This page 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.
RoN:TP
What do you make of this?--CM (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
General opinion on the quality of the article.--CM (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
For centralized discussion purposes, I replied on my talk page.--CM (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Giants: Citizen Kabuto has been nominated for Featured Article status. Please drop by and comment when you can, thanks! FightingStreet (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the editor who nominated this article hasn't contributed to it. There is precedent for withdrawing a nomination if the main contributors to the article do not feel it is ready for FAC yet. Of course, if you think it's ready and you have the time to address concerns raised, that would be ideal; just wanted to let you know that withdrawal is an option if you have any concerns about FAC at this time. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The easiest thing for you to do would be to contact Wikipedians directly (instead of submitting to LoC) - there are plenty of copy-editors on Wikipedia, so it isn't too hard to go around asking for some help. User:Gusworld might be able to help you. — Wackymacs (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'm in a bit of a schedule crunch this week, but I can get to Conan next week if it can wait. Thanks for inviting me to help out on the project! --AnnaFrance(talk) 13:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the barnstar, Jappalang. It was a real pleasure to work on Conan, and I hope you'll consider me for your future articles. Have a great week! --AnnaFrance(talk) 14:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
FAC Review - I'll fix those problem areas today. --AnnaFrance(talk) 12:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've tried another idea with the first sentence of the Characters section. Now I'll take a look at the Visual style section. I softened the mention of Frazetta in Characters, so I'm hoping that the Frazetta material later will seem less repetitious. I want to look at Visual style anyway, to see if we can't do a bit better with the phrasing. --AnnaFrance(talk — blunders) 00:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Conan
No, i just forogt to cross that one off. When I can, I'll finish reviewing it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: grammar and Alleyway FAC
(copied over from my talk page:) Just had another look. As I say at FAC, I still can't really bring myself to support, I'm afraid. Ideally it could get another polish. But it's not a bad article, and I'm not opposing, either. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input at the 4X FAC. It took a lot of work, but I managed to reduce our reliance on MobyGames. I don't think it's possible to eliminate it completely. But virtually every point that MobyGames makes has been reinforced with other references that say something similar. Hope that helps. Randomran (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm grateful for your help, and I respect your reservations. But if you should change your mind, though, you know where to find the FAC :) Randomran (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me find the book in need of a page number. I fixed it. I also tried to address your concerns about the references. I think there was just a slip-up when trying to summarize stuff in the lead, because I was able to find the appropriate references in the body. It should be fixed now. Randomran (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Conan (2007 video game) FA review
Sorry that the article is having a rough time on its way to FA, although I'm sure the extra effort will improve it. In the copyedit, I struggled with the "player" and "the barbarian" issue. Personally I thought of both terms as synonyms and had no trouble figuring out what the human was doing vs. what the on-screen character was doing. And I never could figure out any more clear synonyms to use that would break up the redundancy. Anyway, let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. --AnnaFrance(talk — blunders) 15:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This is terrific! (and I don't just mean about my barnstar—thanks) This means that one of these days we'll see Conan featured on the home page, doesn't it? Noob question: from what little I've seen, one of the primary editors hands out barnstars. Who gives the primary editors their well-deserved barnstars? I would think that others, like me, feel too...hmm...marginal? I mean, privates don't award colonels new medals. The people who should be handing out the barnstars, of course, are the FA reviewers. :) --AnnaFrance(talk — blunders) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry about Conan, I've been packing for college and was getting sidetracked, so I didn't get back to giving it a thorough review. I'll try to go through it before you bring it back to FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll run through the article tomorrow (I promise!) and post on the talk page. (And I'm starting as a art student, god help me :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got my copy of notes, I just need to apply myself and finish... sure, I don't have work tomorrow and won't be doing anything otherwise, so I'll try to have it done by Tuesday (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jappalang. Thanks for the very detailed review, which prompted me to add some more background information and precedents. Hopefully it makes the article more engaging. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm led to believe that Chapuis made a typo; Marr says none exploded, and the Vietnamese paper used on the vi.wiki says that there were eight bombs and none of them exploded. Chapuis has a few other places where the copyeditor forgot to check because it says that Huynh Phu So was born in 1919 (everyone agrees) and then says that he started his movement in 1919 (should be 1939). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help and taking the time to draw that map. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Nish is going to go over it this weekend, but in the meantime I think I've dealt with your remaining grammar point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe I've addressed your concerns (I clarified what 'contract' Marsh drew up, I believe that was the source of the confusion.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know since you noted your conditional support on the FAC based on Nish's involvement:
I will probably add stuff, but I don't think I can do it within the next few days. I'm confident that my concerns will probably be addressed by the conclusion of the FAC. If not, I'll be expanding the article myself later on, if that's alright with you. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Re. An FAC Request
(copied over from my talk page:) Sorry I never did get back to you on this. But congrats on the FA! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your note on the FAC page about the University of Calgary source. If you have a moment, I wonder if you could briefly look at the prose & identify areas that might want tightening up? I'd be very grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You really did a thorough job reviewing Colton Point, thanks again so much for all the work you put into it. Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to add my sincerest thanks too - Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Amazing
