Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will Beback (talk | contribs) at 22:38, 4 March 2008 (→PR template: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Misplaced Pages.
Nominations: Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) • UNICEF club (talk | history | start review) • 2022 Fife Council election (talk | history | start review) • New England Revolution in international competition (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Bleeding Through • Khandoba • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)
Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

24 December 2024 News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Other neat portal ideas for longer term

• Longer term ideas to think about from other portals:

1. Events section, like: "On this day" e.g., Biography, Religion; "Selected anniversaries" e.g., War; "Calendar" at Holidays. Interesting idea of "Month selected anniversaries", at Oregon.
2. Model intro with some rotating images, after Portal:Oregon, Portal:Iceland/Intro and Portal:Philosophy of science/Intro.
3. Revamp DYK sections w/ free-use images, model after Portal:Criminal justice and Portal:Oregon.
4. Portal palettes at User:RichardF/Palettes/Portals. Comparable color schemes can be developed from the various hue lists at User:RichardF/Palettes. Also see Portal:Box-header.
5. If there are a lot of categories, then categories section to 2 columns, like in Portal:Indiana.

Cirt (talk)

Re: Hurricane Neddy

Sorry, I missed your comment on my talk page (due to someone posting after you). Unfortunately, I'm a little busy with some of my hurricane articles, but I'll give you a few things that should be done to the article before you put it up for FAC.

• The couch gag summary is rather long. Seeing as none of them are complete sentences, there should be no periods (full-stops). Additionally, I just noticed that it was taken directly from SNPP.com. That should be re-written.
• The lede should be a bit longer – ideally two paragraphs. I don't think the name of the hurricane needs to be in the lede, but perhaps some more plot could be thrown in up there. Be sure that the writing is professional, and avoids any flowery language. Hurricane Barbara viciously strikes Springfield but, by pure chance, the house of Ned Flanders is the only one destroyed. viciously? Additionally, stating that Ned Flanders' house being the only one destroyed is a bit of Original research, I believe. Does anywhere in the episode state that specifically?
• The plot is rather long, and I would say in need of a re-write before taking it to FAC. In the second sentence, is it necessary to state that Homer poorly secured the family home? Personally, I would say something like, "...resulting in panicked citizens storming the Kwik-E-Mart and causing the Simpson family to take refuge in their basement." This eliminates the hole when the next sentence says, "and the family cautiously leaves the basement" without ever saying they were in the basement. "Meanwhile, next door Flanders" reads awkwardly, and it should either specify that it was Ned, or the Flanders family in general. "Distraught with annoyance, Flanders begins to believe that God is punishing him and, seeking answers, he goes to read the Bible in the church but receives a papercut." This sentence is a tad long. Additionally, Dictionary.com says that papercut is not a word, and needs to be written as paper cut.
• Quick question - was Jay Sherman really billed as a guest star? I find that perplexing, given that he only made a brief cameo in one scene.
• In the production section, I'm confused about the inclusion of the second paragraph (the stuff about "John Swartzwelder"), since that doesn't appear to have anything to do with production. I recommend moving that paragraph to the "cultural references" section.
• In the reception section, it'd be great to see some reviews.

Good luck with improving it further, and if you need any more comments, feel free to give me a post. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these pointers! I'll get on this when I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Scientology(footer)

Hi. Thanks for your message; I realized I'd misunderstood the instructions for an uncontroversial requested move. Have now posted request here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Last Tempation of Krust

I'm not sure if I can guarantee my support, as I'm not sure what to expect from a featured episode. The quotes seem awkward, and I just feel that the writing is not professional enough. Perhaps ask Tony, as he is the guy to ask. Granted, he might be a bit busy, IDK. I don't think I'll comment on the next FAC. That way, I won't influence any other editors. If it truly is FA worthy, the community will prove that it is, and the opposite is true. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fair. I'll try to take a look at those points and give the article's prose/copyediting/style another once over. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to give it a once-over myself, iron out any defects and support. Sadly, I was busy to death the last four days so I couldn't do anything. If you were to re-nom in a week, I should be done with my copy-edit by then. indopug (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can wait that long, that's fine, and I'd of course appreciate any copy-edit you wish to contribute. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Misplaced Pages since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Misplaced Pages's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Misplaced Pages is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Misplaced Pages supports both spellings. Misplaced Pages:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Misplaced Pages:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Misplaced Pages one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Misplaced Pages. Nominations: Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) • UNICEF club (talk | history | start review) • 2022 Fife Council election (talk | history | start review) • New England Revolution in international competition (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Bleeding Through • Khandoba • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Book cover in author article

Hi Cirt. User talk:23skidoo is on my watchlist, and I noticed that you tagged Image:Junkieace.jpg for deletion because it was not suitable for William S. Burroughs. I've taken the book cover out of the author's article and removed the image's delete tag. When I come across a book cover that is used in both the author and book articles, I remove the image from the author article with an informative edit summary rather than tagging for deletion. I've done this quite a few times and have had no problems. Doing this might save you some time in the future. I hope you don't mind me offering some advice :-) All the best, Bláthnaid 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice/note, but I think in this case, especially because a third-party editor took action to remove the image from the inappropriate page(s), things worked out better this way. I also refer to the points at the top of Betacommand (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's good to come across another editor working on cleaning up images. Bláthnaid 23:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate that. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Justanother

Cirt -- I reviewed Justanother's recent block under the Scientology article probation. In reviewing the situation, I find your conduct to have been somewhat troubling. Specifically, this is about Shawn Lonsdale. (1) You were edit warring over a source in the article. (2) You inappropriately gave a vandalism warning when there was no vandalism (and obviously there was no testing going on.) Unlike Justanother, you were at least civil. I would probably have banned you for 24 hours if I had been the one to look into this initially but I consider the situation old at this point so I'm not going to. However, I'm going to log this warning at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS. If you really did know that the IP editor at Shawn Lonsdale was Justanother from the start, as he claims, I would consider that to be much more serious. You can see my separately written assessment of this at User talk:Justanother. Moving forward, please remember that Scientology-related articles are on article probation, and that you should not accuse others of vandalism when they are making apparently good-faith edits: even new users. Mangojuice 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Justanother is paid by Scientology to keep as much critical material off of Misplaced Pages as possible. He'll push the limits and if no one is watching or not careful, suddenly Scientology looks like a legitimate religion. Too bad the critics don't have millionaires, like John Travolta donating to Scieno associations like IAS with the sole purpose of paying trolls like Justanother. K69 (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cirt, how is that additional section for Scientology's possible involvement coming along. I provided you with secondary sources. What's the holdup? K69 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

K69 (talk · contribs), please refactor your above comment. It is not really appropriate for you to comment on this matter, especially in the manner you did. Please be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Mangojuice

Hi, I saw your warning and would like your advice. I was busy editing the Shawn Lonsdale article when Justanother (talk · contribs) came along on the IP, and I didn't know it was him until he revealed his name. I'm worried that he's following me and trying to bait me into a block. He keeps changing IP addresses so it's hard for an uninvolved observer to track his actions, and he refuses to remove the personal attacks against me from his user pages. What do you advise me to do? Most Wikipedians don't edit under the worry that every new IP they encounter might be someone who has an old grudge. I've got a featured portal nomination in progress (Portal:Criminal justice) and I'm working on a couple other potential featured articles and featured portal drives, and don't want them to get disrupted by this issue. Really, I just wish the fellow would leave me alone. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

PR template

I don't see the adavantage, but if you do then feel free to make that change. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)