Hello, you placed this GA review on hold on February 21. I believe that the concerns have been addressed. The only excpetion seems to be the lack of a picture. As the main editor said, the pictures that were included were deleted without much of a reason given. Since pictures are not a requirement for GA, though, could we agree that the hunt should continue but that a picture is not required until this article is nominated for FA status? Thanks for the review, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-02T17:53:00.000Z","author":"GaryColemanFan","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-GaryColemanFan-2008-03-02T17:53:00.000Z-Don_Kent_(wrestler)","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-03-19T18:17:00.000Z-GaryColemanFan-2008-03-02T17:53:00.000Z"]}}-->

Taken care of, I apologize about the delay. -Ed! (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-19T18:17:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-03-19T18:17:00.000Z-GaryColemanFan-2008-03-02T17:53:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-03T05:58:00.000Z","author":"Derek.cashman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Derek.cashman-2008-03-03T05:58:00.000Z-WikiProject_Good_Articles_Newsletter","replies":[],"displayName":"Dr. Cash"}}-->

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Centre-right politics (talk | history | start review) • Metropolitan Club (New York City) (talk | history | start review) • Dabney Coleman (talk | history | start review) • Reichsgesetzblatt (talk | history | start review) • 2020 Sparta earthquake (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Mikhail Gorbachev • 2017 World Series • Wilsonville, Oregon • Bleeding Through • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-05T04:26:00.000Z","author":"BrownBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BrownBot-2008-03-05T04:26:00.000Z-The_Military_history_WikiProject_Newsletter_:_Issue_XXIV_(February_2008)","replies":[]}}-->

Is there a reason you are ignoring the articles you have put on hold, but continuing to edit actively?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-08T02:09:00.000Z","author":"TonyTheTiger","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TonyTheTiger-2008-03-08T02:09:00.000Z-GACs_on_Hold","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-03-08T10:15:00.000Z-TonyTheTiger-2008-03-08T02:09:00.000Z"]}}-->

Well, I had been hoping that other users would contribute their opinions to the reviews since I'm new to the reviewing process. I'm hoping that giving first opinions for improvement will make the GA's go faster and help clear up the clog of GACs. I wouldn't mind re-reviewing your article, I was just afraid that someone else might come along later and reverse the decision for some reason. But I will look at it again if you wish. -Ed! (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-08T10:15:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-03-08T10:15:00.000Z-TonyTheTiger-2008-03-08T02:09:00.000Z","replies":["c-GaryColemanFan-2008-03-09T00:08:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-03-08T10:15:00.000Z","c-Pepsi2786-2008-03-13T09:20:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-03-08T10:15:00.000Z"]}}-->

It would also be very helpful if you could also complete the review for Don Kent (wrestler). Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-09T00:08:00.000Z","author":"GaryColemanFan","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-GaryColemanFan-2008-03-09T00:08:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-03-08T10:15:00.000Z","replies":["c-TonyTheTiger-2008-03-11T00:09:00.000Z-GaryColemanFan-2008-03-09T00:08:00.000Z"]}}-->

I apologize. I did not know you were a rookie. You may want to acquaint yourself with {{ArticleHistory}}. I finished up your promotion. Also, if you look at WP:GA you will see that there is a list of the last 15 new GA's. I updated this as well for you. Thanks for taking time with the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-11T00:09:00.000Z","author":"TonyTheTiger","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-TonyTheTiger-2008-03-11T00:09:00.000Z-GaryColemanFan-2008-03-09T00:08:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Could you finish the review on Henry Timberlake as well? It's been nearly a month since your initial review put it on hold. -- PEPSI2786^talk 09:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-13T09:20:00.000Z","author":"Pepsi2786","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Pepsi2786-2008-03-13T09:20:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-03-08T10:15:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I have requested a reassessment of the GA fail. Comment here if you wish. Otto4711 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-11T22:10:00.000Z","author":"Otto4711","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Otto4711-2008-03-11T22:10:00.000Z-Boys_in_the_Sand","replies":[]}}-->

