User talk:Pyrotec/Archive09Q1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pyrotec. 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.

Hello Pyrotec. Thankyou for the great review. Kensplanet^T_C 07:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your patience and time. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow you are fast. Since the info on the web site is not born out by reliable sources What tags should I use? I am fairly new to this, self published template is only used if the author himself added the info to wikipedia? Thank you for your help.J8079s (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was considering putting the Carnoustie page forward for review for Featured Article status. As you led the GA review for that article, I thought it might be worthwhile asking you if it was of sufficient quality to achieve that rating or, if not, where the article needed work. Thanks. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your firm but fair and constructive review of this Salford-linked article! It must be quite an onerous task for the reviewer - and you've performed more than a few, for which the Wikipedia community should be grateful! RuthAS (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be glad to work on the issues listed, will need some time, still finishing fixing another article, Poland in the Early Middle Ages

Orczar (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start on some of your comments from the GA review of River Parrett but had a couple of edit conflicts so I shall leave it for tonight & return tomorrow to address other issues - thanks for all your helpful edits.— Rod ^talk 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all you helpful comments (& edits)— Rod ^talk 09:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reviewing and improving Ein Avdat! It makes me very happy seing the article being rewarded GA-status. Thanks again! Cheers! Fipplet (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I am glad you liked it. I haven't been in there either, hopefully I will go there, as well as to Petra, soon. I have been in Ein Gedi though, beautiful isn't it? Fipplet (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a few issues with your review I'd just like to clarify:

• comments such as "Glengoyne does not use peat smoke to dry their barley, but instead favours the use of warm air", which appear twice are not English, merely marketing hyperbole. Why not say "Glengoyne does not use peat smoke to dry their barley, it uses only warm air". - Can you explain how this is hyperbole? It does not exaggerate any fact and I feel actually is clearer than your reworded statement. Saying "it uses only warm air" is ambiguous (do they use warm air by choice? Are they forced to use warm air rather than peat smoke due to some geological feature? etc) where as saying they "favour the use" clearly shows that it is a choice made by the distillery.

• Yes many of the pictures in the product section are promotional images, see the individual image rationals for the reasoning behind this and why it would be virtually impossible to obtain free images of all these whiskies.

• "why promote corporate hospitality at the company's visitor centre." I don't see how stating "The Glengoyne visitor centre attracts over 35,000 visitors a year, as well as entertaining corporate parties" is promoting. By your rational surely by saying that over 35,000 vistors come per year is promoting the distillery then? These are encyclopaedic facts that have been properly referenced. 35,000 visitors a year do come to the visitors centre and they do take corporate parties, like many places I have read about (also stating this fact) on Wikipedia. In regards to the reference being first party, who else would have the statistics on how many visitors come per annum other than the distillery? Any other source would just be quoting figures released by the distillery as is the case in many statistics like this.

• "comments from the last reviewer mostly ignored" - I object to that statement, I copied the last review into my sandbox and worked through it (Note, not all done have been checked) attempting to follow the previous reviewers suggestions. A quick glance in the history and difference between the time of the first review and the second will show many differences.

• "Mostly based on the company's web site." - 9/23 sources is mostly? - First party sources are only used when I couldn't find a suitable 3rd party source. More than half the sources are not based on the company's website.

Please reply on my talk page. Note I have also copied this onto the review page for visibility purposes.

Thanks,

Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 22:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate seeing a GA reviewer who actually helps, with copyediting etc. Thanks. Punkmorten (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so you're not confused, you didn't review any article I wrote. I just noticed. Punkmorten (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I restored the tag because of a similar undertaking at the al-Aqsa Mosque talk-page, in which WP Israel was added. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

		Thank you!
		Thank you for your efforts in bringing Birket Israel up to standard in order to attain GA status! Much appreciated! Chesdovi (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

This user has reviewed 6 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The requested changes to the Coquitlam GA candidate have been made (my apologies if I didn't need to send this talk message). Greg Salter (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work and focused appraisal of the Rhondda article. It was a good lesson in learning how to put a GA article together. Good call on the 1926 General Strike, which I just missed completely and picking up the simplification of the post-war downturn. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started working on the article. It's by no means there yet but I wondered if you could let me know if it is going in the right direction. I'm also struggling with the section headers - I've changed "legacy" to "influence" but it's still not right - do you have any suggestions? Thanks a million in advance, kind regards, Nancy ^talk 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We're a bit further east - Thames Valley - and we had tantalising but short lived bursts, however the River was absolutely beautiful; not another boat in sight and just the right tranquil environment I needed to allow me to completely forget about Wikipedia for a while! Coming back to be confronted with an AFD courtesy of the GA reviewer was not so great but that seems to be heading for a snowball-keep so no concerns there.

Anyway enough of the chit-chat. Thank you so much for your comments on NB, much appreciated and what a difference one little S makes; that section header now works! The WWI angle is interesting, indeed Nancy may have lost her own father in in that war (I'm sure I read that somewhere once - now to find it again). Ransome's own war was spent as a freelance correspondent (serious ill-health procluding anything more active) mainly living in Petrograd. His autobiography is interesting as in it he it is more concerned with his literary endeavours than the war which is seen very much from a Russian perspective, indeed Rasputin's murder warrants a whole page but there's not a mention of Ypres, Verdun, the Somme.... You're absolutely right though about the women taking a more prominent role and universal suffrage in Britain had finally been introduced only two years before S&A was first published, however in children's literature a female character who was both dominant and positive was a rare beast. I've also read somewhere about AR's ambivalence towards strong women and using some characteristics of Nancy to support that. Another thing to find - I now have more Ransome related books on my desk than on the bookshelf, I'm being swamped. And not helped by the fact that for some reason characters are not indexed so everything is taking five time as long.

I will persevere but I am wondering if the article that is required is not the one that I am naturally capable of writing (lit-crit really not my area). I think perhaps I may be guilty of wanting to write the article that I want to read rather than a dry academic dissection. Not a great starting point I know!

One more question, LassieTime asserts that anything published by Jonathan Cape is a primary source and not NPOV. This even rules out Hugh Brogan's bio of AR - can this really be true? Seems like an extreme definition of a primary source.

Hope the sun makes an appearance for you today, kind regards, Nancy ^talk 09:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The bibliography has been updated to include the sources you mentioned. My apologies for their not being there earlier. I also placed a note on the GAC talk page for this article. Jonyungk (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes 62 and 63 have been corrected. Thanks for the heads-up on these. Jonyungk (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec,

I will attend to the points made in your review. I'm a bit busy in the real world for the next few days, so if you can give me until the weekend that would be appreciated. I did not know someone was reviewing the article when I made the edits the other day. So I will stop making any more major edits, only those that relate to your review and the Talk Page. Thanks again for reviewing the article. I will let you know when it is complete. Thanks. Seth Whales (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		You thoroughly deserve this for going above and beyond in your GA review of Strensham services, rather than give a list of problems, you fixed them yourself! Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have recently done a bit of work on the St Andrews article sorting out the info, references and adding new pictures (Town Kirk, Queen Mary's House and West Port). Can you have a little look at the article to see if my work has been enough to upgrade the status (possibly to C). Kilnburn (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's almost a B-class, but I've given it C-class as it has {unref} tags and some sections need adequate in-line citations; but it does not need too much work to make a B.Pyrotec (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just poke me if you have any concerns. I HAU and tommorow is a weekend where I'm at, so I'll be able to take it up very fast. ResMar 01:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your GA review. You did an outstanding job, and thanks for having the patience with such long article. I really appreciate your work.--Mariordo (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: As you suggested I will nominate it for FAC, but first, I asked for peer review. This is my first FAC, so I am not really sure if this intermediate step was necessary, I would like to hear your opinion on this. Thanks again.--Mariordo (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

R/ Thanks for your prompt response and for the tips.--Mariordo (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Once again, thanks for your GA review, this time of artiicle History of ethanol fuel in Brazil.--Mariordo (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered at my talk. All the best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead of this article has "in any case" and "he appears to have survived" in it. You should really address such basic issues before passing the article. Hekerui (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and for leaving comments! Hekerui (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for joining us at WP:MEASURE. We're not a particularly active project, but we do provide a meeting place where people can discuss their concerns about measurement articles. I'm grateful for your useful comments on Apothecaries' system, and I shall try to get round to copyediting the article a bit further over the next week. As for metrication in all its forms, it is a subject on which it is hard to find good secondary sources: it would be nice to say more, but we cannot do our own analysis. Best wishes, and I hope to see you around in the near future. Physchim62 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for undoing your contribution. Please reflect on whether it could add to a productive discussion. Geometry guy 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to message me.

I don't understand what your objection is. The Royal Ordnance Factory article explains the heritage. The article I renamed was about the privatised entity Royal Ordnance plc which British Aerospace bought. To bring that privatised entity's history together under one page is perfectly logical - the Royal Ordnance name is well explained in the intro & infobox. To have duplicate articles for Royal Ordnance and BAE Systems Land Systems Munitions makes no sense at all.

I have a few observations to make about your general attitude towards me as evidenced by your message on my talk page:

• "you are a twenty(ish) old rewriting history" -- my age is irrelevant, but more importantly you are entirely wrong. I have made the heritage of Royal Ordnance perfectly clear in my edits.
• "even if you are an admin" -- again entirely irrelevant in a content/formatting dispute in which I am involved.
• "The world existed before BAE Systems even if you cannot or will not accept it" -- shows you know nothing about me or my editing on this project. Although I had help along the way I contributed the vast majority of content which turned the BAE Systems article from a stub to its current Featured Article Status. A large part of that was explaining its long heritage in the aviation, shipbuilding and yes armoured vehicle and munitions areas. I also expanded the British Aerospace article. I was also the one who added the information about the establishment of Royal Ordnance plc and the privatisation process.

You don't have to agree with me, but you should at least respect my contributions to the articles in this area which, contrary to your view, have included a long term view. I find your simplistic and under-informed comments about my contributions to be very condescening. Mark83 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you for your more mellow tone!

• As for BAE Systems excluding the history - that was more a result of the FAC - to provide a succint and focused article with links to subartlces.
• You were right to correct me about who added the privatisation info, you're right I did expand, not add. But just to emphasise my interest in the heritage I added that information from an NAO report that I actively sought out (e.g. [1]) - it wasn't available on the NAO website and I contacted them and was e-mailed it. I have a healthy interest in, and full respect for, pre-21st century events!
• I disagree with "is going into articles removing Royal Ordnance and replacing it with BAE Systems Land Systems Munitions." -- I renamed the entry in the BROACH article yes because it's a current programme. I did not rename instances of "Royal Ordnance" on the British Aerospace article for example. I was selective which you don't seem to appreciate. More of my edits were changing links of Royal Ordnance/BAE Systems Land Systems Munitions & Ordnance which were piped to BAE Land & Armaments. At the very least we can agree that Royal Ordanance/BAE Land Sys Mun related links shouldn't be piped to an article about a US-based unit of BAE! Mark83 (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So just to clarify:

• Keep Royal Ordnance Factory for the history up until privatisation
• Recreate Royal Ordnance but refocus it on the history from privatisation until the dropping of the RO name? i.e. remove duplication with the above article.
• Keep BAE Systems Land Systems Munitions but, as you say refocus it on the recent history?

Could you also clarify "I just want a different one on "RO", which will have legally defined start and end dates." -- what would you call RO's legally defined end date? In my opinion it's a grey area, but I guess you're talkin about the creation of BAE Systems Land Systems?

Just to reiterate, it was never my intention to "airbrush" history. For example, I have been involved in the Panavia Tornado article(s) - I have not gone back changing manufacturer from British Aerospace to BAE Systems, as of course BAE did not exist then. I think you may have mistaken the intent/context of some of my RO-related edits, airbrushing was never my intention. Mark83 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Well I've reverted my edit of Royal Ordnance. Now it's just a matter of reworking the articles as discussed. Mark83 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Cardiff. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hope that I have answered your points by further editing. Thanks for the comments. Look forward to a further response. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your work on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to A38 road, I am working to get this up to GA standard, as you contributed a lot to Strensham services do you care to help with this one? I may move the detail regarding the Northfield bypass down into the improvements section (I have a big list of sources for various aspects of the road to add to things and expand things). I feel that the route section should be a fairly short summary of the route, otherwise it may risk becoming a travel guide. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for rating Petworth Canal. I found a table of map symbols but please show me where the maps live so that I can see how the coding works.--Charles (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How is Tunnel Railway "not stable"? It's had a grand total of five edits in the past month – all of them minor – and has had no significant change since its initial creation. – iridescent 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
		For your participation in the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive, in which you reviewed 20 articles, you are granted this medal! Great work! —The participants on the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive 21:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)