User talk:Derek.cashman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The current Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month is Theobromine.
	The previous collaboration was Melatonin.

This is my user talk page. Please add any messages for me here.

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

---

Contents 1 Geelong GA review 2 Mangalore Artcle 3 Forensic Entomology 4 Category:Unassessed pharmacology articles is empty 5 History of aspirin review 6 GA newsletter 7 Your talk page archive 8 Haifa GA 9 Clutter of benzodiazepines 10 Navenby GA Review 11 GA review tips 12 Shrewsbury GA Review 13 Barnstar 14 Possibly unfree Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb.jpg 15 re:GA reviews! 16 GS Review in ArticleHistory 17 Aspirin peer review 18 Navenby 19 GA Reviews. 20 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb.jpg) 21 Hey 22 Geodon 23 Authorised King James Version: GA second opinion 24 WTF 25 Review of my review 26 Other ways to help out 27 Re: GAN reviewer of the week 28 WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter 29 Nice newsletter 30 GAN Mentoring 31 Review request 32 Collaboration: Placebo 33 Would like your opinion on GA review for White Mountain art 34 =Message from Bodhi Dhana 35 Final review 36 Review on Cluj-Napoca 37 GAN stuff 38 R: Review Cluj-Napoca 39 discussion on wikiquette alerts 40 Heya (Related to Road GAs) 41 Peer review of Meridian, Mississippi 42 Iron Man 43 River Oaks 44 Aspirin 45 Message on Cyclone Glenda GA 46 Picking your GAN reviewer of the week 47 Top Importance Chicago Articles 48 Request for Peer Review help 49 GA subpage 50 John Benjamin Murphy 51 Osler 52 Noble gas 53 Reviewing the technical articles 54 Newsletter 55 Polyclonal response 56 Frank McGee (ice hockey) 57 WikiProject Good articles newsletter 58 Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

[edit] Geelong GA review

Hi, I agree with what you added to Geelong's GA review. Do you think your stuff is necessary for GA, or are they just suggestions for the future? Just wondering because it's my first GA review. I unfortunately don't think they're going to make GA this time, because the week's almost up and they've still got changes to go (esp. fixing the 404 errors in the references), but they have done a great job so far. Somno (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mangalore Artcle

The mangaladevi image of Mangalore artcile has been given the required copyright tag. All your suggestions for GA artcile has been implemented. You may now take a stand omn the GA status of this article --Crazysoul (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forensic Entomology

Quick thought.I haven't read much of these lengthy texts yet but I see some very serious problems.Too many problems. I know that many students of FE in many countries use the Wikipages on this subject and those on Diptera(also damaged in this odd exercise) and precision of expression is essential.This is a legal and logic arena and many students are working in a foreign language.Amongst professionals the language problem is a constant. This is a tricky subject where words count and there are too many here.All the best Notafly (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Unassessed pharmacology articles is empty

Wow, I guess you've been busy :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of aspirin review

I've addressed the issues you pointed out in the GA review; see Talk:History of aspirin. Please let me know whether you'll have a chance to take another look at it, or whether I should relist it at GAC for another reviewer.--ragesoss (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the edits!--ragesoss (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA newsletter

Gguy's asked me to jot down some thoughts on article delisting for the newsletter: I've done so here (feel free to move/edit/etc as required!). All the best, EyeSerene^talk 12:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to the editing desk. I hope that's okay and there aren't any other plans for the April essay. Geometry guy 17:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries if there are - it can keep ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please give me a few days, I'm very busy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your talk page archive

Just to let you know that you accidentally created a talkpage archive in the mainspace. I've moved it and corrected the reference. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haifa GA

Hi Dr Cash. I think I've addressed the points you left on the talk page regarding Haifa's GAN. If you could let me know. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr Cash, just to let you know that seeing as I havent heard anything, Ive renominated the article. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clutter of benzodiazepines

