User talk:JMF/Archives/2019/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:JMF. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Your GA nomination of Milton Keynes
The article Milton Keynes you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Milton Keynes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ha ha! I beat the bot by 14 minutes. Please see congratulation and comment in the previous section. Tim riley talk 09:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Milton Keynes
Hello! I'm pleased to tell you that I've begun reviewing the article Milton Keynes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've left a list of minor suggestions on the GAN page. I see no problems at all. Tim riley talk 10:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Getting in first with my congrats, before the irritating bot sticks its oar in. The Milton Keynes article is fine piece of work. You say you doubt it lacks the "scintillating" prose for FAC: the relevant criterion is that the prose must be "engaging and of a professional standard", which that of the MK article is, in my view. I really don't see how anybody could scintillate in what is, by its nature, essentially a list of related facts on different aspects of the subject (unlike, say, a biographical article, where there is a narrative in which one can attempt to scintillate). With all due immodesty I mention the article on Keswick, Cumbria, which I co-piloted through a successful FAC, and the prose there – mostly mine – doesn't seem to me to scintillate any more than that in the MK article. I hope you will seriously consider FAC. Tim riley talk 08:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Tim riley:, once again, thank you very much for your help to make this happen. It seems a bit odd that a heavily involved editor should be the one to nominate for FAC, rather than say the GA reviewer? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's how the system works. It is almost invariably the main editor or editors who nominate an article for FAC. This is important because during the FAC review the nominator(s) will be called on to respond to reviewers' queries, challenges, quibbles etc, which only the main authors will be in a position to do. To see the system in action, you can find a good current example here. – Tim riley talk 10:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Tim riley:, once again, thank you very much for your help to make this happen. It seems a bit odd that a heavily involved editor should be the one to nominate for FAC, rather than say the GA reviewer? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Getting in first with my congrats, before the irritating bot sticks its oar in. The Milton Keynes article is fine piece of work. You say you doubt it lacks the "scintillating" prose for FAC: the relevant criterion is that the prose must be "engaging and of a professional standard", which that of the MK article is, in my view. I really don't see how anybody could scintillate in what is, by its nature, essentially a list of related facts on different aspects of the subject (unlike, say, a biographical article, where there is a narrative in which one can attempt to scintillate). With all due immodesty I mention the article on Keswick, Cumbria, which I co-piloted through a successful FAC, and the prose there – mostly mine – doesn't seem to me to scintillate any more than that in the MK article. I hope you will seriously consider FAC. Tim riley talk 08:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
MK Dons recent edits
Hello, quick favour to ask: There are 6 pending edits, they all seem fine, some of them are mine regarding updating the article with the recent promotion success, I don't suppose you have the rights to accept them? Abcmaxx (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Abcmaxx: No, it seems not. Must need an administrator. Who did it before? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Abcmaxx, I've done the necessary. Tim riley talk 15:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Milton Keynes at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Writer's Barnstar |
| Congrats on getting Milton Keynes to GA!! SkyGazer 512 My talk page 19:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
Reverted change
Hi, I've reverted the Arena MK to Marshall Arena change, if you're able to fix the name of the page that would be great!
Thanks Oasisrelay (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Oasisrelay:, thanks but it still needs an administrator [which I see is underway] because ordinary editors like you and me can't delete an existing article (the one you created, even though you've reverted it) to permit a move. You are certainly not the first to have made this mistake and you certainly won't be the last. It is not a biggy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, looks like all has been sorted now. Thanks for your help! Oasisrelay (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)