User talk:Mike Christie/Archive12

April's Fools

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2017—nominative determinism? Not exactly very funny, no? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The habit of doing amusing April 1 articles was dropped at TFA, I think at least a couple of years ago -- before I became a TFA coordinator, in any case. Actually I think this is quite an amusing article, but it's just a coincidence that it's running on April 1. I decided to move it from its January scheduled date because of a possible controversy (you can see the details on the nominator's talk page if you're interested) and since I schedule every third month, April 1 was the next available date for me to schedule. I don't think it's going to attract an unusual amount of vandalism, but I'm betting we'll see a lot of people adding unsourced examples. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

During my recent TFA coordinator stint I argued strongly for abandoning the "tradition" of a joke TFA for April the first. I know that some thought differently, but I think this is a good choice, Mike – mildly offbeat and amusing, without the somewhat heavy-handed tomfoolery of past years. Brianboulton (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I know that we don't write blurbs in non-serious ways these days; it was the article choice that I was questioning (as compared to 2015 and 2016, say). That said, perhaps my sense of humor is a bit out of step with the world. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess I was under the impression that April 1 wasn't treated any differently to the other months, but I see what you mean about the last two. I think I agree with Brian; it was serendipitous, but I think this is a nicely offbeat article. If I'm doing April next year I'll try for offbeat again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April 26

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Heffernan v. City of Paterson seemed not wanted in January, - how about 26 April when it was decided? Should it be discussed first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I won't be able to make a final decision till I schedule that day, but yes, I agree it seems like a good idea. My notes for April include planning to run it on the 26th. The only likely reason for it to be deferred is if there is a strong case for running another law-related article near that day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

April 19

Comparably, I had nominated this, Wehwalt (author) objected, but when asked again now responded differently. I guess it could run now, or should we have another discussion first? We had no musical stage performance in a while. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest nominating it at TFAR and see what support it draws -- if Wehwalt has no objection and it has support I see no obstacles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Will do, only last time I reopened a request I made a mistake, so please watch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

... next year perhaps, 19 April has already a request, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

16 April

I just looked when a recent FA, William T. Stearn (not by me, editor's first afaik), would fit day-wise, and found he's born 16 April. I know something is scheduled for that Easter Sunday, but confess that I'd prefer a biologist that day. Just a thought. There's also next year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

As it happens I just substituted an article for April 16 at the nominator's request; I prefer not to substitute if I can avoid it as it makes a bit of extra work for others. I agree this would be a great TFA, but let's wait for next year. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Understand ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Another favour...

I noticed the message above about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simone Russell/archive1, but wondered if you could pop in. I think it's nearly there but there were a few little things that jumped out at me, and I wondered if you could cast your eye over the prose. Nothing major, just a last polish I hope. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been busier than I expected, but I will try to take a look in the next day or so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, I was about to look at this but I see Ian's now said he'd do another run through -- let me know if you'd still like me to look at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikipedia Library User Group
• Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
• Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Naruto

Hey Mike Christie,

I am planning on nominating the article mentioned for FA soon. I got it to GA and expanded the article. If you can, could you give comments on the talk page if there are any issues? If you can't, please reply. Thanks. MCMLXXXIX 20:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look in the next couple of days. I should get some free time tomorrow afternoon and if I can finish a couple of other obligations I'll look at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

ok. --1989 12:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just wanted to let you know that I opened the FA for the article. You could put your input there instead. -- 1989 17:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Khalid al-Mihdhar, TFAR 16 May

I don't know if it's you or Jim who's responsible for May scheduling, but could one of you look at the concern I've expressed on the TFAR page, regarding this nomination on that date? Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. Jim is scheduling May; Jim, what do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I can see that it might not be particularly sensitive to run it on that date, my inclination, assuming there are no other issues, is to run it in May on another date. I'll add a comment at TFAR to that effect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim/Mike. I don't personally object to the article running on a different date in May (though others might). Howvever, to select the perpetrator's birthday could be interpreted as a macabre gesture of tasteless celebration, and should I think be avoided. Brianboulton (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And another...!

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)/archive3 has been open for a long time now, and would be almost there except Tony1 found a few little glitches. I looked and found a few more, especially in the lead; nothing major but it has hints of one of those patchwork music articles that you're rather good with. If you can't manage it, I might wade in myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, but I don't think my prose is up to Tony1's standards! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's me, for I don't really look at too many of these video game articles, but I think there are a few issues here with both prose and accessibility for the general reader/logical order. Any chance you could take a look and see if I'm way off? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look, maybe tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1: done. I thought about your suggestion that plot should precede gameplay; I think it's probably the case for most readers of these articles that the gameplay is the game; the plot is really secondary, though of course it drives the gameplay. A strictly chronological approach to the article would start with development, but I don't think that would work, since so much of the development text would have to refer to either the plot or the gameplay mechanics. If it's going to be pulled out of chronological order, I think putting gameplay first is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reception hierarchy diagram

From my experience, I see a rough progression of Reception section quality across video game articles:

1. Unsourced comments on what fans think about the game
2. Sourced, haphazard quotes from reviews (overquoting) E.g., "X of Y publication said, quote"
3. Sourced paraphrase from vetted review publications, unorganized by topic and with some reliance on quotations (E.g., "X of Y said that Z, and A of B opined that C")
4. Sourced paraphrase from vetted review publications clustered by theme (gameplay, graphics, technical details)
5. Summative paraphrase by theme that stacks refs from vetted review publications to identify ways in which reviewers made the same points without veering into original research

I was thinking a food pyramid-style diagram along the lines of commons:Category:Triangular diagrams (with #5 at the top, perhaps with a heavier horizontal line between #2 and 3 to show that #3 is a baseline for GA and otherwise). Not sure if there is a way to put these lines more concisely or to have each layer stack concepts so the text gets shorter instead of longer towards the top, but I think such a diagram would be a helpful illustration of how to improve a section. Perhaps it applies outside the video game field as well? If there is no outright opposition, I'll write something for the WPVG guidelines to accompany the diagram. I'm fine with offering my own examples of bad writing—the discussion can easily get unproductive when editors feel that their own work/worth is being judged, even though that's the essence of FAC. czar 02:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if I can make a stab at this over the next couple of days. I'll upload a sketch when I have one. For the examples, we might get somewhere by offering to copyedit articles on the condition that we can use them as examples.

I'll think about other ways to present these steps as well, but I like the general idea, and the triangular diagram is familiar to most readers which is an advantage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I meant I have plenty of my own writing to offer as bad examples ;) czar 23:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Czar; just had a little time to think about this and tried breaking your sequence up into three separate types of progressive. What do you think of this:

• Sourcing:
  • Fan/editor opinions
  • Some published sources
  • All reliable sources
  • Best sources
• Quotes:
  • None used or paraphrased
  • Some quotes, with overquoting
  • Some paraphrasing
  • Mostly paraphrased with selected quotes for highlighting
• Organization:
  • None
  • Some clustering by theme
  • Good clustering to support summation of reviews (without OR)
  • Best sources

Thinking about these as dimensions would lead you to a cube, not a pyramid -- probably not a good way to present the ideas. But do you think this separation is useful? Might be worth presenting it almost as swim lanes, though there's only limited interaction between the lanes here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

We do something like that for our assessment pages (e.g. at WP:VG/A)--just that this would be more specifically on the quality of reception. --Izno (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In some ways it's useful, but I think separating it communicates "use the best sources, cluster by theme, paraphrase instead of quote" instead of helping the reader discern between different styles of writing (#1, #3, and #5). Maybe I should put together some examples first czar 23:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think examples would be good. Are you thinking we'd link to examples from within each layer of the pyramid? I take your point that we need to get editors to be able to distinguish the different stages; people can't fix a problem they can't recognize. The essay I wrote was focused on how to fix the issues, and not really on how to recognize them. We really need both, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes on having examples nearby (perhaps linked but perhaps not necessary). Maybe something like a funnel to show a refinement process?