FYI: Thank you for intervention. My initial complaint about several benzodiazepine articles to involved authors: Please stop cluttering the benzodiazepines with a collection of refs to arbitrary pubmed articles. Those are largely reports of some experiments, which have been carried out sometime, somewhere and for some reason on rats, mice and brain slices. For almost every such article you will find a match which comes to contrary conclusions. Please limit the contribution to agreed conclusions, as found in pharmacology books and the FDA profiles, avoid anecdotal reports, speculative results, could have, may be involved, has one time been observed, is suspected, is being investigated, could have a theoretical connection etc. Not everything which has sometimes been suspected, investigated, speculated or observed is relevant to pharmacology and should be included. Avoid bot-like inclusion of search results. pubmed is not a source but an Augias-Stable of unfinished research and a playground for students. Example: You conclude that chlordiazepoxide "is related" to quinazolines, by being investigated together with quinazolines in one citation. You conclude that it is a hapten, by being mentioned in an article about immuno assay tests. These are not relevant articles for pharmacology. Of course it is a hapten in an immuno assay test! That is how antibody based immuno assays work! But this has nothing to do with its pharmacology. Please limit yourself to agreed facts, like the FDA profiles. And the intention is to arrive at something which looks more like the FDA fact sheet. Example: You claim as a peer reviewed fact the HIGH abuse liability, because it is mentioned in a drug abuse article. FDA says low-to-medium abuse liability, placement in Schedule IV. You have included unrelated, anecdotal, spurious and loosely associated refs, frequently extracting false conclusions, presenting these as peer reviewed facts. In the course you have presented the substances as neurotoxic, carcinogenic, cytotoxic, causing necrosis of testes etc. These are not agreed facts. I propose we arrive at something closer to the FDA fact sheet. What has been done here is subtle vandalism. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navenby GA Review

Many thanks for reviewing Navenby. I'm just going to take another look at it, but could I just ask a couple of questions please?

• "The history section pretty much stops around World War II. Certainly, something has happened in this town since then."

Ummm - not much! It is only a village, and has pretty much become a commuter village in past few years, as demonstrated by the figures in the demography section. Is it OK if I just keep the 'recent history' short, and quote a few facts?

• "Based on the UK cities guideline, the article should also have a section on 'public services'. Things like water, sewage treatment, fire, police, healthcare/hospitals, electricity, etc."

Totally agree, but Navenby is only a village, so doesn't have anything like this of its own, except a doctor's surgery, which I think I've mentioned. I did trying 'beefing up' this bit with some Lincolnshire-wide facts and figures - only to get told off during a PR for it!

• "The UK cities template also calls for a 'notable people' section. But I'm not too concerned with this." I did do a (very!) short one, but again got told off at peer review cos too stubby! I guess that because Navenby is only a small village, fairly off the beaten track, there haven't been many notables. I did dig out the singer Barbara Dickson, who lived there for about 18 months, but that was about all! (Hence the 'stubby-ness'!)

Sorry to ramble on! --seahamlass 21:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Navenby again... Just completed what you asked for...right down to notables! Please let me know what you think!--seahamlass 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou - and many thanks for all your little fiddly changes too. --seahamlass 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review tips

Derek, I'm beginning to start my first review of an article for GA status. I was wanting to know if you had any tips or anything in particular I should keep an eye out for in regards to performing the review well. Any advice you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks. will381796 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for the tips on GA review. I did my first review today on Arlington Senior High School. Since its my first review I thought I'd put it up for a second opinion just to make sure I didn't miss anything. Feel free to provide any additional input. will381796 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shrewsbury GA Review

Hey, thanks for the review and edits to the article! I've attempted to address most of your concerns, apart from 'Climate' which I'm really stuck for. I've noted down the modifications on the Talk Page. Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So I've basically done most of what you asked now :) Just the climate section which is lacking, but I don't feel there's anything more to say, unless you want me to describe the English/UK weather for an international audience? Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit
		Thanks for your thorough assistence during three FAC reviews of Tel Aviv and GAC review of Haifa Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Derek.cashman by Flymeoutofhere (talk) on 11:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC) --Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:GA reviews!

thanks for your advice! Sushant gupta (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GS Review in ArticleHistory

Hi, referring to Talk:Akhtar Hameed Khan, the article history template appears confusing as it does not reflect the relisting to GA. I couldn't find any helpful hints at template's page either. Could you pls help sort it out? so that GA doesn't appear twice in two different banners.--IslesCape^Talk 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks pretty tidy now. --IslesCape^Talk 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aspirin peer review

I've requested a peer review of aspirin- it is listed as B-class in both the pharmacology and chemical compounds wikiprojects. However, I think that with some work, it could easily come to a point where it could be listed as an FAC. I'd encourage you to comment at it's peer review.CrazyChemGuy (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navenby

