User talk:Pyrotec/Archive10Q2

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.

Thanks so much for reviewing Marguerite Louise d'Orléans. -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No problems. It was a good article (as well as now being a Good Article) so it was not too difficult to review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec, I noticed from a previous conversation that you had a book on railway history that clarified the historic names of a number of stations. I'd be interested if you could clear up issues at Template:South Wales Railway where the names of Newport (High St), Cardiff (General) and Swansea (High Street) have been changed back and forth a number of times. The only source that I've seen, an old SWR timetable, refers to 'Newport', 'Cardiff' and 'Swansea' with no appendages,[1] but I know that 'Swansea High Street' was used pre-Beeching; have the names changed several times?Pondle (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pondle. I'm happy to help with this one:

• "Newport High Street" GW opened on 19 June 1850 by South Wales; renamed "Newport" by BR no date given. Butt, page 170.
• "Cardiff" GW opened on 19 June 1850 by South Wales; Renamed "Cardiff General" GW on 1 July 1924; renamed "Cardiff Central" BRB 7 May 1973. Butt, page 53.
• "Swansea High Street" GW opened on 19 June 1850 by South Wales; renamed "Swansea" BRB on 6 May 1968. Butt, page 225.

Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pyrotec I'll amend the template accordingly.--Pondle (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec, Wizardman reckons that Tonjeff has disappeared and was just making "driveby" comments as requested by Lecen here [2]. I have reviewed Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná afresh. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for passing the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

and a further thank you for your work on the Irish Oak. I appreciate your comments on the Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II. A supplementary question, Originally I was going to incorporate this 'timeline' into the article User:ClemMcGann/timeline: should I? or could the 'timeline' be an article in its own right? - ta very - ClemMcGann (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I decided to make that timeline a separate article Irish maritime events during World War II.

Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II is currently in peer review. So thanks for the GA Irish Oak & hope to bring Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II to GA soon. Regards ClemMcGann (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update & I hope the PR goes well. Sorry, I've just noticed a question above, that I don't think I answered. Pyrotec (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA review of Tickle Cock Bridge. The picture in the lead was the only one I could find of the original structure, so I didn't even know it ever had a roof. I'm still amazed that there was so much published about a pedestrian underpass. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for the many reviews of my articles you've done the last days. I'm always assured my articles have met the highest standards when you're the one passing them :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment. Pyrotec (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		It is a sign of gratitude for your efforts of bringing articles on manuscript topics to Good Article status. – Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the review. I have fixed those issues. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy GA review. You noted that it's a possible Featured Article candidate, which is indeed my intention. I like to get the GA out of the way first, as it is less of a trial by fire than an FAC review and more likely to get a useful response than a peer review. It's useful to get a second pair of eyes on it that can pick things up that are missed when working up the article from scratch. I find the London Gazette a useful tool for articles from this period as it was then a requirement to publish details of all UK railway schemes and there is sometimes technical information included in these that is not included in the source texts. I've used it in other featured and good articles:

• Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway
• Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway
• City and South London Railway
• Baker Street and Waterloo Railway
• Wimbledon and Sutton Railway

--DavidCane (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You folks really have been burning through the reviews—I'm amazed! I especially appreciate that you do a thorough assessment and take time to leave a useful critique. • Astynax ^talk 19:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review and for passing the article. I'll look up the book you suggested too when I get chance. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think more research is needed in the library. Its of GA quality I think but the sources used could be much more abundant. Its on hold at the moment but I think its probably best to withdraw the nomination until it can be made more comprehensive. I haven't access to such material online. Somebody in Oxfordhsire would need to visit a library in Bicester or Oxford and build content. It would be best to withdraw the nomination I think. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. If I can make the history and church information more comprehensive perhaps it would pass? Remember though that it is a small village so doesn't have the sources available that a city like Oxford has... I've added 5 or 6 references to the Dal Lake history now. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your editorial efforts on that article, Dal Lake is a now GA.

I'm certainly willing to consider your suggestions for Ambrosden and I do appreciate the difference between a village and a city. Having reviewed what was in the article and what is available in the Victoria County History I concluded that the present-day context was inadequate; improve that and I will review and reconsider whether to award GA-status. My comments were made as suggestions, but I'm not asking for WP:OR, so what is put into the article very much depends on what has been published. I'm, sorry, I'm not going to offer a "pass" on changes that have not yet been done, let alone reviewed - but I will review fairly. Pyrotec (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking to time to review. I'm currently working on Ambrosden in my sandbox. I've already added a geography section; I see what you mean, even given the lack of sources really available on the web, it could be made more comprehensive with more detailed information about the church and its ecclesiastical history and perhaps a fuller account about the other buildings in the village. It isn't the sort of article of course you can write a lot about adminstration and the economy and culture as such. I've actually invited Nvvchar to help flesh it out. I have found another two sources in books other than the British history which can also be used for information about the parish. I'll try to make it GA worthy but I'll need until maybe next Monday to improve it, as I also have Chamba, Himachal Pradesh to attend to in particular. For that particular article I've send out about 6 requests for images... That also needs a lot of work, plenty to keep me busy this week!