Hopefully the copyedits are an improvement. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-13T08:14:00.000Z","author":"Blnguyen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blnguyen-2008-03-13T08:14:00.000Z-173rd","replies":["c-Blnguyen-2008-03-13T08:24:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-03-13T08:14:00.000Z","c-Ed!-2008-03-16T16:31:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-03-13T08:14:00.000Z"]}}-->

Can you rearrange the VN War section so that the article is in chron order. The aritcle skips around a bit from 66 to 67 and back and forth. Thanks, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-13T08:24:00.000Z","author":"Blnguyen","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Blnguyen-2008-03-13T08:24:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-03-13T08:14:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

All right, I'll try to do that. -Ed! (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-16T16:31:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-03-16T16:31:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-03-13T08:14:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blnguyen-2008-03-26T03:00:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-03-16T16:31:00.000Z"]}}-->

Sorry I was away over Easter and it got closed. I'll get back to it. Can you chrono the artilce please? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-26T03:00:00.000Z","author":"Blnguyen","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Blnguyen-2008-03-26T03:00:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-03-16T16:31:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-03-26T03:04:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-03-26T03:00:00.000Z"]}}-->

Yeah, I'll take care of that, there are a few things that need doing before it can pass a FAC, apparently. -Ed! (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-26T03:04:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-03-26T03:04:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-03-26T03:00:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-03-26T06:07:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-03-26T03:04:00.000Z"]}}-->

There it is. There were a few stray sentences about '67 that appeared too early. It should be completely correct now. -Ed! (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-26T06:07:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-03-26T06:07:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-03-26T03:04:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Howdy. I've done a copyedit. There are some things like acronyms, that need to be expanded in the first-usage and wikilinked preferably for the benefit of laymen like me like MAIC and SETAF. Also, some of your refs are inconsistent. I tend to use citation templates because its easy, so that might make things easier for you. Some have "retrieved DATE" while others have "retrieved on DATE" - also, with the movies, I think per {{cite episode}}, you should put in the ref, who wrote the script for the film, eg some person who added a similar thing to my Thich Quang Duc FA put the same details for a South Park episode. I think the article should be a better chance of FA now, although people might still ask for more info, but it might be worth a try to give it another go. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-01T04:19:00.000Z","author":"Blnguyen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blnguyen-2008-04-01T04:19:00.000Z-173rd","replies":["c-Blnguyen-2008-04-01T06:57:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-01T04:19:00.000Z"]}}-->

Another thing, looking at your GACs, it might be quicker to use the inhouse MILHIST service. Thanks, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-01T06:57:00.000Z","author":"Blnguyen","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Blnguyen-2008-04-01T06:57:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-01T04:19:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-04-01T13:38:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-01T06:57:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thanks very much. I'll have to fix the source format still before I renominate it for GAC, but that should help immensely. As for my GACs, is there some way I can put them through GAC in the MILHIST service? I don't think either of them is quite A- or FA- quality yet, but they have a shot at GA. -Ed! (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-01T13:38:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-01T13:38:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-01T06:57:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blnguyen-2008-04-04T04:32:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-04-01T13:38:00.000Z"]}}-->

You'd be surprised. A proper GA review is about the same standard as an A MILHIST review, although I know Kirill has a rather dim opinion of GA. Anyway, I have a book here about AUS in VN, and that has a bit about the Iron Triangle and Tuy Hoa battles that the Americans also took part in. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-04T04:32:00.000Z","author":"Blnguyen","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Blnguyen-2008-04-04T04:32:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-04-01T13:38:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Are you intending to FAC this? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-17T03:34:00.000Z","author":"Blnguyen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blnguyen-2008-04-17T03:34:00.000Z-173rd","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-04-17T03:50:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-17T03:34:00.000Z","c-Ed!-2008-04-21T02:15:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-17T03:34:00.000Z"]}}-->

I'd really like to, but I've been distracted with GAs and so I havent had time to fix the source problem. Does it look good for FAC in its current state? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 03:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-17T03:50:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-17T03:50:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-17T03:34:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blnguyen-2008-04-17T05:03:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-04-17T03:50:00.000Z"]}}-->

