Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Finetooth. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
 |
The Reviewer's Barnstar | |
| Thanks for your peer review of Reaction Engines Skylon. Your help was much appreciated. Novus Orator 04:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Finetooth. Since your recent peer review of Mantra-Rock Dance substantially helped improve the article, I thought to let you know that it's a FAC now. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your review! ;) I'm going over and correcting things right now. HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
For peer-reviewing Pichilemu. I'm glad you enjoyed reading about my town, at least I can safely think now that it was worth the time invested on it :) Will take into account all of those suggestions, they're a great help, and undoubtfully will only improve the article. Again, thanks! Diego Grez (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your feedback in the "Mothers of the Disappeared" PR. The one part that I am unclear about is regarding your suggestion about the Reagan image. I don't do much work with images, so I'm not quite sure what you mean with (or rather, how to do) the linking and author identification bit. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ahh, I understand now; thank you very much for the clarification. It looks like all the information you mentioned was already there on the Commons page, but the template was broken for whatever reason so it wasn't showing on the page. Still, I learned something new and for that I am grateful. Thank you. :) Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, There is a BLP issue and an RFC in here about Kaveh Farrokh. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 21:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please post your comment in that page. I need to know your point of view. Thanks, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 22:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, No need to do so. I just quit the discussion. Thanks anyway. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 15:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 |
All Around Amazing Barnstar | |
| Given with respect and admiration to Finetooth for your Herculean efforts at peer review in the past month. Not only was the quantity of your reviews amazing, but the quality was even more so. Thank you, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your helpful review in Wikipedia:Peer review/Taiwan High Speed Rail/archive1! You were right that abbreviating units was an editorial decision, but before that, I have a more pressing request on a similar issue, which came up in a review I am doing.
In Wikipedia:Peer review/SS Edmund Fitzgerald/archive1 (in which you already participated), the conclusion developed that it is necessary to present wind speeds as they are in the sources, that is, sometimes the primary unit of the convert templates has to be knots, other times miles per hour. You'll find that I made the argument that it would be better to use the possibility given in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conventions, and spell out the units on first occurrence and then abbreviate everywhere else. An article editor followed that but made a counter-point, which made me unsure, especially as I am accustomed to SI units and the issue here is US customary units, so I ask you to weigh in there. To ask specific questions, do you think it would be acceptable to consistently abbreviate only the speed triplets? Or even just those speed triplets which have mph as primary unit? (The back-and-forth between "miles per hour" and "mph" is the one I really saw as problematic, knot/kn not so much; but, again, being a person who as reader would look at the km/h, maybe my concern is unfounded.)
Regarding the units in Taiwan High Speed Rail, my deviation from the guideline was to not spell out units even on first occurrence; please comment on whether the rationale I gave on the review page makes sense.
Regarding your other suggestions, I implemented almost all of them; I'd like to ask for a reply on one more: the 'more telegraphic' sub-headings issue. --Rontombontom (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your peer review; I have made an initial pass through all of your comments. Please let me know of any additional recommendations. Cheers! KimChee (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hello again, the article underwent further updates based upon your comments along with additions from some other editors. Although the bot had autoclosed the peer review, any additional feedback that you could provide at your convenience would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! KimChee (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you again! If you do not mind, I will transcribe part of your post-PR comment from my talk page so that there is a record of the work on the article related to the peer review page. I will probably submit the article for FAC in about 2 to 3 weeks as that will be after the deadline for Guandique's counsel to file any further appeals. KimChee (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your review of the London Borough of Croydon page. Your ideas are much appreciated and I'll try to implement them where possible. Pafcool2 (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! I wondered if you would be able to help me with something. Late last year you performed a peer review on Warren County, Indiana, and it is now a featured article candidate. It has support, but a couple of the delegates have found a few MOS issues such as missing non-breaking spaces, spaced em-dashes, et cetera; those are all fixed now, of course, but while I am fairly familiar with the MOS, I don't know all the fine points by heart yet, and they believe there may be more issues (which could be true). I believe the delegates would want to have an independent reviewer check to see if there are any other such issues, and I wondered if you'd have any interest in taking a look at it with a focus on MOS. If you could, I'd greatly appreciate it; but if you can't or don't wish to, I would certainly understand. Thanks for your previous assistance, and for your consideration on this. Omnedon (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I have addressed all of your comments in the peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/1907 Tiflis bank robbery/archive1. Could you please close it out unless you have any more concerns. Remember (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. There's a discussion here about the possibility of getting featured lists their own section on the main page. The discussion has turned to presenting a few lists that would represent the quality and diversity of topics that we cover, and a list that you were involved with has been mentioned specifically. It'd be great to get your thoughts. Regards, The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for your extremely comprehensive and helpful review of Leslie Hunter. Lots for me to go away and work on, but I think all of it is doable, and hopefully you'll see the article at FAC at some point!