Hi -- thanks for the note; yes, I will certainly follow up on those issues. I have one other issue left over from FAC that I need to follow up on, so I know I'm not done yet. A quick note: yes, "<author> appeared in Amazing" is fairly standard usage, but that doesn't mean it's not jargon. I will think about other ways to phrase this. I'll definitely add a footnote on "dummy issue"; I don't know if I'm going to be able to source it, but I'll try. Thanks for the input at FAC. Mike Christie(talk) 10:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I've fixed both issues now. Please take a look and let me know if both look good to you. Thanks. Mike Christie(talk) 15:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: Source for Victoria image
Hi Jappalang. That one was from my own collection; I had a large number of CDV photographs back then. I confess that, at that time, I wasn't expert in image sources and didn't understand the need for a decent description. The source listed by Banime wasn't quite accurate; it's the same CDV but not the same copy. Corrected now. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Most welcome. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. --Banime (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
All your help
Thanks, you're a life saver. --Banime (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
You don't happen to know anything about templates, do you? Haha, I really didn't think the FA review would be so heavy on images/formatting/templates because I really just knew how to do the writing and sources, so thanks so far with your help. The editor right now just has some concerns with the tables near the bottom, he believes they should be all the way at the bottom but that would remove the title and such. Anyway just wondering if you knew how to fix that, thanks if you can help. --Banime (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I'll look into it. --Banime (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not your fault, you helped improve it a lot. The article just needs some more work is all. Thanks for your suggestions for copyeditors (they are copyeditors, right?) --Banime (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks a lot. Yeah I couldn't work too much this week but maybe this weekend I'll have more time. Yeah I was wondering where I could find more sources to replace the globalsecurity ones I'll have to look for that "first in his family" quote from somewhere else. If necessary we can remove the claim for now too. Also, I'm going to add in a short blurb explaining what liberalism is for the time and region but I'll need to look for more sources for that as well. Thanks for all of your help so far. --Banime (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I expanded it a bit with some more information about liberalism and such and I added some citations for it. However, right now I'm still using a tertiary source that I don't like so I'm looking for one more good source. And if needed I can remove the GlobalSecurity one. Thanks for all of your help. --Banime (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed the GlobalSecurity source once and for all (and the claim of "first" with it). I also removed the tertiary source because I found good reliable secondary sources. --Banime (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Lipantitlán
I really appreciated your comments about the Battle of Lipantitlán at its FAC, which I unfortunately had to close prematurely. I've rewritten part of the article and modified the image and I plan to bring the article back to FAC soon. At your convenience, could you take a look at the article and see if there are any further improvements that I should make before renominating? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
re
你說英文維基的ref標準還要比中文版高?簡直沒可能，這裡只有14個ref，中文維基沒20個都妄想選優良，何況特色--JackyCheung (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
i did translation only, don't ask me--JackyCheung (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you VERY much for your review of the article! Thanks to your prose suggestions and citation template fixes, the article seems much more polished now! Ink Runner (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Tetrarch FAC Images
Thanks for your comments on the Tetrarch FAC. I've replied to your questions about the images (with some of my own, I'm afraid) on the FAC page. Skinny87 (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the general comments as well. I've given the article a copy-edit and dealt with the specific issues you brought up. Would you mind looking at the article again and seeing if I've dealt with everything - if not I'll go through it again! Skinny87 (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, if that first section I copy-edited looks better, please let me know; if it's what you're looking for in the article I'll give the rest of the article a go. Skinny87 (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I've really given the article a heavy copy-edit, been ruthless and gotten rid of anything that seems wordy or repetitive. Could you take another look and see how it looks now? Skinny87 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
(od) Just thought I'd keep you in the loop; none of the people I've left messages for about copy-editing the article can either copy-edit or haven't responded. I've left a message with the League of Copy Editors, but I don't know how quick they are with their responses. I'll have another go at the article tomorrow, but I don't know how much more I'll be able to get, the article's just a blur to me by now. Hopefully someone will respond and help me out. Thanks for your continued help, Skinny87 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Left a question on the talkpage when you have a moment, thanks. Skinny87 (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you might be able to support the Tetrarch FAC if all of the prose issues have been resolved to your satisfaction; I made a note on the FAC page which I hope wasn't presumptive of me. Many thanks for all your excellent help, Skinny87 (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Action of 13 January 1797 FAC
Thankyou for participating in the FAC for Action of 13 January 1797. The article has now passed and your assistance in the process was much appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Sunderland A.F.C. FAC
Hi, cheers a lot for that review, I've completed many of the concerns, and left a few queries about some. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That edit is fine. Thanks for the further input. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the flags from the infobox and player list, so I think that's everything now. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank You
I believe that you addressed an issue in the USS Iowa (BB-61) FAC concerning citation templates, one that I was unable to address because the commenter has not yet gotten back to me with the specifics of the problem. If I am right about the nature of the problem on the FAC page than I owe you a Thank You: since I believe you addressed this issue I am now that much closer to get Iowa through the FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Jada Pinkett Smith FAC