I think converting all the refs into the template for uniformity will make it ok. I'd guess that Tony1 is the only user who would have a strongly held objection. It would be better to get a textbook and sub out the webpages though. There must be a book in the US about it somewhere. Maybe even in Aus. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-17T05:03:00.000Z","author":"Blnguyen","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Blnguyen-2008-04-17T05:03:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-04-17T03:50:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

OK. I guess I'll nominate it, and, if the references become an issue, then I'll deal with them then. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-21T02:15:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-21T02:15:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-17T03:34:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blnguyen-2008-04-22T08:08:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-04-21T02:15:00.000Z"]}}-->

I've pre-empted things and made everything consistent with the ref citation templates, which fixed a few things. Something to keep in mind when you are writing is to add the day the news report was published (if it is listed), not just the accessdate - I had to add some manually. Yeah, the citation templates just make things a lot easier. I also used book refs and eliminated some of the less reliable sources by finding more reliable alternatives. Also there are a few picture queries - we might have to get rid of a couple of them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-22T08:08:00.000Z","author":"Blnguyen","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Blnguyen-2008-04-22T08:08:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-04-21T02:15:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-04-22T13:57:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-22T08:08:00.000Z"]}}-->

Abput the images, I wasn't the original uploader, so I don't know their sources. I presume that I could remove them and upload some more from the US Army homepage, but it seems like it would be an awful waste considering those images are already good. Still, if it has to be done to satisfy the FA, I can do that. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-22T13:57:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-22T13:57:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-22T08:08:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I hope you don't mind if I expand the VN War stuff, since the magnitude of the battles and body count and destruction in those battles were much higher than the Iraq/Afghanistan stuff, as well as the fact that so many of their battles are in books 40 years later...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-22T08:10:00.000Z","author":"Blnguyen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blnguyen-2008-04-22T08:10:00.000Z-173rd","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-04-22T13:53:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-22T08:10:00.000Z"]}}-->

Not at all. Please expand it any way you can; where I am at I do not have access to many books related to this material. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-22T13:53:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-22T13:53:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-22T08:10:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blnguyen-2008-04-24T09:07:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-04-22T13:53:00.000Z"]}}-->

Sorry to say I had to prune a few battles that seemed rather minor, as I couldn't find info about them in textbooks, compared to big ones like Dak To, Crimp etc. This was because I couldn't find independent refs about them and they don't appear in teh major VN War encyclopedias - there have been complaints on FAC about htis. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-24T09:07:00.000Z","author":"Blnguyen","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Blnguyen-2008-04-24T09:07:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-04-22T13:53:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-04-24T14:00:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-24T09:07:00.000Z"]}}-->

That's OK. The whole COI thing is kind of understandable. Sould I go find more independant references for this, or is it fixed? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 14:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-24T14:00:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-24T14:00:00.000Z-Blnguyen-2008-04-24T09:07:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hello, thanks for reviewing 1926 Lithuanian coup d'état. I just wanted to ask you if you think the article is good enough for a FA? Renata (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-21T03:17:00.000Z","author":"Renata3","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Renata3-2008-03-21T03:17:00.000Z-Coup_GA_pass","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-03-21T12:36:00.000Z-Renata3-2008-03-21T03:17:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Renata"}}-->

Well, it wouldn't hurt to give it a try. After all, the worst that could happen is that you could get some advice on how to improve the article. I'd recommend giving it a peer review first, though. -Ed! (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-21T12:36:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-03-21T12:36:00.000Z-Renata3-2008-03-21T03:17:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi. Just a question about the listing of the above article for Good Article rating. One of your comments was that the redlinks are disruptive to the article's format. What is the problem here? Does this mean that internal links should be kept to the minimum or something like that? Also, what is the difference between redlinks and bluelinks, and why do some come out red when others come out blue? Would be nice to know more about this issue for future reference.

