User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 9

9350: 1850: 2867:, please let me know what you think because it's a rather small area of the United States and there isn't much written about the area compared to say, London, Los Angeles, New York. If these books are not suitable RSes, what is the usual course of action for writing about small cities and towns? I remember seeing somewhere that there is a bit of leeway with these types of articles and primary sources, but how much? I have a feeling I'm going to be at a bit of a loss for writing about the area. :( Regards, 356:

of the template that is already there. Helping our readers in understanding topics is the whole point of Knowledge (removing links that are clearly beneficial would be the opposite of this). I have never heard of any problems with them till now and dont really see your arguments as beatifically at all. Your argument is web sites are ok but scholarly book links are not -because they take time to load? You have shown me nothing to indicate there's a problem except load time that applies to all web links.

9381: 7028: 6599: 6489: 6008: 3806: 2890: 7191: 6233: 3115:- after having been made consistent for FAC review. What are your feelings about adding the doi & JSTOR links? I retrieve papers from various places, in some cases even hard copy journals, and don't feel these links are necessary, but wanted to run it by you. Also the University Press information is formatted according to the latest edition of MLA, but has been changed. Again, do you have any thoughts on this, or don't care as long as it stays consistent? 8914: 8570: 8248: 2860:, mostly in regards to their history and the valley's gold mining. I've arranged the list by publisher and author, and left little footnotes about each author or publisher where I've managed to find information about them when I think they might be questionable. There's a section at the end of the page about one of the authors, it might help to ascertain whether he is notable enough for an article and/or whether he is a reliable source. 8876: 5846:

text and references (for example, FN 28 is missing a publisher). If at all possible, I would strongly recommend finding a subject-matter expert to review the article. If that's not possible...I don't know what to tell you. It would not pass FAC in its current state, but I don't have the specialized knowledge to do much beyond give you generalized recommendations. Maybe ask one of the relevant WikiProjects to take a look?

4099: 4757: 1729:

reviews a little unsettling. When you comment on an article's FAC, you assume the responsibility of working with the nominator/contributor to improve the article in question. Yet (and I mean no disrespect here), you seem more concerned with making sure you reviewing every single article placed on the project page, rather than working with the individual articles. There was a discussion on the

9299:

be FM's position that she set up her archive precisely to document unhelpful contributions to the encyclopædia including spurious and fraudulent citations by one of the editors. In deleting it as you do it can only be that you are taking sides with the editors who wish to sweep all that under the carpet. Of course we weren't soapboxing in explaining our solidarity with FM. That's just

5126:

NOPV, NOR, V ... in your experience/view, could you briefly (few sentences) summarize distinguishing features between good & bad articles? Thank you again for your welcome ... much appreciated! P.S. Like your user boxes on your user page ... hopefully as I get more knowledgeable & comfortable, I will attempt to incorporate some boxes on my page and be more creative.--

8789:

I'm sorry, and hope you can forgive me for my outburst. I will take another look at the article this afternoon and see what I can do. You mention that I could resubmit it, though I got the impression from others that this may not be possible. It would be helpful if you could direct me to another article which has been through the process again after being pulled. Cheers

7067:, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term. 6759:

it is dramatically different to the piece archived on the publication's website (such as when a story changes rapidly through the different editions published that day). I wasn't totally averse to adding/restoring those retrieval dates - it hasn't caused the article to explode or anything! But that was just a couple of thoughts I had on the matter.

8724:. Several people have reviewed this without concern and if there was a problem you should have had the good manners to contact me personally so that I could have put any issues right. I intend to challenge your decision if possible because I believe you've acted somewhat disingenuously. I will be finding the appropriate channel to do this. 3571:- I'm not sure I follow the argument there, but that was the rationale. I can take another look at the formatting so long as they can agree that it won't be changed again - given that the opposer was complaining about the change that's not guaranteed, so I was waiting for them to give a firm statement that they're either keeping it or not. 1746:. You have not responded to either of us. I'm not here asking you for your support. I'm asking that you take responsibility for your oppose vote, follow up when nominators ask for your input, and reassess (to either maintain your oppose, or at the very least strike it), so nominators and delegated can gauge what their next move should be. 1422:

other album-related articles at the FAC are being ignored; some have quite the discussion going. I don't want to canvas, though, so I'm wondering what I can do to get one or two more eyes to look at it. If I can get one more "oppose" from someone, then I suppose I could easily hang up my hat on the matter : ) Thank you... –

1793:

its subject matter, of course; some articles naturally attract a greater amount of reviewers). So Nikkimaria, unfortunately, neither of us is going to see another opinion on my review, ever, which is why I pinged you again above, in the hopes of at least one more glance before it's returned to a 14-day purgatory lol. –

2189:

the inactive delegates, but that would mean that you probably wouldn't be able to be as involved with the individual articles as much. Again, thanks, and when I return to the FAC with the article weeks or months from now, I'm going to request that you be as brutal as you can so the article can be the best it can be.

460:

thuss all should not benifit from it is not at all what we are here to do. Limiting all because of "some" is not proper. Whats better is to offer may ways of verification to our readers - not just the one way "you" prefer because "you" dont like the other that is allowed as indicated by the description of fields.

6750:, that "Where page numbers aren't provided, the links act as the source - they're not considered convenience links unless they're in addition to a complete citation, and thus a retrieval date is needed." Maybe it's my sloppy academia, but I've never considered pages numbers of modern newspapers or magazines to be 7806:

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work.

7555:

Hello, Nikkimaria. Pls be reminded that hook sets on DYK Queues are moved onto MainPage by a bot. Hooks removed need to be replaced, or the bot would put in a short set on MainPage, upsetting the left-right balance on MainPage's layout. If you can't fill the void right away, please leave a note on

7224:

I'm disappointed that an admin who has not played any part in ITN for at least a year should pass by and change a blurb that has been the subject of much discussion without reference to that discussion, with no apparent concern for the consensus that had built around that phrasing, with no meaningful

6170:

Hi Nikkimaria (and your talk page stalkers) - I've noticed you've been noting on FACs when spotchecks aren't done. I'm happy to do a few, but I don't always keep my eye on FAC; well honestly I get overly involved in content development sometimes. But if a page needs spotchecking and someone pings me,

5677:

I notice that the Peer Review has now been closed. Rather than leave this inconclusively, I thought I'd report on where I thought the review re-work had reached. I believe I was able to close many of your identified points; but others may still need further work. As a result, I think that the article

4356:

2649:

With the first point, are you referring to the formatting of the reference, or to the text itself, to which the reference pertains? And with both points, I have used the Knowledge citation templates throughout so would expect consistency in formatting to fall out in the wash. Do you have any specific

2472:

1792:

I just saw this discussion. I definitely would like to reply to Nikkimaria's comment about waiting for "another opinion on a couple of issues in both reviews". I've only done the FAC twice, but both times I've found that the word "oppose" immediately drives everyone away from an article (depending on

1733:

about the delays in the promotion process, and to be honest, I think this trend is symptomatic of this delay. An article cannot pass and the delegates cannot promote it until the reviewers express their satisfaction with the article, especially if they have opposed it. It's been a few days since I've

1421:

Hello Nikkimaria, so I take it you're probably too busy for a second review of the article, which is fine. Your first review was the catalyst for reworking the article. Before my FAC time is up, is it alright if I ping other users? My article has pretty much entered a no-man's land, and it's not like

265:

I am still at a loss. I dont understand...we are not censored not our fault that some cant see certain pages - that fact should not negate nor hold us back from giving proper info and links were need be to the rest of the world? Is there some rule out there or is this your opinion. As i have said we

9298:

FM did email ArbCom with a complaint that there was a personal or professional connection between one of the editors in the dispute and and an administrator that editor had called in to keep "eyes" on the dispute (whereas FM had alreasy asked for dispute resolution through a third opinion). It would

9250:

and in the circumstances of all the archiving and refactoring that went on is perfectly entitled to archive the debate so that she could be fairly heard. She is not the first user to resort this in the face of attention from those editors. One of the editors involved (Modernist) has said on his Talk

5845:

On a quick look, I see some problems that would be big issues at FAC: more citations are still needed; the article is in places written more like a textbook than an encyclopedic article; you're still using some lower-quality sources like ask.com; there are still MOS/formatting issues in both article

5829:

I am not sure where to take this now. I hope to complete the above workload in a few weeks. At that point, I would appreciate re-applying for Peer Review or for FA. In the meantime, I would appreciate your opinion when you have some time. Is this article improving the way you foresaw? Have the above

5065:

with the same article, my user page!! :) Now come back and he has revealed it's got nothing to do with soapbox, he is accusing my former leader of being a Mass Murdered yet the picture of him was already uploaded and is on his article. If he doesn't like it, why can't he push for it's deletion? One

3217:

a) it's done consistently and formatted consistently, and b) the abbreviation is recognizable (either because it's a standard abbreviation, or just logical - for example, "Rev." for "Review" is pretty common). I'm not a medical person myself, but I've read enough of those articles to know that using

2665:

Formatting of the references specifically. For both cases, the templates take care of some issues, but they do rely on what you put into them (they're not as smart as real people, unfortunately). For example, what type of abbreviations for states will you follow: Conn/Mass or CT/MA? You've currently

2188:

I really want to thank you for your comments on the article's FAC. It did not pass, but to be completely honest, I agreed with everything you said: it just was not ready. And not that you need to hear it, but you're actually such a great asset to the FAC process, and I'd suggest that you replace one

