User talk:Allens/Archives/2012/February

Peer review limits changed

This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - will look at it in the next day or so (busy IRL now). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested articles

Hello. Would you be interested in contributing to this Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey/Requested articles? Tinton5 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if I can suggest something. Allens (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics of Memoruy

do not insert your personal pov on the page, that too whuile tagging for cited!Lihaas (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought I was noting the lack of neutrality on the page (mentioning the Dresden, etc bombings while not mentioning exactly what the Germans had been doing - to, IMO, completely deserve the bombings, but that's a POV that I wouldn't insert). Allens (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: February 2012

Dont template the regulars. a note on the article or prose on the talk page suffices ;_)Lihaas (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There's more than one viewpoint on that (I seem to recall an essay entitled "Template the regulars" or something like that ;}), but I'll keep in mind that's your preference if it ever happens again (doubt it will, and hope it won't)... Allens (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

• Hi Allens, thanks again for your help on the peer review. If you have time, do you think that you could take another look at the article? It's at FAC now and I got this note during the review. A couple people have been working on fixes prose issues, but I'd like to get all the eyes I can, if you have a chance. Thanks again, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I'll take a look. Allens (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

GOCE requests pages

Hi. Please would you refrain from moving requests between the GOCE general requests and FAC requests pages. If people choose to place requests on the general page, that's allowed, even if they are aiming for FAC. If people place requests incorrectly on the FAC requests page, a GOCE coordinator will deal with it, but note that any article that the requester is genuinely trying to take to FAC is welcome there; it doesn't have to be a FAC at the moment. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry... Allens (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you were trying to help. I hope I didn't come across too prickly. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon GA1

Could you please review Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon for GA? :) Best --Khanassassin (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem... it may be a couple of days before I get a chance (about an hour of sleep last night and exams to grade tomorrow evening). Allens (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hehe...well, thanks :) --Khanassassin (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite welcome. Allens (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Allens! Thank You for your kind review! You did alot of copy-editing etc., so thanks! --Khanassassin (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Parliament of Croatia

Hi Allen. I wouldn't normally presume to check the writing of a professional academic, but since you asked on the GOCE requests page, I took a look. Actually, only a fairly brief look, because it became clear to me almost immediately that the article now reads very smoothly. It was also apparent on the talk page how well you got on with Tomobe03 and Joy. Please do take on some of the requests on our potential FACs page as well, if you like. This is exactly the quality of work we need over there.

On another subject, I wonder what your plans are with Newspaper Boy (film)? Since DdraconiandevilL is permanently blocked, GOCE has no obligation to service the request, so it's only a question of whether you want to or not. I can either delete it or wait for you to do it, at your preference.

Best wishes, and thanks for helping with our work. Simon --Stfg (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I forgot one thing. The article has a lot of duplicated wikilinks, with is out of favour under WP:OVERLINK. There is a very useful tool, User:Ucucha/duplinks, that checks for this problem. Best, --Stfg (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am gratified by your opinion of my copyediting; I actually find copyediting in many cases easier than writing well in the first place, incidentally (it avoids my deficits as a writer of overly-complicated sentences - that being an academic vice!). I had originally taken on the various requested copyediting tasks to try to clear out some of the backlog; I'm quite willing to switch back and forth between that page and the FAC subpage.

Regarding the Newspaper Boy (film) article, I have already gone through and shortened or eliminated the various quotes via paraphrasing. Feel free to delete it - I am simply working on it whenever I happen to feel like it.

Regarding duplicated wikilinks, that sort of thing is exactly why I asked for someone to look over the material. The more experienced copyeditors like yourself know the MoS and resources available rather better than I do! Thanks! Allens (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! I will delete the Newspaper Boy requests and leave it to you to handle as you like. Regarding tools, three issues of The Signpost carried descriptions of some of the most useful ones:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/Dispatches
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-20/Dispatches
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-11/Dispatches

Best, --Stfg (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Doon School

Hi Allens! Would you like to participate in the peer review for the Doon School here Wikipedia:Peer review/The Doon School/archive1? I will be grateful for any suggestions. We are seriously working on it to make it a Good Article. Thanks! Merlaysamuel (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. Quite welcome... Allens (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Prolactin

Noticed that you placed a fact tag in the lead( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prolactin&curid=214297&diff=478855122&oldid=478854287). I would rather avoid extensive sourcing of overview sections as long as the content is fairly straightforward and uncontroversial. Do you have some specific concern with the text I have placed there? -- Richiez (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the material in question should really be in the body (and cited there) as well as in the lead. Part of it is (which I admittedly didn't spot - "Structure" is not the most intuitive place to have a discussion of variants, IMO), but part of it isn't. As long as it's in the body with citations, I have no problem whatsoever with it being summarized in the lead sans citations. Allens (talk | contribs) 00:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, renamed that section and will have closer look at it to amend and fix. Richiez (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Seán Treacy (disambiguation)

fyi... living=yes on this because someone listed in the main article is alive. Also, listas doesn't contain any diacritics, so lists=Treacy, Sean. I'm sure there are other things wrong, but I've only read .001% of the gazillion wiki rules and my head hurts. Bgwhite (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand fully about the headache - it's why I usually don't do listas! I'd thought that there weren't any real rules on whether living=yes or blpo=yes for list, disambig, etc pages with living people. IIRC, I suggested the use of blpo for list/disambig cases on the Template talk page for WikiProject Biography, and nobody seemed to object, so... Allens (talk | contribs) 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)