Jump to content

User talk:Jappalang/Goodies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Re:Difference between A-class and GA-class?

Well, my initial assumption about the A-Class was that it was a rating higher than GA. Kinda like a half-way point between GA and FA. What I've come to find out is that it is still very similar to the Stub, Start, and B-Class, just with higher standards. It is assigned by specific WikiProjects, unlike the GA and FA which go through a Wikipedia wide standardized process. So even though they're all ratings, it kinda functions like two separate rating scales. What it equates out to is that the A-Class rating does not first require a GA-Class rating and the GA-Class rating does not first require an A-Class rating. Hope I explained it well enough. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Second opinion for Bega schoolgirl murders

I've commented on the article's talk page. I just wanted to let you know that my assessment mirrors your own. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 01:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on GA review

Just wanted to let you know that I disagreed with your GA review for Attack at Ament's Cabin. I am not going to contest your review but I have outlined my concerns on the talk page for your own reference, if you care. Thanks for taking the time to review the article and please view my comments how they are meant, as an attempt to outline my concerns for your own reference. Do with them as you please. If you are an active reviewer perhaps you can keep them in mind in the future. IvoShandor (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said I am not that concerned about it. To be honest, given the discrepancy, I felt it was better to exclude the detail, as it is highly likely that it isn't even true. (Unfortunately I was inactive when you reviewed the article or we could have fleshed this out then). That's the problem with trying to cover this war, the source material is often so convoluted its accuracy comes into question. Alot of what was written is based on eyewitness, or secondary witness accounts. It's like playing historical sleuth. The main issue I see, is that it is impossible to know if there is an actual discrepancy without violating WP:OR, at least in this case. One source claims bayonets made them run, another claims contact of muskets with chest made them run, because it had a bayonet? Hard to say, but I am certain that I cannot say. IvoShandor (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I hope I wasn't to harsh, as I am trying to be the newer, nicer IvoShandor. The one who doesn't want to bring about the end of the world.IvoShandor (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Internment Camp

Thanks for reviewing the article. I am on holiday this week and may not be able to spend much time online. If I don't address your issues this week, I'll definitely be able to do so after. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hongcheng Magic Liquid GA review

Wow..... that was some impressive review, even if the article didn't pass. I'm awed at how many errors you got to nail down and correct accurately. I still have so much to learn.... :O --Enric Naval (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cootie (game)

Thank you for reviewing the article! The image rationales have been reworked. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the GA! I learned something from your work on the image rationales. Thank you again! ItsLassieTime (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Brownlee sex scandal GA review

Hi Jappalang - in the last couple of days, I've come to the conclusion that there's quite a bit that I can do to improve this article (this conclusion is in part thanks to your comments at the GA review, and even more so as a result of the sources you mentioned). I suspect that it will take me about a week to finish this work off. With regards to the GA review, that leaves (as I see it) three routes we can go:

  • You leave the nomination on hold for about a week, and finish the review once I finish improving the article.
  • I withdraw the nomination, finish improving the article, and then re-nominate it.
  • I give a quick fix to the issues you've identified, you pass it as a GA, and then I make the larger improvements.

My preference would be the first option. However, that's contingent on you being willing to extend the hold period and redo some of the work you've already done (since the new prose I add would need to be evaluated against the GA criteria). I don't care for the third option, partly because it seems disingenuous to pass an article as a GA in a form that I know it won't be in for very long, and partly because I'd like to see your comments on any new additions I make. Despite this, given the current GAC backlog, I might prefer the third option to the second. In any event, I'd like your thoughts as to how to proceed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Great - hope to report back in a week or so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's ready for another look. Thanks for your patience. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've responded to all of your points. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Back in your court (and incidentally, thanks for the work you're doing on Commons to improve the image description pages I put up). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Responded on the review page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Responded there yet again. Incidentally, I hope I'm not coming across as quarrelsome; I do appreciate the thoroughness of the review (I have it in my head that this may make FA at some point, and the more points raised in the relatively laid back confines of a GA review, the fewer will need to be in the pressure cooker of FAC). I've seen plenty of give and take on both sides, and I'd characterize our remaining disagreement here as a reasonable one among reasonable people. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your work on this. There's no doubt it improved the article enormously. One further question: do you think the current title for the article is the best one? I considered MacMillan v. Brownlee as well. I'm personally undecided. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alisia Dragoon