Sardaka (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-25T08:38:00.000Z","author":"Sardaka","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sardaka-2008-03-25T08:38:00.000Z-Walter_Liberty_Vernon","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-03-26T02:12:00.000Z-Sardaka-2008-03-25T08:38:00.000Z"]}}-->

Well you see, a "bluelink" links to an article that exists, whereas a "redlink" does not. For example, 1999 is a bluelink because when you click on the link, you go to an article titled "1999", however sdfgdfvdf is a redlink because when you click on it, Wikipedia takes you to a blank page (it invites you to create a new page, but this is probably a bad idea). Too many red links in an article is a bad thing because red links make the article look obscure and/or incomplete. Red links are sometimes caused by misspelling a word or something like that, but most often they exist because the thing you are linking to does not and should not have an article on Wikipedia. So, it would be best to either remove most of the red links or find other things to link them to. -Ed! (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-26T02:12:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-03-26T02:12:00.000Z-Sardaka-2008-03-25T08:38:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hey Ed! Thanks for the insightful comments in your Lachine massacre GA review. I've made all the changes as indicated and think the article is ready to withstand a second round of review. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 19:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-31T19:05:00.000Z","author":"AlphaEta","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AlphaEta-2008-03-31T19:05:00.000Z-Lachine_massacre","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-03-31T21:02:00.000Z-AlphaEta-2008-03-31T19:05:00.000Z"]}}-->

Well done. No need to do another formal review, the article looks like GA quality. -Ed! (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-31T21:02:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-03-31T21:02:00.000Z-AlphaEta-2008-03-31T19:05:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi Ed! This is just a note to ask you whether you meant to add in the B class checklists with "no" as the default. Looking at your contributions, this seems to have ben added automatically. With Battle of Cartagena de Indias it actually meets all of the criteria. Could you please make sure this is what you intended? Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-31T20:59:00.000Z","author":"Woody","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Woody-2008-03-31T20:59:00.000Z-Talk:Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-03-31T21:01:00.000Z-Woody-2008-03-31T20:59:00.000Z"]}}-->

Updated. -Ed! (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-31T21:01:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-03-31T21:01:00.000Z-Woody-2008-03-31T20:59:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

May I ask you stop your automatic 'review' of the B-class checklist on battles. You are marking every entry as no when most of the articles should at least have a tick against Grammar. It is clear that you are not actually taking time to review the article (the time between edits is FAR too short to give a proper review). Centy – reply• contribs – 22:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-31T22:42:00.000Z","author":"CenturionZ 1","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-CenturionZ_1-2008-03-31T22:42:00.000Z-B-Class_Checklist","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-03-31T22:59:00.000Z-CenturionZ_1-2008-03-31T22:42:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Centy"}}-->

Most of the pages with incomplete B-class lists don't conform to any of the B-class criterion, in my opinion. As a journalism student, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of them have grammar errors, too. Unless an article is gone through with a fine-tooth comb to review every sentence, I will not mark grammar as "automatically ok" just because people don't bother to notice minor grammar errors. Otherwise, it really is not difficult to change the "yes/no" section of the B-class checklists on the articles as they progress. -Ed! (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-31T22:59:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-03-31T22:59:00.000Z-CenturionZ_1-2008-03-31T22:42:00.000Z","replies":["c-CenturionZ_1-2008-04-01T00:32:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-03-31T22:59:00.000Z"]}}-->

*cough* B-Class articles...[are] free from major grammatical errors. *cough*. So for the four articles I've written, you've dismissed as not meeting a single B-Class criterion:

1. Battle of Cesenatico
2. Battle of Castel di Sangro‎
3. Battle of Casaglia
4. Battle of Carpi (1815)

Tell me where my major grammatical errors are, for the longer articles, my lack of article structure. I am yet to be convinced you aren't just tagging these redundant (and rather derogatory) 'reviews' just for the sake of tagging these reviews. It doesn't strike me as helpful when someone comes along, spends 5 seconds looking at an article and just reviews almost bot like without even leaving comments on the talk page - its pointless and best removed.