1. Use vetted review publications (reliable, secondary sources, not press releases or hobbyist blogs)...
2. paraphrase sources in own words and minimize (ideally, eliminate) quotation use...
3. attribute opinions to the entity the reader should remember (usually the publication, if the individual does not have their own WP article)...
4. cluster into paragraphs by theme and use topic sentences to let readers know what to expect from the paragraph (signposting)...
5. combine similar claims (stack refs) to make summative statements about themes (but avoid original research)...
6. only use individual reviewers to highlight points that cannot be made summatively

Open to workshopping—especially for concision and wider applicability (for non-VG articles). I'll work on the examples later in the week czar 04:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A funnel is probably better than the pyramid. I should have more time to look at this tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• I missed another element—many game articles start with Reception sections that put review scores in prose (as in the paragraph's only text is review scores). Not sure how to mention that these numbers are useless apropos of nothing czar 01:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  I've seen a couple of those. I agree; not much use to the general reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have discussed since December 2016

Lenin was an imperialist who created the Soviet Union killing millions. Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourced - unfortunately Fischer was a journalist with Communist bias. Serious sources, please.Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Xx236, when you remove material that has a source from an article that has had detailed review by multiple editors, it's best to get agreement on the talk page first -- it's OK to remove it, but if someone reverts it, as is likely, you have to get consensus. You've certainly criticized Fischer on the talk page, but I don't see agreement to remove either Fischer or this sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Please cooperate instead to recreate lies. Xx236 (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed

Greetings. Since D.Gray-man was too big to write and a fellow user decided to rewrite some parts before a second nomination, I decided to instead focus on a smaller article: Yu Kanda. I based it to look more like recent FAs like Allen Walker and Naruto Uzumaki. It is currently being copy-edited by a member from the guild of copy editors. Do you have any suggestions about the article? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my time on-wiki is a bit limited at the moment, for several reasons, and I'm trying to focus on one article I'm working on. I don't mind helping with a review of a FAC that's near the bottom of the list, if a FAC coordinator requests it, but otherwise I'm trying not to take on anything else for now. Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

I got this to FA status a few weeks ago, and I've been thinking it would be nice to have it on the main page on 18 June, the day on which the coup was officially launched. Wasn't sure about the process for doing this more than a month in advance, though, as this would be just my second TFA. Can you help? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You can add it to WP:TFARP, which we look at as well as WP:TFAR. At the moment we're scheduled almost a month ahead, but that's just because Jim is away from home much of May and had to get it done early. Normally we schedule about 10-15 days ahead, and I won't be looking at June till at least May 15, so you should have plenty of time to nominate it at TFAR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks: done. Vanamonde (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Starship Troopers

Greetings, Mike; me again. I've been working on Starship Troopers (the novel), and as you can imagine, there's a lot of folks with a lot of things to say about it. You gave me very useful advice on structuring the reception section for The Left Hand of Darkness; so I was wondering if you would have the time to take a look at the reception section here as well. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure; might be a few days as I'm going to have minor surgery on my shoulder tomorrow. When you see me editing again after tonight, ping me again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. I'm going to send it to GAN once I'm done writing, but it's usually months before it's picked up, so plenty of time to tweak things; and I think it's at or close to GA status in any case. Best of luck with the surgery, and with resisting the urge to edit while you recover ;) Vanamonde (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hope the shoulder goes well...

And you are pain-free shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! No doubt I'll be typing with my left hand as soon as the meds let me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 15 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 15, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the magazine that you "can actually recommend"! And good wishes for your health, sorry to hear that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The shoulder is improving daily; I can type pretty much normally now, so long as I don't overdo it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Once upon a time, a TFA was scheduled the day before it appeared, then a bot informed the main author less than an hour before it appeared, and that was not great (said the author). - It's much better now, with several people on the scheduling job, and personal notification! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1)

Greetings! I plan on nominating this article for FA again in the very near future. For now though, I'm withholding as I would like your input on namely just the reviews section. You had given feedback on the article on a previous nomination, the only glaring issue at that time was the fact that the reviews section wasn't declarative, and thus didn't read like an encyclopedic summary. I've made some adjustments and attempted to address the issue, and if you are able to, you input would be greatly appreciated! DAP 💅 17:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi -- I'd be glad to take a look at it, but I'm going to be having minor surgery on my right shoulder on Thursday, so probably won't be typing much for a few days. If I can get to it tonight or tomorrow night I will. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

DAP388, I've started making some notes; do you have any mroe links to reviews that you think might be useful, or are the ones included in the article all you think should be used? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There are about 20 other reviews linked to Metacritic that aren't used in the article. All of them aren't necessary but I think an additional few, maybe four or five reviews if not a little more, are fine. I chose reviews at random so feel free to take a look. Here from New York, Entertainment Weekly, Chicago Sun-Times, Boston Herald, and Huffington Post. DAP 💅 00:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, looking through them; I'll ping you when I have something for you to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

DAP388, the Chicago Sun-Times link isn't working, and a quick search isn't finding the intended review -- do you have a working link? And the Boston Herald article is behind a pay wall. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, draft done, on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Dating methods

Hi Mike. I hope your shoulder is recovering OK. An editor raised a query at Talk:Atapuerca Mountains#'number' confusion which got me checking the sources for the dating of the Atapuerca fossils and I found this source page 30 which says "The “Aurora” Stratum has been palaeomagnetically dated as belonging to the Matuyama Chron (> 0.78 Ma BP) by Parés and Pérez-González (1995) and Falgueres et al. (1999) using a combination of ERS and U-series applied to fossilized ungulate tooth enamel." I am not sure what to make of this and I wonder whether you can help. I cannot find what ERS means and it is not in the ERS disambig. The U-series dating article says it has an upper age limit of "somewhat over 500,000 years" which suggests not reliable at 780,000. There is also the question of whether 1990s measurements are too old. I assume they would not be for C14 dating as it has advanced so much since then, but does the same apply to other techniques such as U-series? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I would guess it should be ESR, not ERS. I don't know much about ESR; I looked through the chapter in Mike Walker's Quaternary Dating Systems (2005) on ESR and it looks like the uncertainty on an ESR date is generally at least 10%. Walker talks about some sources of error but quotes a ~710,000 Tibetan Plateau date with some confidence, so it looks like it's OK at the age range in question. For U-series Walker gives 500,000 as an approximate upper limit when using mass spectrometry; the limit is less for alpha-particle spectrometry. It could well be that the techniques have been refined since then. As for the age of the dates, I would be less concerned about that; a measurement is a measurement, after all, and unless we know something now that wasn't known then I don't see any reason why dates determined a couple of decades ago should be regarded as untrustworthy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. That's very helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Naruto

Another favour if possible! This one (FAC here) has had quite a bit of support, but I'd appreciate if you could take a look at the prose just to see if it's OK. If not, not problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And if you're feeling energetic, there's another one here which is close to promotion but I'd like another eye on the prose. If you can't do that one, I can get it myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello! I apologize for the intrusion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help that you could offer for my current [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Faces FAC]. I understand that it is a busy time of the time and that you may not have the time or energy to look at this, but I would greatly appreciate. Thank you either way! Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  Hi -- I'll see if I can find time, but it depends on a few other things. I'm having minor surgery on my right shoulder next Thursday, which will curtail my typing for a few days at least, so if I don't get to it by then I'm probably not going to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response and good luck with your surgery. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  Looks like Ian started a review just after you posted here, so I'm going to let this go for now. Sarastro1, let me know if you'd still like me to take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately for me, the article did not pass. I have made a lot of changes to the prose and I guess you weren't able or chose not to reply from my ping on it, so I would like to ask if you make your final comments on the prose here or on the article talk page and I'll see what I can do before two weeks. If you don't want to talk about it any further, please reply to this message and say that is the case. Thank you. 1989 12:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  1989: I'm willing to help with the article, but it'll probably be a few days till I can get to it -- I have made commitments to work on a couple of other things, plus I will be doing some TFA scheduling starting in the next few days, plus I'm out of town for a couple of days next week. If I haven't posted on the article talk page by the end of May, ping me again. If you have no objections, I will go ahead and edit the article to fix the issues I see, rather than just post comments; then we can discuss as needed if you don't agree with my edits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Fine by me. -- 1989 17:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

As a heads up...

