GA
I'm aware you're very busy - but if you get a sec to look over my shoulder at my first GA review as reviewer that would be great... It's Talk:Reading,_Berkshire/GA2#GA_Review and I'm looking for any feedback - and possibly an image expert to look over the pictures and check I've not missed anything obvious... Failedwizard (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, no trouble at all! It looks like you picked a tough one for your first. Keep in mind the previous GA nom back in June; that reviewer said the article was close, but his suggestions went unanswered for two weeks, so he close it as not passing. Hopefully the same thing won't happen here, but it might. Be sure that all of the previous review's suggestions are done (at least the ones you agree with). Honestly, if there are still unmet suggestions from the previous review, you'd be justified in quick-failing, but the article is very thorough and well sourced, so I understand if you don't want to do that.
- Usually, a (-) like you gave for 2a and 2b means the article did not pass. If there are problems, but you think there's a chance it could be fixed within a week, mark that criterion with "hold" instead (like I've done at my current review). As you can see in my example, I like to put suggestions for improvement at the bottom so the nominator can see them all in one place and respond to them without making the GATable too long and unwieldy if there's a lot of back-and-forth. But that's just me; you don't have to do it the way I do it.
- I checked all the images (That's a lot of images!) and they seem to all be legitimately free or validly used as non-free content, and all are correctly tagged and licensed.
- If you need any specific feedback of tips, beyond what I've said here, just let me know. I'm on my way out right now, but I'll get back to you probably Monday. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're a star! thank you so much! :) Failedwizard (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just as an update, I finished the review and placed it 'on hold' waiting for a couple of bits to change in the referencing, my worry is that the 'on hold' week is slipping by (finishes on the 10th) and there's not much activity. I've just posted on the talks of the relevant editors - do you think there's anything I've missed? Failedwizard (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're a star! thank you so much! :) Failedwizard (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Augustinian theodicy
Hi there, Quadell. I've recently been working on the Augustinian theodicy page in an attempt to get it up to GA standard. I found your comments on Irenaean theodicy really helpful, so I was wondering if you could have a look and give me any feedback you have before I nominate it for GA. Thanks - your help is really appreciated. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I see a couple problems.
- The lede should not contain material not present in the body. This lede describes an overview of the theodicy, says who Augustine was, and what works he wrote in. This material should be in the body. (See the next two points.)
- I would add an initial section called "Overview" or something, with an overview of the theodicy. Without that, a reader is dropped right into the history without really understanding what it's a history of.
- In my opinion, the Augustine section could be fleshed out. Certainly introducing who Augustine was would be useful, but also, the section has four rather thin paragraphs, and could use a more full explanation.
- I don't think it's proper to say that Augustine developed his theodicy in response to the evidential problem of evil, since I don't believe the evidential POE had been articulated as such at that time. And the source you use for that paragraph, Tooley, doesn't mention Augustine at all. (Again, in the Plantinga section, you assert that the Augustian theodicy relates to the evidential POE and not the existential POE... but the source doesn't mention Augustine.)
- I don't think http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/evil_and_theodicies_tutor2u.html is a reliable source.
- I think Calvinism can be summed up in a more encyclopedic manner without a list or TULIP mnemonic. The section on Calvinism needs better referencing as well. I would advocate rewriting much of it. (Cavadini is a great resource here.)
- There are many paragraphs with citations in the middle, but not at the end. That indicates that the final sentences of those paragraphs are unsourced. Make sure that every paragraph is sourced, and that every major statement of each paragraph is actually backed up by the source or sources given.
- It would be useful to have a quote or quotes from Augustine. There are some possibilities here.
I hope this is useful feedback. I look forward to seeing how the article progresses! – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your feedback, it's really helpful. I'll see what I can do to improve it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've been looking at the Calvinism section and have tried to rewrite it. I think I've made it more encyclopedic, but I found that section markedly more difficult - do you think it is ok now (just the writing/style - I'm currently looking for more sources)? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's much better. The writing style is great. There is a small problem with accuracy, I think. Predestination is a subtle thing. I don't think it's quite accurate to say "Augustine proposed that the crucifixion of Jesus was enough to atone for all sins; Calvin suggests that Jesus' death was only ever supposed to sufficient for a small group of elect." I also think it's subtly incorrect to say "Augustine believes that anyone and everyone can be saved, whereas Calvin argues that only those who are elect will be." Here's why.
- Calvin (as I understand his views) thought that everyone has free will, including the ability to turn to God and be saved. But he also believed that not everyone will, and that God knows who will and who will not. Therefore, paradoxically, if you are not "elect" (predestined to be saved), you won't use your own free will to turn to God and be saved. It's not that you can't, exactly... just that you won't. On the other hand, if you're elect, then God always knew you'd turn to him and be saved.
- Now my understanding of the nuances of Calvin's teachings could be incomplete. You'll want to be sure to go with what your sources say, not with just what I say. But be sure not to inadvertently misrepresent Calvinism (even if it seems self-contradictory, is it does to many).
- But yes, the prose is much better. – Quadell (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've been looking at the Calvinism section and have tried to rewrite it. I think I've made it more encyclopedic, but I found that section markedly more difficult - do you think it is ok now (just the writing/style - I'm currently looking for more sources)? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your feedback, it's really helpful. Thanks for that clarification (I never liked Calvinism); I'll have a look round for other sources to clarify the theology (the two I've found thus far do seem a little ambiguous). Would you say the sources in the section at the moment are ok? I have a slight concern about the reliability of the Mason source. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. After reading what you said about Calvinism, I've had a look at a few sources. What I've read seems to suggest that Calvin is proposing that God did choose who is elect and who is not before/at creation. Those who God ordained elect will eventually become Christian and those who are not elect will never become Christian. I've tried to add words to that effect to the article: what do you think? This was a useful source. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Move to commons
Thank you for organizing the drive.--Guerillero | My Talk 18:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you Quadell, but Drilnoth was going to award, I placed a wait on the awarding, and SMasters, Drilnoth, and me wanted the Commons ambassaor barnstar. Finally, much reviews had to be done (111) for you (110) and Acather96 (1). ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 20:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, make sure that all the awards that could be v2.0 is that. I am changing for me. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 20:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I will be adding a note and removing the awards. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- We finished at 97% so the teamwork barnstar was mis-awarded. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 20:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
For moving over 200 files to Wikimedia Commons in the September 2011 Move to Commons drive, you are hereby awarded this Special Barnstar by the members of the drive. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For deleting well over 30 images in the September 2011 Move to Commons drive, you are hereby awarded this Admin's Barnstar by the members of the drive. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
Transfer to Commons Drive Leaderboard Barnstar
Transfer to Commons Drive Leaderboard Barnstar | |
For getting 2nd place in the September 2011 Move to Commons drive, you are hereby awarded this barnstar by the members of the drive. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
Bronze Commons Wiki Award
Bronze Commons Wiki Award | |
For transferring over 1,000 files to Wikimedia Commons during the September 2011 Move to Commons drive, I hereby award you this Bronze Commons Wiki Award. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hank Williams
Thanks, I'm still working on that. I have been trying to fill that gap in the timeline you pointed out and it has been taking me a little time to do some research.--GDuwenTell me! 19:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- You've been very patient with my many nitpicks. I'm sure this article will end up one we can both be extremely proud of when we're done. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Poll on other wiki moves
I made a poll to decide whether to allow other wiki's moved files for the next drive. It's at the drives talk page at the end. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 22:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Very helpful review, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Glad to help! I think it's going to be an excellent FA once my nitpicks are taken care of. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh you weren't nitpicky at all, and I think it will go well because Grandiose is very easy to work with ... I was concerned at first because I was having a really hard time with the copyediting, but you've put your finger on a lot of the things that need to be fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Btw, you probably noticed that he's going to be away for a few more days, but then he should be back for the duration of the FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh you weren't nitpicky at all, and I think it will go well because Grandiose is very easy to work with ... I was concerned at first because I was having a really hard time with the copyediting, but you've put your finger on a lot of the things that need to be fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
St James' Presbyterian Church of England, Bristol
You were most helpful a few months ago.
I have scanned and uploaded File:StJamesPresbyterianCofEBristoldaybombed.jpg and put it in the article St James' Presbyterian Church of England, Bristol only to have it deleted by someone.
- I believe that it has significant, if local, historic interest
- I feel confident I have copyright in it (the Bible was given to me at my christening).
I am wondering if you can influence the situation and try to get it included in Wikipedia.Duncanogi (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there doesn't seem to anything copyrightable in the picture, and I'm glad that you're willing to contribute it to Wikipedia. The image has not been deleted; it still exists at File:StJamesPresbyterianCofEBristoldaybombed.jpg. But it has been removed from the article.
- It's really up to the Wikipedia community as a whole, whether the image belongs in the St James' Presbyterian Church of England, Bristol article. I can see both sides. You may want to start a discussion at Talk:St James' Presbyterian Church of England, Bristol, to try to get more opinions about the question. Meanwhile, what I have done is move both images (the picture of the tower and the bible) to Commons, and the article now has a link to the Commons category that lists all related images (including the Bible scan). – Quadell (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:War of the Pacific
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War of the Pacific. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | ||
For the precise and patient review of Hank Williams' article, looking forward to further collaborations.GDuwenTell me! 19:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks & A Little History
Thanks for your input and advice. I've never used the Wikipedia permission e-mails before, so I am a little bit nervous. Five years ago, when I admit I was being a bad user, I once provided real world contact information to an administrator. The contact person in the real world received some very nasty and threatening e-mails and it actually damaged our friendship. Ever since then, I've been extremely hesitant to provide any kind of outside contact data to Wikipedia. I'm told OTRS is secure, so I guess it will be okay. Just wanted to let you know where I was coming from. -OberRanks (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I understand. Yes, OTRS is totally safe, but in general you're wise to be carefully about revealing colleagues' personal information on Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding awarding of "copy to wikimedia commons" sep 2011
The problem is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Commons/Drives is showing that sep 2011 drive has been awarded and its now closed.I know that there was a misunderstanding regarding the awards and my award was deleted because somebody else wanted to present the award.But with the awarding being closed it has become more condusing.Just wanted to ask you whether I should revert back to the old award that you gave me. Sorry for the trouble but you seem to be considerate enough to listen to me ... Vivekananda De--tAlK 12:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, please do. There was a lot of confusion there at first, but it's clear you have earned your barnstars, so feel to undo the removal. Sorry for the trouble. – Quadell (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations!!!!!
'This user is a steward '
I throw a metaphorical party for you :) Failedwizard (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, congrats! ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 00:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)- Thank you, Ebe123. It was very big of you to change your vote, and I appreciate it. I'm looking forward to the next drive. – Quadell (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Congrats and Best wishes!!!Vivekananda De--tAlK 04:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ebe123. It was very big of you to change your vote, and I appreciate it. I'm looking forward to the next drive. – Quadell (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Shapley-Folkman lemma: Image review for FAC
Hi Quadell!
Editor Ucucha has requested a review of the images for the article Shapley-Folkman lemma. I see that you have recently reviewed images for another featured article, and so I hope you don't mind another request.
Thanks for your contributions to the project.
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
FAC
Sure, unfortunately I'm away for the weekend, but I'll review when I return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the head's-up on the review I left hanging for the Hudson Valley Rail Trail. I hope my support is enough to get it through!--~TPW 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
Congrats Quadell !! you really deserve stewardship.HI couldn't vote for you as i was not eligible for voting! hope you'll do your best.. RohG ??· 11:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
Background of the Spanish Civil War FAC
Thank you for your comments so far, and I do think moving completed points to talk is a very good idea. I have only a few more points to account for, although some of my replies require your oversight, if you could drop by. Ta. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)