Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:14, 30 November 2006

You are welcome to leave messages here. When adding comments, please create a new section and add the comments to the bottom of this page. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there.

If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit or delete them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here & I'll go take a look.

In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. If you still prefer to send an email, use the link on my main user page. Sending me an email indicates your permission for me to publicly reveal the contents of that email without exception.

As time goes on, I will migrate our conversations to /Archive1 if we're no longer discussing a current issue.

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence For your excellent review on the SSP page against Father's Wish, and always keeping the case up to date. Well done. PS: Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. Iolakana 12:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fin Whale

Yeah, i've been following your inputs on the fin whale, some good stuff. I definitely think that it is worthy of GA, and FA shouldnt be too hard either, so might as well go straight for that and not bother with GA at first as that will just take more time.

I did start doing some changes, like the British spelling, i will look through again and check those (if you use Firefox 2.0 you can set the dictionary to British-English and it will underline any words spelt wrong in the edit box). As for the numbers, i changed them to not using commas at first as that is the correct scientific format, but then i realised that it wasn't for Misplaced Pages, as it looked a bit weird, even with the non-breaking space, particularly with the low thousands (eg. 2,000 --> 2 000). So commas i think are standard and best.

I might have a bit more info that i could add (i have a couple of books to hand) which i can look into tomorrow. They may not be to great, or have that much more info to add. chris_huh 18:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through and can't see anything wrong with it. I added a few subheadings, but couldn't really think of any better ones for the rest of the physical characteristics bit, so i just left that. Do you think its time to nominate it then? chris_huh 11:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably should wait a week or so. One of the criteria for FA is that the article is "stable". With all the changes that we've made, someone may raise that objection. So one of us can nominate it after it shows a few days of inactivity. Neil916 (Talk) 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Leaf concerns

I fixed one, misnamed ref, replied in another in the Ryan Leaf FAC. Jaranda 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed both sentences. Jaranda 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Stegosaurus

Hey Neil,

Thanks for your fixes here. Sorry about that; I thought they were all fixed. :/ Happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 18 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article barndoor skate, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Allen3  01:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway

Neil, thanks for all the reviews of the Tourette articles, but I'm sorry you had to waste your time. I was bothered when another editor - knowing that I'm the only author - put all four articles up for GA review just as I was traveling and didn't have time to finish them. Those three articles contained most of the crufty and useless information the Tourette syndrome article had acquired before I brought it to featured status; they need cleanup and rewriting, as they basically consist of information which I needed to remove from the main article. Further, as I find the GA process to be a misuse of valuable editor time, I've removed the remaining noms, which I should have done from the beginning (except that I had limited internet access). When the articles are finished, I will submit them to the Medicine Project for review and comment. I've noticed you've made some very detailed and helpful comments at both GAC (which I don't consider to be a star worth pursuing, since anyone can confer GA status, and it has very little meaning), and at WP:FAC - I was hoping you would be interested in helping out at WP:FAR, where we have a backlog of the articles at the bottom of the list, and could really use more good reviewers. Those that are in most urgent need of additional review are listed in a template on my talk page; if you're interested in helping out, you might add that template to one of your pages. Again, I'm sorry you had to waste your time on the TS articles, and if I had been asked, I would not have recommended they be submitted to GA until I could finish them. Hope to see you at WP:FAR, where we could really use some help! Sandy (Talk) 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Improvements to the Psychology portal

Hi, I'm working on trying to get Portal:Psychology up to Featured portal status. Any tips you can offer on how to improve it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbie 16:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Mitosis

No "hold" for the mitosis review? – ClockworkSoul 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching the article, so I'll already be familiar with it if it is resubmitted to WP:GAC. I'll take another look at it then. I didn't put a hold on the article in this case since it needed quite a bit of work on the references issue and I am learning that holds are supposed to be used for relatively minor and easy-to-address issues. In addition, it will tend to languish on hold since other reviewers tend to not look at articles that a different reviewer has put on hold. The natural sciences category isn't backlogged right now, the only two articles left are ones I can't review myself because I've significantly contributed to them, so resubmitting shouldn't add considerably to the time it sits waiting for a review. Neil916 (Talk) 23:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

TimVickers has been adding lots of good references. Does it look adequate to you? – ClockworkSoul 23:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As an extra note, adding references to scientific articles is generally easy work, because a good amount of this information is found in a myriad of textbooks. – ClockworkSoul 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if I was short with you: I unfairly took my bad week out on you. It won't happen again. – ClockworkSoul 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Science portal

Okay, here's a big one! Please offer any feedback you have at its talk page on how to improve this portal to featured status. Thanks. Rfrisbie 15:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SkyTrain (Vancouver)

I believe all of your objections have been taken care of and I think it's ready for GA status. -- Selmo 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Botany articles

Well, if I can find one done halfway well, could you make suggestions about needs for expansion areas and put it in logical order--(Sei whale) flows, many botany articles don't, even some of the best ones. We have good copyeditors, and good technical editors, especially with multiple editors on one article, what's missing is a comprehensive look at what the botanical article should contain, imo, and I'm not getting good feedback from botany editors? Not being a botanist, but having a biological background, would actually be to everyone's advantage. KP Botany 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sei whale lead paragraph

Ahhggg, no! Don't expand the lead section of this article--it's very well done. See my not on FAC page. KP Botany 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)