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban appeal for Paul Bedson Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; posted a comment there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't sure how often you read the dramah boards. I had, mercifully, blanked much of that period from my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I used to religiously remove them from my watchlist but now I leave them there if they show up; I had ANI on my watchlist but not AN, so thanks for the note. It was your RFA, in fact, that changed my mind; I remember thinking that my decade-long "ignore almost everything I that isn't content-related" attitude probably needed to be re-examined if *you* were running for admin. And congrats on the WP:200, by the way; well-deserved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Tidus scheduled for TFA

Really cool. I'm happy with that. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Crime in Philadelphia

Thank you for your help. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I ought to know this

As a former TFA coordinator I ought to know this, but...

I want to nominate Noye's Fludde for TFA on 14 July. I nominated it last year, but then withdrew it in favour of a centenary celebration. I seem to remember there is a particular TFA procedure for renominating previously "rejected" articles; can you please remind me what it is? Most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(watching:) perhaps ask Wehwalt, he just reopened Grace Sherwood on WP:TFAR. The edit history of the nomination should also explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Since Wehwalt has just done it successfully he's probably the best source, but if you look at the closed TFAR you'll see instructions at the top. I've never done it so can't give advice with any confidence, but the instructions there seem reasonably clear. If it goes wrong it's sure to be fixable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I just followed the instructions. Slightly to my surprise (no offense) it went smoothly.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've had a go. Looks OK but someone please take a look, as I may have boobed somewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That looks right to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Galaxy Science Fiction

Greetings from Spain again.

In the article Galaxy Science Fiction - "Other bibliographic details" section, in the table where the multiple titles of the magazine are shown, the cover of the Mar/April-73 issue appears "Galaxy", but I think it should be "Galaxy Magazine" (http://www.philsp.com/mags/galaxy.html). I tried to change it, but in the wikitable vs me battle, I was clearly beaten ... --Furado (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed -- thanks for pointing that out. You might try WP:VE for editing tables; it makes things like merging cells or editing complex tables *much* easier, though it can't handle background colours yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not like WP:VE to edit, but I just saw that it's great for complex tables. Thanks again for your help and for your great work. Best regards, --Furado (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me again!!

Another favour if possible. Fallout 4: Far Harbor is nearly there (FAC here) but I keep finding little issues and I can't say too much more without recusing (which I'd rather avoid if I can). I think it's just about there, and I think it's all pretty minor, but I'd be happier if you could take a look. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem -- I've been trying to keep to one FAC copyedit/cleanup project at a time, and I think True Detective (season 1) is about done. I was going to take a look at Naruto next, but it sounds like this one won't take too long. Should be some time this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Featured article candidate: Unlocked

Hi there! It's been a long time since I have nominated the article above—about one of Alexandra Stan's albums—for FA status. The nomination failed and you suggested that you would want to help me working on it for a future nomination. Meanwhile, the article got through another copy-edit and I have also added new information to it. Would you have time to help me to get it to FA? Best regards and please ping me for your answer; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak: Yes, I'd be happy to help. I'm a bit backed up at the moment; I'm nearly done with True Detective (season 1), but further up this talk page I've promised a quick FAC review of one article and a thorough going-over of another one, and that could take a week or two; plus I'm trying to get ice core ready for a peer review. If you don't mind waiting, I would be glad to work on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Take as much time as you need, just ping me or send me a message when you think you're ready with all the stuff you're working on currently. Best of luck with those projects, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

reception

Hi Mike,

Over here I mentioned it may be good to link to your reception section essay from our handout(s). Would you mind if I moved it to projectspace (or, if you prefer, doing so yourself) so that I can create a shortcut for it. I think it would look amiss to include a link to a userspace essay (and shortcuts to userspace are pretty nonstandard, afaik). Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ryan: yes, go ahead. What are the guidelines for moving a user essay to project space? Are there any? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that the main criteria be that it not be "owned" and that it not contradict established consensus (i.e. as long as others can edit and it's reconcilable with policy/guidelines, there's quite a bit of flexibility). The most relevant page about it would be, I suppose, WP:ESSAY. I'll go ahead and move it, and create the shortcut WP:RECEPTION. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ryan: Thanks for doing that. I think I read ESSAY ten years ago and haven't looked at it since; I now realize it would have been fine to move it. I hope the essay is useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

An old FA for TFA?

I'm not pushing, but if in the autumn you or your colleagues want to run the nine-years-promoted Ernest Joyce at TFA, it's probably OK. I've done recent updating work, the links are I think working, and the images look all right. I'll give it a final once-over if you decide to use it. It's been a while since the Antarctic was on the main page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I really like running the oldest FAs if they're in good shape; I don't want people to think they age out of eligibility automatically. Which month would it be? I schedule even-numbered months, and Jim and Dan alternate on the odd-numbered months. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

September? I can't see a particular date relevance, but not before, please. I've got (I think) Noye's Fludde coming up next month and I can't handle too much excitement at the moment! Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Didsbury School of Education

Hi I've responded on the review page. Aiken D 15:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll take another look in the next couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sarawak

A couple of favours, if you have the time! First, the Sarawak review FAC here is quite a way along but the previous review raised some copyvio issues so I'm being ultra cautious. Two people have already had a look, including Cas, but as this is potential a sticky point I'd appreciate one more look so that we have covered all the bases. Secondly, an IP (who seems oddly familiar) posted something on my talk about the article and raises some good points, if a little bluntly. So I'd appreciate it if you could look at those as well, if you are not too busy. If you can't, I'll probably recuse and do it myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I should be able to give it a look this weekend. I've been spending the last few weeks working on Naruto, True Detective (season 1), and Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album), all of which have failed FAC at least partly because of my reviews, so I've been trying to fix them up. Two are now at FAC and I think the third is about to show up there, so I'm going to try to catch up on reviews over the next couple of weeks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Just checking: you want me to do a close paraphrasing/copyvio check, rather than a full review? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

If you could possibly do both; the IP raised a few points so I'd like one last look over. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, and might as well ping Ian too on this, I am concerned about sourcing; see the note I just posted at the FAC. If you agree my concerns are justified it would be great if someone could help look at the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1: I've more or less given up, as you can see at the FAC. If you'd like me to plough on, let me know, but I think the problem is that Cerevisae, who does appear to know the subject fairly well, hasn't quite got the connection between high quality sources and article text. Not really sure what to do about that other than oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie See the comments I left at the very bottom of Mr Sarastro's talk page. Unfortunately I too found that just about every source is wrong. I wonder if Mr Sarastro could put together a team of source reviewers and perhaps split things three or four ways. No way could I check all sources, or even half. AuricGoldfinger (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Of course the IP looks familiar. It is the block-evading Singora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.55 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

On lead and Sarawak

Having noticed that you recently put up your oppose on the Sarawak FAC because of the references, I'd like to invite you to review some of the sources – by initial letter – at the lead FAC, since it's pretty much the only thing going there. Other editors have been invited as well; I think lead has the far better chance of getting promoted.

