User talk:JohnJardine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Spoilers

Not at all. Good of you to comment: the more response the better on this issue, really. AndyJones 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atikokan, Ontario

I didn't write the information, I just took what was there, worded it better and wikified it. The discrepancy was probably an typo on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. Vidioman 01:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging MB articles

You should tag all talk pages of articles related to Manitoba with the {{WPMAN}} template, and assess them if possible. If you don't know how to assess, that's fine, just don't worry about it and someone will come along soon enough and assess them per the

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

assessment scheme. Thanks tons for joining, GrooveDog 16:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption offer

Hello, I noticed that you listed yourself as interested in being adopted, so if you'd like, I am willing to take up the task. Just respond to me on my talk page either way. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You look like you're on your way to finding your place in Wikipedia. If you don't mind, I'll make a few remarks about your contributions as you noted them on my talk page.
That stub you've created is a good start. Regarding formatting, always be sure to bold the subject of the article when first mentioned (with three apostrophes on each side, i.e. '''bold'''), which should be in the first sentence. With dates, be sure to wikilink the whole date, so that it displays however users choose to have it displayed in their preferences (you can set dates to display the American way, i.e. June 12, 2007, or the British way, i.e. 12 June, 2007). Otherwise, the general convention is not to wikilink dates (that is, wikilink full dates, but don't wikilink partial dates like just the year). For an example of an excellent biography article, take a look at Tony Blair or any number of other features articles.
The first sentence of the Chad Allan article might look something like this, when properly formatted:
There are lot of little subtleties in wiki-style; the best way to learn them is to glance over a few features articles and use that style. You'll note that I removed "rock legend," seeing as it has minor point of view issues (even if cited, it has some problems, and it's better just to write something that can't be disputed).
I would hold off on reviewing GAs until you're a bit more familiar with Wikipedia markup and style; it's a daunting task for newcomers. I don't think I started reviewing until a few months into the project. I'll help you out with your current review, though.
Sounds good with the start of vandalism-fighting. I'd encourage you to look into anti-vandalism tools (such as [[WP:TW|Twinkle) when you feel familiar with the process.
That is a good prod; I actually endorsed it. Although the topic could make for an interesting article if properly sourced, that is definite OR and is not likely to ever be attributed to reliable sources.
If you have any other specific questions, please ask. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and one more suggestion, I'd recommend that you always use an edit summary, for the reasons outlined on that page. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Looking over the article that you're reviewing, here are my thoughts:

  • There are several reliable sources to support the article, so it definitely passes WP:V. I think it's notable enough to warrant an article; if you sent it through the AfD process, I am rather confident that the result of the debate would be "keep." We have articles like Laci Peterson, after all.
  • The lead is definitely redundant and too long, considering the total length of the article. The whole second paragraph could be deleted. It could also use some references.
  • There are several missing wikilinks, and some items are wikilinked more than once, which is frowned upon.
  • Overall, I don't know that the subject of the article really makes it possible to be a GA. It's an unsolved mystery and hence a current event; I don't know that it can ever be "comprehensive." It's not clear from the article whether this is an ongoing investigation or not; if it is, then it should indicate this, and it probably should not be nominated for GA status until the situation is resolved.

I'd probably fail the article rather than just put it on hold, for the reasons outlined above. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More comments

Regarding the use of wikilinks only once per article, you can view the guideline at Wikipedia:Wikilinks.

I still think that the story is noteworthy. Like I said, it is supported by multiple reliable sources (like MSNBC), so it satisfies WP:V and my own personal criteria for inclusion. Remember that WP:NOT is a guideline and is not set in stone. Other users might argue for the article's deletion, but again, it is my sense that it would fairly easily survive an AfD. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review of Death of Lana Stempien

John, I noticed that your GA review of Death of Lana Stempien hasn't seen any activity in a while. Could you either fail or pass the article, or if you don't want to proceed, remove the "GAReview" notice from the GAC page? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graduation

I feel that you've made your way through the adoption process pretty well, and that you're now ready for graduation. Congratulations! I'll still be around if you have any questions, of course. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)