563:

Finally, I've read several FA articles and I've noticed that my style of writing seems almost "cramped" and rigid compared to the almost natural and relaxed writing of an FA article. Do I need to loosen up a little? I can find information and throw it into the pot, but should I become less strict on

8788:

Hi again Nikki. I want to apologise for how I was with you yesterday. It was a bit unfair of me when you were only doing your job. I'd had quite a bad day. Had to give my dog away because he was too badly behaved, and I couldn't cope with him any more. Difficult decision, but the right one. Anyway,

7301:

Well, it's not currently at featured article standard - on a quick look, I see a couple obvious inconsistencies in reference format and a few stray grammar issues. If you want to nominate it, though, that's your decision. Have you checked for overly close paraphrasing? That was an issue at the last

6900:

I appreciate your comments at the PR for this article, and have addressed your comments, including finding and adding various points of contention/controversy throughout the Stampede's history. I have also added significantly to the article over the last couple weeks (almost 22kb worth), and would

6758:

Secondly, what you and I consider a "complete citation" may be completely different; newspapers and magazines are published with volume and issue numbers and ISSN codes but I never include those. I suppose it can prove difficult because I don't supply the intermediary source in my citations, unless

5141:

Hi 4tiggy! Depending on your interests, either of those could be good places to work. Are you a copy-editor, researcher, writer...the area that will work best for you depends on what you're good at and what you enjoy. You might also go to an article about something you know about and see what needs

3930:

Okay. Lead's still too long - I'd say 3 paras max. "local time" and "very much" still aren't making sense to me. You've now got two Bibliography entries that could be notated as Nissen et al, so you'll need to distinguish between the two in footnotes. Broadly, reference formatting, organization and

3364:

I've made a number of changes according to your suggestions and I'm continuing to work on any issues related to the MOS (I don't immediately see any, but that can be tricky), copyediting (my perennial weakness), and citations (which should be pretty straightforward.) If you have any more particular

1728:

I've always been outspoken, so there's an issue that's been on my mind that I feel I need to address. You're a busy person, and that's fine. I appreciate the work that you do here- you are an amazing reviewer and have a great eye for detail that I admire. With that said, I find the way you conduct

459:

says "URL of an online location where text of the book can be found. If applicable, should point to the specific page(s) referenced" yes its says "The ISBN link is a much better alternative" but its clear that there is the paramater that can be filled. The aggument that since some cant see them -

355:

I still not sure what your saying - the benefit to our readers is clearly evident - of course being able to see a refs in there context is best and an asset to Knowledge. As for your claim its a format change i believe is wrong...its simply adding (filling in) a link to a parameter that is part

10043:

There is no contest on the talk page. It's more than clear that it does not meet FAC, and the tag is just that extra kick to prove it. I mean, even a GA having a tag would be well out of place. Speaking of which, I think this should automatically be downgraded to a GA, isn't that a common practice

9254:

Regarding our website it is designed mostly as a FTP site, is little visited otherwise and its primary purpose is not to comment on Knowledge. We would have preferred FM's archive to have remained in Knowledge. Regarding our commitment to FM's cause it is because we believe the function of artists

5630:

Hello Nikki. I spotted your name on the list of PR volunteers and remembered your name from the FA review for the above article. The article is currently a GA under Language and Literature, but is likely to require a little specialised knowledge - it could arguably sit under Mathematics or Science

4913:

Hi Nikkimaria: I'm a brand new Wikipedian hoping to connect with a mentor. I'm also Canadian so was interested to see the Canadian content section on your user page...have now added myself to the Wikipedians in Canada category. Please let me know if you're taking on new mentees and if you would be

4656:

I don't think it's ready at this point, but I do agree it has potential. The only way to get it to PR now is to get the nominator to agree to withdraw it, or to get more reviewers to suggest PR. Obviously the latter would actually require reviewers to engage, but without engagement the FAC process

3545:

Was definitely irked that the citation format made a major change after you had looked at formatting so carefully. (What went down there? I missed it.) I'm wondering if you will be able to still take pity on the fellow and re-look at it in Vcite? At least a check to make sure that there was no

9878:

Hi, could you give me an update on the status of S&M please? As I have done everything asked of me that I can change. Also, someone has said that the Background and composition section is too short and not comprehensive, do you think I should put the Remixes section in with the Background and

5956:

I had already reverted back before I saw this, but...can you show me a diff of what you would consider a notification? Looking at the talk page, I see a request from you to contribute to your sandbox, which unfortunately doesn't count as a notification. If you can show me such a diff, I'll revert

5579:

was linked in ref 24 but not ref 20, or in refs 20 and 30 but not 24 or 28, I would query it as being inconsistent. However, if a particular article wikilinks either always or never, I wouldn't question it so long as it was done consistently, although that certainly wouldn't preclude someone else

5485:

Greetings. Another editor suggested that you're an FAC source expert and might be able to help with a dispute over a source in an previously promoted article. The matter is at FAR, and the question is whether to go on to a full review, or if the main source is sufficiently "high quality" that the

4640:

The May Revolution article as a great potential, but it needs more reviewers. I believe the best move would be to close the FAC nomination and request the nominator to request a peer review and perhaps, even invite someone good on proses to help. He is doing the work all by himself and I know how

4587:

Nikki, Dcoetzee at Commons (a rights stickler and one of the most frequent commenter in rights discussions) says the MRTT pic is "super safe". If you have a specific concern, would ask you to push it so that it can be investigated. I doubt we get more comments unless you do, as others will also

1451:

You might try leaving a neutral message at a relevant WikiProject. Pinging individual users is trickier, since it runs into issues of canvassing, but as long as you're very carefully who and how you word your message it shouldn't be an issue. I did end up striking my oppose earlier, although I do

366:

I don't think I said anything about other web sites - what I'm saying is we should cite books, but we shouldn't include individual GBooks links because they're extraneous given the presence of ISBN links, they add clutter (more so then most websites - they tend to be longer), they only work under

298:

take 200 clicks - it doesn't require clicking through the pages one by one. The links can change over time. They also add unnecessary clutter to the page without major benefits to the reader (as links are provided through the ISBN method), and increase page-load time for both readers and editors.

246:

I'm well aware of what GBooks links are, and you still shouldn't be adding them across multiple pages. If they link to actual pages (I assume you mean a specific page within a book? that's even more problematic, as those links tend to be more unstable and don't work for certain people or even for

6049:

Hi Nikki, I hope you are doing well my dear :) So TEOM just got promoted to GA, and I've nominated it for PR, before taking it to the difficult FA. I know you are an active member, and have great knowledge of the FAC process, so I was wondering if you could chime in if possible. Now, even if you

5125:

Thank you Nikkimaria for your welcome and direction as to places to seek information that will help me as a contributor. Within next few days, I plan to jump in and get to work ... would Knowledge:Cleanup or Knowledge: Maintenance be a good place to start? Any other suggestions? Also, beyond

3000:

Saw your edit summary on the DRN page. I'll admit sometimes ideas I've got in my head and how I describe them on-wiki sometimes is not how I intended it to be understood. As for the notices themselves, if you want to look over it (as your edit summary said it wasn't worded the best) it's located

270:

for some time now like . With a google book pages checking is one click away for our readers to verify and read more if they like (if they can see the book they may expand the articles with the refs and not just some website over proper books)- were the ISBN method may take upto 200 (yes 200)

1302:

Yeah, no one really enjoys them, including me, which is why pretty much every single source review that I've done within the past month or so is marked "spotchecks not done". Fifelfoo's picked up a few of them, but beyond that they've been neglected. Sandy suggested we focus on first-time/newer

422:

does not include them). The issue that I see is that the links are beneficial to a relatively small subset of readers at the expense of a much larger group (those who can't see the links, those with slow internet connections or browsers, etc). GBooks links are longer than average website links,

417:

I'm sorry you're upset, but this issue is something I feel fairly strongly about (and as a point of order, this talk didn't start until after the first removal). MoS does not advocate either inclusion or exclusion of these links (although I will note that the "suggested parameters" for books at

293:

No, we're not censored, but that's an argument for content, and these links are by no means "proper info". There is no rule for or against GBooks links AFAIK, but it is far from my opinion - as I mentioned, many people are strongly against their inclusion, particularly the single-page ones that

209:

You shouldn't be doing that on multiple articles - you're supposed to respect the citation style already established, and some people have very strong views against GBooks links. They're already provided by the ISBN links (which also have additional functionality), and they add a huge amount of

598:

is a bluelink, you might be able to get away with just linking it, or just adding something like "(a combination of death and black metal)". My concern is that people who don't know much about this type of music can understand the article (and if you yourself don't know without checking what a

8039:

for a Peer Review 10 days ago, and I think that because it such a big article, people don't want to review it. Only if you want to, would you be able to review perhaps the first couple of sections? Say the Lead, Background and recording & Composition? Just so that we can start making some

402:

You say for load time...(this would apply to all links not just books)- What is more inportant - Wiki principle goal of spreading knowlage to our readers or load time in a page that falls within page size limits? - This books have been digitized for the benifit of spreading knolage and is a

5539:

in ref 20, but not in refs 24, 28, 30 etc). But I've also seen an article criticized for over-linking when the work was wiki-linked in every instance. Which is correct, or better yet, what do you personally look for? I've been working on the prose, and I'm about to start the ref clean-up for

3549:

It's a pretty dull subject, but very well covered (I have worked a little in this industry as a supplier. Also, I read all 5 other aircraft FAs for comparison. It's actually an article that Wiki can be proud of.) I am trying to help the dullness a little bit as well, by "streamlining" the

4990:

who is not, as his name may appear, a sockpuppet of the bunch/individual with whom we are most familiar. This one seems genuine in his name to me although somewhat disruptive and stupid. I was online yesterday and noticed something but wasn't editing at the time. It was directed straight at

271:

clicks before finding the pages in question. Again as i said this pages are all over now and this would be the first time anyone has ever said anything bad - As for unstable not sure there either as they are premalinks (they will not change over time - unlike all the websites people use)

5089:

as a justification for changing your page. Now, whether your page is polemical or not is a matter of opinion - I'm guessing based on your comments that you feel it is not, currently? However, your statement on his talk page is only going to make matters worse - insults and strong political

3447:

Well, protecting it again wouldn't fix the underlying dispute (and I can't protect it indefinitely anyways), and I'd be reluctant to block either of you. The most "correct" option here is an RfC or some other DR step. You could also take it to a noticeboard - not ANI or AN3, but one of the

3546:

huge mess-up? I can admonish the fellow NEVER TO DO THAT again. But, if we need to send a lesson to him or whoever changed it, let me know, so we get them humping to change it. (Or maybe we even take a fail...although I really would prefer not to for that reason...article is close.)

