User talk:Jezhotwells/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jezhotwells. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Thanks for doing so so quickly :). Its good when stuff works like that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
		Thank you for taking your time to stand up for a clear error and see that it was corrected, well before I was even aware of the situation. May you add this to your collection. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review. You'll have to forgive me, but I'm hopeless when it comes to formatting refs. As far as Google is concerned, do I say Dillon, then list the page number, then the publisher, and then do I say I retrieved it from Google? I have added a rationale for the Miami Showband image as it's being used on the Main article. By the way, that article was created after I had uploaded the image, hence it had no rationale for it. Should I go ahead and remove those two UDR images that are of questionable use? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

May I make a request? In order to address the issues raised: refs, etc. could you please extend the deadline longer than 7 days? That would give me time to fix everything. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, would you be so kind to delay the on-hold period of GA review of the above article a little? Thanks, --Eisfbnore ^talk 20:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, is 20 April OK? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Too kind, I'm actually planning to take it tomorrow! ;-D --Eisfbnore ^talk 21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will look on Tuesday, as I am busy tomorrow! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, completely by accident I noticed that you live in Hotwells, which is close to where the Pneumatic Institution was located. If you have the opportunity and would be so inclined, it would be great if you could snap a quick one or two, assuming User:Andy Dingley doesn't beat you to it (I don't know which of you two lives closer, has more time, ...). How about it? -- Nczempin (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, will see what I can do, but I am rather busy over the weekend. Probably early next week. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no rush. WP:TIND. Thanks for considering it. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Andy has provided some. -- Nczempin (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. On the 13th and 14th, I was in heated talk page debate at Talk:Amazing Grace. I missed it. I would have passed the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, we will see what happens if it is taken to GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your decision and have taken this to GAR. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gery Chico/1. Best, Geread (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, that is the best way to sort this out. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that was a real douche move. You didn't even list a specific instance, just copy and pasted a large section. Everything else was checked. The article was waiting for 5 weeks and you couldn't even leave the review open for a week to fix. Frankly, you were lazy and just wanted to unfairly fail. Maybe your the one who needs to learn plain English, because its written pretty well.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Take it to GAR if you want input from other editord, it is written extremely poorly throughout. It would take much more than a week to rewrite in good plain English. I am sorry that you don't have the skills to be able to recognise what is and is not "reasonably well written", but GAN is not the place to get articles copy-edited - that should be done 'before nomination. I suggest that you read all of User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and the linked articles. Although aimed at FAs, the information on writing is equally applicable to GAs. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lol. As I said to you before. You didn't supply me with any examples of "poorly written" material. You copy and pasted a paragraph and thought it would speak for itself. Well it doesn't.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Every sentence that I put in the review was poorly written. Sorry that you can't see that. Try studying the link on to improve your writing that I placed above. It takes time to learn how to write well. I have been doing it for over forty years and am still learning.

• The album followed the same pattern left by Carey's previous album Butterfly (1997), in which she began her transition into the R&B market. "the same pattern left"?
• Rainbow contains a mix of hip-hop influenced R&B jams, as well as a variety of slow ballads that comprised most of her previous releases. Cannot you not see how ungrammatical that is? " a variety of slow ballads that comprised most of her previous releases"?
• On the album, Carey worked with David Foster and Diane Warren, seemingly replacing Walter Afanasieff, "seemingly replacing"?
• Additionally, since she had taken more control over the style and music she wrote and recorded, Carey collaborated with several musicians such as Jay-Z, Usher and Snoop Dogg.; And this, completely ungrammatical. The meaning as written appears to be that she collabiorated with Jay-Z etc. because "she had taken more control"

And so on throughout. Face it, you apparently cannot write good prose and you need to address this before nominating any more. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lol. For someone who just wrote "Cannot you not see how ungrammatical that is" I am not too worried. Take care. And PS, those sentences do make sense, you are just trying to interpret them in perverted and different ways. Bye--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah you passed that test! :-) Jezhotwells (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I might be on board with you Jez for the review of Rainbow, but the B'Day review was deplorable Jez. GA is not a place where nothing less than brilliant prose is allowed. If that was the case, GA's wouldn't exist. I suggest you do your reviews with consideration next time. This is a request. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As the nominator of B'Day, I am not really concerned about it failing. However, there may be some editors who are new to GAN and seeing a quick-fail isn't all that inspiring. May I suggest you be a bit more flexible in the future and be a bit more open to holding reviews for a while? But thanks for your tireless work constantly reviewing GA nominations and other work at GAN! Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a quickfail, it was thoroughly reviewed and failed as the problems indicated would take more than a week to solve. To Legolas, it is unfortunate that many nominated music articles are so badly written, but they are, indeed, badly written. I can judge what is and is not "reasonably good", and in fact a large number of nominated articles on contemporary pop songs, singers and albums are not "reasonably well written". Perhaps that is because many of the article writers are young and just have not acquired the necessary language skills? There is a similar problem in many sports articles, especially those about US pro wrestling. Also in nominations for soap-star actors and / or characters. I outlined where some examples of prose were strikingly faulty in the B'day review, but it appears that nominators who cannot write good prose cannot recognize what good prose is. You may consider that it is OK to list good articles with basic grammar mistakes, but I do not. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		for an awesome example of collaboration in the GA process. Way to go! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to relist Timothy Everest and, later, to review it for GA. Your kindness, in the face of injustice, was above and beyond the call, and has not gone unnoticed. Your work is very much appreciated. Daicaregos (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Brislington F.C. is not an amateur club - they are semi-professional non league club playing in the Premier Division of the Western League. I find it very difficult to establish why the page should be suggested for deletion.

Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 08:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

OK, my mistake. Still fails the guidelines for notability, e.g. WP:ORG, WP:NFOOTBALL and has remained unreferenced since its conception. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You reverted my edit based on 'Remove ungrammatical expansion, the prose is fine as it is.' However you also removed the extra info I had added that is in one of the refs - that not only the ship but also the cargo stowage had to be in good order for a ship to be 'ship shape and Bristol fashion' as the list due to being beached meant the cargo had to be very secure so as not to move. The other edits I did were mostly rewording the existing text to fit the extra info in and to remove (what I thought) was an implication that owners had an option to strand their vessels where-as (I understand) they had little option to do so. Perhaps you could reinstate my edit and alter the grammar if still needed?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.20 (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2011

Done. Please remember to sign your posts.Jezhotwells (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time reviewing the article. I've just made the appropriate corrections on this.Alexikoua (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jezhotwells, would you please check and see if all issues have been addressed at the Miami Showband killings article and if it now meets the GA criteria? The references have since been formatted correctly. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to review the Miami Showband killings article for GA. Not the easiest of subjects, your help and advice was much appreciated. Daicaregos (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jezhotwells. I appreciate your patience as regards the refs. Thank you again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jezza from Hotwell. I have been reviewing this GA nomination from User:Designate. It is only my second review and as you have reviewed articles from this nominator before and were talking recently on the talk about mentoring... I thought I might ask you to keep an eye on it. I feel it is under control and heading to, if not already at, GA status. Some feedback on my review would be appreciated in any case as I feel this is an area of the project I would like to contribute to. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will take a look tomorrow (Sunday) hopefully. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Good review. I have made a comment on one point. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated AIRcorn (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you add your opinions here? Thanx, I'd appreciate your input. ATC ^{. Talk} 19:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Excuse me, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I would like to improve my article. Can you tell me what I should do to meet Wikipedia's standards? Thank you! - Dominictroc (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominictroc (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 April 2011

I have left a message on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Tuscumbia (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells/Archive 7. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This is for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities
If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue in Morella, Spain is city vs. mountain. User:Jezhotwells please restrain your words. I am not a user engaging in edit war to support any linguistic/ethnological preferences. I have deep knowledge of Spain and have a neutral point of view, considering how difficult it is to please the different sides.

Morella is a city and the term "city" is neutral enough. You should be careful with your accusations, which are unfair and unfounded. Please revert your edits and restore to Morella (city) its rightful and ancient title of city ("La Ciudad de Morella"). Otherwise you could make it clear that it is in Castellón Province, and not just a suburb of Castellon city, by moving the page to Morella, Castellon Province, which would be a fairer title and less demeaning to the status of Morella as an ancient city.Xufanc (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

I am just following the precedents established on the Spanish WikiProject. There are cities called Morella in Australia so I feel that Morella, Castellon is apprpriate as per WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You still don't get it. What would you think if the ancient city of Bristol would have been named [Bristol, UK] by a Spaniard and some 19th century novel would be under [Bristol] in Wikipedia? The city of Bristol existed before that. Morella should be directing to the city and Morella (disambiguation) to the dab page. If Wikipedia had existed before Poe's novel it would have been so. Unless it is serving some kind of neocolonial Anglo-saxon ethnocentric POV. Besides, you have slandered me. Xufanc (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been queried several times on page moves and other renamings, that is not slander it is fact. I have followed the correct guidelines, there is no precedent for renaming places as XXXX (city) and names containing parentheses have been deprecated, please read the relevant guidelines. The dab page, Morella, already existed (since July 2010) so turning Morella, Spain into a dab page was unnecessary and confusing, only one dab page should exist. BTW the dab page originally titled Morella (disambiguation) was moved by User:Logan on 11 April 2011, suggest you take that up with them. If you wish to suggest further page moves please start a discussion on the talk page or at the Spanish project. That is the correct procedure. Cheers! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I was queried about a page move in the Ko Lan case (I reckon that then my feathers were ruffled because the other editor contemptuously ignored me). But in the Spanish context, which is the case in point here, you have to acknowledge that, perhaps rashly, you lumped me together with the editors with linguistic/ethnological issues. I think it is unfair because my origins are 50% Valencian and 50% from Castilian-speaking areas and I don't espouse any partisan cause. When writing (mainly) about mountains, municipalities or islands, I take very seriously the role of being neutral and walking the narrow line where the different parties involved will find agreement. Therefore whenever I have suggested a change it was only after much pondering over what was the best compromise with due consideration to all the views and issues regarding the place. Xufanc (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please suggest page moves on article talk pages first and aim at getting consensus from other editors and other useful input such as whether there is a suitable dab page, also checks on numbers of linked pages which will have to be modified. 08:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

" Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Juno Beach, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC) " I am sorry for that, I was attempting to revert vandalism that was made to that page. I clicked the incorrect undo button after it was reverted by another person. Tenguopr (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, no harm done. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk about service! Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well as an experienced editor, you had done the homework and so met all the criteria. If only others would do so well. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Could you please strike or otherwise remove your claim that "I find the refusal to treat these as reliable sources by the reviewer to be rather ethnocentric" at Talk:East Sea Campaign/GA1? I've explained my concerns about these references in the GA review, and they're sure not motivated by illusions of cultural superiority. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the motion was made towards deleting the 2011 Southern Indoor Football League article. However, one thing puzzles me from this. Both the 2009 & 2010 Southern Indoor Football League articles (which I also made) pretty much had the same levels of sources that the deleted one had. So, why is it that 2009 and 2010 are spared, but the current season must have its head cut off? I don't get it.

Alakazam (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I have prodded those two articles on the same grounds, and will follow up with WP:AfD if there is no verifiable indication of notability provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Over_The_Limit_(2011) To be fair, it was named slightly differently last time. Someone has already removed a a tag I placed. I don't know what the next step to take is, if there even is one. Any help would be greatly appreciated. NXT Fan (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Jezhotwells!

Would you be willing to take a few shots at the exoplanet articles I have for review? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 16:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. :D

Well, I hope your vacation is incredible. I know your banner at the top of your page says otherwise, but don't even touch Wikipedia; technology has a way with stealing way too much of one's time, time you should spend relaxing. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why you tagged this article for needing additional references? Just having the one reference is quite common for articles such as it which simply show results and data from sporting events, and any other references would just add redundancy. There's no real discussion about the season that would really require an extra source yet (Although I have added it to my Google Alerts so I can add anything published), so I'm just wondering if the tag is really necessary. Sellyme^Talk 23:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WP:ONESOURCE? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. "Following this guideline, a subject for which only one source can be cited" seems to imply to me that since the article in question can have more citations, but they would be redundant and useless, it is fine. There is nothing in the article that would need multiple sources, although I'm planning on adding some more prose (And thus, more sources) in the future. Sellyme^Talk 01:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Indoor Football League is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Indoor Football League until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Scientizzle 20:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Going back through this section I noticed that you inserted yourself several times in support of User Hubertgrove. Be advised that it is beginning to look increasingly likely that this assertion isn't true. I'm more than a bit curious, why did you feel it necessary to support a hoax on the project? While we are on the subject however, be advised that the matter is now on the Fringe theory notice board.Tirronan (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you read my comments at Talk:Battle of the Falkland Islands#Secret Service Section you will find that I commented on the reliability of a wordpress blog, follwing a request at WP:EAR. Nowhere did I support one side of the other. Please get your facts straight. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fellow was right, apparently the book looks to be full of errors. Hard to guess where he made the mistakes both the author and the fellow reporting it to him are both dead. Despite weeks of research we can't seem to find a bit of evidence to support it. That is a pity it would have been rather nice to have found something new there. Anyway, so that you know the Word Press reviewer looks to have been right this time at least. I guess you can't win them all eh?Tirronan (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you now trying to harass another editor, Tirronan? This post is untrue "apparently the book looks to be full of errors" is a specific lie. "Anyway, so that you know the Word Press reviewer looks to have been right this time at least." - this is also untrue and not verified by anything except your own assertion. Hubertgrove (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the issues you raised (I am sorry it took so long, I believed others would do so/have done so). But I guess if you want something done right... anyway, I figure it may be easier for you to quickly re-review this article rather than for a new reviewer to do so, so here's heads up that I've resubmitted this article for GA reviww. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind taking a second look now? Thanks for your valuable time. --Eisfbnore ^talk 18:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Civil Parish of Winterbourne , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review of the Langlois Bridge article. It's definitely better for the review - especially regarding some clean-up that was needed around references. Much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jez, I decided to be bold and close Shakira as "not listed" in an attempt to reduce some of the backlog building up at WP:GAR. Its my first time so can you double check it is done correctly (it was still listed last time I checked). I wasn't sure how to fill out the article history template on her talk page so I just closed it with the template in the GAR instructions. I am hopeful that a bot fixes the article history, but if that is not the case could I trouble you to do it. I will then be able to check it and then will be able to complete them correctly in the future. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Had another look this morning and Shakira was moved from the queue. I also had another go at the article history template and think I got it to work correctly. All appears good, but it wouldn't hurt for someone to just run there eye over it. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, for I forgot to promptly thank you for reviewing KOI-428 and KOI-428b. You do a great job at dealing with the massive GAN backlog, and I really do appreciate it. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jez, please comment and take a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dreamlover (song)/1 as its been well over a month since you've commented, and I'm hoping to reach a verdict. Aircorn was kind enough to copy-edit it even though no more prose issues were raised. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sad about this. You know I was the one, along with some help from others, who brought the page to GA. But you know life has its shifts. Just got my job thereby reducing my time for the internet. Regardless, I see that some helpful music writers / buddies are returning its state into GA-worthy. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You might have mentioned you had put Pinter up for FAC! I might have missed it. I only noticed because I was putting one of my own up (English National Opera). I have of course, supported the nomination. I see that a not very Meritorious anonymous contributor has carpet-bombed the FAC page, and I have endeavoured to spike her guns. Good luck with this nomination. You have worked nobly and you richly deserve to get it promoted. Tim riley (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