I knew I recognized your name. So, not only did you do an awesome job on the peer review of the article, you did a stupendous job of fixing the cite templates on the article. Question: If the information for the publisher of a reference is not available/cannot be found, what happens? Thank you so much for all of your help. I appreciate it so much! – Ms. SaritaConfer 06:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Image reviews at FAC
Thanks for doing image reviews at FAC - they are a wonderful help. Awadewit (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Re:Iowa sources
Thats...odd. In the four years I've been on Wikipedia I believe this is the first time such a problem has ever arisen. I'll look into this immediately. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You, sir, have uncork a very interesting can of worms here. I'm positive that the information is correct, otherwise I wouldn't have added it to the article, but finding the original sources is proving to be much more complicated than I originally planned for. This may take another day (or two). On an unrelated note, I wanted to inform you that my home internet connection is on the fritz again. I finally managed to resurrect it after working through most of the night, but I can not say for sure when it will die on me again. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Found It! It was part of committee report that accompanied the NDAA'07 bill. The correct link and sources have been added and the cite web tag update to reflect the new citation, although the cite tag may need to be fine tuned the information is now verifiable. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, yeah, I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do to the above image. To tell you the truth I copied the same license from another poster I got from the same site believing they fell under the same rules. If I was wrong I'm sorry, I never could understand all the license probelms in images. I got the license from File:Lockdown2008.jpg which is used in the FA Lockdown (2008).--WillC 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I believe I fixed the problems. Thanks for explaining what I should have done. Sorry to bother you.--WillC 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
2008 ACC Championship Game photos
The appropriate email was forwarded to permissions last month. The ticket number is 2008120910013531. If you'd be able to add that to the image pages and remove the tags, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I'll make a note to that effect on the FAC page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought you'd like to know that this article has now gone to FAC, greatly improved I must say by your scrupulous peer review. It also made an appearance at DYK which I think you fixed. Thanks for all your help. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. First off, let me apologize for some uncivil and impolite comments that I made concerning you and the ongoing USMA FAC process. I appreciate you trying hold the article to the highest standards, especially in regard to WP:IUP. I think we're at an impass on the the PD status of File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg, so I have replaced it with File:Sec Def Gates & LTG Hagenbeck at USMA.jpg. I believe that this file has no issues with PD status. Could you give me your opinion? If so, that should clear up all remaining image issues with USMA's FAC. I'm sorry things go so testy. I'm much more aware of the standards now because of your input and won't make the same mistakes again. Thanks. Ahodges7 talk 23:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for revisiting the images in question and for adding your further review comments. I have no issues with the reduced size ring image. Thanks again! Ahodges7 talk 23:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
FAC image reviews
Jappalang, I notice you're resolving a lot of the image issues that come up at FAC; thanks for the extra effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Mozart: thanks
Thank you for your support and help in getting Mozart in Italy to Featured status. I appreciate your help in the effort to expand the encyclopeadia's featured classical music content. My next music project, for later this year, is likely to be List of operas by Richard Wagner, including not only those we know all about, but his many aborted projects, too. Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for replacing File:Booth escape route.png at John Wilkes Booth with this image from Commons, as you've noted at FAC. Unfortunately, there are two typos/misspellings in the svg version: "Surrat Tavern" should be Surratt and "Garett's Farm" should be Garrett. Because my computer lacks svg image editing capability, would you kndly do me a favor and edit this svg file at Commons to make these corrections? It would be greatly appreciated, as other editors have commented about the misspellings at FAC. JGHowes talk 20:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thx for fixing it. Pls note, I've added one more image to this FAC since your image review: File:Lucy Hale.jpg and, due to numerous copyedits pursuant to FAC review comments, have slightly tweaked placement also. JGHowes talk 15:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Image review
Jappalang, would you be able to review this situation? I'm going to be traveling, so won't be able to stay on top of it, and I'm not yet aware what might have gone wrong (haven't read through it all yet).SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
All right, I've read through it all now, and see that you've already weighed in, so pls disregard (the FAC was such a jumble that I needed to come back to it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Guy chimed in on the images as well and so I removed the last two images I believe were the outstanding issues. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
PD-Australia
Hi, I have significant concerns with the images used in this article and reflected them in its FAC. I do hope that there could be a ruling that shows otherwise, but it is not apparent to me currently. The main problem is that the URAA qualifies foreign images as PD in US only if they were PD in the country of origin. For Australia, this would narrow down its PD photographs to those taken before 1945. Those 1948 images might have to be deleted off Commons and classified as "fair-use" if my reasoning is correct. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what to say, because the {{PD-Australia}} has always been the way it is and I've always used the 1955 rule and so has everyone else and pictures in the 1940s-1955 range have basically always been fine for lots of FACs although I guess you must be interpreting the law in a different way to the template. There had been an argument on the template a while before but the consensus must have been for 1955- I didn't understand the debate, but I've asked other Australian editors to have a look at this legal issue. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jappalang. Congrats on the TFA! I just wanted to alert you to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 ACC Championship Game. The only impediment to promotion is the lack of an image review, and the nomination has been stagnant for two weeks. Would it be possible to look at the images? I would hate to see the nomination archived over this. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I replied to your review...
