User talk:ErgoSum88/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, ErgoSum88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Wikipedia:Good article nominations. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! VanTucky 23:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents

Great Pics!!!

Thanks, your timing is perfect. I've been working on the article Interstate 70 in Utah for a few months now. It just passed the GA review, with the reviewer noted it had a lot of grammar and punctuation errors for a GA article. So I've been going through the article cleaning it. But your two pics are an awesome addition, might just help it pass the A class review =-) Thank you. If you don't mind I'm going to categorize your pics so they will also show up on the commons link on that article.Davemeistermoab (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. What I would like to do, is you put your I-70 pics in a gallery. I put mine in a category. Let's put them together (I don't think it matters which, gallery or category) then Change the infobox on the I-70 in Utah page to link to whichever. Currently it links to commons:category:San Rafael Swell. Once again great photos.Davemeistermoab (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting I-70 in Utah to FA status

Well, I'm a relative newbie. This was my first attempt to get an article to Good Article status. I'm amazed it passed 1st try. The next step is the A class review, then the FA class review. As I was dinged for my grammar in the GA review, I'm sure they won't cut me any more slack on that point=-). So any cleanup you can offer would be most welcome. There were also concerns about relying too much on a single source for the Transcontinental railroad section. There are more sources out there, I just need to do more research.

Another concern brought up in the GA review was the wikilinks to articles that didn't exist. I suspect at least start class articles will have to be created at a minimum for Pavant Mountains, Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highway and Utah State Route 72. I can probably get away with just delinking to the others (westwater, I 70 business in Green River and Salina).

One thing I'm surprised I didn't get dinged for is not having a source for the claim of "108 miles between Green River and Salina, the longest distance without motorist services in the Interstate highway system". This is an easy claim to source, except for the number. Unofficial sources vary between 104 and 112 miles. I think the difference is, are we measuring between the centers of the two cities, the edges of the cities, or the freeway exits. I have pictures of old signs say 110 miles. I've debated using these. I know that's not correct anymore, but at least I've got an irrefutable source for that number. But I'm sure I better find an official source for at least some number before the FA or A review. Davemeistermoab (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Per your request...

You asked me for opinions on several articles; I've left comments on their individual talk pages. Keep in mind that I'm not an admin or anything, but I've imparted whatever wisdom I could give. Your articles are excellent for the most part - I made some adjustments myself to fix formatting, grammar, little things like that, but otherwise I've left the rest up to you. Duncan1800 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur Diamond

Yes, I did notice that and have been meaning to thank you. My apologies I have not done so until now. Thanks for your help in getting I-70 in Utah to FA status. I am going to work on articles for SR72 and Utah Department of Transportation (as the owner of the highway, they need to be mentioned).

Other sources that that I used for the page Utah Scenic Byways (which I-70 in Utah should link to, thanks for reminding me =-) ): http://www.utah.com/ (Utah Office of Tourism, state government agency) - And I know they have a page dedicated to the Dinosaur Diamond, but I don't know how good it is. Then http://www.byways.org/ (Federal Highway Administration). They also have an entry for Dinosaur Diamond highway.

http://www.coloradobyways.org/Main.cfm Colorado DOT's byways page

Thanks.

Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a lot of info. I finished with the last of the other articles that needed to be created. More than happy to take a look and see if I can add a "locals touch". My first glance is the content is fine. Could use some formatting.Davemeistermoab (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, I do plan to work more on this. But the A class review for I-70 in Utah is finally in full swing, as well as 2 GA reviews. Everything hit at once. So I'm buried alive for the time being. I promise I will get to this. Thanks again for your help.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated

Regarding your comment here, I somewhat agree with you. The article might not satisfy all GA criteria, but now I have put it there, I find it very difficult to withdraw its nomination. The feedback from a reviewer will be most helpful in determining what the article needs (perhaps listing for a peer review would've been better). Like yourself, this was one of the first articles I searched for on WP, I would like to have it on the mainpage as an FA, but it needs a lot of working to reach that status. Its GAN is a first step though. I am Ergo sum sure it will make it there. :) Thanks! Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Plumbago

You're welcome. I meant to add that your nice clear pic could go in the wikimedia gallery in the article Plumbago auriculata if you wanted to. Cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad I Could be of assistance

You're right, some of these trucking articles are a bit of a mess. Hopefully the project will get it organised. I'm thinking of going on that as a semi-participant.

I don't drive trucks in Australia, athough I wouldn't mind trying it. I actually work as a Part's Interpreter in a Western Star dealership here, thats how I have my knowledge. I also used to work at the Caterpillar Delaer's On-Highway truck workshop here too. I think if I lived in the US I would definately give trucking a go, but it's not so desirable here.

Trucking industry in the United States

You have every right to question! The reason I failed it outright can be found Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#How_to_review_an_article. While the article didn't have {{fact}} tags, I could have added them in the places I mentioned in my assessment. I chose not to because cleanup tags are annoying. I would never submit an article to GAN if it had unreferenced material in it. As you can see, it's the first thing editors look for in a high quality article. Meow. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 11:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the system that I use for determining where to put citations:
  • A citation covers everything between that citation and the previous one.
  • A citation covers only material within a single paragraph (meaning two paragraphs that are covered in the same source need two citations).
  • Citations are generally not needed in the lead paragraph, because this material is covered elsewhere in the article. See WP:LEAD for more information.
All material should be covered by at least one citation. It really doesn't matter if a statement is a product of common sense - it still needs to covered in a reliable source. The best way to deal with this is to find sources, then write the information - not the other way around. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) BTW, Francium is a good example of my citation style (seeing as I wrote it), if you still need clarification. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I think I'm beginning to agree with you about this place. How can an encyclopedia deny people sharing knowledge on the basis that I can't find a two-bit probably-fake internet link to back me up. Just becuase I can find a webpage that says aliens exist, does that mean there should be an article saying that? I mean I could meet the requirement for verification, but ooh,hang on, our common sense says that that isn't correct. It's bordering on ridiculous. The rules about citing sources only allow you to cite a website it seems, where there are far more sources than that out there. I agree that it's too incoBsistent and subjective.