... but if you have a reason for preferring the original hook, that is fine with me too. Thanks for contributing an interesting article! Sharktopus ^talk 19:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I think your alternative is better. --Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(Including Dianaa's edit, which is in the topmost section) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted per a request at WP:REFUND. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it may be not a free image but it was the main image of the article for a lot of time. Also "not free image" (I believe that) is a term about lists not articles.--46.12.16.226 (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well it it is policies not opnions which govern wikipedia content, go and read the discussion to which you were pointed and try and understand it. Cheers! Jezhotwells (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

On 25 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Manchones, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1152 Alfonso the Battler rewarded Diego López de Lobera for his services during the Reconquista by giving him the castle of Manchones? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for completing the review, particularly during Wimbledon season (don't know if you're the tennis type...). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but tennis isn't my thing really! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Following your request I looked at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1 & the associated article & talk page. This has obviously been a difficult/controversial article, however its not one that particularly interests me or where I feel I can be of much help. My wiki time recently (when not at Glasto) has been on Kennet and Avon Canal (which I hope will be ready for FAC soon) and Glastonbury Festival - if you fancied taking a look at either of those that would be great.

I'll be at work on Monday so will not be able to attend the thing at the BBC, but I hope it goes well.— Rod ^talk 15:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

HI, you started a GA nomination for Wells Fargo Building (Philadelphia) but have not yet added any feedback for the article. Do you still plan to do this? Medvedenko (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Medvedenko (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello there! :) You know, the reason why the article as just a few sources is just because information for it is really really hard to find... :( Thank you. Salgado96 (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So it almost certainly will not make GA status, I am afraid. Please read the WP:WIAGA. And might I suggest that you get the article copy-edited and take it to WP:Peer review for help on getting it into shape. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I listed the main problems, just 3 days late. I ask that you reopen the GAR. Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The GAR is closed. Please renominate, following the procedures listed at WP:GAR, remembering to list precisely where you feel that the article fails to meet WP:WIAGA. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that it was delisted - I don't have any problems with that, (although the problems identified looked like they could be handled fairly readily), but I wasn't aware it was up for GAR, and there was no mention of this on the talk page. Do you know how we're usually notified that a GAR is underway? - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I nominate an article for GAR, which I didn't do in this case, I usually inform the primary editors. But to answer your question there is a notice on the talk page, as you can see in this old revision, also there is a note at the top of the article, visible to logged in editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I think we should probably leave a message on the talk page as well - it is easy to overlook that notice at the top, I think. If I'd known it was up for GAR I could probably have fixed the problems in an hour or so, given that they're just ce issues. :) I guess I can always fix them next week and try GAN again. - Bilby (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well a template on the talk page is a message. It would be good practice to contact primary editors, but it is not mandated at present. Perhaps you should raise a discussion at WT:GAR? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I might. :) It is nothing urgent - it's simply that when looking at a talk page, I think most of us just scroll past the various notices at the top, as they change so rarely. :)It caught me by surprise that this was being reviewed, mostly, I think, because the change didn't appear on my watchlist, and as the review happens on a subpage, if you miss the notification on the talk page header you'd never know it was happening. I've no complaints - that's just how it works - but I'm wondering about better approaches we could consider for the future. - Bilby (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly support mandatory notification of primary editors as happened in the GA Sweeps. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done on clearing out the backlog. I see it has raised a few eyebrows above, but it needed doing. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ta, the flak is to be expected. The process should not be drawn out over weeks, unless progress is being made. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the only user commenting other than the main article contributor, the original reviewer and myself questioned the notability of the article subject. The original reviewer suggested adding more content. I think you mistook the supposed review done on the bottom of the page for a new one but it is from the main contributor. Your statement "Clear consensus that problems have been addressed" is absolutely false. Hekerui (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you can open a new GAR, remembering to specifically cite where the article fails the GA criteria. Notability is not a GAN criterion. If you feel it is not notable then please AFD it. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second, your closing statement was "clear consensus that problems have been addressed" - you can't tell me that's what the page tells you. Have you read the whole thing? Hekerui (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. No comments had been made since 23 June. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And the comments made before questioned the article broadness. You made a mass close and looked at the date, I get it. The actual text suggests no consensus. Hekerui (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion, I note you did not comment all. One person commented on apparent lack of broadness, two suggested that the article meets the GA criteria. No-one explicitly supported de-listing. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, only the main contributor suggested the article is up to par. I will stop arguing now, we don't come to a conclusion, the reasoning doesn't make sense to me but I said that already. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made myself available on the FAC page, and if it is judged proper for me to do the source check I shall be happy to. I live 20 minutes' walk from the British Library, so can do the necessary on the most thorough scale. It will mean reading some of you-know-who's stuff, but there is copious good material therein, despite the bullying pomposity of the writer (who, I have concluded, has delusions of being Goldberg in The Birthday Party, though less amiable). More anon. Tim riley (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, hopefully someone will reply overnight. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I'll do tomorrow and note the FAC page now to that effect. Tim riley (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Blimey, that was tough sledding! I hope a 5% sample is enough (if there is guidance on that point I'm blest if I can find it). I have reported back on the FAC page. Let us see what the authorities say. Tim riley (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim. I really appreciate your effort and time. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I have addressed your concerns per your review of Mir EO-19. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the critique of the Apiary Laboratory, the problems with the article will be righted in the next couple days. The one issue that's come up though, is that I cannot find anything in writing on the Frank R. Shaw Award Scholarship after 2008, and while I know it exists, my only source is heresay which is hardly a reference. Should I simply say that its current status is unknown, or should I omit the dated phrase "As of 2008, it was still in existence as a scholarship to students of the entomology program" entirely? Thanks --Ken (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Are you still available as a GA mentor?

