GAR, a quick fail is never appropriate on an individual reassessment. In addition to notifying the primary editors and the GA reviewer (if still around) of the just-opened GAR, you're also supposed to let the WikiProjects know that a reassessment is underway. Once the full review is posted and the notifications made, allow at least the standard seven days for work to begin. As for Macrinus, I'll get to it as soon as I can. I do have other projects that should have first dibs, some of them off wiki. As for eagerness in the drive, one of my concerns when it was proposed was the person proposing it, Jaguar, because he had done some pretty superficial reviews not that long ago, including one I ended up taking to GAR. (It ended up being delisted.) One of the things that's supposed to happen in these drives is that the person or people running it are supposed to at least spot-check the reviews to make sure they're up to standard. I haven't seen any evidence that any of the reviews done this month have been checked, and the time to check them is as they're being done, not after a month has passed and many more have followed, perhaps with the same issues as the first. I just hope there haven't been more issues along these lines. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
If it matters, I myself did spot-check some randomly picked reviews as I was looking for a little guidance in how editors approach quick-fails, the quick-fails were at least appropriate. I have good faith in most of the involved editors at the drive as most are quite experienced. Ritchie also spot-checked one of mine, he had concerns with 3a but we realized that the source he'd linked had been used in the article under a different name (well, publisher) and despite it's short length, I think it really did meet 3a. Otherwise, only a couple non-review comments were left on the reviews I did and they were directed at minute details such as a source being left in that hadn't been used. Of course, just ping me when you get to Macrinus, no rush. You may want to take a skim look of the one last article that Emir of Wikipedia has passed, I didn't notice any major issues, but, I think you're probably a better judge for the 1a criterion than I am. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, I've finally completed writing up a reassessment page for Macrinus, and posted it at Talk:Macrinus/GA2. I'm about to do the mandated notifications to you and Emir of Wikipedia, and the various WikiProjects. I'm sure you'll be able to address the issues I've raised, and I'll try to be responsive, though things will be busier than usual for me over the next week or so. Thanks for your patience. I noticed that you started the Tycho Brahe reassessment; thanks again for doing it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem and thanks, I've jut had a read through of your re-assessment. Generally I shouldn't have problems fixing things up according to your comments, though, a couple things are vague in the article because they're vague in the sources, will post comments on the re-assessment talk page if necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Having chanced on this thread while about to post on this page about another topic, can I draw your attention to this GA review? I don't believe the reviewer had any intention of considering whether the article met the GA criteria, or the purpose of doing a GA review as mentioned by you above. I believe the motivation for this delisting was of a purely personal nature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, this is from 2014. I realize you and Fram are going through a bad patch right now, but to bring up something this old doesn't strike me as useful. The article was delisted over two years ago, and whenever it's ready, it can be nominated again to be a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I had no intention of doing anything about it, I just gave it as an example of a poor GA review. It came to mind today when I happened to see you were discussing inadequate reviews with Mr rnddude. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK again[edit]

I don't understand the purpose and precise use of the "subpage=" parameter in the DYK prepset template. Is this needed for all creators in a multi-creator hook? If you look at Prep 6, which I completed this morning, "Rock-Olga" only has the subpage parameter for the first creator. Do I need to add it for the other creators? Is it needed for hook nominators? Meanwhile, I added subpage parameters for both "Lauren Rowles" and "Laurence Whiteley", choosing to make the subpage "Lauren Rowles, Laurence Whiteley" because otherwise it gives a red link when previewed. Was this right?

Another thing I would like to ask. As you know, I am being repeatedly criticised at the DYK discussion page, and this perhaps makes me more cautious than I otherwise would be. What do you think of the proposed hooks in Template:Did you know nominations/Cybergeddon (film) and Template:Did you know nominations/English invasion of Scotland (1400), both of which I objected to? In both instances the nominators disagree with me and we really need an authoritative statement from someone else to settle the matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

PS. You might miss the post I made to the "Macrinus" thread above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I'm running out of time here, so I'm going to answer your first question now, and the other later. The subpage parameter is only required when the article name in the second field does not match the name of the template page (which can be found in the first of the DYK nompage links parameters). It says that the link back to the nomination template should be based on the subpage info, not the article name. So for Rock-Olga, the subpage parameter wasn't really needed in any of them because the article name and DYK nomination page name were the same (though the template page creation process automatically adds a subpage link to the first DYKmake only); for the Rowles and Whiteley DYKmakes, both needed the subpage parameter because the template page name was different from each article's name. Note that even a minor difference in article names, such as capitalization, will require a subpage parameter. I'll try to get to the rest later today, but it will be another six hours, if not more. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Gösta Peterson DYK[edit]

Hello, I've responded on the talk page as requested.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/1966 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game[edit]

Hi BlueMoonset. I looked at the proposed wording you left at the nomination page and have no issues with it. Sorry that my count was slightly off and made you jump through hoops. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, Giants2008. I'm glad I could help. I've added a call for a reviewer there now that the hook is set. For future reference, the hook's count starts after the "..." and space, and goes through the ending "?", including all spaces. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


Andrew is very clearly trolling. He refuses to answer questions about what, specifically he dislikes, but thinks he has ther right to asink nthe nomination anyway. Can you please give him a warning? Or, preferably, a topic ban from this page? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: StatisticianBot[edit]

E-mailed; he said it should be back up for the morning run now. Wizardman 23:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)