What started as me trying to provide the "last support" for the Sarawak article degenerated into a slew of issues raised, edit-warring, a notice at AN/I and semi-protection for the candidacy page. I guess I should stick to the elements I know so well (I nominated fluorine for FA, copper for GA and have reviewed several element GAs)… Parcly Taxel 00:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look - maybe tomorrow. I have promised to return to a PR first but that shouldn't take too long. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Parcly Taxel: It seems the lead FAC is close to promotion, so I'm going to hold off for now; as far as I can tell the source review is in hand by others. Looks like a very high quality article, by the way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oleg Bezuglov for deletion

Dear Mike,

Since you sometimes take part in AfD discussions, could you, please take a look at the Oleg Bezuglov article and consider contributing your opinion in discussion on whether it should be deleted or not. It was nominated on suspicion for not passing the WP:MUSICBIO criterion. The discussion is currently dead in the water, and I'm afraid it might be relisted again because of that. Thanks in advance! Fiddler11 07:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, with the Russian sources I don't feel competent to comment; I'd be relying heavily on Google Translate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 9, 2017

Here's my boilerplate: Weird Tales has been scheduled for the above date as today's featured article. I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the text that will appear on the Main Page; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for "the first magazine to focus on horror, fantasy, and science fiction"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Naruto FAC

If you are on a hurry, tell me your issues with the Naruto FAC. I might help to fix it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Tintor2, thanks; 1989 got there fairly quickly, but do jump in if you see something you can help fix. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Help with my FAC

Hello! I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. I was wondering if you could possible look at my current FAC; it has received a lot of attention and support votes already, but the FAC coordinators expressed some concerns so I would greatly appreciate your feedback if possible. I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if you do not have the time or energy for this. Either way, hope all is going well with you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi; I do need to do some reviews but am going to be too busy this weekend, I think. When I next have time to review I'll see if it's still at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• No worries; thank you for the message. Good luck with everything this weekend. I am going to pretty busy this weekend too so it all works out. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Don't sweat it, Mike, I said a while back that I might go over the prose myself at some stage and I have some time now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Dec 1 TFA

Mike, when I was doing July scheduling, I debated whether to rerun one of our excellent science articles, and the most accessible of the top-importance articles seemed to me to be Introduction to viruses. But I already had 5 reruns in July. There's no date relevance in November (the next month I'm scheduling), but December 1 is World AIDS Day. If you're interested in rerunning Introduction to viruses then, then I can stop thinking about it. We can count it among my 5 reruns for Nov instead of yours in Dec, if you prefer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good; no need to count it as one of mine yours. Can you put it in TFARP? I always check that so will pick it up from there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Will do, thx. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

9 August

Some years ago, this was suggested, and per the main author delayed to the centenary in 2017, which is soon. Would you consider to simply schedule it (it looks uncontroversial to me), or would you reopen the nom for discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Nikki, any objections? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Starship Troopers

Hi Mike, hope you're well. I know you looked over some of this article prior to FAC but were you planning a full review? If so I might stay out of it as it will have had enough eyes, if not I might recuse and have a go myself... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to be reviewing it -- I'm a bit behind on reviewing, but I'm going to France for two weeks in late August and am working on bringing my decayed French up to conversational level, which is why I haven't been editing much. I should be a bit more active after that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is good to know: I was planning to ask you to review it myself after returning from my break, though I'm happy to hear from Ian Rose instead. Vanamonde (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No prob -- I should have time in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yo!

		The Featured Article Barnstar
		Thanks so much for your work on Naruto and bringing it to FA! – 1989 15:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! It was fun, and I really appreciate you offering me a conomination. You did most of the work; I just had to do some polishing. Congratulations to you too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

BarnSakura for excellent edits I hereby award you the Anime and Manga BarnSakura for your excellent edits at Naruto which became FA. Keep up the great work!Tintor2 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Old sandbox edits

Hey Mike, looks like you have stuff at User:Mike Christie/Sandbox7 (where Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections used to be). Should I dump the old edits into the history of Sandbox7 or perhaps the blank Sandbox12? czar 22:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you put it into the Sandbox7 history? Thanks very much. And thanks for those edits to the essay; I am glad to see it getting attention -- perhaps now that it's in WP space people will start citing it a little more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The Getaway (1972 film)

Hello! A quick favour if you have the time or inclination. This FAC has three supports and all the required reviews (FAC here). It looks OK from a quick glance, but as it's a first time nomination, I'd like another pair of experienced eyes on it just to be sure. Also, if you had time to do a source spot check, that would be even better. If not, I might have a go myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I have this talk page watch-listed after some previous discussions, and saw this section. I've done a review, in case Mike doens't have time. I wanted to review it before, but saw it already had three supports, so I refrained, until now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, FunkMonk! I was going to try to find time this evening. If I do have time I will try to review something else as I'm still a bit behind with my reviewing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think that will work out fine -- we need to spread our valuable reviewing resources...! Sarastro, if I've read it right, someone has already checked sources for accurate use (not just run Earwig) but I'm double-checking that and also if they looked for close paraphrasing. Of course there's never any harm with an extra spotcheck if feasible... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Ah, missed that. Yes, we're fine on spot checks. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hi. Recently, I've been working in the article Lars Alexandersson and managed to provide good creation and reception information. A fellow user recently copyedited but he isn't sure whether it could be nominated to GA. Could you take a look to see it still needs work? I requested a copyedit a week ago but I'm not sure if it can become GA in its current state. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've only had time for a very quick scan -- I read a few sentences from each section. I can't speak to comprehensiveness as I haven't read enough articles about video game characters, so I'll assume you've looked at GAs that are similar. For the prose, I would have a few things to say at FAC, but GAN tends to be rather easier on prose -- the requirement at GA is only "clear and concise", not "of a professional standard". Just to give you an idea: "The storyline from Tekken 6 was also made to focus on Lars' mysterious identity and intentions of an encounter against Jin Kazama, the game's antagonist": doesn't flow smoothly. You'd never say "made to focus" in conversation, would you? You'd just say "focused". Then "intentions" is also a bit odd: you wouldn't naturally say "I have intentions of nominating this for GA"; you'd say "I intend to" or "plan to". I think what causes this is that the overall sentence structure is a good one: you're putting the two main storyline points into a single sentence, which is reasonable, and as a result you have to jam them into some kind of parallel syntactic structure. I think this would read better as "The storyline in Tekken 6 focuses on Lars' mysterious identity, and on his attempts to find Jin Kazama, the game's antagonist". Less formal sounding.

Anyway, that's a bit off-topic since you're going to GAN, but I wanted to give you an idea of how I read something for prose. It's really hard to do this when you know the material because your brain sees the meaning more easily than it sees the words. A good copyeditor will clean up the prose for you so that it's grammatical and says what it intends to say. A good review needs to go a bit beyond that, and try to figure out whether the article says what it says in the best way.

You've probably already looked at the video game article guidelines, but Czar recently updated the reception section with some ideas from WP:RECEPTION, so you might look at that. I think you've avoided the worst problems in that section. You don't have too much "A said B" for example, but I would follow Czar's advice and cut the reviewer names in some cases; they're rarely helpful; and do look at the rest of his bullet points.

Overall I don't immediately see anything that would cause this to fail GAN, but I think the prose would need to be improved for FAC. I hope that's useful; and sorry if I sound hard on your writing. This stuff is really difficult to do well! Best of luck with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I have tried expanding all the reception I could but I haven't found of those worst sources. The most negative one I found is the one where the writers even uses informal words about him. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So difficult!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		It is really really difficult to compile the stats on FAs. Your work is highly highly appreciated! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I love stealing other people's credit, but...

Great work on the stats. But I couldn't help but notice I seem to have been credited with two FAs that were nothing to do with me! I've only done one co-nom in quite a long time now, so while I'm glad to steal the credit for other people's hard work (which was what the co-nom was!), I'm not sure it's justified here. Unless I'm nominating them without realising and writing in my sleep now... Sarastro1 (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, looks like I absent-mindedly transcribed your name in those cases because you promoted the article. I just checked and it looks like I didn't make the same mistake for Ian. I'll fix the stats and repost them, probably tonight -- thanks for pointing that out! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1: this is now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mike Christie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mdann52 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have a moment

Hi, if you've got a moment would you be able to look at the reception section for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive? I wish to take it to GA (and further in the future, maybe) but writing reception sections has never been my strong point. I noticed you wrote Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, so you've got more experience in these matters than I do. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm on vacation for the next two weeks, and I do plan to do some reviewing of articles, but I only have my iPad with me and I think organizing a good reception section requires making fairly comprehensive notes, for which I'd prefer to have a real keyboard and larger screen. Take a look at Talk:True Detective (season 1) and Talk:Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) for examples of the kind of approach you could try. If you still need help when September comes around, let me know -- no promises but I may have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan scheduled for TFA

@The Bounder:@12george1:

Thanks for the heads up about the upcoming TFA! I was wondering if I could make a request that might involve some moving around. I see you chose August 31st for the TFA for Ivan, but there is a more important hurricane anniversary coming up this month. Hurricane Andrew is currently on FAC and has four supports. There will likely be news coverage of the storm's 25th anniversary (Andrew was the costliest Atlantic hurricane at the time). That storm's 25th anniversary is on August 23rd-26th. While the TFA on the 23rd and 24th both have anniversaries pertaining to the date, August 26th's TFA (Operation Bernhard) has no connection to that date, but it's the 25th anniversary of Hurricane Andrew's final landfall in the United States. If Andrew passes, and The Bounder is OK with it, could you put Operation Bernhard on the 31st, and Andrew on the 26th? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've no objection, but let's wait and see if The Bounder has any objections. Pinging Jimfbleak and Dank; I'm on a flight on Thursday and will only have intermittent access to the net for two weeks thereafter, so Dan or Jim would have to do the honours. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No objection. I'll give it a prose review tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Mike, the connection to the 26th isn't strong enough to mention it in the first two sentences. We occasionally run hurricanes on the anniversary of a landfall, but almost all of them are on the anniversary of the birth of the storm, and this one was named on the 17th. I wouldn't mind at all putting off the TFA that's currently on the 17th. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

12george1, Hurricanehink: Andrew is now scheduled for the 17th. (See WP:TFAA for the whole month.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for arranging all of this so an important hurricane can be on TFA! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not been around, and this is already a 'done deal', but just to say I have no problems with the move either. I think you TFA coordinators do a super job. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks! And thanks for confirming the switch is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

• Library card
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
• Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I see you return very shorty, so as a welcome back present...

Underwater diving is pretty close to promotion, and just awaiting a source review (FAC here). It looks in pretty good shape to be honest, but as it's quite technical in places, it might lack a bit of flow or get a little choppy in places. Nothing major, but I wondered if you could take a look. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, and perhaps in a little more need than the one above is Final Destination 3 (FAC here). The plot section looks like it might need a little polish in places before promotion, and I haven't looked too closely at the remainder of the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I should have a bit of time, either this weekend or early next week; I'll try to look at both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Planet Stories scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Planet Stories article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 20, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 20, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

TFA for September 24?

Hello, I was wondering if you could answer a question I have about the TFA process. The requests page states that articles should be nominated within 30 days of the requested specific date, but I see that September 24's slot is already filled.

I was hoping to nominate Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (which just passed FAC today), as September 24 will be the 10th anniversary of its re-opening. The article that currently is in the September 24 slot (Eastbourne manslaughter) doesn't seem to be specifically tied to the date, so I was wondering if it would be possible to bump it to another date? SounderBruce 22:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Jimfbleak, since he's scheduling September; Jim, can you accommodate Bruce? You're welcome to bump Planet Stories if that's the easiest way; or I can pick up Eastbourne manslaughter for October. Bruce, the 30 days instruction means that whatever date is scheduled through, you can nominate for thirty days beyond that date, so currently nominations are accepted through October 28. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Should I file a request and blurb on the TFAR page? SounderBruce 23:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No, because the date has already passed. Jim is in the UK so it'll be a few hours before he replies -- I doubt there'll be a problem unless Eastbourne manslaughter was specifically requested for that date. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging SounderBruce obviously the tunnel couldn't have been nominated earlier, and it has a good date connection. The manslaughter is a rerun anyway, so I'll leave it until January if it's not used by you or Dan in the interim and run the tunnel on 24. Pinging User:Dank for his info Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Prose review

Hi, Mr. Christie. One of the FA coordinators is reluctant to throw his support at my FAC here even though another FAC regular has had a look at the prose, giving his "tentative" support. Would you like to have a look at it? I think you really are my last resort since I don't anyone else to turn to. :-) Many thanks, SLIGHTLY^mad 03:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'll have time, but I'll look at it if I do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review?

Greetings, Mike. I was wondering if you could provide a source review at the FAC for Paradises Lost; it's pretty much hanging on the SR, there's only a dozen or so refs, and Ealdgyth is dealing with a broken computer, it would appear. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I'll be able to -- too many other things in my queue. I wouldn't worry about it, though; if the SR is the only thing left then the coordinators are very unlikely to archive it. Someone will come along to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks. Vanamonde (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

German translation for ice coring

This is the bottom half of page 68 in the report on glacial cores you asked about.

The success of this year is quite expensive and should have happened in 1908; but it is a rather good one, and it is a decisive one, given the various circumstances surrounding it. Apart from the fact that we managed to achieve daily performances of 75 m and 87 m, and to pierce the glacier in the region of maximum speed, the overall result of a successful drilling shows the truth [correctness] of the reconstructed glacier cross-sections, which we have published in 1899 (Untersuchungen am Hintereisferner table VI) under the heading "Probable shape and size".

This reconstruction is based on knowledge of the system of movement lines as well as the speed of ice and ablation on as many points of the glacier surface as possible and on the application of Finsterwald's flow theory with the simplifying assumption that the particles of the movement perpendicular to one another carry out their loading/unloading on a vertical cylinder, so that their flow lines have one and the same horizontal projection. The period underlying this reconstruction is the year 1894/95 for ablation and speed. Since in the peripheral areas of the glacier at that time the velocities were determined with some uncertainty, the depths determined for the marginal parts are also liable to a greater degree of uncertainty; for the axis parts of the glacier, this inaccuracy is much smaller, because the amount of ice disappearing from a cross-section to the nearest lower level by melting is sufficiently well known and this for determining the depth of ice is more the higher the cross-sections and the more you approach the glacier axis.

Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very helpful -- it definitely settles the question of whether they were calculating depths and comparing them with the measurements; they were. The other question I had was whether one can tell which holes reached the glacier bed; I have a later source that discusses their work that says they drilled a total of 11 holes that reached the glacier bed, and many more that failed to reach rock, including their deepest hole, at 224 m. That hole is on this list but it doesn't indicate that they didn't get all the way through the ice. I suspect the later sources just used the "difference" column to make that assertion. Anyway, thanks again! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Page 67 goes into detail on the drilling methodology and I don't see anything there about estimating depths if they failed to reach the bottom; rather, they moved the entire drilling rig if they couldn't punch through a difficulty at 75 meters. There's also some discussion of whether after reaching earth, they had reached the deepest part of the glacier or just an edge of the moraine. But, again, nothing about failing to reach the earth below. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That fits with my guess. Not easy to see how they would know for sure, after all; e.g. if they hit a moraine or a boulder. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright

ice coring, never boring

On a related topic, isn't File:Flusin and Bernard 1909 ice drilling plate 24 M. Hess, devant l'appareil au repos.jpg public domain? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought so, but apparently the relevant copyright law is 70 years after the death of the photographer, and I found a notice of Georges Flusin's death in 1954, so I nominated my Commons upload for deletion and uploaded it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That may be French copyright law but I don't think that it is correct to apply it to Wikipedia since the servers are in the US and therefore US law is observed. Referring to https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain the date of publication, not author's death, governs for all works created prior to 1978; if prior to 1923, then it is public domain in all cases. Same info is found at Commons:Help:Public domain. However if there is a question, it might be good to ask the experts e.g. Commons:Village pump/Copyright. out of order comment I asked there. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I see comments in image reviews at FAC about copyright in original country of publication, so I know it's relevant, but I'm certainly not an expert. Nikki, I'm sure you know the answer to this one; can you help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If the image is hosted at Commons or if a URAA tag is used, then status in country of origin is relevant. If you're hosting the image locally and it was published pre-1923, US-only is fine.