Hello, sorry to trouble you, but I just wondered if I could ask a favour. You were kind enough to review and pass this article at GA recently, and now it is up at FAC. I've had to remove a lot of the photos, to fit in with FA standard, so it doesn't look quite the same, and the refs have been tightened up too. I just wondered if you could cast your eyes over it and decide if you could give your support to it? (It has two supports so far, and no opposes, so fingers crossed!). Many thanks, --seahamlass 09:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. Moved up economy section, as per your suggestion, and then followed the basic layout of the Wormshill feature article after that. Hope that is OK for you!--seahamlass 15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Reviews.

Obviously I'm not following the process properly, so I'll give it a miss. Sorry for messing it up. Cheers --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to have written any more, because obviously I can't type fast enough to beat your eagle eyed reversals. You could at least allow 10 minutes for people to get their house in order before starting the whole reversal, censoring process. Never mind, as I said I am obviously not doing the job properly, and I really don't have the time to learn, so I'll withdraw from the process. I have two articles on hold - Joe Rice and Minority Treaties. I'll remove the on hold tags, but leave my comments. Editors may find them useful. Cheers --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Naaa that's all right. Thanks for the apology. I only started to do them in an attempt to reduce the backlog, as I'd nominated one of my own (since withdrawn). Obviously there is more to it than I thought, and I'll get back to the stuff I enjoy with the time I have. Cheers --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I think you may have missed my post above regarding the GA for Shrewsbury, so I thought I'd leave you a new message to draw attention to it. Apologies if you have actually seen it and are as stumped as myself! Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'll take a look at that, cheers for your help :) Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geodon

Dr. Cash, I'm sorry to bother you, but my doctor perscribed Geodon to me because he thought I had schizoaffective disorder. I know I don't, but what I would like to know is why do I seem slower and is it the Geodon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopfries (talk • contribs) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Authorised King James Version: GA second opinion

I've asked for a second opinion on this article. It was put up for GA in a bloated form with nearly 11,000 words of text, much of it written in an elitist style more akin to a paper for a learned society than an encyclopedia article. On my recommendations the editors have reduced the text to under 7,000 words - still long, but not unacceptably so - and have made the earlier parts of the text more accessible. However, large parts of the article are still written in dense intellectual prose, and I have serious concerns about its overall readability, even though in many ways it is a worthy and impressive article. I'd like someone with more experience of this type of article to look at it, and advise whether my concerns are valid. You may wish to look at it yourself, or put someone else on it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WTF

Since when did we start doing the GA subpages thing? I hate it. Still. VanTucky 00:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. I think it wouldn't be so bad except it's practically impossible to find unless you already know where to look, the only link is the tiny innocuous one in the template. Thanks again, VanTucky 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review of my review

Hey, I just did a review of King's College London and failed it. Since there were some comments regarding some of my previous reviews, I just wanted to see if you might be willing, if you have time, to look this over and let me know if I was correct in my decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:King%27s_College_London#April_2008_GA_Review. Thanks. will381796 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the feedback. will381796 (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other ways to help out

Hello again. I was wanting to know if there's anything that I can do to contribute to the GA project outside of the reviews? I'm trying to get at least two reviews done each week. Is there anything else that the project needs help with? You guys put out a news letter or something, correct? Anything that a relatively inexperienced reviewer can help out with? Thanks. will381796 (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: GAN reviewer of the week

Thanks for the medal, I really appreciate it and I will continue on reviewing more articles, so they can become GA. Thanks again. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 7 - May 2008 April issue | June issue Project News There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Fighting Tommy Riley, Brock Lesnar, Cluj-Napoca, Wolf's Rain, Brian Kendrick, and North and South (TV serial). The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. GAN Reviewer of the Month Noble Story (talk · contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk · contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Jbmurray (talk · contribs) Kaypoh (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April: Affinity likely (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) Edmund Patrick (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) IMatthew (talk · contribs) Kironide (talk · contribs) Makeshift Thackery (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Noble Story (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) SorryGuy (talk · contribs) Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) WBOSITG (talk · contribs) Will381796 (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GA Topic Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article. There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth. Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories. Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Uncategorized good articles is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter. That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. Did You Know... ...that there are slightly less than twice as many Good Articles as Featured Articles? ...that the total number of Good Articles and Featured Articles combined is 6,085? ...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses ) Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process. From the Editors There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page. Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (Article, GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Backlash (2007) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Jenny (Doctor Who) • No Such Thing as Vampires • Unforgiven (2006) Reassessment: Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 211 articles (47 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 13 June 2008 | edit