I have just put up my first GAN, where I read we are encouraged to do a GA assessment. I have read a few of the linked articles (paticularly Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet), but feel I will need a little help if I am to successfully expand my Wiki experience into GAs.

I am a member of GOCE, and a co-ordinator, so my time will be spent mainly there or improving articles I am already involved with. I did promise myself I would get involved with GAN reviews though as it will help me when copyediting future nominations from the GOCE requests page, as well as those going on to FAC.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will pick one and start reading and analysing it. As I am a little concerned that I am new and do not want to cause any problems, would it be ok to do it in my sandbox for now or should I dive in and be bold? I realise I might have to put a note on the article to say that I am going to review it, should I also mention the mentoring aspect? Chaosdruid (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, the sandbox thing, yes do mention me as mentor. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have chosen Ditton, Kent. My sandbox will be User:Chaosdruid/GA1.

Are you around all weekend? I am not familiar with the process, so do not know how long it would normally take for the initial read through and checks. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall be around most of the weekend, but I shall be devoting a fair amount of time to watching the Tour de France 2011. It takes as long as it needs to make a first pass. I am quite quick, but please don't rush. It depends on the length of the article and the number of references. Just leave me a message when you are ready. If you encounter a potential problem, note it and then carry on and complete an initial review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it is the British Grand Prix also and I will not be around much on Saturday or Sunday mornings and early afternoon.

I have started a checklist of my own, at the moment I have just done the general layout and structure as well as using Checklinks. Am I on the right path so far?

Most of those points are for my own reference as to things that need fixing and would not include those in the GA review as yet, as I am assuming that I would correct some of those problems I have found so far - though I am not too sure as to exactly what level of editing a GA reviewer would be involved with. I do know Malleus does quite a bit :¬)

I will be reading it in more depth tomorrow, there are some basic errors of prose, grammar and refs as well. User:Chaosdruid/GA1 Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I probably do too much, so it can take me ages to do a GA review. Also, I want the article coming out of the review to be the best it can be given the GA criteria, therefore I sometimes tend to push a little bit on things not strictly necessary. So don't take me as your role model, do it your own way. :-) What I would say though is that if you see obvious spelling/grammar/typo errors then just fix them rather than list them. I only flag up those errors I can't resolve, I fix the others myself. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So many copyvios ... I am getting a little concerned now that as much as 33%, or perhaps even more, is made up of copyvios. Can you take a look at my work so far please User:Chaosdruid/GA1#Ditton.2C Kent and tell me whether to continue, simply reject outright and add copyvio notices, or some other action (inform editor etc.)? Chaosdruid (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Review looks good. I would suggest a seven day hold for the copyvio issues to be fixed, also please note that alt text is not a GA requirement, nor an FA requirement. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The MoS mandates alt text for all images, therefore it's a de facto part of the FA criteria but not, as you say GA. No harm in mentioning it in the review though. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about that. MoS says it should have the alt parameter added, while MoS (captions) is talking about alt text.