Certainly no rush, I think the Chamba article will take at least a week to get up to GA level. I've only copy edited the intro and added a bit on handicrafts and architecture so far. I'm hoping I can find a decent source to bulk up the history. Keep up the good work reviewing and setting a higher standard... Best regards Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I take that back actually. Chamba, Himachal Pradesh should be pretty close to GA level now, I think it now just needs some minor fixes and copyediting.. What do you think? I'll expand Ambrodsen with Nvvchar later in the week, hopefully.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. OK, if you could review it before you get around to the Ambrodsen article this would be good in the next few days, Ambrosden will likely be expanded and improved later in the week, time permitting of course. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've left a message on the Ambrosden talk page in response to your concerns. I believe they have been met, and the article is considerably improved since you last saw it with double the number of references and many new paragraphs of information. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The March 2010 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) 22:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec. Thanks for reviewing the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good morning Pyrotec. Just a short note to say thank you very much for taking the time to review Eutharic. It's great to see it promoted to Good Article class. Nick Ottery (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pyrotec, many thanks for your favorable GA review of Themes in Avatar. I am grateful for your time and input. Will follow your and Dr.Blofeld's advice to take a shot at FA. Thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your good wishes, Pyrotec. I went ahead with the FA nomination here and should you wish to comment on its candidacy, I will be most grateful. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I will tidy it up some. What do you think of using a different info box? This is student work, and she's open to suggestions. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for a very precise and fast review of the artcile, and for its upgrade to GA.--Nvvchar (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec, hope this finds you well. Good to see that we are both almost head-to-head in reaching a goal of 40 in the GAN drive. :-) I just wanted to alert you regarding the GAN for Mount St. Peter Church. I had just failed it and was surprised that it was renominated so quickly. Although there is not an edit war as such going on, there are some questions raised about citations. I'm sure you have read my review plus the additional one by another reviewer on the talk page. You may want to see if these issues have been resolved before making a decision. OK, see you at the finish line! :-) -- S Masters (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! We have ended correcting the article. Could you take a look in it? Thank you very much! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just added the infobox to the article and also to other ones who were raised to GA. Is that ok? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time to review the article. I know it's hard and sometimes boring. We really apreciate it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The text only refers to unreviewed articles. It previously said "If everybody reviewed at least one more Good Article nomination"; I changed it to "If everybody reviewed one more Good Article nomination", which is at least a bit more accurate. There isn't much left to do; we can't make it say "If only a few people reviewed one more Good Article nomination" since that is only "kind of" encouraging. Gary King (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the recomended things to the article! Thanks for the fast and very pleasant review. The task is to get the PSE to a green or blue colour.--Stone (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I got a message from you about me vandalising Wylam. One of my friends hacked into my account and vandalised Wylam. I am very sorry about this. I will make sure this does not happen again. Sco1996 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far. We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns. See you at the finish!

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you very much for the critical review and approval of GA for this article.--Nvvchar (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review Ambrosden and patiently await its improvement. Regards. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed Druk Air for GA. You may be interested in reviewing it sometime. You probably already have 100 articles on your reviewing todo list though. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not do any work on wikipedia yesterday. Arsenkk will do a good job. Pyrotec (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after Mendip Hills FAR while I've been away - doesn't seem to be anything else outstanding. I was thinking about having a go at River Parrett again - what do you reckon?— Rod ^talk 21:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine let me know when you are ready & I've just added 2 more noms to GAN - you could get in 1st.— Rod ^talk 21:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of this article! Bradley0110 (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully all addressed now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and the pass. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for performing the review on the Sea Harrier; it's good to have a reviewer such as yourself going through the article's worth and making it clear where it needed to improve, it unlocks potential I am often simply unable to see. I appreciate the time it takes, and so I came to say Thank You. I hope we encounter each other on another project soon enough! Kyteto (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. We probably well, as we seem to have overlapping interests. I'm happy to do the reviews, but it does not leave much time for article writing. Pyrotec (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I nominated Free State of Galveston, which you reviewed some time back, for FA. If you have any interest please feel free to comment.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. OK, I'm happy to have a look & comment, but it might not be until tomorrow or Thursday. Pyrotec (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that article is dreadful. Do you need more than that? If so, where? Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Be aware of what you're about to step into here.[3] – iridescent 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you'll have to spell it out for me Iridescent. Is Tony Sidaway someone to be afraid of? Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "afraid of", more "will bog you down in endless discussions and arguments, if past performance is anything to go by". Tony "Sanctimonious, condescending, presumptuous, arrogant, call it what you like, it isn't a conduct issue on Wikipedia" Sidaway is a colourful character; see Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 1, Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 2, Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3, Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway, Requests for arbitration/Webcomics. Or just use Google. – iridescent 23:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't need any more shit around here, so I'll simply say again that I think the article is dreadful, and leave it at that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason why John Nolte should go as "another author" just because you disagree with his message and wish for him to remain unnamed. There is no reason why Cameron's unnecessarily long quote needs to be so. The message was conserved and the verbiage truncated by my edit. Mentioning that "Naturally, oil companies disagreed [to Cameron's anti-corporate message]" is throughly irrelevant and purely political.

Thank you for responding. John Nolte is a writer for Big Hollywood, as the cited article indicates. I don't know what an edit summary is, please eliberate if you feel like doing me a service. I removed a citation that went along with an irrelevent sentence - it would not have made sense to remove the sentence but leave the citation.

GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive. 661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold. The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less). Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days. 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success. The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less). For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you are doing more great ce on River Parrett but one of your recent edits to "flow & tidal bore" has introduced "flow and direction of flow". Can we find another way of wording this? possibly "rate and direction of flow"? (MF would go spare to see flow twice in a sentence this close together.) — Rod ^talk 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We can't have MF going spare - he's working, I believe, on his own FAC - I did the GAN for him and he got "steamrollered". Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

I was wondering how I can have the Glenrothes article reassessed under the WikiProject UK geography? I have recently had the artcle peer reviewed and they reviewers have suggested it should be submitted for FA status. 86.171.242.53 (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I think you misunderstood my question. I would like to try and elevate the articles grading on WikiProject UK geography from a B to a GA or higher. How do I go about getting it reassessed? I couldnt work it out from the WikiProject UK page.86.171.242.53 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. My mistake. Thank you for clarifying.86.171.242.53 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The April 2010 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) 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		For reviewing 58 good article nominations during the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive, I hereby present you the Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia. Congratulations! –MuZemike 22:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi this is Steve Virgin from the Board of Wikimedia UK

I am a fellow Bristolian

We have a Wikimedia Conference in town this weekend

We were getting some of the Bristol Project Wikipedians together at the Watershed on Saturday night for a Wiki Meet at around 6.30pm.

This is a good opportunity to meet people from the national Chapter, other Chapters from around the world and from the Wikimedia Foundation. There is a bar tab to help proceedings and we would be very keen to see you there.