[edit] Nice newsletter

Kudos to you and OhanaUnited for a great WPGA newsletter. Best --Eustress (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes i cant believe my names in there!!! Wow!!! Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN Mentoring

Hello. Can you give me some help. Started to do a GAN for Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador. All the concerns re grammar, criteria and MoS that I can see have been addressed. It seems to fulfill all the 6 criteria outlined in the GAN templates/review criteria thingies. The editor has been very helpful. I re-read the previous peer reviews and automated peer reviews. It feels like I am missing something. Can you look over my shoulder and advise if the criteria have been addressed sufficiently for a pass. Thank you so much.SriMesh | talk 20:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. SriMesh | talk 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review request

Hi Derek. Marriott School of Management has been renominated for GA status, having been improved from your suggestions. I thought you might want to be the one to review it...thanks! --Eustress (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration: Placebo

I see that Placebo has been listed at the WPMED project's collaboration as well as at the Pharma project's collaboration. I think that between the groups, there might be just enough editors to really tackle the subject. Would you consider signing your support at the MCOTW, if you're likely to have time in the next couple of weeks to help with that article? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (PS: I'm not putting your talk page on my watchlist; I don't need a personal response to this message.)

[edit] Would like your opinion on GA review for White Mountain art

Hi there. I'm new to GA review, but I guess I know how to pick 'em. For my 5th review I chose White Mountain art. You may have seen the comments on the GAN talk page. The review has been rather confusing. I wrote a review, but neglected to check to see that it was still nominated. Although I found what I considered to be multiple issues with MOS, OR and POV, it had been passed by another editor, User:Jack Bethune. User:Malleus Fatuarum delisted it and I posted my comments on the talk page and put the article on hold. Jack Bethune, in turn, took my suggestions and recommended, disagreed with, or advised the principal author to disregard my comments. The principal author, User:JohnJHenderson is now understandably confused. So I'm asking for experienced GA reviewers to look at the article and the talk page and offer some kind of consensus as to what he should do to bring it to GA. I appreciate anything you can do. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] =Message from Bodhi Dhana

Hi Derek I see your name in the Sri Lanka place names etymology discussion . etymology presumably as a moderator, administrator or reviewer. I hope you would take a look and try to see if you can resolve the disputes or at least put in some editing restrictions. Or, if you are busy, perhaps you could ask an adminstrator or some one that you know to take some steps. Get back to me if this is not clear and you need more specifics. ThanksBodhi dhana (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final review

Hello. I believe Marriott School of Management is now ready for your final review. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the issues you listed on the page a couple days ago, and the article should be ready for another look. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review on Cluj-Napoca

I adressed all of your concerns, see the discussion at Talk:Cluj-Napoca for mai explaining, and the main article for the changes in all what you mentioned.--Danutz (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN stuff

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		For all your work in the GA project - thanks! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the award! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R: Review Cluj-Napoca

I reviewed the Education and Sports sections, I saw that were your last comments. See now Cluj-Napoca#Education and Cluj-Napoca#Sports (allthough I would have prefered the table there, even as an aesthetic matter).--Danutz (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] discussion on wikiquette alerts

Hi, I saw this on Wikiquette Alerts and generally think this comment may be a little harsh: [1]. Anyway, I thought it prudent to advise you of that discussion, also. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Shit-eating son-of-a-bitch... bastard, douche-bag, twat, numb-nuts, dickhead! Sorry. It's Tourette's Syndrome; if you fake it, you don't have it,... ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh...Ok, thank you so much for understanding. I figured you hadn't meant any offense. Many people (myself included) put pages on their watchlist and the only thing that shows on the list itself is the edit summary--so, they can easily be misunderstood. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for being civil! Happy editing. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to note that I admire your work at GA. It takes a lot of effort to review an article and giving people feedback is invaluable (in my case, it's always needed...ha!). Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heya (Related to Road GAs)

