|
WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
- Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
- AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
- Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
- GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
- Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
- SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
- Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
Hey, this is for your review work. Easy to follow and you do it in a way that isn't overwhelming (my interaction with you over at WP:FLC World Food Prize and Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru/GA1). You also came fifth in WikiCup 2022, a newsletter notification just now. Congratulations. DTM (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
- While I am yet to reply to the Nehru one, and the editor involved hasn't addressed your comments as far as I can tell, the points you've raised and your comment have given me some motivation with respect to the review. :) DTM (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank a lot for the kind words, DTM; I am glad my review was of some help! And I am fifth in just the first round of a year-long cup! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ike for President (advertisement)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ike for President (advertisement) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Adminship
Hi! I was just wondering if you'd ever thought of giving adminship a shot. Not that I'm looking to nominate you (my nom would genuinely nuke an RfA) but think you'd have a really good shot so I'd like to hear your opinions on it.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @A. C. Santacruz for the kind words; you made my day!! I honestly feel that every user has only one serious chance at RfA in 2-3 years. If one's RfA fails, second RfA within span of 1 year would most likely again be unsuccessful. I'd like to save my first chance for later ... I currently am happy reviewing and improving articles. For a serious RfA, I do need much more involvement in AfD and CSD. So, while I'd like to one day be an admin, I am not planning to run anytime soon. Rest, I never thought anyone would consider me for adminship, so I'm pretty happy!
As a side note, I'd like to thank you again for you GA review of Draft Eisenhower movement. Especially, for introducing me to File:1952 Eisenhower Political Ad - I Like Ike - Presidential Campaign Ad.webm. That ad will soon be on the main page, and I just created Ike for President (advertisement)!! I hope everything is fine on your end ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, with a 93% match AfD voting record AfD might be less of a concern than you think. Of course, I'm not an experienced RfA nominator so you'd get better feedback at ORCP. In any case, if you're happy with how you're contributing to Wikipedia there's no need for you to run urgently.It's great to hear you drove the Draft Eisenhower article so far, it's really cool to see you're getting a TFA! I'm glad my scavenging through Commons helped :) The ad article is looking nice. I kind of expect it being used in the future in classroom settings to teach media literacy (my highschool did so with campaign ads), which is always interesting. I myself am managing, the invasion of Ukraine kind of threw a wrench into a lot of stuff in my irl life so I'm doing what I can to float on. Hope you've had a nice Carnival week, if you celebrate. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion to avoid reviewing topics you are unfamiliar with
Hello, Kavyansh.Singh. Thanks for reviewing articles! I noticed you seem unprepared to conduct reviews for topics that you are unfamiliar with. If you are interested in reviewing articles in unfamiliar topics, the proper procedure is to read example Featured Articles or Good Articles in the same topic area. (For example, if you want to review a sports biography and are unfamiliar with sports, you should first read several sport biography FAs before conducting a review of sport biography FA candidate. That way, you would know what a proper sports biography FA would look like.) In particular, I noticed in your review of Daisy Pearce that you stated you "know almost nothing about sports" and yet you left highly-critical comments after spending only 19 minutes to conduct the review, before ultimately suggesting the nomination be withdrawn. If you had looked at some example FAs in the same subject area, you would have already known that the sources used in the article are the correct types of sources that should be used in the article. We always need more reviewers, but reviews where the reviewer is not willing to put in sufficient effort are not particularly helpful. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Sportsfan77777, thanks you your input. I have reviewed many article/list at FLC, and GAN, and few at FAC, outside my expertise. I feel it is very important for every nomination to have at-least one non-expert review. If the article is featured, there would be many people reading it, and a good number of people would be like me. I admitted my non expertise in the review, I even wrote that I have not read the entire article. My comments were not based on any particular technical issues which only experts can give. The criteria is same for every article: "high quality reliable sources". My comments were not critical, but something anyone normal reviewer can give. I felt, and still feel that the article does not meet those high standard of sourcing. I have put my efforts in various review I have conducted over the time, and am willing to do here as well. I asked the few sourcing question, but did not find any reason (and still haven't found out) why, say 'www.womens.afl', 'www.changehergame.com', 'afl.com.au', 'The Footy Almanac', or 'Facbeook' (in this case not used for direct quotations), are high-quality reliable sources. That is why I suggested to withdraw. I know there are many reviewers who would give much better review, and that is primarily why I did not oppose yet. I am happy that there are other reviewers disagreeing with me, which should be a normal part of every healthy discussion. But I still didn't understand why you called my review "blatantly sexist" and requested it to be "disregarded", when, if-fact, it was based on FA criteria. Thanks for approaching, though! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- You are not going to get a "healthy discussion" if you suggest withdrawal from the beginning. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is a difference between a non-expert review and being ignorant on purpose. It's your responsibility to try to figure out what would be good sources to use. Not having expertise on the subject doesn't prevent you from figuring out what would be a good source. It's not the nominator's job to explain it to you if you haven't made an effort yourself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan77777: I disagree that reviewers need to provide better sources to claim that the sources used in the article are not WP:HQRS. Reviewers needs to evaluate the article based on FA criteria, and then judge whether the article meets it or not. I don't think I have been ignorant. Had I been that, I would not have replied to nominator's comments. I see that another reviewer has provided some sources not used in the article. Since you say that, I'll also add on the FAC page few sources which are not present in the article. But I am glad we both can agree that even non-experts can figure out whether a source is good or not; because that is exactly what I did. I viewed the sources, did not find them to be WP:HQRS, and suggested to withdraw. As to why I did it in the immediate beginning: because I got chance to review the article in the immediate beginning! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you did try to figure out if the sources were good or not, and you did a poor job, probably because you did not put in enough effort. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- And if reviewers do have criticism of the sources for not being WP:HQRS, they do often ask the nominators why other sources that are available weren't used. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan77777: My apologies if you feel I had made any error while evaluating sources. As for your second point, I did. I asked "Can you elaborate as to how did you find sources for the article", and again "Are there no books/academic work about her life?". Steelkamp had mentioned few sources not used in the article. Per your request, even I have added list few sources which I feel should have been used. Again, I'm sorry if you think I did a "poor job". Thanks for letting me know! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan77777: I disagree that reviewers need to provide better sources to claim that the sources used in the article are not WP:HQRS. Reviewers needs to evaluate the article based on FA criteria, and then judge whether the article meets it or not. I don't think I have been ignorant. Had I been that, I would not have replied to nominator's comments. I see that another reviewer has provided some sources not used in the article. Since you say that, I'll also add on the FAC page few sources which are not present in the article. But I am glad we both can agree that even non-experts can figure out whether a source is good or not; because that is exactly what I did. I viewed the sources, did not find them to be WP:HQRS, and suggested to withdraw. As to why I did it in the immediate beginning: because I got chance to review the article in the immediate beginning! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ike for President (advertisement)
The article Ike for President (advertisement) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ike for President (advertisement) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ike for President (advertisement)
The article Ike for President (advertisement) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ike for President (advertisement) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Theleekycauldron and User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
- User Kavyansh.Singh has made almost 10,000 edits. 13 featured lists, 11 good articles, 19 DYK nominations, an A-class article, a featured picture, and 3 featured articles give them more decorations than a four-star general. Their first FA, "Daisy", was a thing of beauty. They are greatly interested in American politics and their efforts to cover the history of U.S. presidents, presidential candidates, presidential elections, and other aspects of national politics have been absolutely outstanding and super engaging. In addition, Kavyansh.Singh has been active in the field of DYK with 14 Featured while helping to build prep sets and raise flags at WT:DYK when nominations don't look quite right. Kavyansh.Singh is personable, enjoyable to work with, and remarkably sane, and richly deserves being an Editor of the Week!
