Hi, thanks for the feedback. I removed the posting: diff. However, I've always considered the noticeboards to be appropriate notification. Could you clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Given your FA experience and interest in the Giants, perhaps you could take a look at Y.A. Tittle's article and see what would need to be done to bring it to FA. The GA reviewer said it was "most probably the best article I've picked up at GAN." I'm not sure how many GAs he's reviewed, but anyway. I didn't really plan on it, but after that endorsement I figured I might as well give FA a shot. Lizard (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Canadian Base Ball Association or Canadian Association of Baseball Players
I can not find any sources besides Humber to definitely confirm the creation of the Canadian Base Ball Association in 1864. Is it possible he was actually talking about the Canadian Association of Baseball Players. Because according to this source, Canadian Base Ball Association was not formed till 1876. Is possible that the Canadian Association of Baseball Players was an earlier name of the Canadian Base Ball Association? Another possibility is that my new source has the names reversed as "Base Ball" is an earlier name for the game. Can you quote what Humber actually says. I cannot access pg114 of his book. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am sorry I left the wrong link. Here is the correct book: Sports: The First Five Millennia By Allen Guttmann. Now I do admit that Humber is the expert on Shuttleworth and the year "1876" seems dubious per your point about the formation of National League. But what if Humber is wrong. Everywhere I look I find conflicting information. Look at the results for this google search. The first result is the book by Guttman I mentioned before, the second confirms Humber, but the third is the most interesting. It seems well researched and cites "Toronto Globe, 6 Apr. 1877". It is an except of chapter 6 in this book: Sport in Canada: A History. It is extremely specific down to the location of the hotel where the CBBA was formed. Do you think we could find this original Toronto Globe article?
Curious why you are not an admin? As the FL director, I would believe that your requirement of admin tools is not only high, but necessary. I'm just curious about this. Would you be open to an Rfa in the future? Thanks. Lourdes 04:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK for William Shuttleworth
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
- Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
- Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
- 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
- Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Featured list query
Hi Giants2008. Just a query. I have a lot of experience with featured articles but absolutely none with featured list. I have been working off and on for many years at the List of drug-related deaths, where I am by far the top contributor. I am currently in the process of archiving all the sources and making sure they are all formatted consistently. I anticipate this will keep me busy on Wiki for a month. Anyway once all the references are perfect and assuming I seriously expand the lead, do you think this article could potentially by a featured list? I ask as I'm not sure if the list is too broad, and I am also well aware of the fact that as prodigious as the article is it does not and will never contain every notable drug-related death. I'll continue to improve it regardless of whether it is potentially eligible or not, just wanted to know your opinion. Thanks for your time. Freikorp (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello again. Thanks for your reply at my talk page. The advice was helpful and I implemented your suggestion about the lead. I'm now 3/4 of the way through archiving all the references and making sure they are reliable and formatted consistently. Something has occurred to me during this process and I'd like your advice on it. I know you're busy but I don't need you to do a close review, just some quick advice. The articles title is 'List of drug-related deaths'. This is a very broad title. In my efforts to write a good lead I discovered that about 80% of all 'drug-related' are from tobacco, but this list doesn't include any tobacco related deaths. I think it would be a bad idea to start adding them for several reasons. Firstly, there are over 1700 people in the category deaths from lung cancer alone, and that doesn't even begin to cover other non lung-cancer tobacco deaths. Adding tobacco deaths to the article would potentially increase it by several thousand people, which is both unwieldy, impractical, and would detract from all the other drug-related deaths. Not having tobacco deaths however probably makes the article fail on comprehensiveness.
- Firstly, do you agree this lack of tobacco deaths would potentially render the article ineligible as a featured list?
- If so, do you think moving the list to List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication would be a appropriate solution? This would eliminate the eligibility of long-term effects from drug use, such as lung-cancer and cirrhosis (i'd have to go through and remove the 20-odd cirrhosis deaths, but that's a lot easier than adding 3000 tobacco cancer deaths), and instead focus on acute drug-related deaths. I am confident the article contains a comprehensive list of acute drug-related deaths, such as from overdose and intoxication, and that this would be more likely to pass FLC.
- Let me know what you think, or is you have an alternative solution. I did consider just adding a disclaimer to the lead saying that tobacco related deaths are not included, but this struck me as un-encyclopedic. Thanks for your time. Freikorp (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
TFL nomination for Huskies of Honor
Re: FLC comments
Hey Giants, thanks for commenting on my FLC nom a week ago. I believe I've addressed your one concern satisfactorily. I'd really appreciate it if you could confirm that and do a follow-up vote accordingly. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)