4632:

but I believe I'm not being able to express myself clear enough to him. Due to the behavior of some FAC usual contributors, other editors (mainly new ones) have become almost robots, so attached to rules that they forget that can have imagination of their own. Since there is an useless

3155:

I like dois, but wouldn't include JSTOR links unless I actually accessed the source through JSTOR. The University Press formatting doesn't matter to me so long as it's consistent, but again if you've established one formatting it shouldn't be changed without consensus. Hope that helps!

1071:

Thank you for your detailed comments. They've all been responded to in one way or another. Please will you revisit the FAC - some of the comments have prompted questions back from us, or we've not responded in the way you intended, and I'm keen to get your opinion in response. Thanks.

552:(I didn't expect one so quickly!). I had a quick question regarding one of your comments. When you wrote, 'For example, what is "blackened death metal"?', I was wondering: does this mean that the phrase should be removed entirely out of convenience for the reader? Or should I actually 8496:

was recently delisted from Featured Lists because it was apparently not list-like enough for them. I was wondering if you could look it over and tell me what would need to be done for it to become a Featured Article. If you could give me any guidance it would be greatly appreciated.

1122:, you don't specifically say "support" ... you made one request, and Wehwalt answers it. Should I assume that your other image reviews follow the same mold, that is, if there are a few specific replies and you didn't say anything, that means you were okay with the replies? - Dank ( 9922:

Thank you indeed for checking the DYK hooks and articles and spotting problems in them. There is one procedural issue though - traditionally, we do give the authors a chance to fix their DYK nominations. In other words, when you remove a hook, please restore the nomination at

6186:

Thanks Truthkeeper, I'll keep that in mind. Honestly, I usually note "spotchecks not done" because I don't feel like doing them as part of my source reviews. (And what do you mean, "overly involved in content development"? I thought that was the whole point of this place...).

395:

Your aggumant is that "some people" dont like them and that the books ..thus there pages can be found by ISBN links and we have no need to link them directly. (I respond with y would we not use the fromat that would be the easiet for our readers - and there is no MOS on there

3238:

If there were such a thing you should be decorated with it and several bars. Your remarkable eye for detail at FAC is a godsend. Heaven knows how you keep your concentration wading through the prose and references of us motley FA-seekers, but I am most grateful that you do!

1159:

Fine by me, don't know about Sandy. By the way, can you recheck the image issues on Northolt and sourcing on Walker? Northolt wasn't on my list because AR didn't touch the more significant NFCC issue; Walker because I could use a second look from someone who knows MilHist.

1973:

Thanks for taking care of this Nikki! I saw it on my watchlist when I awoke this morning (is it a bad thing that one of the first things I do in the morning is check WP?), but didn't have a chance to get to it until just now, when I saw you had already taken care of it!

7283: 1773:

I was actually hoping for another opinion on a couple of issues in both reviews, but if you insist I'll revisit today. If you believe I'm causing delays in the FAC process because of the way I conduct reviews, feel free to raise that issue in the discussion on WT:FAC.

403:

resource we should be utlizing -UBC - UOF - UoM all now add books to this now - (sorry for all the typos dont have my glasses toaday......PS the reason i am so intersted in your views is of my great respect i have for your oppions and general knolage of things here

1179:(undent) Nikki, not sure what your free time is like right now, but there are a few articles that are basically ready except for image checks, if you're interested (you've probably seen them already, since you're way more involved over there than I am, but w/e): 1148:

It does, thanks. I hope what I'm doing in taking a second look at your and Dana's lists is helpful; I'm thinking that different reviewers will notice different things that might help Sandy decide what to look at. If it seems like overkill, let me know. - Dank

718:

Nevermind; I was able to find a source. The image is not directly from IGN, will that be a problem? If so, would it be acceptable to provide the original source in addition to IGN (since I am not sure that the source I got it from is necessarily verifiable)? -

8739:

Disingenuous? I quite disagree, but as you will. As you've probably seen, I posted on the article talk page about my concerns here. You're welcome to re-add the article to T:TDYK if you wish, as has been done with articles removed under similar circumstances.

5066:

more thing. He is blanking it completely (my user page), even where I give my name and where I am from. That is surely wrong. Why can't he suggest I immoderate or change bits? Why is he taking liberties in blanking it? Surely that is against Knowledge rules?

6201:

They're a pain to do, but my eyes aren't good enough for source reviews and frankly you're very good at it, so I don't mind doing spotchecks. Re content development, I feel as though I should help reviewing more, and this is something that I can do, though

6774:

Meh. It's not a huge issue, but simply good practice to allow others to verify the source. I don't have experience with the online repositories you mention - the ones I use predominantly tend to include page numbers, so maybe that's colouring my opinions.

247:

large swaths of geographic locations (Google alters what you're allowed to view based on your geographic location, local copyright laws, how much you use the site, etc). You are aware that the GBooks link (to the book as a whole, not the specific page) is

5532:

Hi Nikki, I have a question for you about formatting sources. I've seen FAC reviewers criticize an article's references for being inconsistent when a particular ref is Wiki-linked in one instance, and not linked in another instance (for example, linking

5631:

and probably other categories (it's not the average Language and Literature article..) As a result, I suspect I might expect some difficulty in obtaining a willing PR reviewer. Would you consider this, in light of your engagement with the FAR? Thanks,

7062:

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Knowledge Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up

972:

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Knowledge Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Knowledge Ambassadors.

9410:

looks like it may be a valid CSD, but I prefer not to delete a page unless the creator has been notified. I understand that sometimes automated tools fail to do the notification for some reason. Not sure if that was the case, but could you make the

641:. I will let you know when I have completed work on all your notes; and in regards to the grammar issues and all that, I'm doing another major run-through of the entire article with your examples in mind, so it may take a little longer. Thanks! – 7126:

page, and I notice that in every source review you write "Spotchecks not done". What does this mean? And how is it that every featured article candidate has not done this (apparently) important thing? Please help a moderate newcomer understand.

8940:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

5218:

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I think I addressed your concerns on the Joppenbergh Mountain FAC. I used Proquest to find page numbers for the NYT articles, but I don't think I can get page numbers for the others. Have a great weekend.

231:

to see that the research libraries are a part of this - there are no ads as Google Books does not sell books. Pls explain further what the problem is because we have been promoting there use. Also what do you mean format change --its just a

7330:

Again, this is a quick look so not comprehensive, but: TV by the Numbers italicized in FN 20 not 21; generally inconsistent italicization; MOS issues in citations; "Eric Goldman of IGN gave the episode a rating 9.5 out of 10" - missing word?

1303:

nominators, as more experienced ones will likely remember the plagiarism fiasco. (Don't feel obligated to do them, either. I've left you some image comments at the Appie review, you could always pretend those will take the rest of the day).

560:, then, is a combination of death and black metal. Do I simply state this, do I go into what both of these genres are? And is it okay to write "openly" with the definition, or should I find an actual source that defines it and cite that...? 6403:

No worries. It seemed like there was a lot of trivia/advert stuff in the article, which is why I went through deleting a whole bunch. There's some good content in the other sections that just needs referencing, if you want to tackle that.

4948:

Thank you for your offer of help, Nikkimaria - and thanks for mentioning the Adopt a user program. I will check that out too. I think I'll be happy looking around on my own for the most part but might get in touch if I get really baffled.

3354: 976:

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey:

7901:

Hey, I made the most things from your review, however a user from GOCE, still didn't reviewed the article. Can you give grammar review the article, a little bit more, so we can close the peer review and nominate it for GA ?! Thanks.