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
A Featured Picture |
Kavyansh.Singh |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning March 6, 2022 |
Almost 10,000 edits, 13 featured lists, 11 good articles, 19 DYK nominations, an A-class article, a featured picture, and 3 featured articles. Greatly interested in American politics. Their efforts to cover the history of U.S. presidents, presidential candidates, presidential elections, and other aspects of national politics have been absolutely outstanding and super engaging. Active in the field of DYK with 14 Featured while helping to build prep sets and raise flags at WT:DYK. Personable, enjoyable to work with, and remarkably sane. |
Recognized for |
creating political lists |
Notable work(s) |
"Daisy" |
Submit a nomination |
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 16:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, what should I say! @Theleekycauldron, Gog the Mild, and Buster7, thanks a lot for this esteemed honor. I am not sure if I exactly deserve this, but am happy to know that I have been of at-least some help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Well deserved, Kavyansh :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, I am overwhelmed! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Richly deserved. Bask in the glory. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is very kind of you to say! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank-you! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- bask indeed :) just gonna add my voice to the choir here, absolutely well-deserved. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm happy you think so! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is very kind of you to say! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Richly deserved. Bask in the glory. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, I am overwhelmed! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Well deserved, Kavyansh :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, what should I say! @Theleekycauldron, Gog the Mild, and Buster7, thanks a lot for this esteemed honor. I am not sure if I exactly deserve this, but am happy to know that I have been of at-least some help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
FAC source reviews
Thank you for doing source reviews at FAC! I would recommend doing at least informal spot-checks for just about every FAC you do a source review for. I ran some on about half of the web sources on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957/archive1, and found several instances of details just not supported by the sources. I generally do at least a couple informal ones on just about everyone except for Gog, who I've checked enough at GAN/ACR/FAC in the past to tell that their sourcing is generally beyond reproach. Hog Farm Talk 02:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Thanks a lot! I'll take care of this. Actually, in my source review, I did state: "Spotchecks not done" on the top, because it wasn't nominators first nomination. But yeah, should have done few informal ones as well. Thanks for the spot-checks; had I been in your place, even I would have opposed. I can do all the book spot-checks, if you coordinators require. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would say that it's generally best to conduct them to at least an informal degree if you're going to mark a source review as passed, since source-text integrity is part of the in-practice interpretation of the verifiable clause in the FA sourcing criteria. Generally the more detailed stuff needs to be done for a more limited set of circumstances, such as a first-time nominator, if something is suspicious, or if you've found several issues in the limited checks. Hog Farm Talk 05:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Got it, Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would say that it's generally best to conduct them to at least an informal degree if you're going to mark a source review as passed, since source-text integrity is part of the in-practice interpretation of the verifiable clause in the FA sourcing criteria. Generally the more detailed stuff needs to be done for a more limited set of circumstances, such as a first-time nominator, if something is suspicious, or if you've found several issues in the limited checks. Hog Farm Talk 05:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Promotion of List of operettas by John Philip Sousa
Congratulations, Kavyansh.Singh! The list you nominated, List of operettas by John Philip Sousa, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC) |
A bowl of strawberries for you!
Congrats on the bonus for Minimalist! My closest attempt came short (or rather, long) at 60 edits. You're only the fourth person to get a bonus, I believe. Nice to see an FL in the category—I wonder when someone will get the first Minimalist FA. — Bilorv (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC) |
- Thanks a lot! As for minimalist FA, that is something near to impossible! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you today for Draft Eisenhower movement, "about how General Dwight D. Eisenhower was persuaded by both the Democratic and Republican Party to contest the presidency. We won't see that today! Both in the 1948 and 1952 presidential election: politicians, news organizations, columnist, composers, and many citizens campaigned to "Draft Eisenhower". And "Ike" (nickname of Eisenhower, because you can't remember that long name!) refused all requests to enter politics. The Draft movement failed in 1948, but the upset victory of Harry S. Truman made many Republicans to again campaign for Eisenhower in 1952. Democrats to tried to persuade him, saying that he can win only as a Democrat. Senator Paul Douglas even suggested both parties to nominate Eisenhower with different vice-presidential running mates. The famous "I like Ike" campaign slogan was associated with this movement. Eisenhower at-last agreed to contest Republican primaries, and won few of them despite never actively campaigning himself. He was elected president as a Republican, and served two terms."! ... and for the new featured list! - I listened to the charity concert mentioned here (on radio, it was soon sold out). I created the articles of the composer and the soprano, and more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! My first TFA!!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Prayer for Ukraine is on the Main page, finally + new flowers, and btw: today's TFA is also a writer's first. Thanks for FAC comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Bach's No. 1 today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Gavin Arthur
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gavin Arthur you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Gavin Arthur
