User talk:Pyrotec/Archive09Q2

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Liquid_Oxygen_(supplement)

I've noticed that you removed a link to the above page from the Liquid oxygen "See also" section [1]. Why is it irrelevant? Where else could it be mentioned? Thanks Smartse (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for the advice. I've added the link back but at the top as you suggested. Smartse (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Your Heart (Madonna song)

Would you like to just add your name under where it says that someone will review the article? I don't think anyone will want to review it by Monday, which is when Legolas returns, anyway, so it's perfect timing that that would be when you'd be able to review the article. :) Just a suggestion, though. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTc)

Hi, Legolas will be returning sometime Monday to look at your concerns. Thank you very much for the review! :) I'll leave him a message right now. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to one of your concerns, and have a question. Please view the talkpage for the review when you have the time. Thank you! :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 05:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Coatbridge review

This is just a quick thank you for your postive good article review and work for the Coatbridge article. Cheers! Jayhoolihan (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Worsley FAC

I already have an article at FAC (Gropecunt Lane) but do you really consider Worsley good enough for a try? I hadn't thought there was quite enough information on the modern economy of the place to warrant it. Where do you consider the article's weaknesses to be? Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Richmond & Tontines

Most sensible solution. I quite agree with it and wasn't trying to be awkward – the whole Tontine thing took a very long discussion to get clear. Not only is it an inherently confusing concept to modern eyes, but there were two schemes running concurrently, one of which was later funded by the accumulated surplus from the other. If you can think of a way to make it less awkward, please do! – iridescent 20:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

BOV review

Thanks for the thorough review. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Haldane Reforms

Thanks for the feedback - I've left a reply.

I think you're definitely right about there being scope for some kind of followthrough on the effects, and I'll try to knock something together in the next few days. If you'd like to review what's there for now, feel free, but it might be simplest to put it on hold for a couple of days, and then we can look at it as a unified whole with the new section(s)? Let me know how you want to go about it... Shimgray | talk | 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, thanks! I'm sorry if it seems like I'd neglected this - I didn't have the chance over the weekend to sit down properly and think about it for more than about half an hour. I'll get a solid final section hacked together to build on what you've put in, but thanks again for passing it as is... Shimgray | talk | 20:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wildfire edit

I noticed you changed back my edit to the previous version to a "more appropriate title". However, there isn't really an "origin" of fire. Rather, a known record or history of it. If you don't mind, I'll change it back. Its a little bit misleading.--Spotty11222 (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Perhaps the section title could be renamed so as to be less ambiguous to a lay reader. In the Fire and Wildfire articles, I suppose the sections can be renamed from History or Origins to Fossil record or Known history or record?--Spotty ¹¹²²² 18:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Happy to help! :) --Spotty ¹¹²²² 16:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

hello again

this is an article that i started from stratch myself and something i have done a bit of work on recently. i'm wondering what sort of mark the article should receive. (currently, the article has not been graded, but i feel it is at start class) Kilnburn (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pyrotec. You have new messages at Bettia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Middle Colonies

I believe I have addressed the concern on the talk page now as well. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. My first GA! I feel like there should be a celebration of something... once again, thank you for your efforts. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice comment

This is my first GA attempt. Nice of you to write "This GA Reassessment should not be regarded as a poor reflection on the editor who submitted the article to WP:GAN". I'm not sure if incompetant is nice to say about the reviewer. Anyway, I am attempting to address the suggestions and hope that I will be given enough time to do so. If it is yanked from me, I doubt I will reapply for GA because it would be too discouraging. User F203 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

Sorry to sound like a pest, but you took Partington today, reviewed it and passed it all in one day. You're still taking more reviews to do. I've had problems like this in the past, with my supposed reviewer being slow and unresponsive. Why is it taking well over a week for Cheadle Hulme, yet you pass another similiar one in one day? I'm sat around waiting for you to pass/fail it before I can move onto the next stage (either improving it further for GA, or making it FA worthy). I cannot do any of that until you make the review. Again, I don't want to sound like a pest, but you are being really slow over this, and your rude deletion of my message makes me wonder how seriously you're taking this. If I were you I wouldn't take any more reviews until the ones you have were done. It's rude to keep people waiting unnecessarily, and removing their messages from your talk. Majorly talk 15:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pyrotec, is there any way you would consider retaking the review of the article? I find your reviews to be regularly comprehensive and challenging, not allowing an article to pass unless it is definitely up to scratch and I think the Cheadle Hulme article can only benefit from your review. Majorly's frustration is understandable (he has put a lot of effort into the article) and while he has come across as forceful, he is concerned with improving the article first and foremost.

What editors need to remember is that there is no rush to finish things. While it may be frustrating for editors to wait for a review, it's something they have to put up with. Especially since the article was already under review, there are many that are not. Some articles simply take longer to read and critically assess than others, and since Cheadle Hulme is such a long article, it will take a while to do properly. I would much rather have a slow review than see the article languishing on the GAN page. If you stand by your decision not to continue with the review, I respect that, and happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. I expect Majorly to respond well to constructive criticism so I don't expect him to get agitated if he doesn't get what he wants. Nev1 (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well there's no rush, it's a bank holiday so the apocalypse won't happen until Tuesday at the earliest. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for reviewing Cheadle Hulme. You didn't have to and I appreciate the effort; the article and wikipedia is better off for your efforts and diligence. Thank you again for a job well done, and long may it continue! I know you've got one of these already, but it seemed appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. There will still be plenty of articles available to review next month! If you need help getting started or have questions about reviewing, let me know and I'll do my best to answer them. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Eurostar article flaws

Hello there

You mentioned that some sections of the Eurostar article fail WP:verify; I wondered if you could help me by identifying the appropriate sections so that I could commence work upon them when I have the time. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate it, at least I know now where to take it.81.111.115.63 (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you once again for your extended commentry and tips to help fix up the article. I may drop by from time to time to ask you if you have any further ideas for improvement, the guidance is useful to say the least. Getting reflections and criticisms on the article from which to base improvements on has not been easy. If you ever get bored, I'd be grateful. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Little update. I've put 60 more references on there and a couple of other improvements since your last look. I'm hoping it is heading towards GA quality now, of course that's for other people to decide.81.111.115.63 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Good articles/recent

Hey Pyrotec. I would just to apologise for and explain the disruption you may have noticed on WP:Good articles/recent. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems (it's still officially in trial), but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. That's the plan, anyhow, so it might be an idea to add the article to WP:GA, then wait ten minutes. If the bot hasn't added it yet, add it manually and come straight to me so I can fix the bot. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. Thanks for your patience and sorry for any disruption caused. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible GAN

I was wondering if you could try to get in a GA review for Gareloi Volcano? Thanks, ceranthor 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No Problem.Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. ceranthor 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to that section tomorrow, please give me until then. ceranthor 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

North Staffordshire Regiment

Thanks for the assessment. Is there a tutorial anywhere of creating a route diagram? NtheP (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Done

I finished rewriting the section. ceranthor 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Fort Scott

Thank you for your patience. I think another review of Fort Scott National Historic Site is in order; I removed a lot of the damage others inflicted on the article that I did not previously see.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 12:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kingston upon Hull

Hi, thanks for the review of this article, I will be away from tomorrow for the week and will be without internet connection so I will not be able to address the issues before then. The other main editor is back during the weekend so I will leave them a note to see if they can address the concerns. Hope that you do not fail the article before I get back. Keith D (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the review and the tweaks that you made. Both are appreciated--Harkey (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely dfferent GA nom

I've nominated Erebus, its less than 3,000 characters of straight out prose but I think that it's comprehensive. Can you check over it to see if it meets comprehensiveness standards? ceranthor 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful

I noticed your comment at wp:an3 and responded briefly there, but I'll also respond here and any discussion should probably continue here rather than at the noticeboard. Specifically, you seem to say that I have "ignored" wp:3rr (if you are indeed referring to me). Since I've reverted a grand total of two times in three days, I'm not sure quite how you're figuring your math. Further, the spirit of the the rule is to prevent edit warring. When it became clear Rerutled wasn't interested in developing any consensus around his proposal and would apparently attempt to enforce (through undo) his new version, I didn't revert him further and brought the issue to the noticeboard. (His proposal has since been reverted by another editor, as they were in the past, given the lack of consensus for his changes.) As you stated on my talk page previously, you don't have any particular preference for what the lead says, but for those of us who do want to see the article remain stable, I would hope you'd at least be a little more careful before carelessly (and unproductively) throwing around accusations that a good faith editor has "ignored" policy. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Chiswick Bridge

Thanks – that was quick! That (and the not yet written Twickenham Bridge) were the two most likely to cause problems in the Bridges FT drive (although cleaning up the mess of inaccuracies and original research that is London Bridge is going to be a nightmare); hopefully it should all run smoothly from now on. – iridescent 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was not aware that this article was likely to cause problems; and you probably should not have mentioned the others. Now I know, I will have to do better next time!Pyrotec (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The problems were just due to the fact that Chiswick & Twickenham are the two most boring. All the others have interesting backstories of isolated villages being joined to the modern world; elaborate funding negotiations to get them built; celebrated in paintings, songs and poetry; design and redesign by eminent architects – "concrete bridges built in the 1930s as part of a bypass on the A316" doesn't really have the same impact. – iridescent 23:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I also passed Old Bridge, Pontypridd today and Skarnsund Bridge is On Hold. It was probably the Portland Stone cladding that interested me.Pyrotec (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy Town House

I am wondering what grade the article has reached, which i started. I would say the article is only at start-class. Kilnburn (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone else rated it as both C-class and B-class / Low last month. I would probably go for a C-class/Mid.Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Again

I'm quite surprised to see your response at wp:anew. It looks like you're adopting, intentionally or otherwise, the same incorrect interpretation of policy that User:Rerutled has been clinging to, namely that: "the 'consensus' information given in the article is not [verifiable]." Given your experience here, I've been surprised by your take on a few things (carelessly alleging violations of wp:3rr being among the most disappointing), and given your work on good articles, I can appreciate that you tend to hold articles under review to a higher standard. However, wp:v is clear in that an incomplete citation does not make a fact "unverifiable." The work referenced exists, the exact page is cited. We need to get the exact author information for the section in question, but that, by far, does not make the reference "unverifiable." You have very much been an important participant in this discussion, but on at least one occasion your comments have lacked good faith, and on at least another (here) they haven't been based on policy. Because User:Rerutled appears to be new to Wikipedia, your misinterpretation of policy could affect (and perhaps has affected) his handling of this matter, and I urge you to use greater caution before stating something as policy, incorrectly. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You have made two accusations of "lack of good faith" on my talkpage. The reference that was given in Montreal was " Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy‎, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos, C. George Benello, p.292." This is hardly verifiable. User:Rerutled has kindly changed this unverifiable reference to one that is far more verifiable, i.e. " Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy. Montreal; New York: Black Rose Books. p. 292. ISBN 1551642247,1551642255 (paperback)." However, there remains a question mark as to whether the information in that particular chapter dates from the 1970s or the early 2000s.Pyrotec (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dollis Viaduct

Could i ask you to peer review the Dollis Brook Viaduct? Simply south (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I will not do it today (tonight) as I'd doing a WP:GAN, but tomorrow night is a possibility.Pyrotec (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read through it and rated it as C-class for TrainsWP. I've still to do the PR. I'll put some words together tomorrow and update the article history, etc. I know what I want to say for the PR, but its still in my head & not put into words yet.Pyrotec (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Akureyri

It's so sad that the article will lose GA. If it loses it, I won't reapply. That's because I don't edit war.  :( User F203 (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your disapointment if the article were to fail the WP:GAR. The article is within the scope of WP Iceland so I would have expected them to have contributed to getting and keeping the article at GA-level. However, I don't regard improving an article and submiting it, or re-submitting it to WP:GAN as a 'edit war'. This usage does not appear to be covered by Wikipedia:Edit war. I will have a look at the article to see what I can do to improve it, but I have one WP:GAN review and one WP:PR to do first.Pyrotec (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GA sections

I've undone this bold, but well meaning edit. Creating new GA sections has many knock-on effects, so best efforts should be made to fit an article into the existing scheme. In this case Apothecaries' system could be placed under health and medicine (or possibly mathematics). A new subsection for one article would be overkill: we need to maintain some stability at GA. Geometry guy 23:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

History of Bristol

Hi, I think I have addressed your points, so would appreciate your having another look now. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I had a look several hours ago and you were making good progress, so I left you in peace. I'm going to bed now, but will do it tomorrow night.Pyrotec (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review and pushing me to improve the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Glenrothes

hello again

recently, i have done a bit of reference work on this article and have put this under a peer review. currently the article is A status, but this was given a while back and i'm wondering if you can check the article and see if it is still up at that standard. thanks. Kilnburn (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been tied up doing some long WP:GANs. I will look at it next week for you.Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

John Douglas (architect)

Following your encouraging comments at GA review, I have had the article copyedited and peer reviewed and it is now a FAC here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Now a FA! Thanks for your encouragement. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Church of St. Polyeuctus

Hello! To be honest, I was quite surprised that you passed it so quickly, as I expected some suggestions for improvement. Not that I am complaining (and thanks for your tweaks of the article), but could you tell me what you'd like to see added/expanded upon? The lead has been noted and will be expanded. Thanks for your time and regards, Constantine ✍ 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Sodium hydroxide

I find it quite strange that you should conclude what is supposed to be a "review" in four days, without ever having listed it at WP:GAR. Would you like to reconsider your closing please, so as to allow comments and article improvement, in the same way that other GA-reviews are conducted? Physchim62 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the WP:GAR page is for community reassessments; this was an individual reassessment (not a review) conducted as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps worklist on articles that were awarded GA status two or more years ago (and before the rules for GAN (and FAC) were tightened up). The GA/1 was linked on the article's talk page and one other editor responded with comments concurring that the article was not of GA-standard. The article is substantially non-compliant in respect of WP:verify.

Interestingly, on 23 June 2009 the article was rated as B-class by WP:Chemicals and you reassessed it at 11:40 today as GA-class; and would have seen the GA/1 banner (and the comments contained on the GA/1 page) on the article's talkpage. It clearly is not GA-class in respect of WP:verify.

I welcome your efforts to improve the article and suggest that in the first instance the article be brought upto the required GA-standard by adding suitable references and in-line citations. The article can be resubmitted to WP:GAN. If you are worried about it sitting for a lengthy period at WP:GAN before it is reviewed, then I'll be happy to review it, to ensure that it does languish there.Pyrotec (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this appears somwhat abrupt, but the article is not compliant with WP:WIAGA, so I'm not going to re-award it GA-status and then put it On Hold whilst it is brought up to GA status. At least under the status quo, as a Delisted GA, the article can be brought upto to GA-status without working to the pressure of a (one-week) time-slot and once you are happy with it, it can be submitted to WP:GAN.Pyrotec (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any point in a WP:GAN with "reviewers" like yourself around. Hopefully the article will be improved, as you say without artificial time constraints or petty processes which those involved do not even comply with. The article will be improved for the benefit of the encyclopedia and its users, not for some drive-by box-checker. Physchim62 (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GA

Thanks so much for reading and reviewing articles at GA. DVD 02:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks

Hello, it's 81.111.115.63 back on a different IP for the forseeable future. Your guidance with the Eurostar article was greatly appreciated, and I am glad it achieved GA status after all the improvements that went on. Right now I'm working to fit out Docklands Light Railway properly, as it (deservingly might I add) with stripped of GA status mainly for failure to reference sufficiently; I have already tripled the amount of references used, and am currently in the search of more. Keep an eye on it if you get time, it probably won't go up as great as Eurostar did but it should be seeing some more looking into in the near future. Also, as a small suggestion, perhaps you should examine High Speed 1 to see if it still meets GA requirements, it doesn't in my eyes and it was pushed up to that status in the same brisk and rushed style.86.155.132.194 (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Phosphorus

I believe we have a misunderstanding there, but I am flexible and happy to learn from you. My concerns are (i) you revert before explaining; (ii) I do not care which spelling is used US or UK, what I do not understand is that you change two words without looking at the whole article. If you read phosphorus or run spell-checker, you'll find that there are plenty of words in US spelling (odor, meter, distill, etc. - I don't remember by now). Could you explain why don't you fix the whole article, but revert my edits honestly trying to make it consistent ? I felt I was doing a courtesy job on that, and I'm surely not going to do that again. Whoever will nominate this for GA/FA will get the bashing. Again, none of this really matter. I just wanted to understand the experienced editors like you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Peace. What had happened is I started semi-auto copyedit in UK spelling and noticed there are more words in US spelling, and thus re-copyedited in US. UK spelling is fine and I'm sure you can do that much better than I. I also do welcome your submitting phosphorus for GA. Materialscientist (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I simply select the text in wikipedia with the mouse (not the code, but the actual view), copy it into MS Word, and then use two windows: Word finds me mistakes, which I correct in another window (firefox or wordpad with the original code). Materialscientist (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A GAN that might interest you, if you have time (but you're a busy person, so I won't disturb you for long)

Hi Pyrotec - I saw that you had reviewed John Douglas (architect) and so, on the off-chance that architectural articles might be of interest, Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford might tickle your fancy. Then again, it's very new and only just been added to the GA backlog, and I'm sure you've got other articles to write/edit/read/review with much greater priority. So, in summary, I'll leave you alone... Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 18:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested, but I have to finish Zvi Hecker, Albert Dock & Church of St. Polyeuctus first.Pyrotec (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Bencherlite^Talk 20:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was a bit too short a message after all your hard work - many thanks for taking the time to read and review the article. I'm naturally delighted that it's reached GA status so quickly. Watch out for the FAC later in the summer, all being well. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)