7099: 4395:

for a peer review. I saw that one of your specialities is children's literature, the genre into which I would most likely place the series. I was wondering if you would give the article the peer review that it is in such a dire need

564:

the every-sentence-must-be-cited-and-must-be-robotic type of writing? Well, maybe this last bit is asking too much of your time, but if you could get back at me regarding the genre bit, I'd appreciate it. : ) Thank you so much... –

8003:

Sorry, I can't close it myself until it's inactive. You can, though: "nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed". Check out the instructions at the top of

5487: 4641:

frustrating it is to see that no one is actually helping. I came here to talk to you because you were the only other editor who reviewed the article and I would appreciate if you could tell me what do you think of it. Regards, --

3355: 367:

certain circumstances, and they add to page load time. There is no major benefit to readers because the functionality provided by these links is already provided by the ISBNs. Anyways, there's a discussion currently ongoing at

2721:

No worries, I've responded to you at the review page. That being said, Sandy's comment there refers to spotchecks, which I explicitly was not doing. Spotchecks involve comparing material in the sources to the article to check

7454: 49: 6754:

bibliographic info. Firstly, this holds true when considering that many online repositories, like Newsbank and NewsUK, which I use in preference to searching the publications' websites, don't always supply this information.

226:

I have reverted the edit again (just the link removal part) I want to hear more about this before you eliminate all that work (you are aware they link to actual pages ). Not sure your aware of what GBooks links are. pls see

7100: 5274:, and offered to give it a look over at a later time. I wonder if you're not too busy if you could give it a look over now, though hopefully with much less trouble then you got into editing Canada! Appreciated at any time, 752:

No, but I did opt to remove the "promotional material" note and merely indicated its source and verification of validity. Generally though, the images that IGN hosts in these sections are from promotional material packs. -

481: 7081:

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Knowledge assignments and managing courses are most effective.

1133:

Generally I don't support on just images or sources. Usually me not responding means things are okay (and I'm saying "usually" very carefully here, but in the case of JN that's the correct assumption). Hope that helps.

1822:

Yes, I know. I've been trying to be more firm with declarations lately because of a complaint about endless comments ("fence-sitting"), but unfortunately that does have a downside. Replied to your comment above, too.

8944:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

8754:

You and I both know that's not possible since it was submitted several days ago. In future, I suggest that if you have a problem with somebody's work, you let them know about it, since that is the usual procedure.

1553:- that's another history that needs to be looked at. I do appreciate it. And of course always appreciate your keen eye at FAC. Personally I think you should be paid well for what you do - you're very good at it. 10038: 9210: 6901:

be most appreciative if you would be willing to take a second look, as I hope after another pass of my own in about a week to nominate for FA. Thanks (and I think I now owe you a couple reviews and copyedits)!

2106: 74: 4752:

Hi, thank you for telling me about the image in the signature, I've been here for a month only and it's pretty long to learn all the "rules" in place here. Btw, thanks also for the way you told me, very polite

611:. What I would suggest (and maybe you're doing this already, I'm not sure) is reading the article out loud - that helps nail down passages that need loosening or other alterations. Just be aware of things like 7455: 6495: 6488: 4588:

judge this as clear-cut. We could toss it into Deletions if you really think it's at all questionable, but I think it would be a waste of process. (I also think this pic is clean for multiple reasons.) -TCO

194:

removed the link to pages and books - our readers can no longer quickly verify or read more on the subjects? Is there some sort of new rule? Because i have been adding this links to all our FA and GA articles.

50: 391:

So lets review this as its a bit up setting to me - You have removed (3 times now in the middle of this talk) valid links in templats that support the paramater (no citation style changed just filled in

7571:

Hello, Nikkimaria. I thought I should leave a note here to say that hooks pulled from the prep areas also should be returned to T:TDYK for discussion and instructions/suggestions to fix things up. I think

3060: 1474:

Thank you thank you! I pinged three wikiproject discussion pages (although the article appears in their alerts), and I used the FAC banner language, which is about as neutral and descriptive as it can be.

5414: 6953: 1064: 4018: 9217:

but we should have liked it to stay on Knowledge. She was very patient about all the factoring, archiving and so on taking place at that discussion. It's also not true that's she's a sock by the way.

8648:

for FA candidacy – do you mind you mind doing you spot checks on the article? It is complete, and now I'm fine tuning the article. The more work I do now, the less work I'll have to do at FAC. Thanks

6385:

Sorry about the conflicts. Let me know how we can work together on improving the article. I'm a source hound and am good at finding/formatting sources. I'd rather improve things than delete them.--

5826:

against its Polish equivalent (also a Good article). This has highlighted differences of fact between the articles, as well as different sources / references, which is raising other remedial action.

4797:. "Foundations of Medieval English Ecclessiastical History" vs "Foundations of English Ecclesiastical History", FN 66 vs 71. I'd say put the citations in columns, but that's not required. Good luck! 638: 9021: 6801: 6014: 6007: 9558:

Should I just remove it then, also, I made a request at that guild and that may take a long time to get done because of the huge backog, but do you think that the other issues have been resolved?

3021:

Yeah, we must have cross-posted - I just made some changes to that. You'll need to edit the second paragraph of the notice yourself - I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say, sorry.

4292: 75: 2105:

Hi. I think I've addressed your MOS concerns; I'd appreciate it if you took another look at the article to make sure. I've also responded to your comments about primary sources on the article's

9407: 8191:

Can you articulate this? I would also very much appreciate if you addressed the question about lede length I left there as well, as that's something I've been wondering for awhile now. Thanks!

6268: 10060: 9777: 9232:

I don't know whether or not she is a sock, and frankly it didn't play any part in my decision. If you have it archived off-wiki, why would its presence on-wiki matter, just out of curiosity?

7943:

It's probably good enough for GA now, depending on how picky your reviewer is. If you've dealt with the other points and are satisfied with the article, you can go ahead and nominate at GAN.

1856: 1199: 7112: 2768:

Yes, I remember you. Offhand I don't know anyone who specializes in pop culture copyediting (I'm guessing you're working on another pop music article?), but you might try asking over at the

3189:

I was wondering what your feelings are about abbreviating journal titles. In some articles (including those that have passed FAC) the article consistently uses abbreviated journal titles (

423:

particularly when linking to a specific page, and unlike with citations to websites you don't need the URL for a complete citation. Knowledge's goal, as you say, is to spread knowledge to

294:

you're adding. I repeat, you should not be adding these across multiple pages without explicit consensus to do so. Assuming one has full access to the book on GBooks, the ISBN method will

1287:

Meh. I don't think anyone "loves" them, unless that was supposed to be a sarcastic question :) I could probably get to a couple this afternoon/tonight - any you had in mind specifically?

7485: 3382: 1247:

could also use an image check. We've just started to have productive conversations at Milhist about doing more reviews at FAC; I'm hoping you'll see more reviewers at FAC soon. - Dank (

69: 5213: 4019: 3490:

Hi, I think all of the points that you raised have now been addressed. Thanks for comments, which were most helpful. Perhaps you could take another look to see if I missed something.

2129: 994: 332:("If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it. Do not change it merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons.") - nearly 15 889: 4040: 9859:

Hello, the edit summary of my reversion sounded way snottier than I meant it. Apologies. I reverted your edit because I don't think the end result was what you intended. Cordially,

95: 32: 7411: 777: 758: 724: 689: 8678:

If you don't mind, both. I really think that your checks are really helpful and stringent, so I think if I pass your test, I have a good chance of promoting AV-8B to FA. Cheers

5326: 1735: 1515: 1384: 1119: 549: 1081: 1065: 6747: 4634: 1194: 9756:

Sports isn't really my area, so I'd be hesitant to alter the prose significantly. Perhaps you should ask a more sports-oriented editor, at least for the initial run-through?

1275:... just looking at Hawkeye's diffs and your questions, the diffs appear to answer the questions, and I've found Hawkeye to be careful about responding to questions. - Dank ( 4730: 3719: 2692:

FAC. One of the FA delegates recently asked about where this stands, so if you could respond at your earliest convenience I'd very much appreciate it. Sorry to be a pest! —

1244: 1008: 484:

and, if so, whether you could strike them. The nom is coming up on a month old and I'd like to make sure that the sourcing concerns are in order before it closes. Thanks! —

9076: 8885:. I've addressed most of your points, and for those I can't address, I will leave a note. I hope that this would make a future FAC easier for all parties involved. Thanks 6418:

Yeah, there definitely was. I'll see what I can do. Do you know of any US City articles that are featured? Maybe I'll use that as a sort of "guideline". Thanks again!--

9828:

AD, I feel it would be best to restore the artical, but leave an Expand section template on areas with no information, consulte with me on further Ideas or alternatives –

7576:

was made by you with good intentions, but it messed up the already complicated DYK nomination process. It's probably best to simply report problems on WT:DYK. Thanks. --

6312: 3472: 1204: 1183: 7847:. I would be thankful, if you give me your comments about it and more thankful if you can peer review it. I know that you are one of the best c/e on Knowledge. Greetings 4689:

You could try TCO - he's been helping out at FAC lately, he might help. Diannaa is also a very good copy-editor, although again I don't know whether she'd be interested.

556:

it within the context of the article? (I had to look it up because, to be honest, I had no clue what it meant; I can't keep genres straight, there are too many of them!)

10047: 9956: 7106:

I got the citation issues worked out with some assistance with other users. I request if you can take a look again and see if I missed anything or should add something.