RSVP - let me know if you are able to come and feel free to invite any other local Wikipedians in Bristol Steve virgin (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your past help, this time I have three articles that will be waiting for GA reviewers in early June: details. If you are interested in helping out once more, don't hesitate to post there! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your insight is appreciated and the time and effort you have taken are greatly valued!
I am getting to work on addressing the areas you have highlighted for improvement. With regard to page numbers for books, is there an easy way to do changing page numbers for a book without having to re-cite the entire book every time? (If you understand what I mean.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Never mind, I've found at least one way that works without making the article illegible or overly bulky. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm happy with what you done to resolve the "page number problem". Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hi! I've addressed all your current suggestions for improvement to the best of my ability (although I will not be surprised if you require further work on the lead paragraph). Please consult the article and the Good Article Review page and let me know your thoughts. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Thank you for the time you spent and guidance you gave during the GA review for this article! Your help, criticism, and attention were deeply appreciated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Acra (fortress) article, which you had previously reviewed for GA, is undergoing a Peer Review to identify improvements before listing it as a WP:FAC. Any input which you might give would be welcome. • Astynax ^talk 19:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Pyrotec: my I enlist you help settling a dispute regarding the article Air well (condenser). You reviewed this article some time ago, so I thought you may recall some of the details. There is a discussion in progress regarding the admissibility of a particular reference. You will soon get a flavour of what is going on at Talk:Air well (condenser)#Admissibility of Large Scale Dew Collection as a Source of Fresh Water Supply as a reference. Personally, I cannot see anything wrong with the reference in question, but administrator Ckatz seems bent on removing anything conected with editor Akjar; the behaviour of both contributors seems less than edifying so it is difficult to judge what is going on. Anyway, an independent assesment would be most helpful. Thanks. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I've added a comment to the article's talkpage. Pyrotec (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The May 2010 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) 21:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. It was a big article with lots of references to check, so I imagine it may have been a little daunting for some reviewers to take it on. Thank you for taking the time to look it over. Regards. Lambanog (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you had any time to work on or further thoughts about the River Parrett article? I've just noticed an urgent label on GAN & linked to FT Retention which reminded me that we have to get River Parrett (or another GA article from FT Physical geography of Somerset) up to FA or have it demoted. I'd be happy for it to be nominated as is - what about you? If so, I think the nomination, as well as giving a one sentence overview of the article, needs to mention the last nomination (no support & no opposes) & itemise the peer review which was continued on the talk page + MF's copyediting etc.— Rod ^talk 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Tis done - lets see what they make of it.— Rod ^talk 20:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with some of the "sources review" comments, but can you help with "First book listed is Blair, John (ed.) (2007) Author and chapter number missing (see Hollinrake and Rippon entries below)", ""Bridgwater and Taunton Canal", - the year (2003) is misplaced", "Where the origin is a print sources,...". I think we may have to remove the sentence "Another explanation from Welsh Peraidd meaning the sweet or delicious river, has also been suggested" as ref 23 has been challenged - why it is reliable & I can't find a "reliable" alternative. Any other thoughts welcome.— Rod ^talk 19:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of Blair. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this - it got its FA star last night.— Rod ^talk 08:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That is excellent news. Thanks very much for letting me know. Pyrotec (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yes, I realize that. The code for that only affects English Wikipedia and none of the others. Gary King (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you are doing sterling work at GAN - so can I pick your brains? I have 2 nominations at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, one of which Wellington, Somerset is being reviewed but the other Sweet Track hasn't attracted any interest yet. I'm going to be away (at Glastonbury Festival) from Tues 22nd June - Mon 28th - what is the best way to let reviewers/potential reviewers know I will not be able to respond to any comments etc during that time?— Rod ^talk 16:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have improved the references in the way you have suggested. Please feel free to have a look! Thanks for the review. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review... The "density" issue comes up on all of this series and my answer is always the same; the background section at the start is intentionally condensed, even at the expense of readability, as it's covering stuff which has to be there—Wikipedia is not a scavenger hunt, and every article has to have enough context to make sense to a reader with a printout and no access to the parent article—while avoiding duplicating stuff that (in theory, anyway) ought to be at the parent articles on the Duke or the line. I agree to some extent about the rest of the article, but it's never going to be possible to give much fizz to a section dealing with token-staff signalling or bulk milk haulage. (This is actually one of the more interesting stations on the line—check out the awesome dullness of Westcott railway station, for instance.) – iridescent 21:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to be rude about your prose. Its not intended to be malicious, but it might read that way. I don't think that Westcott railway station is any duller than Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station; and I don't consider either of them dull. I've read them both (now) and I recognises some common text (but I'm not going down that path). The problem (admittedly exaggerated for effect) is that if I had to read the Wotton railway station article out loud I'd run out of breath before I'd come to the end of some of those sentences. Not knowing the line or the area, I was also having problems with geometry. I was having to click on Brill Tramway to work out what was happening (the before-after template was there, but it was insufficient). Coming up from London (London is down, not up to me), Brill (and Oxford - had the line got there) is up from Wotton - which is why I added (and you've now removed) "extended from Wotton". By dense, I mean those three-foot long sentences of yours, each with commas every 12 inches or so. I'd like to chop each down into two 18-inch sentences. Technically the article fine and its well referenced; but reading it is a bit like reading school/tech/uni notes before an big exam - I'd rather go to the pub instead. The article is worth of its GA, but I'd rather have the same information, but in shorter more-readable sentences, which means more sentences but not necessarily a longer article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Having given it another look over, I can't see any obvious places to split sentences (although Malleus might find some). When all's said and done, this is a specialist article (Brill Tramway, when written, will be the baby-steps one), and is intentionally written in a slightly more jargon-heavy way. I agree regarding diagrams, but there's a very limited pool of images to use on this series; I'm trying to use no image more than twice, and not to use the same image twice on successive articles. (I imagine most readers will be working through the series end-to-end.) As the map is already on Wood Siding railway station, the next in the series, I'm really reluctant to use it twice in succession.

I've tried to avoid "up" and "down" at all, as it's one of those things like rod-and-chain measurement that may be technically correct, but confuses the hell out of people not familiar with it. On this line, "up" would be from Brill (or Oxford) to Quainton (or London); the "up line" is always the one that heads towards London and the "down line" the one that heads away, but there's no reason to expect people to understand that "the line that heads down the map is up and up the map is down". – iridescent 22:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been a bit immobile for a week and thought I might look at some GAN nominations. As Geography is what I know, I looked at one you were reveiwing. Would you mind if I commented? It's very general mostly about the order of things and an omission.:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm only a bit immobile, I can hop! I just commented at Wellingborough, hope I haven't trodden on any toes.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick thank-you for your work with reviewing and awarding a GA to the above article. My apologies for my real life intervening - I was hoping to undertake much of the work. Thanks again. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your promotion of the article to GA. Your kind words about FAC are gratefully noted. - Tim riley (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the edit conflict :) Best Hekerui (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec. I took your advice and purchased a copy of the 2001 film Enigma. The scene where Wigram (Jeremy Northam) finds the girl's clothes is one of the ancient press rooms. They also walk along a dried up canal bed, there are several there. The lake I can't identify-looks like a flooded gravel pit could be anywhere. The credits at the end of the film, list the mill scene. Very enjoyable to watch. Cheers (Northmetpit (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)).

Thank you so much for awarding Little Thetford GA status. Your comments and support have been most welcome to me, as a new editor --Senra (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice there. I hope you don't think I'm stupid, just that anything done on Wikipedia the first time takes me time to learn, and I'm not too proud to ask for help. I did try to read all the notes and so on, but there's only so much one can take in at a time. So please excuse me if I seem to be "cluttering" the project – we all have to start somewhere. For the most part, I edit or create articles (or less often templates) but from time to time I do like to get involved in processes, too. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I did make rather a bish of getting it set up, I think it's more a case of it being a tar pit that once one has made one mistake, it is rather difficult to extricate oneself from it: this I think is partly because of the use of {{subst:}} templates; if one then goes to the documentation of the template itself (as I did) it does not in fact tell you to subst it (and why should it, since it's not the template's business whether it's subst'd or not) but that did open a can of worms for me, I admit.

I hope I can at least put you at your ease by saying I am reasonably competent at reviewing, I think; just not this particular process. I do hope that in my comments I've not come across as aggressive nor having been wounded: I do appreciate your friendly advice, and if my reply came across that way, I can only assure you it was not intended.

I'm expanding an article from French WP at the moment (Envisat)), then I really should get on with that review. The envisat article will no doubt need cleanup, my first step is always just to get the content in, then worry about wording, links and so on later; if not I find myself getting too distracted by detail ever to get the "meat" done. I am sure others work differently, and that's all to the good.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The tar pit analogy is not mine, but Fred Brooks' in The Mythical Man-Month. As for the translation, my main fault there (apart from any mistranslations or bad choices, which can happen when dealing with "technical" language) is that after a while I tend to forget the normal English word order, so that backwards run sentences until reels the mind. French and others (Hungarian for example) tends to prefer what I call an "essay" style &ndashl; perhaps "review style" is better – full of subordinate clauses and asides that at least one English editor tends to regard as clutter, so you end up with sentences like (made up):

"The sunny summer, one of the hottest since 1852, was for Smith a fitting tribute (some would say eulogy) to his wife's work as an ophthalmologist, since the body, that fine specimen, had, after embalming, the eyes follow you around everywhere, on his death in 1973."

Thus we get led down several garden paths before we find out that Smith died in 1973. This flowery, "literary" style seems to be applauded in other WPs but is not appreciated much in English, and I think rightly so.

So it's not always a question of checking the translation's accuracy but just putting it into plain English. One would think that would be relatively easy, but after having read and reread the article several times in the process of translation, and so become a miniature expert on it, it can be very hard to spot that this kind of circumlocution is still happening. It can usually be cured by having someone else look over the article. Si Trew (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for carrying out the review on this article. Fowler was certainly a mentor and teacher to a large number of the civil engineers that followed and I may add a paragraph on some of the more well known. It looks like the ICE sub-site I used for refs 8, 9 and 10 has been taken down. Hopefully this for maintenance. I will keep an eye on it. --DavidCane (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Pyrotec. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 01:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wellingborough article that you have contributed to is now very near closure of its GA review. If there are any last minute improvements you can make to address the reviewer's comments at Talk:Wellingborough/GA1, please feel free to be bold and make your contribs. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to thank you for promoting the article to GA, so thanks. Likelife (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)