User talk:SBC-YPR/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive 1 : October 2007 - February 2009

Your edits to Bangalore

Thanks for showing your interest in the Bangalore article. However, I have reverted the edits because of the following reasons:

  • Bangalore is a featured article which is an indication that it is one of the best articles existing on Wikipedia. Hence, there are certain quality guidelines that will have to be followed in order for it to retain the featured article status. An important one being that sentences in the article must be well-cited. Please read WP:CITE on more info on this.
  • The article needs to follow the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities guidelines to a large extent and Urban Layout does not deserve a complete section in the article. If you do not agree to my inputs, you are welcome to discuss your change in the Talk:Bangalore page. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 14:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Urban layout in Bangalore

I will open up a topic for discussion regarding your change in the Talk:Bangalore page. Lets see what other editors say and then we can take it forward -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Srinagar_Station.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Srinagar_Station.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Kashmir train.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kashmir train.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Yes it looks like. Please share your thoughts at Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks#GA nomination. Thanks, KensplanetTC 18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re GA review of Periyar E. V. Ramasamy

Thanks for your note; I'd be very happy to help out. I notice you've not posted your review yet - one option, if you like, would be for you to post a draft somewhere in your userspace first and I can look over it before it goes 'live'... or we can work on it on the review page if you prefer. There is no set structure for GA reviews, so as long as they follow the criteria at WP:WIAGA you can pretty much do your own thing. If you want to use something to help organise the review, there are a couple of templates available or you can make your own layout (I use this, which I keep in my sandbox - feel free to take and modify if you wish).

On an quick read-through of the article, my initial thoughts are that you haven't chosen an easy article for your first review! Some of the points I spotted (there are others) are:

  • The prose needs work; quite a lot in places. A thorough copyedit from a good copyeditor would be very useful.
  • The article is not particularly neutral in parts. Sentences like "The immoral activities, begging and floating dead bodies, which Periyar witnessed at Kasi..." and "He continued to question as to why the Brahmins behaved so mercilessly and fanatically as to push the communities of the Dravidian race even to starvation and even death by adamantly enforcing their evil casteism" read as though the author is expressing their personal opinion - they need rewording to avoid the appearance of editor commentary. It would help to balance the article if there was something (both the good and the bad) about how Periyar was and is thought of by other reformers and intellectuals; such a controversial figure must have provoked quite a reaction!
  • There are a few Manual of Style issues, mainly to do with headings and over-linking, though I'm sure you'll spot others.
  • The links in the External links section could probably do with trimming per WP:LINKS

On the plus side, the sourcing looks quite good, and it's an interesting, well-researched and comprehensive article. Personally I'd be inclined to fail the nomination this time, because I think there's just too much that needs doing before it will get to GA status, but if you believe it can be done in a reasonable 'hold' period, that's fine. As the reviewer, it's your decision.

I hope this helps. The only real advice I have is to remember that we are dealing with someone's hard work, so be tactful, helpful and praise the good as well as pointing out the not-so-good ;) All the best, EyeSerenetalk 11:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great so far. I've watchlisted your draft review, so I'll keep checking back. EyeSerenetalk 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re review

OK, I'll do that. I'm busy for most of the morning (UK time), but I'll get to it as soon as I can. Best, EyeSerenetalk 08:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you've performed a very thorough, high-quality review. Excellent work, especially on such a complex article! I agree that the article is probably a 'fail' rather than a 'hold' this time, but it's always a judgement-call. If you decide to go for a 'hold', you shouldn't worry too much about the time period - as long as constructive work is being carried out on an article, I tend to extend hold periods as long as needed (although obviously there comes a point, maybe after a couple of weeks or so, where the assessment has to be brought to an end regardless). Thank you very much for your contribution to the GA Wikiproject, and I sincerely hope you decide to stay with us. If you have any more questions about transcluding/closing the review etc, you know where my talkpage is ;) All the best, EyeSerenetalk 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation

Your barnstar was unexpected and very much appreciated - I really did very little, other than confirm that you had produced a high-quality review. However, I'm glad you found my comments useful, and I'd be very happy to help out in the future if there's anything else I can do. It's been a pleasure working with you, and it's great for Wikipedia that editors such as you can contribute such excellent work to India-related articles. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 17:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you went for the hold in the end! I perhaps should have mentioned that, if you want to help the nominator, we have no problem with that. Assisting with minor things like copyediting, formatting, wikimarkup etc is all part of the collaborative nature of the GA review process, and we encourage reviewers to join in (although significant content changes are to be avoided because then the reviewer is no longer seen as 'uninvolved'). However, if you don't have the time or desire to work on the article, that's fine too ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What I have so far

Hi,

This is what I have so far here. Let me know what you think. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Assessment

Thank you for your outstanding assessment of the Periyar E. V. Ramasamy article more so as it is your first article .It has been outstanding.I would say so whether it is a Pass,hold or fail.Please let me any more changes are needed after the changes done already.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review assessment suggestions complete

Pleased to bring to your attention that all the suggestions for GA review have been complete as seen on this page here. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re your note

I've been dropping in on the review now and then, and have been hugely impressed by the magnificent job you're doing there. I think you made the right decision to extend the review under the circumstances - given the amount of work that needed doing, opting for a hold was always going to involve being rather flexible ;) To their credit the editors have also responded extremely well, and the article is looking much better than when I first read it. However, you're right that the holds can't go on forever, and I think (both in tone and substance) your latest assessment is fair... and even if you don't ultimately feel able to pass the article, your review has already achieved what the GA WikiProject exists to do, which is to raise the standards of Wikipedia's content. EyeSerenetalk 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just WP:PURGEed the page cache - is it displaying correctly now? As far as I'm aware. flagged revisions aren't yet at the trial stage, so I'd be surprised if that was the problem. EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It's basically a way of automatically producing a check-list of new pages/edits that have been confirmed as OK for Wikipedia - see WP:NPPLOG for more details. EyeSerenetalk 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review second assessment suggestions complete

All suggestions for the GA second assessment have been complete here Wiki Raja (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re GA review

Your pass looks fine to me - I've just re-read the article and the improvement in tone and organisation is immense. The presence of citations in the lead is a subject of personal preference at GA - I have no issue with them, especially in a WP:BIO article, but some reviewers at WP:FAC will object since everything in the lead is supposed to be expanded on in the article body, so should be cited there.

There's no requirement to identify the contributors to the GA pass, and I don't always, but I think it's sometimes a nice touch when they've worked really hard. My sandbox is slightly out of date though; I now only credit the editors involved in significant editing during the GA review (so in this case User:Wiki Raja for sure, and User:Wikiality123, User:Pharaoh of the Wizards and User:Ravichandar84 depending on how you judge their contribution to the GA pass). In the past I've used this tool, which will give you an editing breakdown for an article, though since one can't set a date range it's not as useful as it first appears.

I usually also leave the credited editors a GA contributor userbox on their talk-pages (My sanbox template); just replace any occurences of ARTICLE with the article name.

If you can think of further improvements that could be made, above and beyond the GA criteria, we encourage reviewers to suggest those too - perhaps a second Peer Review before WP:FAC might be useful if the editors decide to go that way. Thank you once again for your superb review, and I hope you decide to stay with us. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 10:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You deserve one of these...

The Exceptional Newcomer Award
Awarded to SBC-YPR for their outstandingly thoughtful, conscientious and high-quality first GA review of Periyar E. V. Ramasamy. On behalf of the GA WikiProject with gratitude, EyeSerenetalk 11:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Talkback

Hello, SBC-YPR. You have new messages at Ravichandar84's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RavichandarMy coffee shop 12:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Raja of Panagal

Hi, could you review Raja of Panagal article. I had nominated this fora GA long time back, but no review has been performed till nom. Seems there is a huge backlog. Thanks :-)-RavichandarMy coffee shop 12:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

It's been a pleasure working with you, and I look forward to seeing you around the GA WikiProject when you get back from your break. Looks like you're already in demand - the reward on Wikipedia for a job well done is another three jobs ;) EyeSerenetalk 13:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Talkback

Hello, SBC-YPR. You have new messages at Ravichandar84's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RavichandarMy coffee shop 13:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:SBC-YPR/Archive_1"