3179: 2626: 964: 773: 754: 720: 685: 135: 5575:

preference is to link the term on first occurrence in references and not link on later occurrences - following that rule, your example would be correct. If for example

1225:

COI, Dana? You? Surely not ;-). I'll take a look. While we're on the subject of "basically ready except for", you wouldn't happen to know anyone who really loves doing

9996: 9980: 9692: 9676: 9280:. The purpose of Knowledge is not to comment on Knowledge, it's to build an encyclopedia, and the deleted page was not helping to do that. As for your last point, see 8130: 8114: 8106: 7591: 6849: 6833: 6123: 6107: 5366: 5350: 4533:

We're not denying that. That's the reason it's in the Knowledge namespace rather than the mainspace. There's even an eye-catching disclaimer at the top of the page. --

4453: 4437: 4141: 3677: 3661: 3312: 3296: 2953: 2937: 2584: 2568: 2058: 2042: 841: 825: 143: 127: 680:

The first image in Glass Joe has been enhanced to include copyright information. However, I want to verify whether showing another image - the box art image from the

10004: 9700: 9255:

like van Gogh is to teach us how to view the world. To dismiss him as a maniac is thus ultimately an attack on our liberty to choose for ourselves how we see things.

8138: 6857: 6131: 5374: 4461: 3685: 3320: 2961: 2592: 2066: 849: 151: 3504:

Hi again, I guess you are pretty busy, but all of the referencing issues that you pointed out have been addressed. I wonder if you would care to take another look?

3197:

I changed them to the expanded form. I think PubMed and most medical publications use abbreviations for brevity, but this might not be suitable in an encyclopedia.

1346: 10087: 9988: 9684: 8122: 6841: 6115: 5982: 5358: 4445: 3669: 3304: 2945: 2576: 2257: 2050: 1889: 1702: 1188: 833: 4929:

Sure! Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Is there anything in particular you're interested in editing or learning about? I'm not a member of the

7831: 7461:

Thanks again for your comments. Can you please strike out those that you feel have been resolved? That makes it easier to see what issues still remain. Thanks. —

6825: 6042: 5646:

I can take a look, particularly at the sourcing/formatting issues, but I don't know that I have the specialised knowledge to go much beyond that, unfortunately.

5318: 4381: 3812: 3805: 2560: 2536: 2216:

Thanks, Journalist (do you prefer Journalist or Orane?). I'd be happy to take a look at it whenever you bring it back to FAC; good luck with it in the meantime.

9927:

page and, preferably, leave your comments there rather than at the article talk page. If the restoration at T:TYK seems too cumbersome, please post a thread at

8860: 7254:

With respect, that's why changing things without looking at prior discussion or the edit history of the article is not a good idea. But thanks for sorting it.

9964: 9660: 8090: 7078:

Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

6809: 6091: 5334: 5234:

Hey, I was worried that my section here might have gotten buried by subsequent posts. Just wanted to remind you that I left comments on the Joppenbergh FAC. --

4421: 3727:

Went through the images. Cut one and put up for deletion. Other two are fine. Changed one caption that made an assertion we don't have covered in body text.

3645: 3280: 2921: 2659: 2544: 2497: 2026: 809: 111: 8804:

No worries, sorry to hear about your troubles. I apologize if you felt insulted, as that certainly wasn't my intention. I've left a note in the discussion at

7094: 9750: 5293:

Hi Nikki - I wasn't sure if you'd noticed Voceditenore's recent comments on the Clarke FAR... It looks like it's getting close to the end, after 7 months :)

5111: 5053:

Can you help me? I've got off to a shaky start here but I am being harrassed by some "longtime" users but they are not admins like your good self. This user

3736: 2635: 1680: 7175: 786: 767: 747: 733: 713: 7556:

WT:DYK and ask someone to fix it. Also, pulled hooks should go to T:TDYK for further discussion and instructions/suggestions to fix things up. Thanks. --

772:

Also, I responded to some of the points that you made at the FAC. I haven't nominated an article for FAC in a long time, so you'll have to bear with me. -

10075: 9734: 4085: 4061: 2010: 1093:

Hi Nikkimaria, I don't know whether you need to pinged for all your reviews, but wanted you to know that the source issues have been taken care of at the

9972: 9668: 8961: 8098: 6817: 6099: 5725:

Bibliographical annotation (ie. when you explain what a source is, what its purpose is, or similar) is usually confined to External links, if used at all

5342: 4429: 3653: 3288: 2929: 2552: 2034: 817: 119: 9801: 6676: 5445:

I can't close it unless you formally withdraw it, you'd need a delegate for that. I can, however, move the extended discussion to talk; doing that now.

5162:, and it avoids obvious problems like copyright violations (whether cut-and-pasted text or problematic images) or hoaxes. For some more tips, check out 4890: 4876: 3098: 1446: 9765: 8232: 6054:

of the position of the article, and how its chances look in its current state. Any info or criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks anyways! :)--

5029: 4974: 3393: 3146: 427:

our readers - how do they benefit when for many this page takes a long time to load, given that ISBNs provide the same functionality and more besides?

10066:

As regards your last question: no, usually if an FA is delisted it does not automatically get GA status. I'll take a look at the other issue shortly.

9015: 8976: 8475: 8443: 8411: 8379: 4570: 4556: 4542: 4528: 3457: 2802: 2781: 9652: 9326: 9312: 9293: 9267: 9241: 6971:

I've amended the citation format to fix the punctuation issue that you spotted. Grateful if you could state whether that resolves the issue for you.

6215: 6196: 4675:

I thought of Tony1 to take a look at it, but I believe he is "busy" with the ongoing fighting with SandyGeorgia. Do you have someone else in mind? --

2293: 1993: 1983: 1832: 1817: 1577: 1499: 1461: 665: 624: 8346: 6472: 6430: 6413: 5521: 3527: 3513: 3499: 3165: 3045: 3030: 1968: 1941: 267: 56:

Thanks for reviewing the above FAC! I believe I have addressed all of your listed concerns. Please let me know if there are any remaining problems.

9507:

Okay. Did you see the image in any of your sources, or can you find an appropriate source for it online? If not, you may need to remove it for GA.

9088: 8821: 8778: 8764: 8749: 7419: 7377: 6784: 3429: 2735: 1730: 1312: 1238: 588: 9439: 9226: 8703: 8688: 8673: 8017: 7970: 7952: 7938: 7893: 7875: 7542: 7523: 7225:

editnote, and with disdain for semantics (no-one of any other nationality had ever won the 2011 Tour de France either). Please revert yourself.

6733: 5615: 5589: 2251: 2225: 1783: 380: 9394: 8658: 7401: 7354: 7340: 7325: 7311: 7263: 7249: 7008: 6616: 6502: 6021: 5966: 4942: 3960: 3940: 3925: 3905: 3819: 3263: 2903: 1689: 1634: 1620: 9911: 9464: 8073: 6994: 6980: 6939: 6923: 5926: 5911: 5894: 5075: 5033: 5004: 4864: 4850: 4833: 4819: 4806: 3980: 3891: 3871: 3227: 1662: 1648: 1341: 1327: 1027:

Again, I would be very grateful if you could review my responses and state whether you are happy with the current state of the article for FAC.

637:

reading the article out loud, and am now doing that (to the chagrin of anyone within earshot). I've responded to your comments at the article's

8903: 7632: 6719: 6298: 5855: 5669: 5655: 5454: 2675: 2159: 1849: 938: 920: 9619: 9605: 9586: 9572: 9553: 9539: 9516: 9502: 9479: 9191: 9129: 9115: 8554: 8521: 8282: 6908: 6768: 6050:

can't, or don't have time to make a thorough review, and post info, I would appreciate if you could maybe have a quick glance, and give me an

5175: 3896:

Better, but there's more to be done - some of the points remain unaddressed. If you need me to point out specifically which ones let me know.

3798: 1718: 1319:

Except I handled all the image problems at the Appie review (except the license plate, I'm not touching Montana's baby with a ten-foot pole.)

1056: 1037: 9445: 6075: 5822:

However, to achieve this, I have removed a couple of inadequate references, in favour of 'citation needed' flags. Also, I have compared this

5730:"...value within each scale - the short scale logic...": phrases like this should use spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes, not hyphens. See 4712: 4698: 4684: 4670: 1296: 1271:

Inserting: today's talks aren't going anywhere, I'll cue you as soon as we build a little momentum. You asked me to look at the sourcing on

1094: 9246:

So what did play a part in your decision? The fact of the matter is that FM was treated with very considerable incivility by the editors at

6284: 5302: 5022: 3441: 2746:

Hi Nikki. I hope you still remember me. Are you fine? I wanted to ask if you could suggest me someone really nice and good at copy-editing?

1354: 1280: 1266: 1252: 1169: 1154: 1143: 436: 412: 345: 308: 288: 260: 241: 219: 10033: 9729: 8167: 7057: 6965: 6372: 6358: 4615: 4135: 3624: 3601: 3583: 9940: 9143: 9060:

I will be reverting your undiscussed, hit and run deletion. As a non-contributor to the article, your undiscussed deletion is not welcome.

7585: 7295: 6695:? I am sure there are a lot of nitpicky things in such a long article, but I did spend a lot of time trying to get everything in order.-- 6563: 5941:

There was a discussion on the talk page of Selena but nobody contributed to it because they didn't care. So I reverted your edits, sorry.

5283: 5257: 5243: 5081:

Hi there. Under normal circumstances it's polite to not edit userpages other than your own without the user's consent. However, there are

959: 905: 9786: 8306: 7071: 6886: 6160: 5403: 3714: 3349: 2990: 44: 9577:

Mostly, and it's up to you what you want to do with the image. As it stands, the prose is probably the most major issue that I can see.

7807:

We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Knowledge better — thanks for helping!

4513: 4490: 4357:

We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Knowledge better — thanks for helping!

2621: 2473:

We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Knowledge better — thanks for helping!

