This is an archive of past discussions about User:Usernameunique. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article Broe helmet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Broe helmet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Broe helmet 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This is to let you know that Caroline Brady (philologist) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 27 November 2019. Please check that 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/November 27, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you and all who helped (I have little time, traveliing) for the unusual article, introduced: "By her early teens, Caroline Brady had lived in three countries, traveled across the Pacific aboard a cargo ship, and called the house of a future murderer home. By her twenties and thirties, she was a philologist at Berkeley. And after seemingly vanishing in her forties, Brady returned after a quarter century to publish two of her most important articles, one right before, and one right after, her death. From those missing 25 years, to even her name, much of Brady's life remains unknown; as Llywrch pointed out, there's likely a story here deserving of original research. In lieu of this, however, what we have is by far the most comprehensive take on the life of a person who was little lauded during her lifetime, and seems to have died without an obituary or other notice."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hellvi helmet eyebrow 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 Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It was a pleasant surprise to see Caroline Brady on the Front page. I'm happy that you not only got it thru the process, but had the article featured! -- llywrch (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Llywrch! It was fun to see it on the main page. The best part, however, seems to be that someone else has taken an interest, and helped shed light on one of the several enigmatic parts of her life. It's nice to see that there's still more to be uncovered. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Foster Herben 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 Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The article Hellvi helmet eyebrow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hellvi helmet eyebrow for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The article George Foster Herben you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:George Foster Herben for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

On 10 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Broe helmet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Broe helmet, an artefact of the Vendel Period, was discovered while digging up a garden? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Broe helmet. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Broe helmet), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Peter van Geersdaele. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

On 30 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hellvi helmet eyebrow, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Hellvi helmet eyebrow (pictured), made of iron, bronze, and silver, is one of several Vendel Period helmets for which only eyebrows remain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hellvi helmet eyebrow. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hellvi helmet eyebrow), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This is to let you know that Nigel Williams (conservator) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 23 February 2020. Please check that 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/February 23, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

FACBot has been a very bad bot ... this one actually ran at TFA on July 15, 2018, and FACBot did something weird with the maindate. Sorry, I'll look into the bot issue. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's switched out. Bad bot, bad! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries, Dank & Ealdgyth. Was all for seeing it run again, but you caught it quickly! --Usernameunique (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

As foreshadowed at the FAC of Herbert Maryon, I have been working on his early employer Hardwicke Rawnsley, and have the latter's article up for peer review. If you are minded to look in and make suggestions for improvement I shall be very glad. But quite understand if not, of course. Tim riley talk 23:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. 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.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the article about my humble self! My 2019 book about Medieval castles has been reviewed in five journals and four languages. If you will please email me at [email protected] I'll be happy to send you the reviews. Best, Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of East Knoyle War Memorial 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CeeGee 12:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Herbert Maryon. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John G. Hawthorne 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The article John G. Hawthorne 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:John G. Hawthorne for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The article John G. Hawthorne you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John G. Hawthorne for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article East Knoyle War Memorial 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The article East Knoyle War Memorial 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:East Knoyle War Memorial for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The article East Knoyle War Memorial you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:East Knoyle War Memorial for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Usernameunique. Thanks for the GA Review on the article. I will be concentrating on solving the issues starting tomorrow. However meanwhile I have a question on the Images. I put in some "alt" descriptions and wanted you to look at them to see if they are acceptable. The one that stumped me was how to put in an "alt" for the picture in the infobox. You probably have the answer for this. Thanks for your help on this and thanks for tweaking the article. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure, Doug Coldwell. Sounds good, and no rush. As you just saw, I've added the alt text to the infobox photograph (and made minor edits to the other photographs); it just involves adding a parameter to the infobox template. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Great! That helps me a lot in getting the idea how to do that. Upgrading my articles to Good Article status is giving me projects to do during this time of "Stay Home" orders. Anytime you want to tweak any of my articles I have created, just help yourself. I see that you are very knowledgeable. I recently was able to get GA status on Farrand & Votey Organ Company and George Harrison Barbour. I have set myself up a long term project on articles I created that have become Did You Know articles in the past, since it may be some time we may have to Stay Home. Stay safe.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Usernameunique. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Usernameunique. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Usernameunique. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Richard Clark Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speculum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Good work! --evrik (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Long overdue! --evrik (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, evrik! Geez, that's a blast from the past—looks like #25 was back in 2018 for Charles Phillips. Now, only about 1600 to go to catch Dr. Blofeld. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Let me fix that. --evrik ^(talk) 23:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Ha, thanks, evrik! #50 (Sune Lindqvist) was back in 2008 too—I was on a tear then, will have to step it up to get #100. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Usernameunique, as you can tell, I'm working through addressing the comments raised in your review - but I think I'll need a few more days to do the job properly. Is that OK? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amitchell125, thanks for touching base. I'm in no rush, so please take the time you need. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