--KorruskiTalk 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ouch. Mea culpa. I agree that the changes are not some people's taste at all, in fact it took me a while to get used to them myself. I've tried to fix the gallery into a single line (of course, this will be browser width dependent, but hopefully it covers the narrowest resolution now). I'll remove the captions, they can be redundant, but they are designed for screen readers. In this case, they're desirable but I would suggest not essential. The third point, about the ref/note numbers I can't see on my browser, could you clarify? Apologies, you're right, we were working to a deadline... but no excuses. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks for the note. Hectic? HECTIC? Nahhh... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I had seen the note on the WikiProject Rivers and made a few quick comments on the PR already - should get to it in the next day or so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Finetooth, and thanks for the review. Not so much that your suggestions were unclear, but I left some replies that could be worth checking on the review page. Apterygial 12:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| Thank you for all of your hard and expert work on the peer review of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for the peer review comments! I appreciate your help in improving the article. :) Canada Hky (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks a lot for your comments! I have replied on the FAC page. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Replied to your new comments! --Reckless182 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I was not sure how to figure what the main stem is. The Ohio River is clearly formed from its tributaries in Pittsburgh. However, I was not sure about the Susquehanna. The GNIS says the Susquehanna heads at Otsego Lake in Cooperstown, New York here. Even if its main stem starts in New York, the whole is less than 500 miles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Butting in...The North Branch Susquehanna River, as opposed to the West Branch, is usually considered an extension of the main stem. Niagara Don't give up the ship 13:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I usually think of the North Branch as part of the main stem.
- What if instead of aiming for a nice round number for length, thel ist was a nice round number of entries? So what if it were the 50 longest rivers in the United States (that would add 16 to the current list). Just an idea. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice expansion work, as usual! Dunno if you're interested in the matching mountain but I added it to Mr. Williamson's article. Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Finetooth. Your peer review for Mantra-Rock Dance became one of the article's milestones on its way to FA, and I'm just letting you know that Malati Dasi might also similarly benefit from your editorial scrutiny, should you find it of any interest. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
After your prodigious PR efforts over the past few months it seems almost impolite to solicit your services, but may I draw your attention to Tom Driberg, which I have just nominated for review? For reasons briefly indicated in the nom statement, I am anxious to get some heavyweight reviews in on this; I am making a similar request to Ruhrfisch and some other well-known toughs. Because of Driberg's controversial and indeed scandalous life, I am expecting attacks on the article, and would thus like to have identified the weaker areas well in advance. This is not a request for hasty action; the article is going nowhere for a while, but I would be pleased if, when convenient, you could look at it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for picking this up. I've left a couple of questions for you on the Driberg peer review page, for when you have a moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is just to let you know that I have nominated Driberg at FAC. Thanks for your help in getting it there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: As a result of someone's hamfistedness, Driberg has been accidentally deleted from the FAC page. I hope it will be back soon! Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is just to let you know that I have nominated Driberg at FAC. Thanks for your help in getting it there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
|
The Reviewer's Barnstar | |
| As a token of gratitude for your swift, kind, detailed, and very helpful peer reviews of Mantra-Rock Dance and Malati Dasi, please accept this barnstar. Thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your peer review of RAF Northolt. I have more content to add to the article so once this is completed, would you be willing to have another look over it? Harrison49 (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the article is ready for a second look if you are still willing? Harrison49 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I'd be glad to have your feedback. Harrison49 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions. I was thinking a copyedit would be useful so will follow this up. Harrison49 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just thought I'd drop you a line to point out that since requesting a peer review someone has come along and made various substantial changes. The changes have been reverted (several times) but GAR has now been requested to resolve that issue. Bit of a mess, really, as it seems basically to be a "one editor against the world" sort of situation. Don't know if this impacts on your work or not as I've never been through this process before. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Got your note and also have seen your changes, some of which were necessitated precisely because of the "disruptive" editing (GA reviewer's comment, after the GA status had been put in place). I'm really sorry to have wasted your time. I'm hoping that things can be sorted very soon as it is looking like the relevant editor may now have lost interest. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would you like me to add my comments inside yours at the PR page, as was done at the GA? Or would you prefer me to reply underneath your comments? I'm easy either way. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, as far as I can see the temporary instability has "gone away" without any changes resulting from it, The user who raised the issues has been editing elsewhere since but has not returned to this particular article. At the point when he was around the consensus seemed to be that he was being disruptive, and the lack of activity in regard to the article over the last 10 or so days would seem to confirm that. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the time you have spent on the peer review. It has been interesting and it will take me a couple of days to go through all your points. I do understand that this is one of the more detailed articles around (you won't want to look at what I'm doing on W & J Galloway & Sons then!) but I've tried to keep the terminology to a minimum. I think that you are correct to say that it would benefit from specialist review - I am that historian & engineers of some standing & knowledge have read it, but I'm too close to it and they're not WP editors.