2095: 878: 599:

particular term means, then why would you expect the reader to get it?). As for the prose, you're right - it's a tricky balance between

180: 8637: 8301: 3724:

Thanks for going over the refs again (will leave that to others, I know one about nosed down is reffed further down, can be moved up.)

990: 782: 763: 729: 694: 4779:

I know you already did a quick copyedit - but how are the references looking, formatting/etc wise? Anything I need to fix before FAC?

4703:

I asked Tony. I'm going to wait for his answer before inviting the other editors. Thanks a lot, Nikkimaria. I really appreciate it. --

3777:

Thanks for your comments! I have corrected a few mistakes that you pointed out. Please let me know anything that can be done further.

2827: 2715: 1332:

Plead innocence - it's not Montana's baby, it's obviously an Idaho plate! (and hope that nobody named "Idahobw" suddenly appears...).

1108: 469: 203: 9366: 8926: 6891: 5202: 543: 538: 8845: 7573: 7425: 7383: 7148: 7064: 5085:

userpages need to follow, and pages that don't follow these rules can be changed without consent. In this case, Viriditas is citing

2883: 946:

Nikki, I will be less active coming days, but I suppose you can leave comments? I'll work on the issues whenever I get free time :)

9197: 9106:

Over trivia? That's overkill, considering I'd already gone offline and the only communication from you I saw was the edit summary.

7742: 5694:

Agreed - you can never have enough good sources. There are now some open issues which require sources to resolve. Work-in-progress.

4405: 4237: 4013: 3850: 3151:

Agreed. While both links have their uses, they're not required, and adding them without consensus constitutes a violation of CITE.

507: 9868: 8996: 3392:

Hello Nikkimaria. I see you've listed yourself as a Peer review volunteer, and I was wondering if you are interested in reviewing

2837:

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm looking for some help, or rather confirmation, that a list of sources I have would pass the grade at FA level.

2762: 698: 8987:

I'm new here so I don't know much about editing. You removed trivia from Veronica Wagner article. Why do this? Just want to ask.

8214: 8200: 7672: 5839: 5640: 5228: 4742: 3484: 2896: 2889: 2118: 480:

Hi Nikki. Sorry to be a pest, but I just wanted to once again ask whether you could check if I've addressed your comments at the

26: 9162:

for me? I want to nominate it for GA but I don't know if it's ready. Do you think it passes the criteria? Thank you in advance.

8895: 8798: 8733: 7074:. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. 6116:

Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual

3186:, which I have now addressed. I was wondering if you could have another quick look and let us know if the results are adequate. 399:

You say not all can see the pages (I say thats not our problem - if some can... they should not be limited because otheres cant)

325: 10021: 9717: 9424: 8155: 7997: 7915: 7860: 7719: 7697: 7617: 6874: 6741: 6704: 6258: 6148: 5996: 5391: 4478: 3702: 3337: 2978: 2666:

got Conn and MA. N.J or NY? New York NY or just New York? It's little inconsistencies like this that the template doesn't fix.

2609: 2170:

Thanks for them, by the way. I'm like suddenly swamped in RL... hopefully one of the possibles will go up at FAC this weekend.

2083: 1674: 1415: 883: 866: 168: 8721: 8053: 7040:

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin.

1219: 8619:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

7211: 7170: 7143: 7049: 6947: 5780: 3416: 3248: 2368: 986: 185: 9591:

I think everything has been done that you said in the peer review, can you confirm this please before I nominate it for GA?

9100: 6180: 5472: 4787: 2520: 2178: 2144: 9945: 9892: 9847: 9835: 9641: 8487: 8079: 7271: 6324: 5288: 4601: 4501: 2308: 1588:

If you're bored, I've just nommed 2 articles for GA, no urgency or anything, but if you'd like to conduct a review of one (

534: 10101: 9973:

Knowledge a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories

8812:

for my username you'll find another renom; since your article was never on mainpage, it should be able to be resubmitted.

7508: 6035: 5903:. I wish I could find a nanny for those twins! Is Nikkizilla in the market by any chance? I was impressed by the roaring. 5150:

could be a good fit, again depending on your interests. In terms of what makes a good article: it doesn't meet any of the

3124: 3078: 1904: 9304: 9259: 9218: 8312: 8263: 6818:

Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

6587: 5565: 5502: 4119: 3207: 1926: 530: 9272:

Can't say it does. If you feel FM was treated poorly there are on-wiki resources to help you deal with that issue - see

9176: 8632: 5878: 4978: 4650: 3771: 3471:

Hi, I wonder if you would care to look at the sourcing of the article, as there have been no comments on that aspect at

2818:

Please could you return to the FAC? We're not sure if your comments have been addressed to your satisfaction. Thanks. --

2726:

and avoidance of close paraphrasing/plagiarism/copyvio; I did a source review, which checks formatting and reliability.

1605: 1562: 8882: 8645: 8638: 8458: 8426: 8394: 8362: 8329: 7768: 7687: 6790: 6080: 5307: 5057:

is clearly stalking me. He is constantly blanking my user page simply because he doesn't like my former country leader

3634: 3409: 3269: 2910: 2810: 1962: 1696: 1127: 1021: 7234: 6646: 3281:

WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news

1878: 1518:. I've worked hard to address the comments and concerns, and wondered what your stance was on the article. Thank you. 9120:

Yes, well it seemed like a freight train of deletions, and as noted, I didn't see you offline until after posting. --

8576: 8285: 8099:

Consensus of Knowledge authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Knowledge; brief news

7565: 7090: 6533: 6397: 5830:

points been closed down? Have any new issues been raised or come to light? Many thanks for your work on this review,

4410: 3421: 2704: 2525: 2015: 1767: 798: 496: 100: 7449: 6612: 5135: 4958: 4923: 3015: 2210: 8526:

P.S. I know that FA noms are typically done by the top contributors, I am going to go track those people down now.

8462: 8430: 8398: 8366: 8333: 7652: 7373: 6343: 6040: 5867: 5265: 4328: 2457: 2444: 2439: 5439: 1946:

Thanks again, first thing I saw on my watchlist this am, so pinged you so you wouldn't go through the extra work.

1539: 5950: 5198: 5181: 5071: 4767: 4386: 4310: 3561: 81:

Thanks for your help! I believe that I have addressed all of your listed concerns. Mind having another look? :) —

8184:

File:Bialystok_seal.png: don't use Knowledge as a source, especially since that particular page has been deleted

1243:

Normally I wouldn't ask you for anything Nikki, but since Sandy's going to be descending on us any time now ...

7366: 6605: 6598: 5700:

Generally speaking , italics should be used for emphasis, and sparingly, never bolding or capitalization - see

5207: 5045: 4661:

for prose help, which is allowed during FAC, but I don't know how long that may take or how much it will help.

2864: 2681: 818:

Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news

704:

I'm not sure I follow what you're asking - do you mean you want to upload an image of the box art you mention?

89: 3112: 7682: 7627: 5623: 4495: 4300: 4177: 3826: 5981:

in response to FAR comments is now complete. All remaining issues have been addressed. Please weigh in at

10056: 10012: 9917: 9771: 9708: 9273: 8296: 8146: 7471: 7279: 7272: 7181: 6865: 6549: 6519: 6139: 5720:: don't link very common terms, don't link the same term multiple times (especially not in close proximity) 5382: 4469: 4336: 4318: 3693: 3328: 2969: 2600: 2333: 2074: 1709:

is still up to date? If possible, could you also strike out the points of your review that are OK? Thanks,

1086: 857: 228: 159: 65: 9936: 9879:

composition section? As there is more info about the Remix with SPears than there is about the original.

8856: 8841: 7657: 6956:. I've responded to your comments - could you please take a look and let me know if you are content now? 6682: 6223: 5061:. At first, it looked he was being constructive by saying it is not a soapbox, but he editwarred against 4838:

Weird. I have it set with the supposedly newest way to do the columns... do you have the same issue with

4247: 3374: 2709: 2298: 2128:

Perhaps you'd be interested in helping to review an educational GA again, like you did a while back? See

1743: 684:- that contains that image of Glass Joe in particular. Is that sufficient demonstration of its origin? - 512: 501: 475: 5689:

A good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one source per paragraph, usually more depending on content

4547:

I know that. I wasn't sure that you did, given that your above comment refers to "renaming an article".

9783: 9669:

Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news

9340: 8620: 8606: 8278: 8178: 7086: 6203: 6070: 5991: 5067: 4987: 4873: 4222: 4217: 4197: 2922:

Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news

2380: 2343: 1257:

Sure, I'll take a look. Do you have a link to that Milhist convo? I might drop in to badger people :).

31:

Hi Nikki. I just wanted to say thanks and to let you know that I responded to your image review at the

9450:

This image (File:Pallas_Peter_Simon_1741-1811.png) was taken from Commons so I don't know the source.

8769:

Actually, it is quite possible - as I mentioned, it has been done under similar circumstances before.

5417:. With SunCreator utilizing it as a forum no one will review it. Also, any tip with him? He is in the 10017: 9864: 9713: 9082: 8930: 8866: 8210: 8196: 8151: 7164: 7137: 6870: 6144: 5917:

Sure, so long as the pay's enough to afford steel high-tops - I'd be afraid for my ankles otherwise!