As I understand it there should be an alt parameter added |alt= though the alt text field of the parameter can be left blank, left as a simple description, or as a detailed description. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Alt text was removed from the FAC requirement circa March 2010, see This and other archived discussions at WT:FAC. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

... but it was added to the Manual of Style, which all FAs must follow. Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

J, thanks for reviewing this article. I have now addressed the few issues you had with the article. I also appreciate how easy this one was. I've had some experience lately, with both GAN and FAC, where it felt like the reviewer was having me jump through hoops just to see how high I could jump. So this was a wonderfully refreshing change. Christine (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be whizzing through those articles. I feel it's partly my fault, since I tagged about 2,000 articles with the Project banner last week. You must have wondered why the assessment % dropped so drastically! Thanks for doing that; I don't even try to assess article quality. Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jezhotwells. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Grrr (play), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 doesn't apply to plays or books. This may well not be notable - consider PROD or AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will consider that. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, redirects do take categories, because sometimes the subject is not enough for a stand-alone article, but can get solid coverage within an article, and it can still show up in the applicable categories. This is especially useful when dealing with literature, drama, etc., as minor works can still be categorized even if they don't get full articles. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, my mistake. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your concerns at Talk:Love, Loss, and What I Wore/GA1. My co-author has some suggested concerns. Please strike your issues that you feel are resolved and note any of his you would like to see me address.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have repied and await feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to strike resolved issues, so I can see how I am doing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you kindly re-evaluate the progress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I just left them a message on their talk page User talk:Shaibalahmar#GA Ditton.

There were a lot of edits going on over there, though he said he was finished. I was going to attempt to complete tonight, but they started doing a few more. I was going to do a quick copy-edit on Muammar Gaddafi but it took 6.5 hours in the end. I have already taken a quick second look three or four days ago to ensure the points I had raised had been addressed and amended them on my GA1 notes page User:Chaosdruid/GA1#Checks.

I will be completing by early afternoon, hopefully, will you be around tomorrow early afternoon to check my GAR and decision before I go "live" with it? Chaosdruid (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I should be on-line, but watching the TDF. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed there are still a fair few paras lacking refs, have put that on the article talk page.

K - enjoy, I am off for the night :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but they were working on it again this morning, then I had an emergency call out from work. The editor has asked for a three day extension, is that possible? If so, do I just add another 7 day or is there some other way of doing it?

Hope Le Tour is going well :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just leave note on the GA review page extending to whatever date you see fit, I should mention that you should keep all discussion about the review there as that will be the future record of the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there something from here, their talk page or mine that should be copied to there? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know - was just an earlier comment of yours about leaving comments on talk pages that led me to say that. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than request a copy-edit from GOCE I will do that myself. Done I cannot see anything that I have missed, though I am sure there may be something. The article looks fairly complete: I cannot find anything mentioned anywhere off- or on-Wiki that has been missed out, the refs check out, the pics are all ok, the suggested corrections have been completed (bar one or two refs) so I suppose I am ready to finish the assessment once the Kentish Quarryman has been refd.

Can you see anything I have missed, anywhere that needs a ref, or anything else that needs to be done before completing the review? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, a thorough review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have listed it as a pass - thanks for the hand-holding :¬)

The comments on their talk page were just sit-reps, rather than anything discussing content which were always placed on the GA1 page.

Many thanks once again. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Huge accomplishment to get that article Featured. Good job getting the ball across the goal line. Happy editing!TCO (reviews needed) 16:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Harold Pinter a Featured Article! Your work is much appreciated. Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Thank you! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

May I add my congratulations? You applied yourself indefatigably to turning the article from an unreadable pseudo-academic bog into a very fine and user-friendly encyclopaedia article. Such a shame that the earlier major contributor couldn't get the point of Wikipedia and share in the credit, but heigh ho! Your work on the article over many weeks – indeed months – has been exemplary, and I applaud! Tim riley (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article's promotion. Let me also take moment to thank you for your generous, thoughtful and skillful reviews of GA nominations and your GARs, which do much to promote the quality of this encyclopedia. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Jezhotwells! Harold would have been proud of the stamina you have displayed in pushing this brilliant, and still troublesome writer, uphill all the way to Parnassus. Mick gold (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! BTW, Mick there seems to have been a dearth of Dylan articles to review recently! :-) Jezhotwells (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, work has run me over for the last few months (not a bad thing) but I have been beavering away (with others) on Blonde On Blonde. Mick gold (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have rewritten the article and believe that the warning for advertisement can now be deleted. I have tried to write it objectively. What do you think? If you think that I am on the right track, please delete your remark.