On 26 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article East Knoyle War Memorial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that among those commemorated by the East Knoyle War Memorial are three brothers who died in the First World War, twelve soldiers killed in the Second, and one killed by friendly fire in the Iraq War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/East Knoyle War Memorial. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, East Knoyle War Memorial), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Username, and thanks for picking up my GAN! However, can I please ask you to stop converting the citations? I happen to hate that citation style that you are converting to. Gatoclass (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure, Gatoclass. As you have no doubt seen by now, I changed two citations as an example and then recommended fully changing over in the review. Of course, it's just a recommendation: per Wikipedia policy, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference". I hope you will extend the same courtesy to others. Your comment led me to recall the frustration with which I saw your changes to Caroline Brady (philologist) some years ago—changing the citation style, moving the cite templates from the "Bibliography" section into a jumble in the edit text, and even changing "[note 1]" etc. to [a] etc. No doubt you would find a full change to Hurricane (clipper) equally frustrating, and irritating to undo. That was a while back, of course, so hopefully this is a good reminder to us both to continue to take only a light touch to the citation styles of others—which as we both know, people can feel strongly about! Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there again, I think I have responded to all your comments at this nomination now - please let me know if I have missed anything.

With regard to the Brady nomination - I'm sorry that was apparently a negative experience for you - although I suspected at the time that you weren't entirely happy about proceedings. Certainly, that was not my intention.

I do think your comments above merit a longer response, but given that we are in the middle of a couple of GAN discussions, I think I'd prefer to wait until we've gotten those out of the way before responding further, as it's likely to become a distraction otherwise. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries, Gatoclass. Not the most fun experience all things considered—and perhaps given the state of affairs before you stepped in, I was predisposed to a certain level of frustration—but I should have made more clear in my first comment that even at the time (as I do now), I appreciated you shepherding the article through that DYK review. That article had some issues at the time, I just thought that the method of formatting citations was pretty low down on the list. At any rate, Hurricane (clipper) and William D. Gregory are in much better shape now than the Brady article was then; so perhaps we finally have the perfect opportunity to get all the way down that list, and figure out which citation style to settle on once and for all. (Kidding!). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please check my user account or the view history carefully if you have any doubt regarding contributions. I have contributed the most to the article and please check carefully. My public name/sign name is "Rahbab Chowdhury" and my original user name is MRC2RULES. I request you to check it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRC2RULES (talk • contribs) 18:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Got it, MRC2RULES, sorry for the confusion. You're right that I didn't notice that "Rahbab Chowdhury" is simply your signing name. With that said, I would suggest putting some further work into the article before nominating it. In particular, most sections lack a single citation. There are also some issues regarding comprehensiveness—little about the school is discussed between its founding and 2016—and structure, and I suspect some might think that parts of the article read as a promotional piece. In its current state I think it is likely to be quick failed, so it would help to find additional sources and continue working on the article before nominating it as a good article. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The problem is I myself tried to find many articles. But there aren't many articles and the only source is that I am a student here. So any thoughts? Help will be appreciated Rahbab Chowdhury (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The very few articles that are there contain info from 2015 2016 and latest info not Available. For example the BOD one I had to add myself. So do you suggest I write some articles online and reference to them? Rahbab Chowdhury (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

MRC2RULES - As Username suggested, there's no way this can Pass as a Good Article. It's almost completely unsourced, and written more as a prospectus for the school than an objective article. I've Quick Failed it on this basis. It's hard to write objectively about subjects with which you have a connection. There are over 6 million articles on the English Wikipedia - it may be better to work on some you don't have a personal link to. KJP1 (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

KJP1 If you read my above post I have clarified that I have tried giving as many source as I can and if you please check it again it isn't completely unsourced. And having a personal link doesn't mean I try to make it always shine in light. As I said help is appreciated. Is it possible that I write articles and refer to them? I can ask you if you can search Bangladesh international school Dammam in a search engine and you can find out that there aren't many articles. How do I solve this? Rahbab Chowdhury (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