- Hi, as far as I can see the temporary instability has "gone away" without any changes resulting from it, The user who raised the issues has been editing elsewhere since but has not returned to this particular article. At the point when he was around the consensus seemed to be that he was being disruptive, and the lack of activity in regard to the article over the last 10 or so days would seem to confirm that. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would you like me to add my comments inside yours at the PR page, as was done at the GA? Or would you prefer me to reply underneath your comments? I'm easy either way. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm quite unhappy with how the article tails off towards the end and this is the cause of many of the latter points you make. I'll fix them because, yes, you are right; and I am unable to develop the later years any further without seriously getting involved in OR.
- I might need to get back to you for some clarification/confirmation somewhere down the line - would this be ok? - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't gotten to your review so far, I agree on your points and I'll work on it over the weekend. Thanks for reviewing.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just wanted to update you, I've addressed a lot of your points, but I need to get some sources for the rest. I don't know how long that will take, so if the review is taking up space on the PR list, you can close it at any time. I will definitely address those issues before nominating at FAC. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on the peer review, I will work along with another user in order to meet your suggestions. When we are done, I will contact you for a new look of the article. (if that's ok) --GDuwenTell me! 02:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have a problem, in order to avoid the displacement of the "Early life" edit button, I separated the section little bit. My problem is that the navbox is now a line away from the lead and I don't know how to fix this without causing again that displacement. Is this ok or it has to be corrected? In that case can you help me to do it? Thanks again and sorry for asking things so often.--GDuwenTell me! 02:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- All the issues/suggestions pointed out in the Peer review were addressed, you can now take a look and say if something is missing or if you spot anything new to get done.--GDuwenTell me! 02:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
|
The Reviewer's Barnstar | |
| Thanks for the PR of Jennifer Connelly. Your fast work and dedication to spot the issues to be corrected helped a lot. --GDuwenTell me! 22:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
Pretty soon, but I came back to ask if you can give me a little help with the nomination, I'm a bit confused about some of the request like specific dashes and so. If you could give it a look (if you're not to busy with other stuff), I really would appreciate it and sorry again for asking for help so often.--GDuwenTell me! 01:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you could give me some help with that it would be fantastic, the article needs a new look. The reviewers encountered several copy-edits and other style problems like dashes, nothing serious like you said but it needs more work. Check it out and tell me what problems you can find to be corrected.--GDuwenTell me! 02:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I will work on that and later if I have a doubt or something else I let you know.--GDuwenTell me! 20:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Work in the citations is done. I have a few questions:
- Do you think that starpulse.com is a reliable source?
- After a check of the sources, Can you find any unreliable ones?
- Can you do a check for copy-edits, phrasing and other issues on the prose?