Thanks, Brownjane (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing there to establish notability, I have nominated for deletion at WP:AfD. Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Blue. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the media do not think that there is nothing notable about Global Blue...It is a good thing that the article is under scrutiny during the nomination for deletion. So far, it seems that quite a few contributors believe that Global Blue is a notable company....I have tried my best and am fairly new as a contributor. I trust that other contributors will defend the article that I have put a lot of time and research in. Anyways, thanks for your feedback. Brownjane (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been redirecting short stubs on plays into the main articles. Please don't. From what I gather most of these have articles on another wikipedia and can easily be expanded. I've reverted your redirect to La putta onorata and am going to revert every single redirect you've made. This is not a constructive attitude and your time would be much better spent expanding them. La putta onorata is a notable play.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the expand note has been on for a year or more on those articles. I am going through the 2,980+ unassessed articles and I have redirected only content-less stubs as is common practice where no referenced assertion of notability has been made. feel free to expand the articles mate, but as they are they serve little or not purpose. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the plays though appear to be very notable. I'll try to add to a few, but not having a command of fluent Italian will make it difficult.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability isn't the question. It is stubs of the nature of Mobile Horror is a Finnish play. It was written by Juha Jokela., which need a redirect until someone can provide content. There are some 250+ of these, they can be un-redirected when there is content. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to change the assessment on the talk page from "redirect" to "stub" or "start" as appropriate, if you expand them. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I wondered if you give me an opinion on this. I see that you have posted to the WP:MAGAZINE talk page in the past, so I thought you might have some experience with these sorts of cats. Someone removed two categories here. This magazine is generally considered to be pretty political, using book reviews basically as a launching point for long essays, often about politics, although sometimes about literature and culture. I don't think the removal of the categories makes sense, but I wanted to get a second opinion. What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be inclined to discuss on the talk page. I see that the editor didn't leave a summary, so you are justified in asking them to explain themselves. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I opened a discussion with him on his talk page. BTW, in the recent GA nomination about the play, the editor noted that there were at least three other GA-class plays without much of a plot section, and probably not much "background" or "analysis". I'm afraid that a bad precedent was set. I don't usually deal with plays (I mostly stick to musicals), but if you want to do anything about this, I'd be happy to assist in any way I can. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

On 23 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dixie Brown, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that blinded Bristol boxer Dixie Brown was visited during World War II by African American soldiers, who respected him as "a much admired character"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		In recognition of your astonishing and generous feat of reviewing 500 (!) Good Article Nominations, I hereby award you this Reviewer's barnstar. Your monumental contribution to the encyclopedia is much appreciated! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your hard work in undertaking The Byrds article GA review. I have worked very hard to get that article up to its current standard, so it's great to see it pass. I had absolutely no idea that someone had nominated it for a GA review. I was, of course, planning to nominate it myself before too long but was trying to source a few more images first...so I'm a bit peeved that some other editor has jumped in ahead of me, but I don't suppose it really matters one way or the other. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to review the article and for taking the time to recognise that it wasn't the nominator who had done all the spade work on the article. Here, have a cookie! Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support & edits with this FAC so far. It currently has 4 "supports", however I have a potential problem coming up. I'm going to be on holiday with no internet access from Fri 29 July for at least a week. EdJogg is also going to be away. I have asked if there is any action I should take, but would you be willing to keep an eye on it and deal with any reviewers comments which arise while I'm away?— Rod ^talk 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing Rod, I will do what I can. Enjoy your holiday. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to be reviewing this for good article status?Ace-o-aces (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I generally don't do repeat reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have made my initial review of Knowle West's GA nomination and put it on hold. There are a few points at Talk:Knowle West, Bristol/GA1 that need to be addressed before it can be passed. Other than those minor points the article looks great. Please feel free to contact me if there are any other questions and I will take another look at the article. Thanks! Jaguar (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done - Knowle West has been passed. Looks like another Bristol GA. Jaguar (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

	Thanks
	Thank you for your help with the review of the Kennet and Avon Canal at FAC, which has just been promoted. — Rod talk 14:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to provide feedback on Moonrise (Warriors), especially regarding what can be done in order to make it a featured article. Thank you, Brambleclawx 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You may receive opposition to some of the sourcing at FAC, specifically the blog, Bookloons and Writers Unboxed. Ref 17 needs a page number; Ref # needs volume, issue number, page number. Consistency in referencing will be examined very closely. Good luck! Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Brambleclawx 20:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What should I do if the page cited in ref 17 isn't numbered? (it's part of a characters list that occurs before the story itself, and the authors do not number them with i, ii, iii, etc.) Brambleclawx 20:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Well just explain that when/if challenged and ask what to do. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Knowle West, Bristol a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Oops! Can't believe I made the rookie mistake of not checking the copyright status! I'm changing it to a good old-fashioned barnstar. You've earned it. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

At PR if by any chance you were minded to look in... Tim riley (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I am not particularly knowledgeable about classical music. I will look tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! Greatly obliged. Tim riley (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey there Jezhotwells, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Jezhotwells. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my fault, sorry! – Quadell ^(talk) 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jezhotwells, I was wondering if you might do me a favor. I am under the impression that you're a native speaker of British English.... I myself am a Yank, and though I can recognize "colour" and "aluminium" well enough I'm still a bit rusty on the details. I am reviewing the GA nomination for Tiverton Preedy, and I'm a bit unsure about the word choice and tone, so I've been asking around. The prose seems stodgy to me in places, old fashioned, but I'm not sure if that isn't just the way I hear proper British English. Things like:

• "Preedy was engaged to assist the vicar"
• "Preedy was taken with the idea of"
• "Terry Allen boxed at the club as a youngster"
• "Barnsley defeated West Bromwich Albion to lift the trophy"
• "Preedy had become keen on the concept of"
• etc.