...here. Thanks so much for the time you put in to check all of the images, and I apologize for not doing it myself. :/ —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 03:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
FAC
Hi, as someone who previously commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Wilkes Booth, you may wish to revisit this page, as the FAC has been restarted and additional content to meet the concerns expressed has been added. JGHowes talk 23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I have managed to link directly to the relevant area on the old map, as requested, and have updated the url in the image. Try it now, it should work fine, although it will default to the earliest map on the site. I don't yet know how to link to a particular year. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to do some of the swapping out. I am not sure what the proper way is to license some of the images that need to be uploaded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I responded to your comments about the Lord of the Rings section of the article, and I plan to deal with the fair use issues. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
I updated the rationales and responded to your comments about the images. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
I think the problem was that the wrong page number was listed. The quote from Beck's book appears on 154, rather than 155 (where the box office info is stated). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Your statement that the article looks "like an apologetic endorsement of the filmmaker" makes you seem like the kind of person who believes everything they read. Ask John Lennon's friends and family what they think of Albert Goldman's The Lives of John Lennon. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
Furthermore, The Rough Guide to The Lord of the Rings is very poorly researched. It's sourced largely from unverifiable Internet sources. It looks like the author ran through selected reviews on the Internet Movie Database rather than actually going through the time to look up real information on the film. And it's biased towards the Jackson films! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
I'd also like to add that articles reviewing the works of Peter Jackson are never put under this kind of scrutiny! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
Okay, let's just clear all of this up: I never said that The Lord of the Rings was a "big hit" that deserved a sequel, or wrote that in the article. The article states the facts, and it's pretty clear that regardless of the obvious fact that it made money, it never resulted in a sequel. Throughout history, even minor financial successes have been followed by sequels. Take the recent Pink Panther reboot. That wasn't a "big hit" by any definition, but it produced income, and a sequel followed. MGM would not have produced a sequel if the film had not made money. Likewise, whenever a film makes money, and there's more of a story to be told, it would be assumed that a sequel would be followed. In this case, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a book. United Artists produced an adaptation of a condensed version of half of it, but did not follow through on the other half in spite of the film producing income. Now, you assume that the $4 million listed budget doesn't cover the cost of marketing. But Fritz the Cat cost only $850,000 to produce. It would be safe to assume that Bakshi had gained experience of how to keep films under budget through his past efforts, and put this knowledge to use on this film. And I never dismissed any sources for criticizing the film. Please do not assume bias on my part when I merely want to present an unbiased view of the film. It's not accurate to present it in such a negative light when its reception was not as poor as you imply. It was a financial success with mixed reviews, simply put. And the history presenting production problems such as Bakshi's disagreements with the studio should explain to viewers why any perceived flaws with the film may have occurred. I'm not saying that the film is not flawed, but that I don't want to present a direct opinion when the general consensus is extremely different from the way it is viewed by fans of Peter Jackson's films, who are largely responsible for the misconception that the film was a despised box office bomb -- which it wasn't.
About the Cinefantastique article — I don't know which article you refer to, or how to find it, but if you had checked the current revision, you would see that I had taken all of the fair use images out of the article, and placed a public domain image in the section referring to Bakshi's fantasy films -- the patent drawing for the rotoscoping technique - which properly illustrates the section without the need for a fair use image or a rationale for such images. I intend on looking over the article to see which fair use images I can place in the article that would illustrate the content without appearing to be merely decorative, if any are needed. The article is currently under peer review, so the next FA nomination should not be as chaotic as this one. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC))
I added David Denby's opinion of the film. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
I work in the film industry. I do not need you to tell me how the financial aspects of the industry work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk))
That's not what I said and my comment wasn't intended as an attack. I'm sorry if you perceived it this way. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
Image reviews
Jappalang, Thanks so much for all the excellent reviews. Is there any chance of you hitting these before the weekend? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for the dedication you've shown to FAC. It's only recently that I've started reading through the majority of the FAC nominations, and your name is consistently popping out. I've been impressed that you are able to keep your cool and discuss the image issues civilly with nominators who might perhaps be confused as to why this is even important. You've also done an excellent job providing enough information to hopefully educate those users so they don't make the same mistakes next time. Your work is very much appreciated :) Karanacs (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your continued efforts over this article, and please accept my apologies for overreacing to your comments. I was having a couple of bad days over unrelated issues and reacted instead of thinking things through. Additional comments on at least some of the photos in question, gleaned from searching through Warrack, are on the FAC talk page. Jonyungk (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Doublechecking ... my understanding is that all questionable images were removed, but talk page discussion continues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky to see which can be re-added. Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jappalang. Just so you know, I have posted an update to this FAC page; I got permission for one of the problem images, File:EdMcLain.jpg, and forwarded the e-mail to OTRS. There is not yet any change in status with the other problem image, the fair-use File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg. As I said in my comment to Fasach Nua later in the FAC, I am willing to consider removing the image if enough people agree that it is a violation of NFCC, but so far I don't see a clear consensus one way or the other so I am waiting to see if anyone else will weigh in. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know about this one small change in case you are no longer watching the FAC. Best, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hm...I don't think that will be possible, because the image itself is very old and I don't think the original is still available (according to the e-mail I got from them and sent to OTRS, it's from a 2004 newsletter/bulletin...I wouldn't even be surprised if the image uploaded to Commons is just a scan of the original). Do you think the size of the photo is detrimental in the article? It's not really contributing to the article (I'm mainly just keeping it in out of habit--it was one of the first images I found, so I put it in the article back when there were none, and now there are enough that it's not really needed anymore) other than breaking up some text, so I wouldn't mind removing it if the size makes it useless. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. The other three images there have some reason for being there (the Street Sheet one because the vendor is white and is a woman, so I could avoid looking like all the pictures in the article were of men or of black vendors; the Straatnieuws one because it's the only one I've found so far for a non-English paper; and the StreetWise one because it just seems to be a quality photo, in comparison to most of the blurry, poorly lit ones available at the Commons category), but this one is pretty much in there out of habit, so I am kind of leaning towards removing it again. I'm thinking if text does need to be broken up anywhere, it's more towards the bottom—the images are already starting to get pretty crowded in the first 50% of the article—but there's not really any logical place to put it down there. I guess I'll think on it for a day or so and then perhaps delete it again. Thanks for your input, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 22:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, here's what I ended up doing. I realized that image is actually somewhat relevant to the second-to-last section, so I moved it down there, with a more descriptive caption. (It's not illustrative enough to allow for, example, fair use, since it doesn't actually show how the paper redesigned itself—in fact, the photograph was taken before the "redesign" happened—but since it's free I figured it's not so much a problem.) To do so, though, I had to move the two newspaper cover images around a bit to make space, which included moving the problem image File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg to a somewhat awkward spot. I'll have to keep thinking about what to do with it. Anyway, thank you for your advice and suggestions. Best, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 14:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. I'll look a little more at what might be doable to justify this image...but also, now that some time has passed, I'm also getting more amenable to the idea of removing it altogether, since there's already plenty of images there. I left a message with Moni3 earlier today to ask for another opinion (since opinions at the FAC seem pretty divided), and will keep thinking about what to do...this FAC is getting pretty close to the bottom of the list so I guess I will have to make a final decision soon. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 02:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(out) I've decided to go ahead and just remove the image. I left a rationale at the bottom of the FAC. Thanks, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 18:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Request re image review
If you get the chance, would you be able to have a look at the assorted image concerns raised on this FAC? While I can see the reasoning behind the "not a legitimate fair use image" concern, even though I don't agree, some of the other image-related concerns appear just plain strange to me. Would you be able to have a look, if you've time, and either clarify that there aren't any issues, or explain just what the issues are? (There's currently no image that's essential to the article, except possibly the three maps, but I don't think there are any that aren't a useful addition, so would be reluctant to lose them.) – iridescent 19:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts after reading the FAC.
For one, a "pretty picture" definitely is not a requirement for FAs (a reasonable quality is expected, but I shudder to think if we are all expected to render professional quality graphics as our contributions).
Note that WP:V is expected for image sources (ref: WP:IUP and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches). Hence, the books (from which the data or diagrams the images are based on) are expected to be listed in the image pages ("Source" or "Description" field). The {{cite book}} and other templates can be used. Using <ref> tags and {{reflist}} is optional.
File:Ramsgate Tunnel Railway entrance at Beach Station.jpg: is the engine of the Hollycombe reconstruction the same as the original (the FAC mentions only the carriages)? I can see what Fasach Nua is getting at; if the reconstructed trains are physically near-replicas, free photos (English law permits freedom of panorama) can be used with the caption "The trains were sold to Hollycombe, who rebuilt them in almost identical condition to their original state." or something like that. Either way, the historical significance angle could be used—the trains as they are used at that time (electrically?) and the condition of the tunnel (has it collapsed now?). However, I had tried to support a similar situation for Idlewild_depot.jpg in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 28#Idlewild_depot.jpg, but it was deleted.
On the issue of reliable sources for the images, I think gren might be concerned for the claims that File:Ramsgate tunnels map.png was taken from a blog site, not a government service, and that "Ramsgate Archive" is practically unknown to people outside the Kent region; Google fails to reveal if this is a collection of papers, a department, or a building; is it a part of the Kent Archive Service? Perhaps providing more information on the Ramsgate Archive could resolve his concerns (possibly the others would be more of the book sources needed for the image data)?