I am reviewing your article, Alisia Dragoon, for GA and have left my comments at Talk:Alisia Dragoon/GA1. As I say there, this is a good article. My concern is the use of the three fair use images. I also did a little copy editing. A few were mistakes that I fixed, but feel free to change what I did. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Image license question

Hi Jappalang. I'm doing a GA review of Polaris expedition, and I have an image question that goes into a gray area beyond my ken. Image:Polaris Expedition route.jpg uses a base map from The Atlas of Canada, which encourages public use but asks that commercial users get written permission before using. Does that make the base map not usable on Wikipedia, or is it OK to license it as PD-Canada (or something else) even though it has this restriction? I'd appreciate any advice you can give. Finetooth (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your clear and thorough explanation. This will be most helpful in the present case of the Polaris article and also in future cases. I'm trying to identify as many image license problems as I can at PR and elsewhere and suggesting fixes before they gum up the works at GAN or FAC. Finetooth (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Freelancer (video game)

Hey oh. I'm here to tell that here, Freelancer is on a Good Article Review. Please comment. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Barbarian II: The Dungeon of Drax

Hi, I have reviewed Barbarian II: The Dungeon of Drax and placed it on hold for seven days with a few (very minor) concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Barbarian II: The Dungeon of Drax/GA1. Canadian Paul 01:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Activeness

Quick question. How active are you right now? GamerPro64 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually. I'm planning on giving Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) a GAR. The way it is reminds me of what Freelancer (video game) was before I gave it a GAR. So the question is, will you be active enough to work out the problems? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Thanks for the advice. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Letting you know that I delisted Ninja Gaiden. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

NDD

Thanks, I've replied YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Bring Us Together

I think I've answered your concerns, subject to quibbles which I've laid out.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion. The OTRS tag is now confirmed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dr Rohani Hashim

Wikipedia:Good articles/Arts

Kenzo Tange

Thanks for all of your time and effort in reviewing Kenzo Tange and promoting it to GA. Kenchikuben (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

GA for World's littlest skyscraper‎

Thank you very much for passing the article, Jappalang. I have learned quite a bit about the MOS in the process of correcting the many deficiencies you identified. I will continue to work on getting appropriate images into the article. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you out! DiverDave (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Image question

Hey. I know you're busy, but I have an image issue holding up a Good Article nom, so I am double checking with an image expert. Would File:Coat of arms of Albany statue.jpg be a violation of freedom of panorama? The statue was erected in 1986, and the author is still alive. Let us know at Talk:Coat of arms of Albany, New York/GA1 whether the image is ok at is or whether a fair use+copyright tag need to be added. I think it's the latter but you would know better than I. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Kampung Boy

The article The Kampung Boy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Kampung Boy for things which need to be addressed. -- Cirt (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please remove your interspersed threaded comments from the middle of my GA Review, and move them to the bottom of the page, below all of my GA Review comments? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Jappalang, for your tone throughout the discussion we had at Talk:The Kampung Boy/GA1. Your responses were polite, respectful, and matter-of-fact, even when it was evident that you disagreed with some of my comments and recommendations. This has been one of the most civil and polite discussions I have had recently with another user where we disagreed on some issues. Thank you very much, -- Cirt (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Image review request

Hi, I was hoping you could provide a second opinion for a couple of images in question on the Bobby Orr article. It has been up for GA for some time and it looks as if the only thing holding up the review is the request from an "image specialists" to determine if the images should stay in the article or not. If you can weigh in it would be greatly appreciated but if not I understand. Thanks for you time.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and doing an image review, much appreciated.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Case Closed/GA1

Hi, I have began assessing your concerns and would like to see if most have been fixed. Thank you! DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the research you put into it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi. As annoying to me as it is, I cannot find time to get back to the article now. I guess you can fail it, and I will get through the unanswered comments when I have a bit of time, and renominate it.

Thanks for the input.D2306 (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jappalang/Goodies&oldid=1141147883"