In your opinion, are these sorts of phrasings (a) perfectly correct for an encyclopedia article in British English, (b) a little quirky but not too much of a problem for GA status, or (c) problems that need to be fixed. Thanks for any advice, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have responded at the review page. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Jez. I was also asked but have only recently responded. Whilst we agree in part, I have concerns which can be found at: User talk:Pyrotec#Request assistance with British English and User talk:Quadell#Tiverton Preedy. Pyrotec (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your edit-summary on this edit, looks like the bot got it right but then the poster changed it. DMacks (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah - didn't notice that! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I definitely support the undoing you did though, since neither account-name in that IP's change appears to exist. Not sure what weirdness he's trying to pull here. DMacks (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he/she may want to create an account, I have posted a welcome template on their user talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering whether you perceive a significant difference between GACR 1a ("the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct") and FACR 1a ("well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard") in practical terms. You seem to hold prose at GA to a high standard, but I don't know whether you hold FAs to an even higher one. I would concur that GA reviewers do not hold them to as a high standards as you (myself included, albeit across only 9 reviews). If this sounds combative, it is not supposed to be. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference between "the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct" and "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Unfortunately some articles nominated for GA are simply illiterate, and some reviewers are obviously functionally illiterate as well. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a misconception that many of the GOCE members have, that so long as there are no grammar or spelling mistakes then the article is good to go. But at FA it's about making your story engaging. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but some GA reviewers, especially in the pop music field cannot even recognise bad grammar! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You reverted the delisting of Bommarillu and made a note on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bommarillu/1. Was something done improperly here? This GAR and two others that I nominated, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Unnale Unnale/1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Anand (2004 film)/1 have been on the GAR page for several weeks. I think there is a consensus to delist. What is the proper way of closing these out? BollyJeff || talk 15:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, take a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/archiving, which is in the bottom panel of the GAR page. Click show to see all of the guideline. Basically, I reverted beacuse there was no closing of the GAR by a non-involved editor. The GAR has only been there 3 weeks, the guideline says a minimum of 4 and as User:Bollyjeff has been involved in teh discussion, tehy ceratinly shouldn't be closing it. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from The Trial of Davros, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Donlock (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No IAR here as it is obviously utter nonsense? – ukexpat (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was removing the eraly closures, didn't really think about that one. I have re-instated. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you recently assessed a lot of articles lately for WikiProject Theatre. One of those was Rosendale Theatre, which you assessed at "C". Since the article is a good article nominee, I was hoping you could tell me where it falls short in terms of the B-Class criteria; I'm anticipating a FAC within two months, and I could definitely use input from someone familiar with Theatre articles. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the theatre project doesn't actually have any B class criteria or rating system, as some other projects do, so I rated it at C, I am currently assessing over 2,800 un-assessed theatre project articles, so I am not actually doing any in depth assessment. You will get a thorough review at GAn. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've done mass assessments myself, and I don't envy you. WP:FILMS seems to require a B-Class checklist, so I'll ask there for additional review. Cheers. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I see you are putting one source tags on a lot of articles. Can you please put these in the References section and not on the top of the article, where they are really too conspicuous? Thanks for the consideration. Regards. --Kleinzach 07:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That is why Twinkle puts them at the top so that people see them and act on them. If you don't like them, you can always go out and find some more references. I have referenced over 200 theatre articles and assessed 2,500+ in the last three weeks, feel three to go through them moving tags if it suits your sense of proprietry. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Obviously you are working quite fast. Are you adding the one source tag on the assumption that the French theatre articles are only based on 'official website' information? Is that the idea? --Kleinzach 14:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I make no assumptions, I look at the article, if it has only one source in the reference section, I put the {{one source}} tag on; if there is only a primary source, I put the {{primary sources}} tag; if several references have been put in the external links section I will probably put {{citation style}} on; articles with no references will get the {{unreferenced}} tag. verifiable and reliable sources from third parties are required for all articles, preferably more than one, to help establish notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Kindly bear in mind that many of these French theatre articles have information translated from the French Wiki as well as the official website (when one exists). Please use the tags appropriately and sparingly. Also understand that they are irritating for the 'coalface' editors who are actually working to improve the articles. --Kleinzach 06:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the vast majority of those articles haven't been touched for a year or more. If you don't like the tags, improve the articles! Jezhotwells (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you check the edit histories you will see that a group of editors have been working on them, but thanks for making it absolutely clear why you are doing this conspicuous tagging. Basta! --Kleinzach 14:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

An article that reviewed, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I de-prodded it, based on a few Google searches under the shorter name of "The Face of Emmett Till". Bearian (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. You can always send it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just did, it has had only non-professional productions, fails WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Real Life Barnstar
	For your help at the Bristol Wikimedia Girl Geek Dinner! The Cavalry (Message me) 23:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I shall wear it with pride! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)