On another note, have you tried contacting this trio if they are willing to release some of their photos under Creative Commons 2.0 or 2.0-Sharealike? Similarly, since Subbrit provided the email for the image contributors,[1] perhaps they might be willing to release the images used above under the CC licenses, hence avoiding a lot of issues. Sure, they have to allow for all sorts of uses with the CC-licensed images, but they would have to be attributed by the publishers. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding sourcing the two fair use images, although I took them from SubBrit, they won't be the copyright holders, but will have found them somewhere else, as they long-predate SubBrit. I suspect sourcing them would be virtually impossible. The one showing the train, tunnel and station or will almost certainly have been bought from a stall-holder with a large box of "historic photos" at either a county fair (or similar), or a specialist event for railway enthusiasts. The air-raid shelter one is almost certainly a government photo and hence exempt under the 50-year Crown Copyright rule – I can't imagine they would have allowed the public to be taking photographs of the inside of military installations during wartime – but it's impossible to prove.
The issue regarding the train is complicated; basically, what's shown in the photo is an engine, which no longer exists in this form as it was converted from a self-contained electric train to a carriage to be hauled by a steam locomotive. Even were one to grant that the carriages at Hollycombe would make an acceptable substitute for "what they looked like", it still wouldn't show the relationship between the size of the train and the size & shape of the tunnel – the relative size of the trains and the tunnel is so central to the two key factors differentiating this from other railways (the relative height of the tunnel allowed overhead power lines and hence electrification; the relative width of the tunnel provided space for the "around the world" exhibits and hence the whole "World Scenic Railway" thing). The image also shows the unusual "separate platforms for boarding and alighting" layout of the station. Yes, I could draw a diagram of the width of the tunnel and the width of the train, but I don't feel it would illustrate it as well; likewise I could draw a diagram of the station layout (as I did with Hellingly) but I think the image illustrates it better than a diagram would, as well as avoiding the need for three separate images (layout of the station; layout of the tunnel; appearance of the trains). I've tried to explain this on the FAC but don't think I'm doing a very good job. (According the the SubBrit website – which isn't a reliable source but I've no reason to doubt it – the tunnel has collapsed now; even if it hasn't, it's thoroughly sealed up so it wouldn't be possible to take a fresh photo of the inside of the tunnel.)
The Ramsgate Archives no longer exist, which is why you're having trouble finding information on them. They were housed at Ramsgate Library, but the library was destroyed by fire a few years ago; they're now housed at East Kent Archive Centre in Dover. The map in question will be part of the collection cataloged here as "Ramsgate Borough Plans & Photographs" – I have no idea how one would go about citing that.
I haven't contacted anyone else regarding releasing photographs, other than Pyrotec who is himself the copyright holder of a couple of photographs; in all honesty, this is such a low-traffic article that I don't think it warrants investing large amounts of time and effort. (It includes a link to the SubBrit archive, which contains large numbers of photographs, for any reader who wants to see more.) The only image which I'd consider essential is the "ugly" geographical diagram of the layout of the lines; everything else is useful but not absolutely necessary.
Thanks very much for having a look at this! – iridescent 13:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Just to be safe, I have stricken File:Que, or pillar gate, at the Wu Family Shrine.jpg from the article, until I can go to the library tomorrow and confirm if the picture was not published until 2005, or sometime earlier (i.e. 1923 or before). Is that the last obstacle for you to strike your opposition?--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Images at 243 Ida
I most strongly disagree with the conversion of the SVG diagrams to JPEGs at 243 Ida. The SVG of crater Fingal contains a print-resolution overview of Ida which is lost in your version. The crater itself is stored at the native resolution in the SVG, but in the JPEG it is upsampled. WP:IUP says that photographs should be in JPEG format, but this is a drawing with photographic elements, and the policy recommends an SVG in this case. If you have a reason for converting the images that I've missed, please explain at FAC/243 Ida. Also, the rasterized version of the Fingal diagram is a faithful reproduction of the original, therefore you must name its authors instead of yourself. Wronkiew (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Just saw the notes that you posted to the FAC page. I'll take another look at this in a few hours. Wronkiew (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You may want to weigh in at this FAC - the article has five fair use images, which is a bit unusual. Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jappalang. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Elwood Haynes FAC
Hello, I have responded to your comments at the fac review of Elwood Haynes. I have removed several of the images and added a couple back that are PD. I have also provided better source information for a couple to show they are PD. There is a couple though that I think we could keep as fair use, could please check that out that let me know what you think? Thanks! —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 15:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, and thanks for the follow up. I see the point of your verifiability statement, and have removed all the images in question. I have added in their place a photo from a 1919 book, a user created photo, and a 1919 company advertisement. I think those, along with the other images should be enough to be acceptable to meet the FA requirement for images. I feel the ones removed have more value, but until I can get a chance to return to the museum and get more detailed source information, I am not sure what else to do. I should be able to get that info maybe in a week or so. Please check it out again whenever you have a chance. Thanks —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 23:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
PS I made a Commons template as you suggested for the Pennsylvania DCNR state parks free photos - see the photos hereRuhrfisch><>°° 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, there are 135 bridges at least on the NRHP covered by the PennDOT license, so I will make the template for that next. Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jappalang - I've changed the picture like you suggested. The other one was listed as PD until today (seems you can't always trust what an uploader says about an image's source...) Grutness...wha? 12:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Assistance with image