MRC2RULES - You can’t. If the school isn’t covered by sufficient reliable sources, it’s not suitable for an article on Wikipedia. KJP1 (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

KJP1, I wouldn't necessarily go that far—the article survived a deletion attempt in 2008, suggesting that an article on the school has a place here. (There are also some links to sources in that discussion, although I haven't looked at them.) But certainly, the article can't go beyond the sources; the article can cover only what is in the sources that exist. MRC2RULES, one remedy would be to collect all the sources possible (search engines, printed matter, etc.) and base an article off of them. But as KJP1 notes, editing articles with which you have an involvement has issues. I'm not sure what the conflict-of-interest guidelines or policies specifically say about being a student—and surely, our college sports articles would be a lot skimpier without the input of alums—but I tend to agree with KJP1 that focusing your attention on articles that you don't have a close connection to is the way to go. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A fair point. But much/most of the content is trivial and, aside from the BoD para. - sourced to itself - nothing at all is sourced except the final para. Of that, Sources 3/4/5 don’t go where they should, and Sources 6/7 are mere mentions. All in all, the sourcing is exceptionally weak to demonstrate Notability, let alone GA. KJP1 (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

KJP1 and Usernameunique Thanks .KJP1 I would also like to remind you that this is one of the notable schools in KSA and also a Cambridge Affliate one. Alright thanks for the advice. Even though i have given all sources i can most of them are from the school's website or Arab News. Thats the problem which means i cannot edit or add any info further. Or i have to do is myself which isnt the preferred option. This page has also suffered from vandalism from other students. I know it was them. Hmpph!Rahbab Chowdhury (talk) 12:8, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of George Sidney Herbert 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

On 9 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George Sidney Herbert, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that as executor to the estate of Sir Sidney Herbert, one of Sir George Sidney Herbert's tasks was to ensure a locked tin box was "destroyed unopened by cremating"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Sidney Herbert. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, George Sidney Herbert), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

DYKUpdateBot (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Ready when you are! Amitchell125 (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Amitchell125. I'll try to turn to this shortly—have been a bit tied up lately, but should be able to look this weekend if not earlier. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, I notice that you've still not come back to the article, could you have a look at the amendments? Julian of Norwich was in self isolation for decades, but I'm not going to be. :) Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the extra points you raised, which I have now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Richard Clark Hall 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You are an outstanding editor with many talents. I am thinking about doing an off line draft article and will start typing it up today. Maybe you can look it over when I am through typing it up and give me some advice on it. Hopefully my typed up article will become a DYK and GAN. Many of my articles I type up I have go through GOCE before I submit for GAN - then they can type up corrections that they find, which improves my odds of getting the GAN approved. I use the old fashion method of two-fingered typing, but it has worked for me to create 521 articles in 14 years at Wikipedia of which 97% have become Did You Know articles (500). Ten percent of those have become Good Articles. I type at about 50 words per minute. I'm from Michigan in the United States. What part of the world are you from that you do your typing from?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

I just wanted to thank you for your thorough review of Plumhoff v. Rickard. I know that both of us were busy at various points, but nevertheless it was a pleasure to work with you. As I stated during the course of the review, this was a more challenging topic to research about than what I am used to, so I immensely appreciated your honest feedback and guidance throughout the process. In the end, I think the article was substantially improved thanks to your diligent work. Mz7 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the thoughtful note, Mz7. I agree that we were able to markedly improve the article—especially with the analysis sections—but it was in good shape to begin with; it's a well done piece on a difficult subject. And the fact that there are multiple ways of doing things for a number of the sections makes it all the harder. I hope you continue to work on these sorts of articles! --Usernameunique (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The article John Richard Clark Hall you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Richard Clark Hall for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Peter van Geersdaele article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 3, 2020. 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 3, 2020, 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? 13:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC) ~~~~

Thank you for the article about him, who "was, as a colleague remembered him, among "the last of the team of conservators and specialist craftsmen who responded to a challenge that had left archaeologists daunted". Spending the bulk of his career at the British Museum, he led the moulding, and subsequent fibreglass reconstruction, of the impression of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial. He later worked briefly for Parks Canada; retiring after a final move to the National Maritime Museum, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of his services to museums."! --

On 25 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lord Ribblesdale (Sargent), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Thomas Lister, 4th Baron Ribblesdale, claimed that John Singer Sargent's portrait Lord Ribblesdale (shown) "forced greatness upon me"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lord Ribblesdale (Sargent). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
• The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
• Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember 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. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		Thank you for completing an incredible 50 reviews in the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog drive. Your work helped us to reduce the backlog by over 60%. Regards, Harrias talk 08:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

July

pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

Also: nice to see the Sutton Hoo helmet pictured on the Main page! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda Arendt. And thanks for the reminder—I had forgotten that today was the helmet's turn for "on this day". --Usernameunique (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that I have been unnecessarily sour in some of my interactions with other editors recently. I'm sorry if I have been projecting my own unhappiness at others.

(With reference to this outburst: I don't care for footnotes, infoboxes, wikidata, DYK, and many other things, but I do care about people, and most particularly about content editors. I know you were only trying to help.) Theramin (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries, Theramin—I actually hadn't noticed those comments until you pointed them out just now, and enjoyed our preceding interaction. Edit comments can be tough, and it is sometimes hard to give others the benefit of the doubt when typing into a faceless screen; I struggle with both at times myself. Lord Ribblesdale (Sargent) is a nice article, and I'm glad you took the time to write it. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Usernameunique, I have completed the move of Toomer's Corner you requested at WP:RMTR. If I could ask a favour; when you request moves on that page it's really helpful if you wouldn't mind using the "RMassist" template ({{subst:RMassist|current page title|new page title|reason=reason for move}}). When this template is used, it allows a lot of the fiddly bits of the moving process to be done automatically. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the move and the heads up, Jack Frost. I'll keep that in mind going forward. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 30, 2020. 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/September 30, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
• HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
• Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

October GAN Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the October 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on October 1, and will continue until the end of the month.

-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

September

Dahlias in Walsdorf

Thank you today for Herbert Maryon, introduced: "When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962)."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Usernameunique, I noticed that after Gatoclass's comment on this review about really not caring about pursuing either of his nominations that you are reviewing, you closed the other nomination, Talk:William D. Gregory/GA1, but didn't do anything with this one. Will you be closing it soon? The review will be five months old on Friday. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, BlueMoonset. I'm leaning towards closing this nomination too, but just wanted to think it over for a couple days; it's in better shape than William D. Gregory. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Next time you're editing, perhaps you can come back to this one. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It would really help if when you added an article or draft about a classic painting, you added more than a single line and a single reference. I'll try to improve them , but they can run into unnecessary trouble at afd. DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

DGG, what article(s) are you thinking of? —Usernameunique (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
• Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Usernameunique. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Usernameunique - I hope this finds you well. I see that this has got some editors engaged with a few of your articles! While the interest of fellow editors in one's articles are always welcome, it can sometimes be a little trying! Did you like the film? I watched it last night and found it fascinating. But I'm no expert, so any historical/archaeological howlers will have gone straight over my head. It did prompt me to write this, Tranmer House, Sutton Hoo, which led me inevitably to the Sutton Hoo helmet, and to my query. Why is that amazing article not FA? It certainly reads/looks like it should be. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey KJP1, good to hear from you. That film's certainly had an impact! Something like 300,000 page views yesterday for Sutton Hoo, and another 25,000 for the helmet. I'm about half an hour in, and enjoying it. Judging by all those edits (my favorite is the one that changed Charles Phillip's name to Basil Brown), the Brown-got-robbed-by-elitist-interlopers theme will remain strong. Nice article on Tranmer House! That was definitely a subject in need of an article.

I've been a bit lazy with the helmet article, and need to turn back to it. There's a to-do list at the top of the talk page; the main remaining issues are putting in a bit more analysis (age and the England v. Scandinavia debate), and reading up on Anglo-Saxon interlace art to finish the sections on designs 4 and 5. And the article's a bit of a monster, so there's also the question of whether it should be trimmed or split in places.

By the way, would you have an interest in looking over a slightly related article, on the archaeologist Martin Rundkvist (now at User:Usernameunique/Martin Rundkvist)? Chiswick Chap and I have been putting it into shape, but since the article's a two-time casualty of AfD (not to mention the two rounds at AfD for its Swedish counterpart), having an impartial reader take another look would be a big help. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

300,000 views - Wow! The impact media coverage can have is astonishing. Yes, the “yokel” digger cruelly usurped by establishment smartarses is a powerful narrative. I shall have a look at Mr Rundkvist. Not my period at all, but I may be able to make a suggestion or two. It could be a little while. Oddly enough, I find myself rather busy in the time of lockdown. Take care. KJP1 (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Having done a first quick skim, it is both absurd and dismaying that that this has been AfD’d twice. When you think of the promotional rubbish/absolute trivia/outright advertising that gets on here every day....An indicator of our problems, I fear. KJP1 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in with your comments, KJP1. Yes, AfD is truly the most demoralizing part of Wikipedia—I try to check it out every now and then to save a worthy article from deletion, but it's hard to stay long without getting dispirited—which, I suspect, only feeds the problem, as it leaves AfD full of deletion-prone users. The only upside is that it has forced the Rundkvist piece into good shape; the plan is to make a concurrent good-article nomination when the article is moved to mainspace. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, did you see the discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 February 2#Sutton Hoo Helmet article issues? It is possible that the article is getting too long for Wikipedia's software. TSventon (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, TSventon—I hadn't seen that. Left a note there. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For great work at the reference exchange! It means a lot. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Eddie891! Happy to help out where I can. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks again! Your efforts are really appreciated. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks again, Eddie891. And again, it's my pleasure! --Usernameunique (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

		The Diligent Librarian Barnstar
		For exemplary service at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) Thank you for all you hard work at WP:RX. Your efforts are really appreciated. —Bruce1eetalk 21:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Bruce1ee! It's my pleasure. That's a fun barnstar, by the way, and one which I don't recall having seen before. But looking at the list of recipients, I see I'm in good company. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Martin Rundkvist 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 MeegsC -- MeegsC (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article for GA status. I know the onus is on me to respond to all of your concerns and requests, and not on you to update the article on my behalf, but since I am unable to access the 2 local business journals you found, I wonder if you'd be willing to incorporate them into the article appropriately. If not, I may need to ask for assistance at WikiProject Oregon. Again, I know I'm not supposed to pawn the work off to others, but I'm not sure how I can resolve this final concern so I'm hoping to you might be willing to make the final couple edits needed to get the article promoted. Either way, please let me know next step(s) and I will act as needed. Thanks again!! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, Another Believer. Why don't you shoot me an email and I'll send them to you. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique,  Done Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
• Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
• Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
• Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
• The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
• Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
• Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
• Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
• Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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 a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SSK 90 helmet 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The article SSK 90 helmet 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:SSK 90 helmet for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The article SSK 90 helmet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SSK 90 helmet 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The article Martin Rundkvist 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:Martin Rundkvist for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MeegsC -- MeegsC (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The article Martin Rundkvist you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Martin Rundkvist 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 MeegsC -- MeegsC (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Article 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 as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Usernameunique. Sorry to be slow responding. Do they want the Italian section or the whole report? And how do I transmit it?

Out of curiosity, what did you mean when you said you pinged me?

Rgrds,Ijmusic (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Ijmusic. They want just the Italian section, which I think is a page or two. The best way to transmit it is for XanonymusX to send you an email using Special:EmailUser. Once you receive the email, you can respond and attach the relevant pages. As for pinging, it is a way of mentioning an editor in a way that (depending on how their preferences are set up, see "Mention" at Special:Preferences) gives them an alert that pops up at the top of their page, and an email. You do it by 1) typing a username like this: {{u|Ijmusic}} and 2) making sure you sign your message with four tildes (~). --Usernameunique (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for your help. Ijmusic (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks Ijmusic! Appreciate you helping out with a hard-to-access source. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Usernameunique. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

		The Diligent Librarian Barnstar
		For exemplary service at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) Thank you for finding those papers for me! I was convinced they'd disappeared somewhere into an abyss of obscure scholarship. (I see you only recently learned of this barnstar yourself, which I can hardly believe -- I assumed you'd be drowning in the things.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Vaticidalprophet! I'm happy to help, and, honestly, it's fun to track down the sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say a quick thank you for taking the time and energy to review all those GANs of mine. It's gone a long way to helping with my project! If you ever feel the inclination to do any more GA reviews, I've got 23 other articles left! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, The Rambling Man. It was my pleasure to review them—and I learned a thing or two about how the English football league system works along the way. Impressive progress on the project! I'm sure I'll end up reviewing more of them at some point, but if you ever find yourself in need of a review, feel free to drop me a line. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Should really try to meet MOS:SEAOFBLUE here, which is strong enough to ask that we avoid combining adjacent links like this "where possible". If a reader sees the words "Sutton Hoo ship-burial" all in blue, they'd expect that clicking on any of those words would take them to an article telling them more about that particular burial. As it is, half of those clicks will end up at the ship-burial article instead, and, worst case, the reader will conclude that Wikipedia doesn't have a specific article about the Sutton Hoo burial after all.

I think changing the link to Sutton Hoo ship-burial does the job. Ship-burial can be linked separately, the next time that it's mentioned in the article. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

On 11 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Martin Rundkvist, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that last summer, Martin Rundkvist discovered 22 gold foil figures (example pictured) while excavating a "Beowulfian" mead hall in Sweden? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Rundkvist (2nd nomination). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Martin Rundkvist), 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) 00:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Usernameunique, I hope you're well. I'm contacting you because you were the FA nominator for Nigel Williams (conservator). I'm currently nominating a rather similar topic, R. A. B. Mynors, for FA status. I was wondering whether you might like to add a review to the article's FAC page. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, it's been about 12 days since you started the review of Hurricane Lorena which I nominated. I was wondering if you'd ever get back to it by the end of the 7-day mark, and you've seemed to be active otherwise but have not done anything with it ever since I finished. Could you look at that for me, Thanks! Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Hurricaneboy23, thanks for the reminder. I'll get back to it this weekend. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in your time for this. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, have you seen my responses recently? It's been a while since you've updated me on anything... Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

		The Multiple Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
		Thank you for completing 23 reviews in the March 2021 backlog drive. Your work helped us reduce the backlog by over 52%. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

• The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
• Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
• Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
• Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
• Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
• Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember 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 (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, Usernameunique! The article you nominated, John Richard Clark Hall, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles 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 article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on John Richard Clark Hall. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy to be co-nom if you want a hand with the FAC. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Chiswick Chap! Very happy to have you as co-nom; I've just added your name under the "Nominator(s)" line. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Great. Are you chasing up the photographer for an email granting permission so we can get an OTRS ticket? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, Martin emailed her; with any luck it will get sorted out quickly. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's one of those faffs, getting ordinary humans tangled up in Wiki-ways. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Could I trouble you for a source review for Shuttle-Centaur at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shuttle-Centaur/archive1? I think a source review is all it needs to move the article on. It already had one during its A-class review, and it is fairly straightforward source-wise, using mainly NASA official histories, conference papers and press releases, and some newspaper articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing, Hawkeye7. Just gave it a source review—looks like it's in good shape. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Kaske 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The article Robert Kaske you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert Kaske 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping me out with that; it has been very helpful. If I may ask for a little more, would it be possible to get its fifth and sixth chapter — "The Still Life: A Convergence of Life and Art" and "Master of the Still Life" — page 71 to 119? I would have asked for a narrower range if I knew where the excerpt I am looking for would be. Jordan describes van der Hamen's "stepped style" of still life in the book, and it should be somewhere in those two chapter. Let me know if it is possible to get that. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem, The Most Comfortable Chair. I'm happy to put in another request, but my library says the work is currently "in transit"—likely meaning someone else requested it also. I'll keep a look out to see when it frees up, and if you don't hear from me feel free to drop another line. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Usernameunique. I appreciate you looking into that. However, I will not be needing the source anymore. I wanted to let you know in case you had already put in a request which would need to be cancelled. On a separate note, congratulations on John Richard Clark Hall's promotion to featured article status. I read the article before I posted this message, and it was an absolutely lovely read. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, The Most Comfortable Chair—I had not yet put in a request. And I appreciate the words about the article on Hall. That was a fun one to write; when I started looking into him, I had no idea that he was actually a barrister who apparently just did his work on Beowulf and Old English as a project of passion. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

In a way that is how Wikipedia has been written. A few people from different walks of life just happen to work together, out of their own free will, to write comprehensive and academic quality articles — editors such as yourself, when it comes to high quality content. I am tempted to buy a copy of his translation of Beowulf. I am fond of Tolkien, so it must be a fascinating read. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry for troubling you again, but I believe that I will be needing this chapter. Would you be so kind as to place in a request for that? Regards. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem, The Most Comfortable Chair. It is still recorded as "in transit," however. I'll keep checking, but also free to drop me a reminder now and then. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

After a longish absence from FAC I have been popping in recently, and I see you are doing a good number of source reviews. Our late colleague Brian Boulton used to do a lot of those, and I thought then, and think now, that anyone doing so must have the patience of a saint. Very glad someone is doing the job, and thank you! Tim riley talk 21:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Tim riley. That's good company to be compared to. But to be sure, I have hardly the patience of a saint—just a penchant for details that rivals the devil's. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As a WikiCup judge, I have had to reject five of your FAR submissions because they were made out of time. The rule states "In the spirit of fair play, contestants have 14 days to nominate their work after promotion (for good and featured content), appearance on the main page (for did you knows and in the news articles) or the completion of good or featured article reviews and featured list reviews, by entering it on their submissions page. However, work qualifying in a particular round must be nominated and claimed within 24 hours of the end of the round. Nominations submitted more than 14 days after the points were earned, or more than 24 hours after the end of a round, will not be eligible." Four of the reviews in question were done in May and not submitted until June 25, while the fifth was only 2 days late. I see from your edit summary that you had "Just realized that source reviews are eligible." Sorry about that. As Tim riley states above, they were good source reviews. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog the Mild—appreciate it. And self-vested authority is the best kind. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

• The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
• Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
• Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
• Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
• BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Usernameunique:. As a coordinator for the GAN Backlog Drives, I was wondering if you would consider looking at my first review and giving some advice? I've contacted a mentor, but am not certain they will respond in good time. Thanks for the help so far. Horsesizedduck (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey there Horsesizedduck, thanks for dropping a line—sorry it took a couple days to get back to you. The review generally looks good. The main thing I would keep in mind for an article like climate change in Turkey is the breadth it gives the subject. A topic like that is so big, it's hard to cover—as, for example, the articles on art and Arab Christians are. So when you're reading through it, I would just keep your mind open to what the article should cover, and see if there are any conspicuous omissions. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique, unfortunately Cplakidas stopped editing back on April 10 without ever starting this review: the initial edit opening the page included the comment that they'd "take this on soon" as well as the bare GA review template. I posted to their talk page here saying that I'd be having the review page deleted as abandoned if they didn't return to the review within the week, but I went on vacation just before the week was up and am only now getting back to things. Unfortunately, I don't think I can request that the review page be deleted now that there's another editor posting to it, so instead I've just reset the page number in the GA nominee template to 2 from 1 (plus removed the "onreview" status from the template and the transclusion of the review from the talk page) so the nomination's available for a backlog reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, BlueMoonset. It looks like after you posted your message the page was deleted regardless. That also happened with Greysia Polii and United Airlines Flight 328, the two articles we had initially earmarked as "abandoned reviews." --Usernameunique (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's great to see all of them deleted, especially by Wizardman, who's an admin of long experience and an old GAN hand.

On another topic, I've done a sandbox version of the progress report at User:BlueMoonset/sandbox adding the older unreviewed nominations to the graph. (There's also an earlier April version at the top of the page.) I can't figure out a way to fit the actual numbers into the table short of bifurcating the template itself, but if you think the graph change is useful, I can incorporate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thanks for creating the chart. I'm on the line as to whether it makes sense to add it. Given that the scale is so different—there are hundreds of nominations, but only a few dozen 90+ day nominations—I'm not sure that the added line is all that impactful. On the other hand, it does show a clear progression downwards, and, at the current rate, may even begin to approach zero. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, Usernameunique! The article you nominated, Martin Rundkvist, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles 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 article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Will P. Brady 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 Gerald Waldo Luis -- Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Cc: Chiswick Chap - From double delete to FA - a first? Many congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, well done everyone. I really just made the tea and polished a few glasses behind the counter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

KJP1 & Chiswick Chap, thanks, and congrats all around. A true team effort—including both the writing and reviewing of the article—and satisfying to see. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You guys may be amused by my "Rescues" page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Fun page—"exhumed" is an appropriate word. Makes you wonder about all the other worthwhile articles that end up at AfD and don't have someone to guide them to safety, though... --Usernameunique (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Changes addressed; thanks for the review! Let me know if anything more is needed! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Other 2 changes addressed. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks Sanfranciscogiants17. Technically Worcester's location is still not given, but I assume you have the same feeling about is as for the other team locations. And though Worcester Farmers does not give the location in the article body, technically, the bottom of the page provides that information ("This article about a baseball team in Massachusetts is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."). --Usernameunique (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)