Further to that, whether an article is given GA status is based on one persons opinion. That system is fundamentally flawed, it should be a vote of at least 5 people. End rant. Whitfan (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Night Revels of Han Xizai

Tis a shame indeed; the width of the picture is without question, but people will gripe still because the height of the picture has not been increased in order to allow greater view of the detail close-up.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Join WikiProject Arkansas!

Please accept this invite to join the Arkansas WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with Arkansas.
Simply click here to accept! ChetblongT C 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Arkansas WikiProject! We are a group of Wikipedia editors who help to improve articles related to Arkansas on Wikipedia.

Looking for somewhere to start? Here is a few suggestions.

If you have any comments, suggestions, or would like to talk about the project in general, feel free to leave a message on the talk page.

Thanks for joining! --ChetblongTalkSign 19:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Celtics

 Please accept this invite to join the Celtics WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Celtics. Simply click here to accept!

- Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Arkansas notification

ErgoSum88,

This is just a reminder to let you know what Arkansas was selected as collaboration of the month for March. As a Wikiproject Arkansas member, we suggest you try to improve and/or expand the article. Please contact ArkansasTraveler, Chetblong, or Basketball110 Thanks, - Newsletter Bot Talk 21:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC) The above message was delivered by Newsletterbot because your name was on this list If you would not like to recieve any more notifications, please add your name here

GA Review update

Sorry, I've been busy. :-) I left updated comments on Talk:Hours of service, however. —Rob (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Having heard from you in a while...

ErgoSum, Thanks again for your help. It looks like you've been busy both on and off wikipedia. I-70 in Utah is one pass vote shy of passing the A class review. So hopefully anyday now that will be over. I've been told I will need to include construction costs and traffic counts for it to pass FA. So I'm looking into that now. Hope all is going well for you. Sounds like you had some trouble? Did somebody really deny your GA because internet sources are preferred to printed sources? That's BS. printed sources are perfectly good. I'd challenge the review (there is a process for that) if that was the most substantive reason for denying the GA. Let me know if I can help. I figure I owe you one for your help in the I-70 articles.Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked what's the difference between GA and FA reviews. Well i've been through GA twice now, and A class review once (the A class review is not required to get to FA, but I'm told helps, especially for a newbie like me). The GA review seemed to be is the prose grammatically correct, and are all the figures and claims sourced. The A class review is going over the same stuff, but the level of detail is much greater.
For example, Is every time a date used, is it using the international standard for dates, currencies in right format. I had to ensure that every time I used a word, it was wikilinked in the first and only first instance. All abbreviations were spelled out fully the first and only first instance, the abbreviation used after that. Make sure the lead paragraph is a summary of the article, no new material. No sources in the lead paragraph, instead the source is listed where the claim is made in the body.
They go over content too. For example, I'm getting asked, How much did I-70 cost to build, how much traffic uses it. Why did you spend 2 paragraphs explaining this 30 mile portion of the route, but only glanced over this 50 mile portion, what's in this part. And for the I-70 article a surprising amount of critiques on the exit list (for me the least important part of the article). I've had to fix everything, from inconsistent formatting, to complying with a dozen standards on tables I didn't knew existed before.
So yes, I'm seeing a definite difference. I'm not working on other articles currently. Most of my wikipedia time is fixing stuff on the I-70 article found by the reviewers. But the feedback is good. It's amazing what other people find that I completely missed. I don't mean to scare you, its worth it in the end.
I'll look over those articles and give you some feedback. Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, per your request, I'm looking over the article Trucking industry in the United States. Yes, it is VERY long, but to me is interesting enough to keep me reading. IMO, its very well written. If you get continual crap about being too long, you can move sections into sub articles, as is already done with Hours of Service, CDL, and some other sections in the article. I've made a few minor changes. I'll give my rationale here:
  • Removed "Statistics and demographics" in the Truck Driver section. Though I've not seen this in the WP:MOS, most style guides I've read say every section should have 2 or more headings of every level. sections with a single heading should be merged or split to eliminate that scenario.
  • Deleted the word "still" in the first sentence of History. To me the word still in that sentence implied the railroad industry was completely dead.
Excellent work. I'm routing for you. FYI, for I-70 in Utah, this requires 4 net approve votes to pass the A class review. I'm at Net +1 (2 support, 1 oppose and 1 neutral). However, the neutral and oppose votes promised to change to support provided I could find a source for how much it cost to build I-70. I found a source yesterday, so hopefully with those reviewers will honor that pledge and I'll be one step (albeit a big one) away from FA status. Thanks again for your help.Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello from JoeSeattle! I finally got what you were saying!

Hey ErgoSum!

I finally got why you were bothered so much about the way I mentioned rape in the first paragraph. I couldn't see it it right away. I added the sentence about rape there because it was a (partial) correction of the sentence before it, and it never occurred to me to also think about why that sentence was the second sentence of the article.

You caught two factual errors and one sylistic error in two paragraphs! Pretty good shooting!

I posted in the incest discussion group, and will try again with a new edit.

Thanks! SeattleJoe (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)