On another note: that historic images tag is almost never the correct choice. It's primarily intended for cases where the image itself, rather than the event or people pictured, is historically significant - eg. the Tank Man or Napalm girl images. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Changed the file license to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} accordingly. The template has nice text saying "don't copy to Commons" so I think all is good now. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That shows how little I understand copyrights; I didn't realize that we could host US PD files but Commons couldn't. There are 24 photos from the same source, so now I know they're all PD I will go ahead and upload all of them later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA Archive

Hi Mike, I am keen to help update the archive of old TFAs at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/recent_TFAs. Is it done manually? Should that page or Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/TFAs_in_2017 be edited first? Orthorhombic, 19:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Dank and Jimfbleak to let them know; thank you very much! That would be a great help. Yes, I think it would have to be done manually. I do have spreadsheets for my months, and Dan and Jim may too -- I can send you those if you like. It might be easier to get it sorted out in Excel and just paste the table rows in via WP:VE. If you want the spreadsheets, just send me a Wikipedia email. I don't think it matters which page you do first. It's much appreciated! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

We were just talking about how it was time to ask around for volunteers, Ortho, so your timing is great. "FA category" is supposed to correspond to the section the article appears in on the WP:FA page, but if another category makes more sense to you, that's fine. "Country" can also be a judgment call. "Promoted" and "TFA wait" will probably be automatable at some point, and that information is less useful, so don't bother filling in those for now. " Page views" might be hard or impossible. For "How chosen", each month has been handled by one coord only, so just enter "TFAR" for each article that was chosen through TFAR, and enter the proper coord's name just once, on the 1st or 2nd of the month. As to your question: neither of those pages is edited directly, you enter the information in pages such as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs/January 2017, and it gets transcluded (in theory). - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Ortho, I think Mike has my spreasheets too, so it might besimpler if he sends mine as well as his own, rather than you having to email us separately Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Also note (see WT:TFA, from yesterday) that Hawkeye7 has been working on this. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dank, Jimfbleak, and Mike Christie:It shouldn't be any difficulty for me to wrangle the data from a spreadsheet into Wiki code: I do something similar regularly at work. I've enabled email on my account. Feel free to contact me that way. Orthorhombic, 03:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Mike, apologies for my twitchy finger. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA on October 9

I was hoping to have DNA nanotechnology as TFA on October 9, which is National Nanotechnology Day in the U.S. I've been using the TFA to encourage people to write nanotechnology-related DYKs for that day–I'm planning to have three myself–and the effect is much greater if we have a nano TFA as well. DNA nanotechnology is currently the only nanotechnology FA. It was listed at WP:TFAP but I'm not sure if it actually made it to WP:TFAR. Please let me know if this can be done. Thanks. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that'll work; there's nothing else that looks like it needs to run on that date. I'll probably schedule it this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ice drilling article

It's restored to the same link. Let me know when you have saved it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Saturn hasn't been reviewed since 2007. Have you made a cursory audit. Note [1] made after your re-nom. Can I take it that FAR is superseded by individuals, and TFA reruns now act similar to GA in olden days. Ceoil (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I should have looked at that section. Other than that, I just had another look (I put it on my list a couple of weeks ago and don't recall what I looked at then). I'm no expert, but it (now) doesn't appear to have any uncited information. The history section has a short uncited paragraph, but it's just summarizing the cited information below it. I didn't spot anything obviously unreliable in the citations, and it seems to cover the material I would expect. Is there anything else that would disqualify it?

Not sure what you mean by the FAR comment -- if it were at FAR that would disqualify it, of course. We run first-time TFAs that are older than five years, so I've been treating the reruns the same way -- if they look OK on the surface, assume they are OK until a problem is pointed out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I mean you (a singular editor) are defacto bypassing FAR, hence old GA. "On the surface" is not good enough and makes the situation worse. Please reverse your nom, or I will. Ceoil (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I can reverse it if needed, but I don't like to do so without seeing a reason why the article doesn't qualify. Pinging Dank and Jimfbleak to get their opinions. Ceoil, do you have an alternative rerun suggested? We need to do a few reruns every month to avoid running out of FAs; they need to have last run at least five years ago. Is there another FA that you think qualifies? And FYI, I'm considering Dan Leno and Blackbeard as reruns later next month; do you see issues with either of them? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed two dead external links, and an in-text dead link that did not need replacing since the following ref covered the facts anyway. I would rerun the article in its current form; no dead links, no unreferenced facts, comprehensive. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect Jim, that one liner sounds like a 2007 GA review. Mike: you asked do you have an alternative rerun suggested - you are missing the point and depreciating the review process for the sake of current needs. My impression is that this scheme is not though through. Ceoil (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps we ought to have this conversation at WT:TFA, and ask others involved in the various FA-related processes to comment? I've no objection to a better definition of the process for nominating a rerun, but I can't do it unilaterally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. I became aware of it from talk page requests (you now need to tend more than develop) and watch-lists, ie front line. As a major contributor to the (now) former important FAR process, change of such wide impact and consquences should have been made via a publicised RFC. Your nom of Saturn seemed pretty unilateral to me, which is the whole point I am making. Ceoil (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was unilateral, but that's how the process is currently defined, to the extent it's defined. I'll be away from the keyboard for a while, but I'll have my phone with me. If you or someone else doesn't post something at WT:TFA while I'm out I'll probably start a topic there some time this evening. And I'm not sure if you saw it, but there was an RfC about the reruns at WT:TFA; I'll post a link when I find it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will raise my concerns over your approach there. Ceoil (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike, based on your performance here, and from recent observation, I am considering a vote of no confidence. This whole thing seems hair brained, and your replies indicate that it all was forced though with out proper thought. As you know, the wiki review process was hard thought through, and also, frankly hard won, to be tossed away like this. I am unsure that you realise the subtleties and implications. You misunderstood the implications for FAR as one example. Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No need -- I resigned a couple of weeks ago, as it happens. Probably a good thing, since it means the conversation at WT:TFA can focus on the overall process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata

You're right, Mike: TFD isn't the right forum .

Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that Drag'nDrop references are the sort of thing folks would do when they are starting, just that once you get your feet under the table, there are some pretty remarkable tools to make life easier. I don't think that new editors would learn quickly how to write references on Wikipedia, unless shown the cite templates available from the augmented toolbar. So it is for Wikidata. On the other hand, it is pretty easy to fix typos on Wikidata, and adding new statements can soon be addictive. How good is your French? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PiS-A3w3AM - this guy really has the bug! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

My French has been improving recently, as it happens; I've been trying to take my ancient O-level and turn it into something useful, with the aid of Babbel, Duolingo, Readlang, and the like. (And it turned out to be very handy since I found myself with lots of old French scientific papers to read as sources for the article I'm currently working on.) Listening to technical French is probably a bit beyond me but I'll try it. If I get anywhere I'll let you know how I get on. Thanks, and here's hoping something beneficial comes out of all these Wikidata discussions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

This is a very useful feature

Chriscush765 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ice core scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Ice core article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 18, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 18, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

AFC article...notable enough?

Hey Mike, is Draft:Louis Goldstone notable enough for an article? This has been at AFC for a while. Was just skimming through there...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cas -- it's pretty marginal. He's not in Weinberg's biographical dictionary of sf/f artists, and his listing at ISFDB shows he did very little work. The citations given all just mention him in passing; they're not really about him directly. I did some quick books.google.com searching and found nothing better. The nomination for the Hugo is a plus, but it's about the only one. I don't think this quite passes the notability bar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok cool. Just thought I'd flick it your way as I suspect you'd know a little bit more about it than me ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New Worlds (magazine) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the New Worlds (magazine) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for November 25, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2017. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ice drilling and coring equipment

Glad you were able to get this one. Just out of curiosity, did the Eastern Snow Conference send it over, or did you get it through some other means? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I got it from the Eastern Snow Conference; I was actually just thinking I should have added a note at the WP:RX section thanking you for the suggestion, so I'll take the opportunity now. Thank you! I should think of that option more often. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Galaxy Science Fiction

TFA on December 18. You know the drill. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I do; hope you're finding the drill enjoyable now you're on that side of the fence too (and the same goes for Ealdgyth of course). Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Mike, quick question ... at TFA, I generally only devote a few words to a publishing company. For the sake of consistency with past TFAs, "founded by Cino Del Duca" or "founded by World Editions" would work ... do you prefer one of those, or something else? - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitely the latter; hadn't gotten around to looking at it but I see no need for the former in the lead, and have just removed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Margaret (singer)

Hi Mike. Would you be willing to copy edit the article which was promoted to GA at the beginning of this year. I just want to make sure that its quality is maintained. I do understand that you're busy so take as long as you need of course. Best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to pass on this. I'm trying to focus on a big article right now and am doing very little else on-wiki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That's okay ;) ArturSik (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mike Christie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

FAC reviews

Hi Mike. In your FAC review of the TR-808 article a while ago, you were kind enough to tell me: "Please consider reviewing some other candidates, if you haven't already, you write well and we always need more prose reviewers."

