User talk:SchroCat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for assistance The Rolling Stones[edit]

As Ritchie333 pinged you on Talk:The Rolling Stones/GA1, I was wondering if you would consider assisting me in copyediting The Rolling Stones? I eventually would like to nominate it for featured article status and would like a second set of eyes to assist me with it. If not, that is fine. Regardless, thanks for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor, I saw Ritchie's ping last night. The short answer is yes, I'd be happy to have a run through and do some fine-tuning on the prose. Have you ever been through FAC before? It can be a daunting place for the uninitiated, but the people who normally do the best, most in-depth reviews are excellent, even if they seem to be a bit harsh (if you don't know what to expect!) I have a couple of things I need to get sorted first, but I'll make a start in a few days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks and no problem. As for FAC, I have been there once before with The Rolling Stones (which provided useful feedback from Ritchie and others nonetheless) but did not last the full cycle as it was determined that, at the time, I had not worked with the article enough to nominate it (see here). What I did learn from the review was the general impression that they wanted to see it back there eventually, preferably after it passed GA. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor, There are high standards at FA, particularly around sourcing, and as a newbie to the process your article will come under particular scrutiny (it's nothing personal - all new nominees have their worked checked more thoroughly until reviewers are happy that everyone apreciates the requirements). There are a few things you should consider before you go to FAC:

  • Have you considered every academic source you can get your hands on? (JSTOR shows the following that are not in the article – I have only skimmed the first page or so, but they would be worth considering):
  • Make sure there are no tabloid newspapers or 'supermarket' magazines: if information isn't repeated in the 'quality' press or—better still—in a reliable history, it's not worth including (see the NY Daily News, for example)
  • Is there any reason the "Further reading" section is so long? i.e. why have these works not been used as sources?
  • Make sure your refs are consistent – for example you have Telegraph, The Daily Telegraph, The Telegraph, telegraph.co.uk and Telegraph.co.uk. You also have some book refs in with the Footnotes, and I'd advise moving them down to the rest of the sources and use the sfn ref (also make sure there are no SHOUTY caps in the titles, etc).
  • Make sure all book sources have consistent formatting – all should have a 13-figure ISBN. No need for page numbers in the Sources section – that's for the Footnotes section.

I'll get round to the c/e in a few days. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers so far, I had swapped the NY Daily News reference for one from Rolling Stone, what do you mean by "reliable history"? I will take a look at the JSTOR results shortly. As for the Telegraph references, they were formatted per the Wikipedia citation tool, but I will go in now and manually adjust them. I was under the impression from the GA review to remove the sfn refs, but you think that they should be used? I look forward to the copy-edit assistance. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The works in "Further reading" are just book sources that somebody has put in the article at some point but for one reason or another were not used to cite anything in the article. I converted most book sources over to using {{sfn}} but there were a few that needed more than trivial work, from what I recall. I like using sfn, other editors prefer harvnb, it doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent throughout. Since the sourcing requirements for GA are significantly lower than FA, I didn't see this as a showstopper. Obviously for FAC we should consider all of them, plus the JSTOR source, plus anything else that can crop up. I'm not going to begrudge TheSandDoctor for wanting to get this to FA - how many other FACs with 2.5 million annual views do we get these days - but I just want to absolutely stress that he's going to want to eat, sleep, breathe and live the Stones for the next six months, and personally that's more than I can cope with! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers Ritchie333, as for eating sleeping and breathing the Rolling Stones for at least 6 months, that is what I have already been doing since I was a toddler so literally no difference to me, can't get enough of them haha. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added a couple of the references from JSTOR entries and will add more shortly. Thank you for pointing JSTOR out to me, it is very useful (and I just found out free through my post secondary institution). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Waterloo Medal (Pistrucci)[edit]

If you have some spare time, would you mind reviewing this FAC? It's lagging, rather.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Of course - be glad to. - SchroCat (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar (special delivery from Bangkok / Penang)[edit]

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
message 171.7.108.243 (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • LOL - Thank you Singora. It's a good article and vandalism to it—to any article, really—should be stamped on hard. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)