User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2018/January

Chrysler Turbine Car GA review comments

Eric, I have now addressed the detailed comments in your GA review on the Chrysler Turbine Car article. Please let me know what else, if anything, I need to address before you are able to complete the review. Thanks so much for reviewing this article. I really, really appreciate it! Michael Barera (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look through shortly, and hopefully be able to finish off the review. Eric Corbett 19:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	All the best in the new year, and your new year, and with many thanks for your many quality contributions. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for the papers you sent me. I wouldn't have been able to get on with Carolina and Cockpen anything like as quickly without them.

The Laird o' Cockpen

Please can you show me the guideline where this particular song is excluding from the having a tag on the talkpage which says it needs an infobox? While your looking can you also show me where the importance tag shows up in WPSongs? As I said in my edit, I thought it has been disabled for the past 10 years, but perhaps I missed something of which you are aware. If you do not show evidence to back your edits up I shall revert. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, before you call other editors pedantic idiots you really should look in the mirror. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, how unedifying. Ought you not to be setting me an example? Eric Corbett 09:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's what MOS:INFOBOX has to say: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." That seems pretty clear to me, so I would strongly advise you not to undertake any high-handed reversion. There was also a fairly recent RFC on this subject too IIRC, which came to the same conclusion. Eric Corbett 09:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you know, Eric, I really wonder why we bothered to start trying to improve these articles (I'm including Carolina's); what a waste of our time and energy. Assertions being made on the talk page of Carolina's article are inaccurate; perhaps, as has recently been demonstrated, in the haste to find fault sufficient due diligence has not been applied? As you and I both know, the words about the prayer book were not Carolina's "own words". The suggestion that a word has been "improperly borrowed" from the ODNB is wholly without foundation and nothing less than insulting. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I must admit that even I was rather staggered when someone suggested that the use of the word obscure in the article might be a copyright violation or plagiarism, when it seems to me that obscure is a pretty common word. But then, I was educated in England. Eric Corbett 10:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

And it's always nice to see the footings of a possible infobox dispute being dug out, too, on the talk page. I wonder how long it'll be before that rears its ugly head. Cassianto^Talk 10:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thinking of nominating my first GA

Hello! I would like to ask a favor. When you get a spare moment could you take a cursory look at Mount Carmel East and give my your opinion? I have never nominated a WP:GA before and would greatly appreciate your opinion before I do. Thank you in advance -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that this article would pass a GA review at present. Just a few initial observations:

• The lead needs to be expanded, probably to twice its present length, so as to adequately summarise the article.
• The bare urls need to be converted to proper citations.
• The article is in need of a good copyedit, For instance, "The center is used for community outreach, health education and other services including the location of the chapel." In no sense can the location of the chapel be considered to be a service.
• On a quick read through I'm unconvinced that the article actually covers the main points of the subject, although I could be wrong.

I think in this case I'd recommend a peer review before considering a GA nomination. Please don't be too discouraged by my comments, and persevere with the article. As Edison said, "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration". It's hard work getting an article to GA standard, even more to get to FA, but you have to believe that in the end it'll be worth it. Eric Corbett 00:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I really do appreciate it nor am I discouraged. I may have gotten ahead of myself and I'm glad an experienced editor like yourself took a good look at it. I mainly work on commons and most of my previous work on en:wp was adding photography with a bit of sprucing up some articles. That was the first article I ever started from scratch and I will keep working at it. Thank you for the copyedits you yourself did. I'm not sure how to convert the bare url's into proper citations yet but I'll find out. I should have considered a peer review first; thank you for that suggestion. I'll keep working at it. Thank you again, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've converted ref #14 to show you what I mean. It's not difficult, but it makes such a difference. Good luck! Eric Corbett 01:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

PS. Don't forget to include |access-date in your web citations. They make it so much easier to find archived copies if the page you're refencing ever goes dead. Eric Corbett 01:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Butting in, but @Sixflashphoto: if you'd like feedback, I'd be more than happy to help if you want any comments. ceranthor 02:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Any particular reason you use "access-date" instead of "accessdate" in citations? I'm not fussed either way, readability perhaps? Incidentally, Sixflashphoto, somewhere there's an "I survived a GA review by Eric" T-shirt; he does look closely at an article and does a lot of good copyediting. This is one of the key advantages of putting articles up for GA review; no matter how good a job you think you've done on an article, it's always beneficial to get a second take on things. It makes for a better article for others to look at. As a bit of quick-start advice, you should research every possible online source on the subject, including Google Books and News, and make sure you've covered everything. Once you find sources are telling you things already in the article, you're probably covered for "broad in coverage" - but some topics (like UK railway stations) seem to be notoriously lacking in online coverage and you can write far more from books and old journals. If you haven't got a library card - get one! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Only because access-date is the fairly recently added parameter name, and no doubt accessdate will at some point become deprecated. Eric Corbett 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 The T-shirt thing made me laugh. I didn't ask him by chance though. Granted, I don't know the back side of en:wp as well as I do commons, but looking at GA's and those who review articles I wanted a critical opinion. And I do appreciate the copyedits he and everyone else now have done. These are the things I am still trying to learn and get better at when it comes to creating articles. I find the policies more complex here as well. Maybe it's my personality but I like learning through doing and going through the fire a bit. I just don't want to break any policies along the way. So thank you everyone for all your advice and help! -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Shorwell helmet review

Thanks again for reviewing the Shorwell helmet article! Is there anything you think that is missing or that should be added before taking it to FAC? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see anything much missing during the review. Only a couple of things spring to mind: I was curious what value the Treasure Valuation Committee put on the find, and why the Isle of Wight Museum Service changed their mind about acquiring it. You also need to be aware that the level of scrutiny goes up a notch at FAC, but in general I think that the article will stand up pretty well if you keep on top of the review. Good luck at FAC! Eric Corbett 11:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Added. A mere £3,800 (including the other finds from the site), when the helmet was still seen as "a fragmentary iron vessel." Would be interesting to see what the valuation would have been had it been known to be a helmet at the time. I hadn't even realized that the Treasure Valuation Committee numbers were systematically reported, so thanks for bringing that up. I don't think that the reason for the Isle of Wight Museum Service not getting it has been published; might reach out to Barry Ager at some point and ask, but it would be hard to add to the article if it only exists in an email. Anyways, I'm going to try digging up some of the German literature on Frankish helmets just to make sure all the bases are covered, and then probably take the article to FAC in a few days. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a nice addition I think. Good luck at FAC. Eric Corbett 12:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic 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) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)