Just so you know, thanks a lot for the major imput, on the side of the hostileness. However, I do appreciate, as one of the NY Road Project's active members, I do get a bit overexcited over things like this. I do wish to have a discussion over what we can improve on. Also, it would be beneficial if you could maybe once in a while help us out. NYSR needs a new leader-of-some-sort since User:TwinsMetsFan left, and your kind of input is very much welcome. Now, NYSR has 39 GAs, we are trying to stretch to 50 (or at least a few are). If you could help by finding significant articles for opinions before GAN, it would be deeply appreciated, so we don't have to go through the numerous problems. If you help out, I can explain some of the situations that brought this up. Thanks again.^Mitch32^contribs 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of Meridian, Mississippi

Hi, Derek.cashman, I recently added the article about Meridian, Mississippi to be peer reviewed. I looked in the Geography list of volunteers, and you were the first to deal with cities specifically in the United States. If you have the time, input at the review page would be helpful. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Man

You have lowered the article rating. Please use the talk page to address the issues that you feel warrant such a change. Changing a rating without explanation is not likely to encourage the edits you feel are needed. ThuranX (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] River Oaks

I couldn't find in the US City guidelines where library info should be situated, so thanks for fixing that. Somno (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aspirin

Hi, about a week ago you set a deadline for aspirin, and you said you'd pass/fail it last Saturday. You haven't responded on the talk page; are you still planning to review this article? It s been on hold for almost a month now if you think about it. I think the article has improved a *lot*, and I've verified all of the references unless I missed a couple - it should be GA material now. I'd appreciate if you'd see if you think the same about the article. Thanks, and if you're too busy to review the article still just let me know. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Message on Cyclone Glenda GA

Your comment on the Cyclone Glenda talk page was confusing. Dates need to be Wikilinked, so to allow for autoformatting based on preferences. Personally I wish to see June 10 when I type June 10, but someone from the UK would want to see 10 June. Do you have any insight on something I am missing? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picking your GAN reviewer of the week

I've been wondering for a while, how do you choose this? King iMatthew 2008 21:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Importance Chicago Articles

If you want to help me choose Category:Top-importance Chicago articles, come comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates by June 5th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA subpage

Because GA nominations are now on a subpage, there's no way to access it after the bot archives it. I was able to fix the temporary Failed GA template, but when the bot archives it there's no way to go to the subpage again. Can this be fixed? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 00:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Benjamin Murphy

It seems another editor with medical expertise has gotten involved in the article. I get the feeling that he knows more about the medical sciences than I, but that I am a more experienced editor. I am treading gently on editing his contributions. However, I have tried to follow your advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I added another ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Osler

i would welcome your opinions on the changes needed on' sir william osler'. thanks.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noble gas

Hi, I have re-nominated the article for GAN. You reviewed it a few weeks ago and I would appreciate it if you could take a second look at the article to review it again. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article has had significant improvements since it was last nominated. If you have time, please take a look at it. Gary King (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewing the technical articles

Hi, please tell us your viewpoint about this issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newsletter

Replied here. giggy _(:O) 13:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polyclonal response

Hi! Somehow, I'd missed putting the talk page for the GA review of the article, so didn't realize that you'd posted your comments there. Hence, the delayed response and apologies. I feel, I've dealt with all the issues adequately, except for converting of bulleted points in one of the sections you'd pointed out. This I've left out as if I'd convert those points to subsections, there'd be no text to place under the main heading ("Significance of the phenomenon"), and also because, a user had once told me that those subsections were very small, and didn't deserve to be subsections. Moreover, it is a very small issue to deal with&mdashif you're convinced that they should be subsections, I wouldn't mind if you do it yourself, or if you'd like to wait till a consensus is built. On second thoughts, I feel, I'll convert them to subsections, and if someone raises objection to that, we can see what is to be done.

Thanks for your review; it was most helpful.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 16:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frank McGee (ice hockey)

I've reverted your delisting of this article on two grounds:

1. You said the article has no inline citations; it has 12
2. You said it only has three general/broad sources. I don't see where the number of such sources is a criteria.-Wafulz (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. No harm done.-Wafulz (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month Giggy (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor) Giggabot, Giggy (Distributor) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Backlash (2007) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Jenny (Doctor Who) • No Such Thing as Vampires • Unforgiven (2006) Reassessment: Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 211 articles (47 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 13 June 2008 | edit

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)