5469: 5387: 5098:

for broader input, but I should warn you that because of your comment on his page it's possible that

4474: 4093: 3698: 3463: 3422: 3333: 2974: 2832: 2605: 2079: 1714: 862: 164: 7440:

to my attention; I think I've addressed them all. Let me know if there are bigger problems! Thanks,

9844: 9832: 9401: 9361: 9134:

I think you'll find the discussion at ANI fairly well wrapped up, pleasant, and I hope, helpful. --

8992: 8956: 8713: 8384:

Could you please check back in. FYI, I have removed to FU items and changed captions on the rest.--

8238: 8023: 7836: 7117: 7018: 4724: 4566: 4538: 4509: 4078: 4054: 4033: 3437: 2876: 2797: 2757: 2452: 2434: 2421: 2398: 2318: 2123: 2114: 518: 7316:

To what obvious inconsistencies in reference format and stray grammar issues are you referring? --

6724:

Sorry about the delay, getting caught up in other things. Sunday at the latest, hopefully sooner.

6245:

I award this to Nikkimaria for her contributions to FAC, PR and GAN. Keep up the good work Nikki!

2786:

Thank you Nikki. Best of luck with whatever you are doing. You are a gem to Knowledge. Take care.

2545:

Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news

1210:

Just thought I'd put that out there (or maybe one of your TPS's will be a little image gnome!)...

191: 10052: 9308: 9263: 9222: 8982: 8545: 8512: 8288: 7837: 7760: 7662: 6667: 6637: 6211: 6176: 5279: 4772: 4323: 4212: 4207: 3835:

for sourcing and prose issues? I'm in no rush whatsoever, so don't feel obliged to do it at all.

3747: 3614:

Hi Nikki, I've managed to revert the changes. Could you please have a look at it again? Cheers --

3568: 3378: 3233: 3120: 3093: 3073: 2741: 2165: 1810: 1558: 1492: 1439: 1408: 1103: 658: 581: 526: 9739:

Perhaps this needs a copyedit before it is ready to become a featured article. Would you mind? ~

8352:

I am not sure if you are watching the discussion, but we have addressed most of your concerns.--

5870:

if I wanted it done. Why change a quote? It's not as if anybody's going to need to click on it.

3130:

Even if we decide we don't care, he shouldn't be doing that without gaining talk consensus, per

10096: 10071: 9932: 9852: 9797: 9761: 9661:

Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay

9615: 9582: 9549: 9512: 9475: 9435: 9322: 9289: 9237: 9187: 9111: 9030: 9011: 8972: 8852: 8837: 8827: 8817: 8774: 8745: 8669: 8560: 8493: 8454: 8422: 8390: 8358: 8325: 8270:

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

8228: 8013: 7948: 7871: 7796: 7786: 7750: 7724: 7637: 7519: 7397: 7336: 7307: 7245: 7004: 6919: 6780: 6729: 6715: 6468: 6425: 6409: 6392: 6354: 6294: 6192: 5962: 5922: 5890: 5851: 5706: 5651: 5585: 5450: 5171: 5107: 4969: 4938: 4930: 4886: 4860: 4829: 4802: 4738: 4694: 4666: 4623: 4597: 4552: 4524: 4131: 3936: 3901: 3579: 3453: 3404: 3259: 3223: 3161: 3142: 3042: 3026: 3012: 2777: 2731: 2689: 2682: 2671: 2516: 2278: 2221: 2155: 2100: 2006: 1998:

I will try FAC process, I am the primary contributor, at least for all 'recent major' updates.

1958: 1937: 1922: 1900: 1828: 1779: 1616: 1573: 1550: 1457: 1337: 1308: 1262: 1234: 1165: 1139: 1113: 916: 743: 709: 620: 432: 376: 341: 304: 256: 215: 8569: 7490: 7240:

I was not aware of discussion regarding that blurb, I simply saw it on the MP. I'll tweak it.

5343:

Britannica and Knowledge compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

3365:

feedback about styling or copyediting issues, please let me know at that discussion. Thanks. —

2051:

Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism

1625:

Believe I've addressed your comments. Will read over it again and fix anything I see, though.

9873: 9780: 9776:

I'm not just taking the piss, I thought you were an example to aspiring diplomats everywhere.

9153: 9022: 8794: 8760: 8729: 8581: 8172: 7677: 7612: 7204: 6764: 6320: 6055: 5986: 5624: 5515: 5496: 5298: 4870: 4282: 4232: 3832: 3523: 3509: 3495: 3480: 2699: 2303: 1979: 1374: 1292: 1215: 738:

Does your source indicate what the original source is? If so, it's likely acceptable to use.

595: 557: 491: 8205:

Ah, thanks! Btw, IS THERE any kind of guideline for FAs in regard to lede length somewhere?

10029: 9860: 9742: 9725: 9418: 9349: 8206: 8192: 8163: 8035: 8025: 7992: 7965: 7933: 7910: 7888: 7855: 7827: 7811: 7537: 7503: 7155: 7128: 6882: 6156: 5610: 5560: 5466: 5399: 4582: 4486: 4377: 4361: 4162: 4067: 3831:

Hi Nikkimaria! I was wondering, if you're not incredibly busy, would you mind looking over

3710: 3387: 3345: 3173: 2986: 2617: 2493: 2477: 2246: 2205: 2091: 2027:

ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news

1950: 1869: 1762: 1710: 1685: 1534: 1087: 874: 176: 17: 9840:

Artical now recreated, with references, any questions or complaints visit my talk page. –

6460: 6100:

Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news

5488:

Knowledge:Featured article review/History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)/archive1

8: 9909: 9890: 9841: 9829: 9387: 9380: 9356: 9300: 8988: 8946: 8071: 8051: 7773: 7667: 7445: 7422: 7380: 7350: 7321: 7291: 7259: 7230: 6990: 6976: 6961: 6585: 6569: 6329: 6306: 5946: 5861: 5194: 5099: 4954: 4919: 4562: 4534: 4505: 4071: 4047: 4026: 4006: 3973: 3953: 3918: 3884: 3864: 3843: 3741: 3434: 3244: 2870: 2787: 2747: 2502: 2408: 2385: 2110: 1658: 1644: 1630: 1601: 9087:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

8040:

progress with it, as we want to take the article to GAN as soon as possible. Thanks :).

5486:

review can be dropped. If you have the time and interest, could you share your opinion?

3356:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive3

445: 9928: 9159: 8805: 8616: 8531: 8498: 7550: 7045: 6936: 6905: 6653: 6623: 6482: 6207: 6172: 6165: 6030: 5908: 5875: 5717: 5535: 5527: 5275: 5058: 4847: 4816: 4784: 4592:

No, you don't need Deletions, just throw the location onto the image description page.

4392: 4346: 3788: 3761: 3202: 3116: 3088: 3068: 2175: 2035:

Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news

1805: 1739: 1583: 1554: 1487: 1434: 1403: 1324: 1098: 1051: 1032: 1016: 999: 653: 576: 522: 453: 361: 86: 9355:

Hello, I hope you enjoy this cupcake as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian!

7101:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)/archive2

6826:

Talk page interactions; Knowledge at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

6692: 4305: 3542:

Hey Nick, I'm making progress on this thing and will be ready to support pretty soon.

1860:

at Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1's talk page.

1705:. SandyGeorgia asked me to ping you: could you please check that your image review of 120:

Education minister's speech copied from Knowledge; Jimmy Wales interviewed; brief news

10091: 10081: 9281: 9063:

If you add a tag indicating that the trivia section needs cleanup, I will not revert

8937: 8466: 8449: 8434: 8417: 8402: 8385: 8370: 8353: 8337: 8320: 7819: 6700: 6419: 6386: 6278: 6252: 5972: 5835: 5710: 5701: 5665: 5636: 5480: 5163: 5120: 4734: 4401: 4369: 4264: 4242: 3537: 3399: 3321:

Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief

3289:

Knowledge could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief

3135: 3111:

I've been having editors go through my articles changing the source formatting - see

3037: 3007: 2930:

Revere, Palin and Colbert generate activity; British Knowledge "cleanser"; brief news

2823: 2655: 2512: 2485: 2403: 2358: 2138: 2002: 1954: 1932:

Yeah, didn't check the article closely until after I removed it. Not for FAC either.

1915: 1893: 1883: 1549:... for turning me red. And for deleting the edit counter page. And for the edits to 1387:

and if you find the time, I would love a second assessment as it stands. It would be

1077: 953: 932: 899: 681: 673: 5094:, should be avoided whenever possible. If you like you can take this dispute to the 4519:

As members of the WikiProject have pointed out multiple times, it's not an article.

9807: 9600: 9567: 9534: 9497: 9459: 9247: 9206: 9171: 9139: 9125: 9096: 9072: 9037: 9003: 8790: 8756: 8725: 8714: 7647: 7581: 7561: 7477: 7219: 6893: 6760: 6555: 6525: 6456: 6452: 6316: 6001: 5731: 5541: 5510: 5491: 5460: 5294: 5253: 5239: 5224: 5131: 5086: 4963: 4811:

Got them all, except the citations are already in columns. Did you mean the notes?

4070:

would you please return to the review as it has come to a stand-still, thank you.--

3519: 3505: 3491: 3476: 3106: 3053: 2694: 1975: 1909: 1593: 1380: 1288: 1211: 486: 61: 6368: 6339: 5508:

BTW, thanks for taking the time to look at that matter and giving your opinion.