That's it by now.--GDuwenTell me! 02:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I updated the garage construction situation, I used this source that looks reliable. The only thing I would ask is if you could read the article again and check for copy-edits and phrasing. Other than that I think it's good enough.--GDuwenTell me! 16:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I will start the FA nomination as soon as I can. I think that there will be 2 weeks since the last nomination on Thursday. Do you think that would make any difference if I nominate it now? and BTW in case that some major problem comes up during the nomination, could I forward you doubts? Thanks for your time reviewing again the article it's been really helpful.--GDuwenTell me! 19:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I updated the garage construction situation, I used this source that looks reliable. The only thing I would ask is if you could read the article again and check for copy-edits and phrasing. Other than that I think it's good enough.--GDuwenTell me! 16:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I started the nomination, and there are already apparently issues, I took care of some of them. But the thing I don't understand is the inconsistent date formatting since I don't see where the inconsistencies are. I fixed the over linking and the unreliable sources but then again I want to ask if you can check also that the referencing format is constant. I'm sorry to ask for help over and over, but apparently this reviewer is very exigent.--GDuwenTell me! 21:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hard work, I will take care of the things you pointed out right away.--GDuwenTell me! 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I worked on what you requested, I deleted the information related to source 62, because I can't find a reliable source. About reference 47, I suppose that it's an internal error from the server that is working slow now and should be working fine later.--GDuwenTell me! 18:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hard work, I will take care of the things you pointed out right away.--GDuwenTell me! 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Finetooth, thanks for your PR review of this article. I found it helpful in polishing up the article. I've since nominated it for FAC, where unfortunately it's gone a couple weeks without any real reviews, so I was wondering if you had a few minutes to opine? If not, no problem, I just figured you'd be the best person to ask for solid criticism. Regards, Juliancolton (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind reviewing this article here. Happy editing. :) Jhenderson 777 23:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Finetooth, saw that you're busy, but just wondering if you know anyone else who might have inclination and availability? Thanks! -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yay! When I saw your edit to Pistol River, Oregon, I was hoping...and then I refreshed the page and there it was! Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- For your reading pleasure: Dellwood, Oregon. That's pretty much all I got. Valfontis (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here's another li'l ol' place linked from some river articles. I'll see what else I can add later on: Steamboat, Douglas County, Oregon. The "Steamboat" in Jackson County was the one with a P.O., so it was probably more of a going concern. Valfontis (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
First off, I'd like to thank you for the review you did for Wallkill Valley Rail Trail back in January. The article is now at FAC, and a reviewer is claiming that I was somehow not faithful to your review. I hate to be a bother, but could you please weigh in there? --Gyrobo (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is regarding your peer review on the Backstreet Boys' discography on November 2010. I have completed atleast two of the suggestions that you made. Can you check again and see if there are any more suggestions, especially regarding reference links, to be made? Also, I don't understand what you mean by telling to unlink 'Backstreet Boys' in the infobox. I saw other featured lists and it is linked in those lists and I don't get what you mean when you said that the 'author date' is missing. I thought it was only publisher and date- KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just saw that the list of rivers was promoted! Woo hoo and well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I had the FLC on my watchlist and when I saw just the edit summary ("FLCClosed"), I was also not 100% sure that it was promoted until I clicked on the link. I was pretty sure it would pass, but glad to know it did for sure. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I tend not to watch what goes on at FLC, but please accept my belated thanks, too. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been pondering your question but I want to give it the attention it deserves--as a matter of fact, I haven't actually looked that closely at them, but I also admit I have attention issues! I'll see if I have time to look them over tonight and give you an answer. (I've got a few things I need to do in real life first.) You're far more familiar with the GA and FA process than I--I had a few unpleasant experiences a few years ago. Has the mood and tone of reviewers improved since then? Valfontis (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 | On 14 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pistol River, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Pistol River received its name after James Mace lost his pistol in it in 1853? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
| On 14 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Union Creek (Rogue River), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that while building a wagon road along Union Creek, Francis M. Smith and John M. Corbell rediscovered Crater Lake, the deepest lake in the United States and one of the clearest in the world? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
| On 22 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Winchuck River, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that most of the remaining redwoods in Oregon are in the Winchuck River watershed? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Greetings one and all. For some of you, this will be your first time receiving one of these messages, as it has been a year since the WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week (COTW) was a regular thing. My hope is it gets back to being a regular thing.
Usually I would go over the past COTW, but we are basically starting out anew. So, without further adieu, this edition is our semi-annual picture drive. We usually try to do it when there is decent weather in the state, and today seems to fit the bill. Now although you are encouraged to go out and take pictures, you can also just search the internet for images that have the proper licensing and upload those. Flickr is one site that has a fair amount of content with the proper licensing (most images on Flickr are not compatible). See WP:COPYRIGHT in general. For some “free” sources, check out the our dormant subproject that has some links to sources.
Lastly, if you need to know what images we need, here are the requests. Please remove the request from the talk page if you add an image.
Finally (this is not image related), as the years have passed, we have lost many good editors, and others, like myself, are no longer in school or are working full-time or both, and thus are less active in the project. The project lives on, but it has created a bit of a power vacuum without a de facto cabal still around all the time. With that in mind, I encourage newer project members to step-up and fill some leadership type roles. Granted, we have no formal ruling junta or anything and no real defined roles, but there are many maintenance type tasks that some of us just took on to keep the project going. For instance, I ran the COTW, was pretty much the only one doing assessments, updating the portal, and even handing out the awards. I am sure others in the project can name what things they have done. The point being, that while I enjoyed those and still do some of those, I simply no longer have the free time to do all of it at a level that the project deserves. That said, I hope to start a discussion at WT:ORE where we can see if some newer editors would like to step-up and take on some of these tasks, which will hopefully make for a more inclusive project, and maybe get us back to the heyday of say 2008 when things were really rocking for WikiProject Oregon.
As always, please click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Also, the picture you took is great. Any time you would like help expanding article or having photo drives, just let me know--I'm in! Keep up the great work. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to contribute anything you see fit! I've been a bit busy lately, but it's an article I would love to see reach GA or FA status some day. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 |
The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal | |
| Nice work! Your Oregon-related and Pennsylvania-related articles are a great asset to Wikipedia. Thank you! OCNative (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
- Congrats! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for working in main stem and the others. I am still busy IRL and plugging away at PRs - appreciate the ones you have been doing. I am over 25 DYKs too, but am pretty sure I also have not gotten any shiny things for that (not that I am asking). Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my article, you've made some very good and relevant points which I'll be sure to keep in mind when I go through the article again in a few days. I'll make sure to look out for secondary sources that back up the prose and hopefully find my way to a library to grab some textbooks. Thanks again!
Hi Finetooth, I recently posted the article for a new peer review. The review is in progress and a user already made some comments, but I would certainly appreciate if you could check also the article as you did previously. Thanks for your time!!!--GDuwenTell me! 02:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks anyway. If you like Emmylou Harris, you might like Teatro, an album that she recorded with Willie Nelson, it has a great beat.--GDuwenTell me! 02:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, do you have some free time between your projects now? If that's the case, it would be really useful if you could check the last nomination of the article. There are some things to correct, but I need some help in order to identify the remaining issues of the article. Thanks for your time again.--GDuwenTell me! 01:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on the star! Keep up the good work. TCO (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I am loving the images you have been uploading lately, especially the ones of southeast Portland since I am in the area. Keep up the AWESOME work! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, have you seen a stub anywhere for the Historic Belmont Firehouse on Belmont? If not, I am happy to start one. I wasn't sure if there was an article already, perhaps under another name (like the Swedish Evangelical Mission Covenant Church vs. Mission Theatre & Pub discrepancy). --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey! Just saw the additional picture you added (Graham). Looks good. I am working on the Hands Across Hawthorne article at the moment--feel free to take a quick look if interested or let me know if you have any suggestions. I am hoping to make this article my first Oregon-related GA! :) --Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- No problem! Any thoughts would be appreciated, but I see that you are working on plenty of other projects at the moment. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I realize you may not be finished editing the article, but thanks for your contributions! Funny how one can write and re-read an article so many times without catching errors like the ones you found. I went ahead and created a Commons category in case additional images are added in the future (one link posted on the WP:ORE talk page contained over 100 images). Thanks again! I will be sure to do more research before nominating for GA status. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and responded to your comments. Feel free to take another look, if interested. I will wait a while and see if any other updates emerge in the news, then I will nominate the article for GA status. Hopefully this will make a nice little addition to WP ORE. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice one! (As always, I had the redlink for Twickenham on my watchlist.) I like it when these little places turn out to be colorful. Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 |
The COTW award from WPOR. | |
| Thanks for leading the way in last week's Collaboration of the Week! Jsayre64 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC) |
I see now that I stepped on your toes by starting the article when you were already working on one. 'Twas not intentional--I went on a stub spree and that one happened to be included. Thanks for adding the image and infobox, though! --Another Believer (Talk) 02:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 |
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar | |
| This Premium Reviewer Barnstar is given with respect and admiration to Finetooth on the oocasion of your 800th peer review and in recognition of all your reviewing. Congratulations! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC) |
- You are very welcome - I need to update my PR records, but am almost afraid to find out how many I have done ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow, 800! Well done! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar
The Working Man's Barnstar is awarded to those Wikipedians who "work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks." I came here to give you this as a thank you for reviewing Hugh Hickling, but, upon seeing in the above thread that you have now completed 800 reviews, please consider this an especially well-deserved thank you both for that review and for all your work. Kudos, sir! Regards, AGK [•] 21:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I finished retouching the lead image, per your suggestion. I believe I've fixed all the issues you pointed out, and if there are no more outstanding issues, I'd like to close the review so I can take the article to FAC. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Some of these NRHP sites are just freaking cool! Check out the Monastery of the Precious Blood and the Multnomah Hotel. These definitely need to be expanded to GA status! Thanks again for the many images you have been uploading lately--they all look so great! I always have my (crappy) camera on me to snap photos just in case I wander by anything worth photographing for the sake of the encyclopedia, but I sure wish there were an easy way to map out sites needing images so that I could at least see what's right around the corner. Keep up the fantastic work! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely! I love working on lists, as you can probably tell from my profile. I'd love to work on any Portand/Oregon-related lists. Let's keep finding and taking images and working on stubs so that it will be easier to write descriptions, etc. for the lists. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Multnomah Hotel! I was going to add an infobox using Elkman's NRHP tool last night, but his server was down. I sorta spammed the article with els, but I thought at least people could learn a bit more about the place until it was expanded. Too bad the Embassy Suites site is so cheesy. It will need some info on Eric V. Hauser. Valfontis (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- If the article gets long enough to handle another image, I can get one. Can't take any historical ones, though, until my Time Machine attachment for my camera arrives. :-) Finetooth (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is another image on Commons as well (fashion show?) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- If the article gets long enough to handle another image, I can get one. Can't take any historical ones, though, until my Time Machine attachment for my camera arrives. :-) Finetooth (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Love the story of your encounter with the recent owners of the Leslie M. Scott House. Very cool! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
|
The COTW award from WPOR. | |
| Thanks for leading the way in last week's Collaboration of the Week! You did a great job cleaning up the article. --Jsayre64 (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
Can you think of a better way to phrase the gameplay to make it a little clearer? I've tried to tighten the wording some, but I think that all of the special wedges (Mystery, Free Play, Wild Card, Jackpot, etc.) are important enough for a mention, as is the Speed-Up since every game has one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I just thought I would mention that I added two parameters to the park infobox. You mentioned elevation and etymology and, after thinking about it, concluded it would be a good idea. I thought of using the word toponymy, but might be a bit over the top.
. No reply necessary. –droll [chat] 03:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. If your looking for an Oregon project when your finished with John Day Fossil Beds National Monument you might look at Oregon Caves National Monument. I linked to a good source on the discussion page. –droll [chat] 03:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see that you have started doing odd peer reviews now and again. I wonder if I can ask you to look at the above article, now at peer review, on which I and others have been working for some time? In view of your reviewing experience, your comments would be very much appreciated; bearing in mind the importance of the article, we want it to be a good as we can get it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Finetooth. There's a whole new set of issues in the GA review at Talk:Willamette River/GA1#Comments. I tried to fix some of the problems (I'm somewhat overwhelmed by this point). The one that troubled me the most is how there's a recentism problem in the "Flora and fauna" section. I tried to get some information about the flora and fauna that existed earlier from the Rivers of North America book. I don't own the book, so I had to look it up with Google Books, but Google Books blocks a few pages from the book, and those happen to be the pages that talk about the flora and fauna along the Willamette. I also ran a Google web search for more information, but there was nothing good. I assume you have Rivers of North America. It would help to incorporate whatever information there is left, if it's not too much trouble. Maybe we'll have to put the article on hold. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Finetooth. Just a word of gratitude for your peer review of the Mantra-Rock Dance article that became one of the article's milestones on its way to a TFA appearance slotted for July 16. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
For your reading pleasure. Love the Morrow County Courthouse pic! Feel free to give it the Finetooth Treatment! Valfontis (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Another thing — I can't find any sources confirming John Rhinehart's departure, and only one verifying that he was ever producer of Wheel. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed the new images you have added to some of the Oregon state park articles. Very nice. –droll [chat] 06:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Oregon for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Finetooth, thanks for the review. I was wondering if you had any suggestions as to which infobox would work best with a list of prime ministers, and what image should be used. I tried adding the politics of Indonesia sidebar, but it conflicted with the list and left a huge whitespace when viewed on my monitor (1024x600). Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think a picture of Sutan Sjahrir would work best; I don't know if the building is still in existence. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Finetooth. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