Hi Jappalang, I was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some advice/assistance in relation to an image and FAC? There is a biographical article I recently created and worked on which I feel is close to FA, so I've been thinking about taking it through the FAC process. However, I am concerned with one of the images in the article. There are three images within the article—all of which fall into the Australian public domain—but one of them was taken in February 1951, which is out of the US PD. I really don't want to loose this image from the article as it is the lead image and is the only one available that is actually on the article's subject, so I was wondering if there is anything I could or should do to retain the image if I do take it through FAC? I would be very grateful for any advice or assistance would be able to provide. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
You assume correct. :) Would I attach the fair use tag while retaining the PD-AUS tag? Thanks for the reply. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks very much for the help, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed but anyway can you read PD-Australia again? I think it does actually say "created in Australia"; I presume that means photo taken and not where the picture was exposed to silver bromide and all that YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Checkers speech
Woof. Well, I've bow wowed to your advocacy and fetched new images. I'm going to play dead while you go take another look.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for helping get Caversham, New Zealand to Features Article status! The little gold star was added to the top about an hour ago... Grutness...wha? 06:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Image check
Would you mind giving Jerry Voorhis, currently at FAC, an image check? Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Review request
There's been a lengthy dispute at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive2 about whether several fair-use images have strong enough rationales. As someone who has a great deal of experience in this department, could you please visit this FAC if you get time? Giants2008 (17-14) 01:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Battersea Bridge (part 2)
Just so you (or anyone watching this) thinks I'm trying to slip things past the image review, the version currently at FAC has two additional images added since you reviewed them. I'm (fairly) confident that File:Grimshaw Battersea Bridge.jpg doesn't have any problems, but you might think the rationale on File:Joseph bazalgette.jpg is inappropriate – this was taken from de-wiki's article, and I don't know where they got it from (although de-wiki's usually very hot when it comes to potentially unfree images). We do have an alternative image of Bazalgette if it proves necessary, but the quality is much poorer; since Bazalgette died in 1891 it's hopefully reasonable to presume that a photo of him as a relatively young man can safely be assumed to be in the public domain. – iridescent 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that one! – iridescent 12:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jappalang! It really isn't a headache at all when you go and find four really good images for me. ;) How do you find them? I.e. what do you search for? I'm curious; I might want to try it for myself :) —Ed(Talk • Contribs) 04:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I had no idea that you could use a date parameter when searching. That's pretty freaking sweet. :) Yeah, for sure; I'm not sure that many publications cite their image sources as carefully as he does! Thank you very much for your help! —Ed(Talk • Contribs) 06:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the image touch-ups. Doing that stuff is a foreign world to me; I tried it once and am not sure if I want to again. :-) One thought though: my brother took on File:E Minas Geraes 1910.jpg prior to your touch-up (but got it back to me only after you were done); see File:E Minas Geraes 1910 altered.jpg. While I like yours more, his seems to get out more of that "paper texture"...if it wouldn't take too long, would you be able to work similar magic on my brother's attempt? If not, it's no big deal. Thanks, —Ed(Talk • Contribs) 05:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jappalang, thanks for your very helpful image review on Hastings Ismay. I believe that between replacing a couple and the discussion on Commons all of the images should be OK now. Could you revisit the FAC when you get an opportunity? Cool3 (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think there was some confusion as to where the truck is located in relation to the building. I made an edit to the image's caption as well as provided an explanation at the FAC. Let me know if the details are still not clear. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I responded to your comment on the image as well as the ANFO. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the image. Would it be possible to make the lines for the Ryder truck path and his escape larger so they stand out more? Also can the truck icon be rotated ninety degrees? Other than that, the map looks great. I responded to your comments, please take another look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Changes look good, and again, thank you for your helpful comments. When I add 300px to the parameters of the image it shows as the same size on my monitor due to my preferences always formatting the image at 300px. Should I add the parameter for other editors/readers who may not use the same 300px-preference? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Image reviews
I haven't thanked you lately for your excellent image work at FAC ... so thanks again !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants2008 recommended me to ask you for an image review for this article, as it is currently an FLC nomination. This would obviously be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance, and happy editing. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Rhyming FAC
Well, I was so inspired by your rhythmical FAC nomination that I created one of my own. I hope it works as well in attracting reviews as yours did. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. I added a "Background" section to this article per your suggestion in FAC but am really having problems making it work effectively and meet the expectations at which you hinted. Could you please look at it and give me some feedback as to how it could be improved—I could really use some help on this one. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, got your messages this morning. The etching of Raff is exchanged for one of the photos. The intro looks better, though I still have my own doubts as to its effectiveness and coherence, maybe because I don't personally find it having a sense of direction. What could be missing? BTW, great job on copy editing the intro—it flows much better now. Jonyungk (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi and apologies for not replying sooner—the bot just let me know about your message from yestrerday:
I tried to edit the first paragraph of "Inventing the symphonic poem" to make it flow from the previous section as best as I could. What is "extra-musical evocative qualities"? Jappalang (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, Liszt was not trying to be pictorial but evocative in setting a mood or tone; this was considered programmatic or extra-musical since absolute music was (supposedly) purely architectural and did not exhibit these qualities. Here's what I tried this morning:
In his desire to expand single-movement works beyond the concert overture form, Liszt created the symphonic poem.[2] His intention was to combine the programmatic qualities of the overture with a scale and musical complexity normally reserved for the opening movement of the classical symphony.[16] The opening movement, with its interplay of contrasting themes under sonata form, was normally considered the most important part of the symphony.[17] To achieve his objectives, Liszt needed a more flexible method of developing musical themes than sonata form would allow.[18]
How does this work? I'm still very concerned about jargon and user-friendliness in this article. Thankks for letting me know. Jonyungk (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
What you dod looks really good to me. The only tweak I made was to change "are" to "is" in "The music of overtures is," since "music" is singular and "of overtures" is a prepositional phrase. Thanks again. Jonyungk (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of tweaking, I've been doing some similar work with the corresponding part of the lead section. It's better but still reads pretty lumpy. Jonyungk (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for both the suggestions. I used the first, about Liszt's working methods. The second seggestion won't work because the symphonic poem Tasso is about the sixteenth-century Italianpoet, Torquato Tasso, not the Gondalier who sang Liszt the song on which the symphonic poem is based. I did clarify the basis for Tasso at the beginning of that paragraph, however. Jonyungk (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)* "... unusual time and key signatures, ... chamber-music textures ..."
What are these?
Usually 4/4 or 3/4 is considered common time; somehing trickier like 9/7 or 5/4 would be considered unusual. It's harder to play and odder-sounding to the ear. Chamber music textures would be when only a couple of instruments in the orchestra are playing instead of the whole group. Maybe it would be better if I removed the paragraph entirely, as it talks more about performance challenges than challenges audience would have with the pieces. Jonyungk (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the paragraph and have been really working to explain why players and listeners would have had problems with the symphonic poems. I could really use your help, though, just to look things over if nothing else.
BTW, any chance of including File:Karl Klindworth.jpeg in the article? It could use one more photo near the back but I wasn't sure about the licensing when I looked it up in Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "unusual beat" would work for "unusual time signatures". Key signatures are harder to explain so I may take out mention of it. Thanks also for the new photo of Klindworth—it will come in handy. Jonyungk (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Like what you did with Franck, and thank you for suggesting File:Cesar Franck At Organ.jpg. BTW, how do the paragraphs in "Reception" on beat, time signatures and so on read? I really appreciate your input. Jonyungk (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Everything looks fantastic; you really did a great job of polishing and spelling things out. I changed one word and removed one sentence because the cite did not match. Otherwise, everything is as you left it. Thank you so much for all your help. Jonyungk (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have sent Smetana to FAC, having run out of things to do with it. I removed the Bartered Bride Overture soundfile that you have listed for deletion. I believe you have checked out the other soundfiles and the images, but it would be nice to have formal clearance on these, plus any other comments. Thanks for your considerable help on this article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Because of the length of time it takes you to respond to my queries, I assume you are not watching the FAC discussion, so I am notifying you that I have responded to your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
We have removed the image. Feel free to add new comments and maybe remove your oppose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I nominated this article for FAC and would appreciate your imput should you have time. I know you're pretty busy but I greatly appreciate all the time you put into Symphonic poems (Liszt) and, while I am not expecting anywhere near that amount of help this time, I greatly respect your input. Thanks ery much. Jonyungk (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I have re-submitted the Jackie Robinson article for FA status. Last time you opposed based on non-free image criteria. I've made some changes to replace two fo the non-free images. You may still want to oppose based on two remaining non-free images, but either way I wanted to give you a chance to comment. BillTunell (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
At last I think it's ready. I've nominated it, anyway, so let's see what happens. Thanks for all your help; your check on the images would be appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to invite you in particular to our recording, since you do a lot of image checks at FAC. If you can come, please sign up here. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ravenloft
Hello! Ravenloft (module) has been nominated for FAC again. As you commented in one or both of the previous FAC discussions, I'm inviting you to have another look. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I think Peregrine addressed the last of your concerns. :) BOZ (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Auld lang syne
Just to let you know that the Lang peer review has been closed and the article is at FAC awaiting its trouncing. I removed the diocesan map for which the sourcing was unclear, and have incorporated the signature which you thought was OK. If in your own good time you can check out the other images (or anything else that takes your fancy) that would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for helping get Caversham, New Zealand to Features Article status! The little gold star was added to the top about an hour ago... Grutness...wha? 06:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