4430:

WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Knowledge; brief news

10067: 10025: 9817: 9793: 9757: 9721: 9611: 9578: 9545: 9522: 9508: 9471: 9431: 9413: 9318: 9285: 9233: 9183: 9107: 9007: 8968: 8886: 8813: 8770: 8741: 8694: 8679: 8665: 8649: 8247: 8224: 8159: 8009: 7985: 7958: 7944: 7926: 7903: 7881: 7867: 7848: 7823: 7778: 7755: 7702: 7622: 7596: 7529: 7515: 7495: 7415: 7393: 7376:

a bit, from time to time? You can always revert anything you don't like. Tks. –

7332: 7303: 7241: 7000: 6915: 6878: 6776: 6725: 6711: 6464: 6405: 6350: 6290: 6188: 6152: 5958: 5918: 5900: 5886: 5847: 5647: 5595: 5581: 5545: 5446: 5434: 5395: 5167: 5103: 4934: 4882: 4856: 4825: 4798: 4773: 4708: 4690: 4680: 4662: 4646: 4593: 4548: 4520: 4482: 4462:

June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

4373: 4341: 4252: 4202: 4192: 4146: 4127: 3932: 3897: 3706: 3615: 3575: 3449: 3370: 3341: 3255: 3219: 3157: 3022: 2982: 2841: 2773: 2727: 2688:

Hi Nikki. I still need further guidance in response to your source review at the

2667: 2613: 2489: 2262: 2231: 2217: 2190: 2151: 2087: 1933: 1864: 1842: 1824: 1775: 1747: 1612: 1589: 1569: 1519: 1453: 1333: 1304: 1258: 1230: 1161: 1135: 912: 870: 739: 705: 616: 608: 428: 372: 337: 300: 252: 211: 172: 112:

Geographical distribution of Knowledge edits; Sue Gardner interviewed; brief news

40: 4992: 4504:. We need consensus before doing something as drastic as renaming an article. -- 3646:

ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Knowledge; brief news

2363: 9899: 9880: 9853: 8833: 8603:

You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page

8470: 8438: 8406: 8374: 8341: 8220: 8061: 8041: 7984:

Can you please close the review, cause I can not nominate it for GA. :/ Thanks

7844: 7456:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive2

7441: 7431: 7346: 7317: 7287: 7255: 7226: 7107: 6986: 6972: 6957: 6575: 6496:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive2

5942: 5735: 5418: 5408: 5187: 5054: 4950: 4915: 4908: 4762: 4658: 4629: 4187: 4000: 3967: 3947: 3912: 3878: 3858: 3837: 3240: 3194: 3131: 3064: 2954:

More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case

2769: 2348: 2338: 2288: 1723: 1654: 1640: 1626: 1597: 1544: 1350: 1276: 1272: 1248: 1150: 1123: 1005: 604: 465: 419: 408: 329: 284: 276: 237: 199: 51:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive1

9816:

due to its lack of content, however by doing so you have created a gap on our

9485: 9214: 5776: 9317:

If FM has contacted ArbCom, we'll leave it to ArbCom to work out her issues.

9047: 7810:

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on

7692: 7437: 7123: 7041: 7027: 6985:

Cheers, any chance whether you could say whether you support the nomination?

6933: 6902: 6810:

Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

6688: 5904: 5871: 5754: 5151: 5147: 5143: 5095: 4843: 4812: 4780: 4611: 4360:

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on

4172: 4167: 4115: 3945:

Cool, I'll spend a few more days tightening it up. Thanks for all your help!

3778: 3751: 3732: 3597: 3557: 3464: 3198: 3061:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2/archive1

2849: 2476:

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on

2183: 2171: 1914:

Check for sig contrib, otherwise, no need to move it to FAC. Thanks! Best,

1320: 1047: 1028: 1012: 978: 888:

Hi Nikki! So, "Irresistible" has been copyedited and I've put it up for a PR

612: 82: 9040:

is quite clear: trivia should be incorporated into the article. Deletion is

8967:

Er, I don't think I've ever edited that article, why am I getting notified?

6954:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Murder of Julia Martha Thomas/archive1

5050:

Hi. I accept you deleted my page. I'm sorry I did it and won't do it again.

5010: 4105:

Thank you for kind, calm remarks at FAC-T. And reviewing lots of articles.

2650:

examples of problems to give me a guideline for what to look for? Thanks —

2283: 842:

Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC

9277: 9251:

page that he wanted "all that crap wiped clean". So why did you oblige him?

8005: 7815: 7714: 7642: 7284:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger/archive2

6696: 6380: 6272: 6246: 5831: 5823: 5804: 5661: 5632: 5422: 5270:

Greeting Nikkimaria, if you remember you once failed a GAN for the article

5159: 5082: 5062: 5014: 4996: 4500:

I would like you to participate in a discussion concerning your changes at

4397: 4365: 4182: 3931:

readability still need some work, particularly if you intend to go for FA.

3183: 2853: 2845: 2819: 2651: 2481: 2353: 2134: 1888:

You are a gem (and a workhorse!). Please ping me when images are clear at

1073: 947: 926: 893: 9091:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --

7190: 6802:

Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

5415:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive3

5142:

to be fixed or added. Once you get a bit more experienced, something like

1611:

Sure, I'll pick up one in the next day or two if no one snatches them up.

9593: 9560: 9527: 9490: 9452: 9164: 9135: 9121: 9092: 9068: 8921: 8905: 7577: 7557: 7464: 6929: 6542: 6512: 6448: 6232: 5936: 5249: 5235: 5220: 5155: 5127: 4747: 4287: 4227: 2995: 2723: 2642:

Check for WP:MOS issues in references: italicization, capitalization, etc

2508: 2462: 1639:

Did some copyediting, how does it look now? Thanks again for the review.

1568:

If only! No problem , TK, let me know if there's anything else I can do.

1509: 1226: 600: 368: 57: 35:. I've also asked a question about something I'm not sure about. Thanks!- 10039:

Reactivate Knowledge:Featured article review/History of Miami/ archive1?

8610: 8091:

Wikimania; why Board of Trustees elections attract few votes; brief news

7599:

predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

5335:

Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $ 3M grant

5186:

Hi. Thanks for going through that article and offering your feedback.

4293:

Phipps Institute for the Study, Treatment and Prevention of Tuberculosis

4149:

predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

3313:

One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet

2265:

predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

76:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/James E. Boyd (scientist)/archive2

8629: 7737: 6858:

Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

6592: 6092:

WMF Annual plan; Article Feedback tool; university outreach; brief news

4704: 4676: 4642: 3366: 2857: 2812: 2323: 36: 9965:

Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common

6999:

Sorry, but I don't generally support on the basis of a source review.

3965:

Thanks for your suggestions! I had one question about the formatting.

3567:

The change was made (not by the nominator) based on the discussion at

2585:

Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update

2230:

Either Orane or Journalist is fine :) . And thanks for the good luck.

7957:

Ok, I will nominate it, and you can close the review. Thank you ;) !

7208: 6440: 5761:

Try to avoid very short subsections and a very long table of contents

4824:

Nope - for some reason I still see the citations in one column. Odd.

4657:

won't really help. Another possibility would be to post a request at

3592:

Thanks kindly, Nikki. Will be back in touch after I check stability.

3002: 2426: 1706: 674: 461: 404: 280: 272: 233: 195: 8875: 7528:

Don't bet on it. But, stay away from me and I'll stay away from you.

6932:. I will try to take a look at that in the next few days. Cheers! 1066:

Knowledge:Featured_article_candidates/Bryan_Gunn/archive1#Bryan_Gunn

9821: 9813: 9158:

Hi, if it's not too much trouble, would you be able to peer review

6364: 6335: 5271: 5214:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Joppenbergh Mountain/archive1

4914:

available from time to time to help me as I blunder along. Thanks!

4607: 4111: 4020:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive2

3728: 3593: 3553: 983:

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

9792:

Thanks. You were right, that discussion wasn't going to end well.

8693:

I've addressed your points. I'm standing by for further comments.

7302:

nom, and it can be time-consuming to completely find and correct.

7072:

all the articles students did significant work on in the last term

6746:

Hi, Nikki. I just wanted to follow up a comment of yours from the

6315:

which helped in the process of getting this article to FA status.

6108:

Earn $ $ $ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!

2561:

Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes

1679:

Please refer to the existing discussion on this topic on the page.

8595:... that the only known report of bloodshed during the simulated 7791: 6444: 6132:

Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news

4839: 2328: 521:? The primary editor has replied to all of them now. Thanks -- 7412:

User:Tony1/Plagiarism and close paraphrasing: tips for reviewers

7282:

is ready to be re-nominated for feature article on July 30? See

6928:

Most appreciative of your help. :) I see you have a PR up for

6015:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Better Than Today/archive2

4098: 8809: 8597: 8588: 8530:

Never mind, I got a resounding "no" from a few people already.

8139:

Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news

7732: 6436: 4454:

Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

4274: 2416: 2390: 1736:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/21 (Adele album)/archive1

1385:

Knowledge:Featured_article_candidates/12_Gauge_(album)/archive2

1200:

WP:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1

1120:

Knowledge:Featured_article_candidates/Jefferson_nickel/archive1

1011:. I hope that I have addressed them in a satisfactory fashion. 190:

Was wondering y you removed all the book links in the article?

9653:

Seventh annual Wikimedia conference concluded in Haifa, Israel

9924: 9825: 8720:

Hi Nikki. Just to let you know I disagree with your decision

7278:

As one of the opposers of the first nomination, do you think

5978: 4731:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive2

4269: 1245:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Kenneth Walker/archive1

9544:

Yes, although it doesn't confirm the date/copyright status.

9397: