1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 |
Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. Thank you for watching over quality and protocol at DYK! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Gerda Arendt. It's hard to believe it's been a decade! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Elendil
Hi, we seem to be well stuck with this one, and I didn't even nominate the article... I'm quite unclear why you should have pinged Buidhe as he's an FAC person. Anyway, I don't think he's correct about those two hooks as Tolkien (and Lewis) have reached a mass audience, even people who never read them have heard of them, and the hooks don't presuppose the reader has even heard of Elendil until this moment. His remarks imply to my ear that he thinks that Elendil is non-notable, in which case the right forum is AfD, not DYK, but the article is impeccably cited to multiple RS... Anyway, suggestions for how to proceed would be welcomed (even new wording, actually). Many thanks for your help, as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap, I've been looking at this already today (and maybe last night as well, but I was busy). The reason I pinged buidhe is that they were the original reviewer and hadn't checked the two new hooks; the first thing you do when there are new hooks is try to get the original reviewer back. I think the association of Tolkien with time travel is unexpected and interesting, more so than Tolkien vs. Lewis—they've been associated in hooks before. (It isn't really time travel in its "traveling from one time to another" common meaning, if I'm reading the article correctly, but the less common meaning could have currency.) I've been playing with a new hook with some of the facts in ALT3, and will try to post something in the next 24 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks, useful and cogent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Binary search tree still needs reset
Thank you for your efforts to reset the GA review damage to Computer program. For Binary search tree, some work to reset the GA review damage was done, but not all of it. For example, this page still exists: Talk:Binary search tree/GA2. Also, the talk page says, "An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article." Timhowardriley (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Timhowardriley, the problem here is that bits of a review have effectively been done, albeit by you, and responded to by the nominator. I don't think this review page should be deleted at this point, so it will continue to exist. I see two possibilities:
- Have you continue the review, though it may be to say that there's too much work left to be done—certainly more than a week's worth—for you to do anything but fail it. If that's the case, you might want to give good advice about what's needed since this article was also failed in January. (You might want to take a look at it to see whether any of the issues identified then still persist.)
- Have me reset the nomination by putting the page number to 3, so that eventually a new review can be opened on the /GA3 page; the /GA2 page will immediately go inactive.
- Please let me know your preference. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I admire you for your attention on this.
- Regarding "bits of a review have effectively been done, albeit by you, and responded to by the nominator.": My intention was to offer advice on how to make the article understandable for my self-interest. Yes, there was a subliminal message to the reviewer that I'm capable to understand the subject, but I don't understand the article. Nonetheless, this exchange was copied to their regular talk page. However, if my exchange needs to remain as an official archive, then I understand it needs to stay.
- Regarding "there's too much work left to be done—certainly more than a week's worth—for you to do anything but fail it": Okay. I guess I need to assume some responsibility. @WikiLinuz:.
- Regarding "Have me reset the nomination by putting the page number to 3": No thank you. Instead, please configure it to have me be the reviewer. I'll provide an opinion on each of the 6 criteria. But up front, it will fall short of the first criteria because its audience is specific to those who already know the subject. My advice will be to build the subject from scratch. Timhowardriley (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Timhowardriley: Oh, well... seems like the reviewer has been indefinitely blocked by an admin. I'm not sure about how that plays out for the GA review. I don't know about "GA reset". How do you think I should proceed? I'll need to wait for another reviewer anyway. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 22:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Timhowardriley, when a new reviewer takes over, we don't reconfigure the top of the review page, the new reviewer just starts a new level-3 header, titled something like "New reviewer" or "Taking over review from blocked reviewer" or something similar, and starts their review from there. (That's the same thing that happens when a reviewer resigns in midstream and a new reviewer comes in.) I have fixed the review page (it had other issues), and it is ready for you to start at any time. Thanks for being willing to take on the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I've got the ball. Timhowardriley (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Timhowardriley, when a new reviewer takes over, we don't reconfigure the top of the review page, the new reviewer just starts a new level-3 header, titled something like "New reviewer" or "Taking over review from blocked reviewer" or something similar, and starts their review from there. (That's the same thing that happens when a reviewer resigns in midstream and a new reviewer comes in.) I have fixed the review page (it had other issues), and it is ready for you to start at any time. Thanks for being willing to take on the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Timhowardriley: Oh, well... seems like the reviewer has been indefinitely blocked by an admin. I'm not sure about how that plays out for the GA review. I don't know about "GA reset". How do you think I should proceed? I'll need to wait for another reviewer anyway. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 22:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I admire you for your attention on this.
I reviewed and failed the GAN of Binary search tree. Unfortunitely, one editor is offended and angry. This editor reverted my failed notice on the talk page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Binary_search_tree&diff=1082069721&oldid=1082065764 . Please help. Timhowardriley (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Timhowardriley, I'm puzzled by your suggestion of including actual code in an article, which isn't something encyclopedias do, nor should they. And the idea that an article would be considered Good because of it... no. It is also questionable to require every component of a BST to be "converted into visuals". Your initial suggestion prior to the review made sense to me, but not these: they are not part of the GA criteria. I have to apologize: for some reason I thought you were an experienced reviewer, or I wouldn't have pressed you to take over. I don't doubt that the article needs work—including some clearer explanations and grammatical fixes—but not much of what you were requesting.
- The inexperience also carried over into your attempt to fail the review on the talk page: you added a FailedGA template, but you didn't delete the GA nominee template. I'm not sure what help I can be: all in all, I can understand why you were reverted, even if it wasn't the truly proper procedural thing to do—while you could insist on the failure being recorded, I don't recommend doing so. It didn't help matters that the sock who had originally opened the GA2 review and been blocked came back under a new username (now also blocked) and opened a new review in addition to commenting on the GA2. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- You help out well. Thank you. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Wanted to thank you for your longtime stewarding of WP:GAN. I appreciate your time taken to guide newer editors kindly through snags in the process and keep stagnant nominations moving, especially in the absence of it being anyone's explicit responsibility. czar 17:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
- Thank you, Czar. Happy to do what I can. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The Template Barnstar
The Template Barnstar | ||
For all your work making DYK work. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC) |
- Thank you, evrik. Apologies for the belated response! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Henry Winkler GA review is complete!
Hi BlueMoonset, Aza24 completed the GA process for the Henry Winkler article. I wanted to thank you again for your help in pushing the process forward as it made a world of difference! Cheers, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the GA, Classicfilms. I'm glad I could help get things moving again. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! You really did!-Classicfilms (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)