I noticed that the Knuckles Chaotix article is currently being considered for FA. I've done some copyediting on some other Sega articles, so I took a look. To me, the writing isn't good enough for GA, let alone FA, with lots of clunky sentences and unnecessary words. I did a fast-and-loose copyedit of the article to cut some of the fluff, but in my opinion it needs lots more work. (As an aside, the quality of writing in FAs generally is lower than I'd like, but my standards are high.)

This is the conflict I have over reviewing FACs. What's the best way for me to contribute? I could break down all my problems in the FAC discussion, with suggestions for fixes. (Perhaps I've disqualified myself from that by having trimmed the article just now?) Or I could just continue to rewrite the article.

My instinct, generally, is to do less critiquing and more rewriting. After all, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Popcornduff (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I can tell you the different things I've tried with articles that have issues; maybe one of these options is what you're looking for.

• Find articles you can support without needing to copyedit, and support those. Sadly these articles are fairly rare, but there are some very good writers at FAC. I tend not to do this much, because in my experience those articles will get promoted anyway, and I think it's better to focus on the articles that need help.
• List some examples of problems, without opposing or supporting, and indicate that these are just examples. The problem with this approach is that often the nominator will fix the examples you give and ask you to revisit the nomination. That can lead to a cycle in which you simply end up listing all the problems, a few at a time, which is far more time-consuming than just fixing it yourself.
• List some examples, and oppose the nomination. I've tried doing this and either refusing to give more examples when asked, or waiting a few days between responses. This always seems cruel to me, but you can argue that opposition is needed if prose standards are to be kept up, and it's not the reviewers' job to fix prose.
• Copyedit with no intention of commenting at FAC. I've done this when I felt like I wanted to contribute but didn't have the time or inclination to discuss the article with a nominator. The benefit of this approach is that you don't feel limited by your role as a reviewer, and can do as much surgery as you think is necessary. Plus you're genuinely helping improve the quality of FAs.
• Copyedit first, and decide whether and how to comment at FAC as I go through. I am tending more to this approach these days. I've quit worrying about whether my copyedit gets me too involved; if I'm not working at the level of content, and am just fixing prose, then I'll copyedit the article, sometimes quite extensively. This usually leads to either (a) an article I can support, in which case I do; or (b) an article with no prose problems, but with other issues (structure, emphasis, missing content, undue weight -- the usual list of possibilities) in which case I'll comment at the FAC to that effect. I've often found that doing a copyedit will leave me with a much clearer opinion of whether the article deserves to be promoted than I get from just a read-through. If the copyedit still leaves the prose in a mess, I will list examples, and sometimes oppose at that point if I think it's unfixable.
• Ignore FAC. I don't have the mental energy for FAC and everything else I'd like to do here, so I don't regard it as an obligation. If I'm not submitting articles at FAC, I only review when I feel like it, which can lead to months of not reviewing. If I have an article at FAC I try to do at least a few reviews, since I'm absorbing other people's resources and don't want to be a drain.

I have occasionally put some effort into trying to help individual nominators understand how to improve their writing. That can be very rewarding, but it's generally more work, and, without meaning to be rude about it, not everyone is cut out to write good-quality prose. Some editors are never going to be able to polish an article's prose to the level FAC should be requiring. Ideally they would partner with copyeditors who can work with them, but good prose writers are rare and most editors don't have that option, so the result is articles come to FAC from writers who genuinely can't see what the problems are with their prose. It seems harsh to simply slam the door on them and tell them they're not good enough.

Personally I get the most pleasure from helping an article get through the process. I do oppose articles when I think the problems can't be fixed in the time allowed at FAC; I think I'm obliged to do so, but I don't enjoy it. A point I raised recently at WT:FAC that might be relevant to the article you're looking at is reception sections in video game, film, music and TV articles. These are often very badly written. I wrote an essay about how to fix them, and I've rolled my sleeves up and helped with some, but these articles come through FAC often enough that it would take all my editing time if I were to do that with every nomination. I'm probably going to try opposing some of these in the future, citing the essay.

A bit of a rambling reply, but I hope it's useful. Does any of the above sound like a good option to you? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A thorough and thoughtful response. I'll chew this over. edit: On reflection, I don't think "chew this over" is a thing anyone says. Popcornduff (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, some people say it! Interestingly, it's completely missing from the British English corpus there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm a Brit so maybe that's why I'm second-guessing it. Looks like a mix-up of "think this over" and "something to chew on" to me. Popcornduff (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Your essay about writing reception sections inspired me to completely rewrite the Panzer Dragoon Saga Reception section, so thanks for that. (As an aside, I'm eyeing the article for my next FA, but not sure yet.) Popcornduff (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Glad you like the essay. I'll try to make time to review the article if you do take it to FAC; I am getting closer to my next FAC myself so I'll be reviewing a bit more. If you're interested, take a look at Meteos, which is at FAC now; I have commented there that the reception section needs work. It's been improved but I think it's not quite there yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the True Detective (season 1) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 12, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 12, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Adivce needed

Me, a fellow editor and an anon have been thinking about what the GA Sasuke Uchiha needs in order to become FA using Naruto Uzumaki as a model since both articles possess a lot of real world information. As a result, I have asked for a second copyedit of the article. You can read the discussion at User talk:122.108.141.214#Interested in making Sasuke Uchiha FA?. We are also planning to do a peer review if necessary too. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

• OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A note about note

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd like to bounce it off you. You changed one of the said-verbs in the Panzer Dragoon Saga article to "noted":

Computer and Video Games noted that like the other Panzer Dragoon games Saga rewarded players for full completion with "astounding" bonuses.

To me, the verb "to note" implies objectivity, fact. For example, "He noted it was raining" is fine: it was raining. That's the fact. But when I see, as I often do in Reception sections, a claim like "Smith noted that the game was fun", it jars, because that's a subjective assessment.

So the critic "noting" that the bonuses were "astounding" is, to me, strange. "He noted that the bonuses were astounding." To me that's like saying "He pointed out that the bonuses were astounding". It's pushing an opinion as a fact.

My Reception section already has a "noted" I'm going back and forth about: Though Mielke noted occasional slowdown and "rough" textures"... I feel I might just about get away with it because slowdown and low-resolution textures are things that exist or don't exist, though I suppose "rough" is a subjective judgement. Popcornduff (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right; "note" does have that connotation. I am not keen on "wrote that", though. I'll take a look and see if I can come up with something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's only the word "astounding" that is the issue, right? The fact that all the games in the series reward the player with bonuses for full completion is not opinion. So how about something like "Like the other Panzer Dragoon games, Saga rewarded players for full completion, with bonuses that were "astounding", according to Computer and Video Games"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That dodges the POV problem, but it becomes wordy... and as this is the Reception section, the only bit that's really relevant is that CVG thought the bonuses were good. That the game rewards players for full completion isn't the important bit there. (Though come to think of it that's something I could add to the Gameplay section.)

What's your objection to "wrote that"?

If you put it in the gameplay section, could you then reduce it to something like 'CVG considered the completion bonuses "astounding"'? Come to think of it, this is a positive comment; shouldn't it be in the previous paragraph? At the moment it's in a paragraph of criticism.

Aye - it was included there as a response to one of the criticisms. Like "some people said it was too easy and this critic thinks so too, but on the other hand they also thought it was compensated for by making it tough to complete perfectly". Popcornduff (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. Once we've agreed on the point about the plot ending, I'll go ahead and support; anything left is down to personal opinion, and isn't clearly wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the Reception section still isn't quite there yet, myself. We might not agree specifically on the details of verbs etc but I think it can still be improved... I'll get back to it soon. (Hope I'm not being too annoying about all this - I care deeply a lot about fiddly writing things like this and it's rare to get someone to bounce off about them.) Popcornduff (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You're not annoying; I feel the same way about writing, and I enjoy digging into issues like this. I thought I was going to be a professional writer once, long ago; some of that never rubs off. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

To me "wrote that" sounds clunky. I'm not having an easy time articulating what's wrong with it, but here are some thoughts. Some verbs that often get used in these sections sound to me like elegant variation. "Stated" is another. I prefer verbs like "felt that", or "considered", which refer to the fact that this is an opinion; "wrote" is really just a synonym for "said" here, and doesn't tell the reader anything. You have "praised", "identified", "commended", and more; those all convey information to the reader. Other ways of introducing comments like "according to" and "in X's opinion" are OK too, because they tell you that these are opinions, not facts. "Wrote that" doesn't do anything. My preference is usually just to use "said" if I can't find another verb; "said" is almost completely invisible -- you have to *really* overuse it to make it stand out. But I think the best way to avoid the problem is to avoid having to do too many direct attributions -- e.g. you have "Criticism focused on the game's short length; it can be finished in under 30 hours" which works well -- factual statement, cited, no attribution needed; the reader gets the information very directly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Elegant variation is something I'm very conscious of generally, and it's tough not to fall into that trap with sections like these.

To me "wrote" is fine, because the critic didn't say that, they wrote it. It's equivalent to "say". I guess "say" is used in a more general sense than using speech, and I'm fine with that, but I see "write" almost as invisible and innocuous as "say". Popcornduff (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

And the same to you. In which spirit: "In pagan ages, Christmas was a feast/not of the spirit, but of meat and drink/Think about that this Christmas, or at least/as soon thereafter as you're fit to think" (Piet Hein)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's greetings

		Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
		Seasonal greetings for 2017, and best wishes for 2018. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contributions, which have done much to enhance the encyclopedia and make me feel it's worthwhile to keep contributing. So here's to another year's productive editing, with old feuds put aside and peace, goodwill and friendship for all! Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Brian; and I wish you the same. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And the same to you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Lucius Caesar

I made the changes to Lucius Caesar if you wanna give it another pass, just to be safe. I appreciate it. SpartaN (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I now feel confident that the article will pass. SpartaN (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless!  — Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and All That

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For reviewing GA of Gujarati cinema and providing nice suggestions. I have waited so long for it. And for good advise in essay on how to survive Wikipedia. :) Nizil (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! And congratulations on the GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Croatia GA review

Hi, thank you for reviewing LGBT rights in Croatia and sorry for the delayed response. Would there be a problem if I started improving the issues you mentioned on the article's talk page after New Year? I am currently busy with another project. --Hmxhmx 21:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem at all. If I haven't heard from you in a week or two, I'll check in with you again, but I won't close the review without checking with you first as to whether you're still working on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Planet Stories, "with bizarrely dressed women on the cover. How can you resist?"! - The magazine I link to the most is Gramophone. - Sorry to see you go as TFA delegate, you did good work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for both kind thoughts, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you also for Ice core, "one of the key tools of palaeoclimatology", and the reading you put into it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's New Worlds, "a British science fiction magazine, most famous for its 1960s incarnation under Michael Moorcock's editorship. Moorcock made New Worlds the leader of the "New Wave", a controversial movement to expand the boundaries of the science fiction genre. The magazine has proved remarkably hard to kill, and there have been numerous reincarnations since it was first declared dead over forty years ago." ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Galaxy Science Fiction, "one of the most influential science fiction magazines ever published, but it came into being almost accidentally, because of the failure of an Italian company to launch a romance magazine in the US at the end of the 1940s. It was edited for ten years by an H.L. Gold, an agoraphobe who never went to the office ..."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your part of today's True Detective (season 1)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! A bit out of my usual line, this one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

Exciting things are happening at the Marilyn Manson GA nomination page now that Homeostasis07 has jumped in! -- MagicattheovieS

I've been keeping an eye it; I've just finished another GA review so will be taking another look today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

FAC

Hey, would you be interested in reviewing my FAC Margaret (singer). Regards. ArturSik (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I just finished a review of a huge music article and would rather not do another one so soon if I can avoid it. In any case I prefer to review the articles near the bottom of the list, since they're in danger of being archived if nobody reviews them. If your article gets to that point and I'm still doing reviews, I may take a look then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That’s okay. Thanks. ArturSik (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Diva Dirt - Is It Reliable?

There is a discussion currently ongoing in which we are trying to reach a consensus if Diva Dirt is reliable. You can view the discussion here. There has only been a couple of people who have responded. We need a wider input from more people. You're response is needed and appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Prairie-dog-drill lake-vida cropped.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Prairie-dog-drill lake-vida cropped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Croatia GA review (2)

Hello Mike,

as per the suggestions, I restructured the article. Before I apply the changes to the article, I wanted to ask you to check the changes on this draft page, so I don't clutter the revision history with frequent updates. Feel free to post any suggestions on the talk page of the draft.

Thanks in advance. --Hmxhmx 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmxhmx: yes, that looks like a much better structure -- I didn't read it in detail, but I glanced through and I think the organization is more logical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"Get Your Gunn"

Hi Mike,

Since we had a good working relationship in regard to the Marilyn Manson article, I was wondering if you might be interested in reviewing the article for "Get Your Gunn", the band's debut single which was inspired by the murder of n abortionist by a "pro-life" activist. --MagicatthemovieS

Hi -- thanks for the offer, but I'm currently trying to help clear up the GAN backlog, so I'm working on the oldest nominations in the backlog report at the top of WP:GAN. If Get Your Gunn is still unreviewed by the time it gets to the end of the backlog, I'll pick it up if I'm still actively reviewing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

GAN backlog list

Mike Christie, WugBot is now updating this list every night, so unless the next 5 oldest noms list is down to one or two, it probably doesn't need any additions. Remember that any you add to the list beyond the next 5 will be lost when the bot overwrites the list. It's now going to be the rare day when we run out of extras. Thanks for keeping track for the last little while, and especially for taking on so many old noms. There's been steady progress in working on the backlog, which is wonderful to see. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I realized the same thing after my last edit. Nice to have the bot again. I plan to keep picking articles off the backlog until I run out of time or energy; it would be nice to get a few more done. Sadly, working on the very old nominations is faster than you might expect because a significant fraction of the nominators are no longer active or no longer interested in improving the article, because of the very long delay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

My list of GANs

I have added back and relisted to my list of GANs some previous ones I had listed before but withdrew, since they were there for a long time and I figured nobody would do them. If you have time someday (no hurry), could you take a look at them and I will leave then listed and not withdraw them this time. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi -- currently I'm trying to reduced the backlog, so I'm working from the end of the backlog report. I'd be glad to do them but I'd rather work through the whole GA nomination list in (more or less) date order. I would suggest just leaving them there; everything does eventually get done, though it can take a frustratingly long time. Have you considered doing reviews yourself? It always helps the process along if those who nominate can also review. It's not required, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for reply and suggestion.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about FAC

Hello again! I hope that you are doing well and having a wonderful start to your year. I have done a review for the following FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deep Space Homer/archive1), and I opposed it on the grounds that I do not believe that it is comprehensive on its subject matter and I recommended that the “Cultural references” section in particular need restructuring. I have done a fair amount of FAC reviews in the past, but I have never encountered anything that I believed was not ready for the FAC process (and I mean no offense to the nominator on this). I was wondering if you could possibly look at it just to see if my concerns/objections are valid or if I am blowing things out of proportion. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked through the article, though I didn't read it as thoroughly as I would to review it, and I read your oppose; I think you're right to oppose it. It does seem underprepared and your points seem accurate to me. There's no harm in politely suggesting withdrawal, as you have done. It looks as though the nominator is going to try to fix the problems this pass, but that's not your problem -- it's up to the nominator to withdraw if they want to, unless more people suggest it, in which case the coords may step in and archive it.

Underprepared FAC nominations can be tricky to handle. I've run into articles where a detailed review leads to lots of fixes and a request for re-review; if I think the article is close I'm fine with that, but where there are many problems I didn't list first time it turns FAC into PR, and that doesn't help the workload at FAC at all. It's better for FAC if one just opposes in those cases. Sometimes I'll go so far as to delay giving more details, or even refuse to do a detailed point-by-point listing of issues; instead I just oppose. I hate to do that but where an article is not ready it's a timesink to keep cycling through improvement suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response! This was the first time that I have ran across this situation so I greatly appreciate your advice and I will definitely take it. Good luck with your current FAC and your other on and off Wikipedia projects! Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)