Oh and another thing Unless an article is gone through with a fine-tooth comb to review every sentence - for heaven's sake this is B-Class review NOT FAC or even GAC. If an article fails the grammatical criteria, you should then follow it up by tagging the article with a copyedit required template; it shouldn't fail because it's not up to the FA or GA standard of writing. Centy – reply• contribs – 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-01T00:32:00.000Z","author":"CenturionZ 1","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-CenturionZ_1-2008-04-01T00:32:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-03-31T22:59:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Centy"}}-->

Let me go through the five points and explain why I do not think any of the four articles pass them:

1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.

   None of the articles have inline citations. Source lists at the bottom of the article are not adequate.

2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.

   They're rather short to merit this claim. There are many more details which could be added about them.

3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.

   Only two of the articles have a section, which is for background. A lead and an "everything else" section does not constitute a "defined structure", in my opinion.

4. It is free from major grammatical errors.

   No, these articles do not currently have any major grammatical errors. However, because of their lengths, they are not stable. Articles of this size are prone to rapid expansion over a short period of time, and the grammar of each major edit would have to be reviewed a second time before promoting the article to B-class. In my experience, grammar should be the last criterion checked, after all the other B-class criteria are met, because any one edit can pass or fail this one.

5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.

   They all have infoboxes which are well put together, but no images. Some believe an infobox is all that is needed to "illustrate" an article, I do not.

I have been looking over articles in groups and then grouping and tagging them togetherm all at once; I am looking at what I am doing. However, I am also part of Wikiproject Military History's B-class Assessment Drive (BCAD), and I am currently in charge of reviewing 400 articles for B-class, so yes, I haven't been giving each individual article a large amount of time. But B-class is not a formal review, I'm just putting my opinions in there because the B-class checklists need to be filled out. Feel free to change them; your opinions on the articles are just as good as mine. -Ed! (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-01T15:30:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-01T15:30:00.000Z-B-Class_Checklist","replies":[]}}-->

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-03T01:06:00.000Z","author":"BrownBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BrownBot-2008-04-03T01:06:00.000Z-The_Military_history_WikiProject_Newsletter_:_Issue_XXV_(March_2008)","replies":[]}}-->

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-07T03:50:00.000Z","author":"Derek.cashman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Derek.cashman-2008-04-07T03:50:00.000Z-April_GA_Newsletter","replies":[],"displayName":"Dr. Cash"}}-->

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - April 2008 March issue | May issue Project News There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Wikipedia since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Malachirality (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March: AndreNatas (talk · contribs) Dank55 (talk · contribs) English836 (talk · contribs) ExplorerCY (talk · contribs) JayJ47 (talk · contribs) Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) MBK004 (talk · contribs) Million Moments (talk · contribs) Neparis (talk · contribs) Nicholas Perkins (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) PGPirate (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! To delist or not to delist, that is the question So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination. This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies. Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article). Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise. Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first. Delisting instructions From the Editors As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) EyeSerene (Article) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Centre-right politics (talk | history | start review) • Metropolitan Club (New York City) (talk | history | start review) • Dabney Coleman (talk | history | start review) • Reichsgesetzblatt (talk | history | start review) • 2020 Sparta earthquake (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Mikhail Gorbachev • 2017 World Series • Wilsonville, Oregon • Bleeding Through • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

I would adivse you NOT To remove the 173rdABCT Realism Unit Clan link from the page. It is run by retired 173rd Airborne Soldiers, Retired, who created the clan in 2005. It should be honored as a link to honor the soldiers.

Dell970 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-07T15:06:00.000Z","author":"Dell970","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dell970-2008-04-07T15:06:00.000Z-173rd_Airborne_Brigade_Realism_Unit","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-04-07T23:47:00.000Z-Dell970-2008-04-07T15:06:00.000Z"]}}-->

That's very interesting. But this link is both unencyclopedic and unofficial, it has no official relation to the brigade, and wikipedia is not a collection of links. The site also suffers from severe notability and creditability issues. It goes. -Ed! (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-07T23:47:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-07T23:47:00.000Z-Dell970-2008-04-07T15:06:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi. Thanks for your GA review of Hulme Arch Bridge. I think I've now addressed the issues you raised: would you mind checking the article again? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-13T18:28:00.000Z","author":"Mike Peel","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mike_Peel-2008-04-13T18:28:00.000Z-Hulme_Arch_Bridge","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-04-16T03:49:00.000Z-Mike_Peel-2008-04-13T18:28:00.000Z"]}}-->

Sure thing. I'll look at it now. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-16T03:49:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-16T03:49:00.000Z-Mike_Peel-2008-04-13T18:28:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

		Military history service award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work assessing B-class military history articles, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-17T18:44:00.000Z","author":"Roger Davies","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Roger_Davies-2008-04-17T18:44:00.000Z-BCAD_-_thank_you!","replies":[],"displayName":"ROGER\u00a0DAVIES"}}-->

		Military history service award
		By order of the coordinators, for your great work assessing B-class military history articles, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-17T18:44:00.000Z","author":"Roger Davies","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Roger_Davies-2008-04-17T18:44:00.000Z-BCAD_-_thank_you!-1","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-04-20T22:40:00.000Z-Roger_Davies-2008-04-17T18:44:00.000Z"],"displayName":"ROGER\u00a0DAVIES"}}-->

Thanks very much! -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 22:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-20T22:40:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-20T22:40:00.000Z-Roger_Davies-2008-04-17T18:44:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

		The Original Barnstar
		For you diligent work in the creation of dozens of US Army Unit articles. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 20:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-19T20:52:00.000Z","author":"Climie.ca","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Climie.ca-2008-04-19T20:52:00.000Z-shiny_stuff","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-04-20T22:41:00.000Z-Climie.ca-2008-04-19T20:52:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Cam"}}-->

Thank you, its nice to know my work is appreciated. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-20T22:41:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-20T22:41:00.000Z-Climie.ca-2008-04-19T20:52:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I went and took care of everything if you wish to double-check William King (Royal Navy officer) now. Wizardman 02:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-20T02:52:00.000Z","author":"Wizardman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wizardman-2008-04-20T02:52:00.000Z-William_King_GAN","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-04-24T01:29:00.000Z-Wizardman-2008-04-20T02:52:00.000Z"]}}-->

Done. Just a few nitpicks more and it should pass. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 01:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-24T01:29:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-04-24T01:29:00.000Z-Wizardman-2008-04-20T02:52:00.000Z","replies":["c-Wizardman-2008-05-06T14:02:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-04-24T01:29:00.000Z"]}}-->

Alright. I went and finished it a while back, just letting you know. Wizardman 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-06T14:02:00.000Z","author":"Wizardman","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Wizardman-2008-05-06T14:02:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-04-24T01:29:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-23T11:09:00.000Z","author":"Roger Davies","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Roger_Davies-2008-04-23T11:09:00.000Z-News!_Tag_&_Assess_2008_is_coming_...","replies":[],"displayName":"ROGER\u00a0DAVIES"}}-->

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles) Chevrons (2000 articles) Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles) Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles) Third place overall Second place overall First place overall

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

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-02T02:26:00.000Z","author":"Redmarkviolinist","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Redmarkviolinist-2008-05-02T02:26:00.000Z-GA_Reviews","replies":[],"displayName":"\u1e5c\u03ad\u0111\u1e43\u03ac\u044f\u0137v\u044e\u0128\u0457\u03ae\u012b\u1e63\u0162"}}-->

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

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 03:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-02T03:12:00.000Z","author":"Redmarkviolinist","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Redmarkviolinist-2008-05-02T03:12:00.000Z-GA_Reviews","replies":[],"displayName":"\u1e5c\u03ad\u0111\u1e43\u03ac\u044f\u0137v\u044e\u0128\u0457\u03ae\u012b\u1e63\u0162"}}-->

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-02T22:16:00.000Z","author":"Derek.cashman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Derek.cashman-2008-05-02T22:16:00.000Z-WikiProject_Good_Articles_May_Newsletter","replies":[],"displayName":"Dr. Cash"}}-->

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 7 - May 2008 April issue | June issue Project News There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Fighting Tommy Riley, Brock Lesnar, Cluj-Napoca, Wolf's Rain, Brian Kendrick, and North and South (TV serial). The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. GAN Reviewer of the Month Noble Story (talk · contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk · contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Jbmurray (talk · contribs) Kaypoh (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April: Affinity likely (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) Edmund Patrick (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) IMatthew (talk · contribs) Kironide (talk · contribs) Makeshift Thackery (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Noble Story (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) SorryGuy (talk · contribs) Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) WBOSITG (talk · contribs) Will381796 (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GA Topic Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article. There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth. Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories. Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter. That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. Did You Know... ...that there are slightly less than twice as many Good Articles as Featured Articles? ...that the total number of Good Articles and Featured Articles combined is 6,085? ...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses ) Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process. From the Editors There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page. Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (Article, GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Centre-right politics (talk | history | start review) • Metropolitan Club (New York City) (talk | history | start review) • Dabney Coleman (talk | history | start review) • Reichsgesetzblatt (talk | history | start review) • 2020 Sparta earthquake (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Mikhail Gorbachev • 2017 World Series • Wilsonville, Oregon • Bleeding Through • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-03T00:42:00.000Z","author":"BrownBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BrownBot-2008-05-03T00:42:00.000Z-The_Military_history_WikiProject_Newsletter_:_Issue_XXVI_(April_2008)","replies":[]}}-->

Thanks for waiting for my improvements. Right now, I need another day to make the changes at leats, so please let it be on hold until Sunday is over, by then if I haven't done anything I probably won't. Thank you Tourskin (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-03T01:31:00.000Z","author":"Tourskin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tourskin-2008-05-03T01:31:00.000Z-Byzantine-Arab_Wars_(780_-_1180)","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-05-12T18:47:00.000Z-Tourskin-2008-05-03T01:31:00.000Z"]}}-->

Ok, I'll finish up the review now. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-12T18:47:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-05-12T18:47:00.000Z-Tourskin-2008-05-03T01:31:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hello. I was wondering about the status of William King (Royal Navy officer)'s Good Article nomination. It appears that all issues have been addressed, so I was wondering if you'd be willing to pass the article. Thanks. Nikki311 01:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-06T01:18:00.000Z","author":"Nikki311","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nikki311-2008-05-06T01:18:00.000Z-William_King_(Royal_Navy_officer)","replies":["c-Choess-2008-05-06T21:22:00.000Z-Nikki311-2008-05-06T01:18:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Nikki"}}-->

Ditto. I just made a number of MoS corrections, did link checking, and fixed some awkward sentences, but I think it's ready now. Choess (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-06T21:22:00.000Z","author":"Choess","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Choess-2008-05-06T21:22:00.000Z-Nikki311-2008-05-06T01:18:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-05-07T02:55:00.000Z-Choess-2008-05-06T21:22:00.000Z"]}}-->

Done. Good work, everyone! -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 02:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-07T02:55:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-05-07T02:55:00.000Z-Choess-2008-05-06T21:22:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I am not happy with the GA listing of this article. I have made a few comments on the talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-12T19:44:00.000Z","author":"Malleus Fatuarum","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Malleus_Fatuarum-2008-05-12T19:44:00.000Z-Byzantine-Arab_Wars_(780\u20131180)","replies":["c-Ed!-2008-05-13T14:02:00.000Z-Malleus_Fatuarum-2008-05-12T19:44:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Malleus Fatuorum"}}-->

So put it up for review. I don't think it is particularly bad in the areas that I checked it, but my reviews are not infallable. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-13T14:02:00.000Z","author":"Ed!","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ed!-2008-05-13T14:02:00.000Z-Malleus_Fatuarum-2008-05-12T19:44:00.000Z","replies":["c-Malleus_Fatuarum-2008-05-13T14:25:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-05-13T14:02:00.000Z"]}}-->

It's already up for review, and it has been delisted. You may wish to comment here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-13T14:25:00.000Z","author":"Malleus Fatuarum","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Malleus_Fatuarum-2008-05-13T14:25:00.000Z-Ed!-2008-05-13T14:02:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Malleus Fatuorum"}}-->