The article Gavin Arthur you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gavin Arthur for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John Adams (2)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Gilbert Stuart, John Adams, c. 1800-1815, NGA 42933.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
|
- Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Ike for President (advertisement)
There's always next time, and it looks like you're just outside arm's reach at the moment. Nothing looks beyond repair—and hey, if anyone could pull it off, it's you. For my part, i've learned to be quite a bit more careful on source reviews ;) and thank you for sticking up for me on the note. Glad it was just a misunderstanding after all, but that was truly awfully nice of you. :D go get 'em. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- @theleekycauldron: Thanks, and I'm sorry you had to do so much despite having less time. I know how it feels to conduct a spot-check! Will definitely take this back to FAC, after a copy-edit and PR. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Gavin Arthur
The article Gavin Arthur you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gavin Arthur for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Jubilee coinage
Is there a chance that your review of the article make you able to state an opinion on whether it should be promoted? Much obliged,--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sure! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Ian Rush FL
Just saw that it has been promoted. Thanks again for taking it up! I really appreciate it! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @REDMAN 2019: My pleasure; my first "sports" related wiki work. Let me know if you ever need any help! Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Promotion of Gallup's most admired man and woman poll
Congratulations, Kavyansh.Singh! The list you nominated, Gallup's most admired man and woman poll, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC) |
April songs |
Congratulations! (Sorry for being late to notice) - A Ukraine day today: Maks Levin DYK, expanding Kyiv Symphony Orchestra (where I added the composer), and creating Anthony Robin Schneider, the bass who could be heard opening the singing in Beethoven's Ninth twice on 10 March 2022, live in Frankfurt, Germany, and recorded in Auckland, New Zealand. Help with DYK wording appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK preps
Thanks for promoting hooks that I reviewed. Also, thanks to Z1720 for helping finish the set. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @SL93: It is always a pleasure to help anyway I can. Feel free to let me know if you need any other help promoting/reviewing nominations which you can't (due to being involved, etc.). Also thanks to Z1720 for stepping in, DYK does need more prep builders. I currently am trying to focus most of my Wiki time on an article I am trying to improve back to FA status, so am bit less active at DYK. Hopefully I'll return to active prep building soon. [apologies if I am missing someone], but you and Theleekycauldron seem to be the only two active prep builders. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words above KS and SL93. I've recently returned from a Wikibreak, and thought I should get back into DYK prep. The advantage I have at the moment is that I haven't reviewed hooks recently, so I won't be blocked from promoting hooks unless I find a concern while evaluating for promotion. When we are on one-set-a-day, I avoid reviewing because I want to delay the switch as long as possible. When we are back to two-a-day, I'll start reviewing more often. Feel free to ping me or leave a message on my talk page if a hook needs a promoter. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
County maps in election lists
Hey again, it's been a while. I wanna ask if it's still a possibility to put county result maps in the state presidential election lists. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 02:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Koopatrev! Nice to hear from you. I am currently not working on that list series, but do hope to return soon. As for county result maps, well, we have few issues with that. Firstly, we don't have sources to verify the exact data per county; that just get worse when be start finding stats of mid-1800 elections (example: Andrew Jackson allegedly won 99.97% popular vote in Alabama. Thankfully, it is not Georgia's election.) Secondly, I don't think those county maps really help the reader. So, I don't think it should be added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Robin Williams performances/archive1
All the usual disclaimers apply: I'm not an expert on anything, and especially not on commas. Still, the first line in your review doesn't seem right to me, and I'd like to revert the addition of that serial comma. It seems to me to violate the more usual modern American English practice, and it also seems to violate WP:MOS in roughly three ways ... WP:MOS says "Modern writing uses fewer commas", "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent", and "Serial commas are more helpful the more complex the material". I don't care about commas, but I do care about how nominators feel about the FLC process. (And ... while I'm here, thanks much for stepping up your activity at FLC, your help has been a huge plus.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi User:Dank! Thanks for approaching. I am not an expert on prose and have no issues with that series comma change being reverted. And thanks for that compliment. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reviews of two of my FAC/FLC. Both proved very useful. If you need a reviewer in the future, feel free to reach out. Although I’m not well-versed in American politics (or politics of any country for that matter), a layman's perspective is just what one might need sometimes. FrB.TG (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG: Thanks a lot, it is really very kind of you to say that! I am, and have always been a strong endorser of requiring at-least one non-expert to review any featured article/list candidate. That is necessary, as a very good fraction of those reading the article after it passes the process would be non-experts. Lately, I am trying to explore other strange topics except politics. I just nominated Richard Dawkins Award for FLC, if you are interested in reviewing. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reviews of two of my FAC/FLC. Both proved very useful. If you need a reviewer in the future, feel free to reach out. Although I’m not well-versed in American politics (or politics of any country for that matter), a layman's perspective is just what one might need sometimes. FrB.TG (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Thurmond Filibuster FAC
Howdy! First of all, I can't thank you enough for your help at FAC. Doing the massive source review (did you have to type all of the book quotations by hand? From what I can tell there's no way to copy/paste from the online sources!), performing an extensive general article review, questioning the initial archiving, etc. The reason I'm here is to ask what your guidance (if any) is moving forward. I plan to nominate again, ideally after a (second) full source review. I can't ask you to do this again and I might end up doing it myself (I feel a significant part of it could be done with a nifty little Python script, e.g. laying out and autofilling some parts of the table), but then of course there is the understandable question of COI. I figure worst case scenario there is that reviewers at FAC just have to check my work in the table, but I do worry about an oversight on my part leading to an archiving after reading the closing note. I would be open to a co-nomination if you're interested, as you have already put a solid amount of effort into the article. AviationFreak💬 03:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @AviationFreak, as an initial advise: Don't take this feedback too seriously. By no means am I an FAC expert. That being said, well, I recently realized something interesting about source-to-text integrity. You take any random FAC and start spot checking. There are very high chances that you will find some issues. Thats what I did (here and here), and both had issues. Before nominating, there are multiple round of copy-editing, changing structure, etc, which create these issues. Especially when the person copy-editing is not familiar with the sources. As for Thurmond Filibuster FAC, I believe there should be a way to copy-paste, but for me, I did type them from the book sources. But what now concerns me is that a coordinator requested to have a source-to-text integrity check, when I had already done it. Perhaps, quoting him "It is common in these situations for a nominator to ask an experienced reviewer to thoroughly spot check prior to renomination" (emphasis original). So you should probably ask on the FAC talk page for an experienced reviewer to spot check again. But what further concerns me is that, in his opposing statement, Hog Farm said: "I am opposing and will recommend that this nomination is not promoted until the book sources have been able to be thoroughly spot-checked". After the book sources were thoroughly spot-checked, they yet opposed the nomination, asserting the lost of faith in sourcing, but didn't tell what could be done to regain that faith. I was a little confused on that part, but assuming good faith on that he wanted to help with the project. As for what needs to be done, WT:FAC might give you some feedback. Discuss the sourcing with Hog Farm, ask experienced reviewers to spot-check, and if you decide to renominate, send a neutrally phrased message to every single editor associated with the first FAC to review. As for the co-nomination, my work on the article is mostly "behind the scenes" work, you have significant authorship and should be the sole nominator. Thanks for asking, though, a very kind thing to do! Feel free to let me know if you need any other help. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Adding to the above, sourcing (to be more precise, verifiability) is the only part which needs to be worked out. You already had various supports on prose and other criteria, so that most likely won't be an issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @AviationFreak: Any progress? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Haven't gotten much done thus far - Nobody has responded to the integrity check request at the FAC Talk page, and I haven't been able to work too much on the article (or WP at all, for that matter) since I've had a lot going on with real life. I should be able to work on the article a bit more once June arrives, but I may also be a bit more free in May. Thanks for checking in! AviationFreak💬 11:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alrighty, I've completed a new source review here by frankensteining your review with current article text and refs. If you don't see any issues with this right off, I reckon I'll go ahead and put the article back up at FAC. AviationFreak💬 00:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
- That would be fine, I think. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- D'oh, thanks for adding the nom to the FAC page! Forgot about that >.< AviationFreak💬 15:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- That would be fine, I think. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Alrighty, I've completed a new source review here by frankensteining your review with current article text and refs. If you don't see any issues with this right off, I reckon I'll go ahead and put the article back up at FAC. AviationFreak💬 00:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
- Haven't gotten much done thus far - Nobody has responded to the integrity check request at the FAC Talk page, and I haven't been able to work too much on the article (or WP at all, for that matter) since I've had a lot going on with real life. I should be able to work on the article a bit more once June arrives, but I may also be a bit more free in May. Thanks for checking in! AviationFreak💬 11:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- @AviationFreak: Any progress? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Ike for President (advertisement)
On 11 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ike for President (advertisement), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Disney once created a political advertisement for Dwight D. Eisenhower (featured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ike for President (advertisement). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ike for President (advertisement)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 10,808 views (900.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- For me, any DYK over 10,000 views is great! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK credit for 2022 open letter from Nobel laureates in support of Ukraine
Hello, I noticed that neither I nor user:Buttons0603 were given DYK credit for 2022 open letter from Nobel laureates in support of Ukraine. I’m not sure what happened. Thriley (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- the update was performed manually; I've handed out the credits for it likewise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents has an RFC
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Louis H. Bean
- Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
For your work on American politics, Good, and Featured Articles! ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
- I'm glad you found my work useful! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Sousa for July 4th
July 4th would lose all its fizz and go flat without Sousa's "The Stars and Stripes Forever", and Cagney in Yankee Doodle Dandy. Fingers crossed for your Sousa TFL request of July 4th. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- ... and for your request of Pershing House as well! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK Credit
Hi, you promoted the algae article with the gif, but I cannot see that you added the DYK credit. Bruxton (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- My bad, now fixed! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I know you're busy at the moment...
But if the meatspace life ever slows down a little, I'd love to get Lady Bird Johnson up to GA status with you! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, why not. I'll have more time in upcoming few days! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- sounds good! any book/scholarly sources you'd recommend? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Added that to the article talk. Also uploaded and added many images! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- sounds good! any book/scholarly sources you'd recommend? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Daisy Wood Hildreth
I'm just seeing if you can promote the hook. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Richard Dawkins Award
On 30 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richard Dawkins Award, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Richard Dawkins Award is awarded for publicly proclaiming "the values of secularism and rationalism, upholding scientific truth wherever it may lead"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Dawkins Award. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Richard Dawkins Award), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 May newsletter
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
- Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
- AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
- Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
- Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
- Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
- Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
- Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.
The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
DYK promotions
Just seeing if you can promote Template:Did you know nominations/Spotted Demon (bull) and Template:Did you know nominations/Asisguard Songar to prep 7 if everything looks fine with them. They are old nominations that I reviewed. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Those were taken care by Z1720. I promoted few others. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's nice that we have multiple prep builders now. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- And a top class hook promoting script as well! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's nice that we have multiple prep builders now. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Lunch Atop a Skyscraper
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lunch Atop a Skyscraper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rublov -- Rublov (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Lunch Atop a Skyscraper
The article Lunch Atop a Skyscraper you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lunch Atop a Skyscraper for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rublov -- Rublov (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
For reviewing at least 20 points worth of articles during the January 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, I hereby present you with this barnstar in my capacity as coordinator. You were number 3 in score out of all the participants, congratulations! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC) |
- Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Lunch Atop a Skyscraper
The article Lunch Atop a Skyscraper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lunch Atop a Skyscraper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rublov -- Rublov (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alexei Navalny on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
TFL notification – June 2022
Hi, Kavyansh.Singh. I'm just posting to let you know that Gallup's most admired man and woman poll – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 6. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Quarter Million Award for Lunch Atop a Skyscraper
The Quarter Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Lunch Atop a Skyscraper (estimated annual readership: 310,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC) |
I think I spotted a couple typos in the article:
while sitting on a steel beam 850 feet (260 meters) above on the sixty-ninth floor
I think there's something missing after above. Suggest: above street level. The lead has "above the ground".- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Hahn found her father's $1.50 per hour (equivalent to $30 in 2021) paycheck, the ironworkers's photograph, as well as an image of her father
I think this should be "ironworkers" as a descriptive modifier for photograph. If the possessive, it would generally be without the final "s" for plural agreement (MOS:POSS), but it seems to me it should be an modifier rather than a possessive.- Done; it was initially "ironworkers", I think, but this change was suggested in GAN. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
It has been colorized and a 40 feet (12 meters) long statue
Should be 40-foot-long. You can fix this in the convert template as {{Convert|40|ft|m|abbr=off|sp=us|adj=mid|-long}}, adding the last two parameters and removing the "long" outside of the template.- Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Great work! Cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Reidgreg: Thanks a lot! Much appreciated! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Top work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Gerda, it was an interesting topic to work at! The image is a featured picture! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- as this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Killing of Brittanee Drexel on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Triple Crown
Hi Kavyansh.Singh. The bad news is I'm not seeing enough authorship at Robert M. La Follette for it to count towards your Triple Crown. The good news, however, is that you only needed 15 articles in each category and you had 16, so you're still eligible for the award. Congratulations. :) Sometimes the automatic authorship counter doesn't reflect actual work done, for example, when work is done in a draft before being moved to main space, or when incredibly time consuming work has been done on research that only adds limited prose to an article. So if upgrading your award in the future please give details as to why an article should count towards your Triple Crown if your authorship is well below 25%. Have a great day. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Damien Linnane: Thanks a lot! That is exactly why I submitted 16 article, because I was in doubt whether "Fighting Bob" would count. Best regards, Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Kavyansh.Singh
Thank you for creating Joseph Kinnicutt Angell.
User:MainlyTwelve, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Nice work!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MainlyTwelve}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Mainly 14:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
question on length of articles
Hi! At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mini_scule/archive1, you stated: "[Mini scule] would be the second shortest FA (between Miss Meyers and Nico Ditch)." Where did you get this information about length of FAs, and what measure was used? If you still remember. (Please ping on reply.) casualdejekyll 21:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- and, of course, it's quite appropriate that a very short frog would have a very short FA, huh? casualdejekyll 21:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Casualdejekyll! Check out Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length. And yes, its appropriate and funny for a small frog to have a small FA. Although, FAs should be comprehensive, even it it takes just some 700 words! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello Kavyansh.Singh,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 737 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 1034 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
English usage
Hi there, Kavyansh.Singh, and thank you for taking an interest in the article on Magna Lykseth-Skogman. I was however a little surprised at your replacing "thanks to" with "due to", commenting "we do not usually thank people on Wikipedia". Like "due to", "thanks to" is widely used as an alternative to "owing to" or "because of". It is often preferred to "due to" which is not always strictly acceptable although I am only too aware that it is gaining popularity around the globe. You might find it useful to look at Correct use of the phrase "due to". I must say you have been making great headway on Wikipedia since you started editing less than two years ago with an FA, an FL, at least one featured picture and several GAs. It's good to see you are now taking an interest in articles about women which represent less than 20% of our biographies and need further support. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Ipigott, thanks for letting me know. I was just concerned that writing "thanks to" might not follow a neutral point of view, specially on an encyclopedia. Feel free to change that, I am not that good when it comes to prose. And yes, we need more women bios; I recently re-wrote Margaret Abbott, a quite unique woman! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding so quickly. I only revert in cases where there is a serious problem, which is not the case here. I am always careful not to do anything which may develop into an edit war. I must say you've done a great job on Abbott. I hope there will be many more. If so, you might like to become a member of WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to reduce the gender gap.--Ipigott (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Lunch Atop a Skyscraper
On 27 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lunch Atop a Skyscraper, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the "most famous picture of a lunch break in New York history" (pictured) was actually a publicity stunt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lunch Atop a Skyscraper. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lunch Atop a Skyscraper), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 59,651 views (2,485.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Thanks! 60k is much more than what I expected!!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Promotion of Richard Dawkins Award
Congratulations, Kavyansh.Singh! The list you nominated, Richard Dawkins Award, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
DYK nomination of James Markham Ambler
Hello! Your submission of James Markham Ambler at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of James Markham Ambler
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Markham Ambler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of UnidentifiedX -- UnidentifiedX (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of James Markham Ambler
The article James Markham Ambler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James Markham Ambler for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of UnidentifiedX -- UnidentifiedX (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Kavyansh.Singh,
This is to let you know that File:JFK limousine.png, a featured picture you nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 22, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-11-22. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Ahecht: I was thinking of about Nov 22, 2023, which would be the 60th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, but 2022 also works. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The Assassination of John F. Kennedy occurred on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, shortly after this photograph was taken. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, was riding in a presidential motorcade through Dealey Plaza with his wife Jacqueline, Texas Governor John Connally, and Connally's wife Nellie with him in the vehicle. He was fatally shot from the nearby Texas School Book Depository by Lee Harvey Oswald; Connally was seriously wounded. The motorcade was rushed to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where Kennedy was pronounced dead about 30 minutes after the shooting; Connally recovered. Photograph credit: Walt Cisco, The Dallas Morning News
Recently featured:
|
DYK for Joseph Kinnicutt Angell
On 6 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Kinnicutt Angell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to one legal scholar, "no intelligent lawyer could well practice without" the books of Joseph Kinnicutt Angell? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Kinnicutt Angell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Joseph Kinnicutt Angell), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Colors (Morandi song)
Hi
The review of the article mentioned above was conducted, please see Talk:Colors (Morandi song)/GA1 I just had it n the wrong page. Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- No issues, I have changes it now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
GA review
Hi there, I am reviewing One Astor Plaza. I have finished the review. I have never reviewed before, and as a listed mentor was wondering if you please could look at my checklist and do a check to see I filled it in correctly? I intentionally went through all the noms and picked a non-controversial subject, and also chose an article that was a very strong chance of passing. Obviously if it were a fail, much more detail would be needed. Thanks very much - MaxnaCarter (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singhplease do let me know if you can help, thanks! MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @MaxnaCarter, sorry for the delay, was a bit busy. I have now taken a look at the review page. Thank you for volunteering to do a GA review. I see you have assessed all GA criteria, which is a good sign. Something I say to all new GA reviewers is that the GA criteria is not too strict, but still try to give few suggestions to the nominator. There are rarely any "perfect" article, is it even exists. There is always at-least one suggestions you can give to the nominator; any suggestion (even if outside the GA criteria) which improves the article is an improvement for Wikipedia and its readers. For example, in this article, I see that:
- there are a lot of duplicate links MOS:DUPLINK (like Broadway, Palladium Times Square, Minskoff Theatre, Ben Schlanger, Sam Minskoff and Sons, etc.) which can easily be spotted by this script. Suggest the nominator to remove most of these, as they do not help the reader until the two links are at considerable distance.
- Ask why is there "pp. 721, 722" in Ref#99 when it normally would be "pp. 721–722" (continuous page ranges)
- This is a great article by an experiences nominators, but it may be a bit technical for non-experts, which most of the Wikipedia readers are. While reading, if you find any difficulty understanding anything, feel free to ask the nominator to simplify that. This is difficult for few highly technical scientific/mathematics related articles, but not too hard here.
- Try to spot-check few sources to verify the source-to-text integrity.
- In short, the GA review should contain constructive criticism of the article. Most of the points to be considered while reviewing are specified at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Best of luck ahead, and please feel free to ask me anything you find difficult. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the pointers @Kavyansh.Singh, will do! MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @MaxnaCarter, sorry for the delay, was a bit busy. I have now taken a look at the review page. Thank you for volunteering to do a GA review. I see you have assessed all GA criteria, which is a good sign. Something I say to all new GA reviewers is that the GA criteria is not too strict, but still try to give few suggestions to the nominator. There are rarely any "perfect" article, is it even exists. There is always at-least one suggestions you can give to the nominator; any suggestion (even if outside the GA criteria) which improves the article is an improvement for Wikipedia and its readers. For example, in this article, I see that:
Your GA nomination of Margaret Abbott
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Margaret Abbott you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Margaret Abbott
The article Margaret Abbott you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Margaret Abbott for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 4, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 4, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
TFL notification – July 2022
Hi, Kavyansh.Singh. I'm just posting to let you know that List of marches by John Philip Sousa – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 4. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the Help
It means a lot | |
I wanted to thank you for your help on how to discuss about changing the image in the infobox for the article about Ronald Reagan HistorianL (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
- @HistorianL: Welcome to Wikipedia! Feel free to let me know if you need any help or have any questions. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK for James Markham Ambler
On 17 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Markham Ambler, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that due to the efforts of James Markham Ambler, the Jeannette expedition became the first Arctic expedition "without a single case of scurvy"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Markham Ambler. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, James Markham Ambler), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of coups and coup attempts on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
GANReviewTool
Hey there. Sorry the tool freaked out. Just letting you know I saw it in the log. I will troubleshoot and patch whatever the bug is in the morning. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. Otherwise, it is great. Thanks for all your help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Bug fixed, by the way. I had an epiphany and was able to figure this one out quick :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)