User talk:Zawed/Archive 3

Thanks for your assessment, the later fighting on the Somme does get a lot bittier as four armies attacked and two defended. I haven't done enough about the French armies but the lack of anglophone sources is quite a handicap. Despite the manifold inadequacies of his prose, Phillpott is all I can find, apart from the cameo appearances in the Official History. Apropos Flers–Courcelette, they are two villages nearly two miles apart, rather than one place like Sailly-Saillisel so I think that linking them with a hyphen may give the impression that they are one place. The OH uses a dash and spaces Flers – Courcelette but the mos specifies no gaps. What do you think?Keith-264 (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The article on the Battle of Flers-Courcelette uses a hyphen, which is why I suggested a check of the use of dashes, but checking the MOS again just now, it would suggest the use of an unspaced n dash is more appropriate. I would go with that (which I think is how you have used it anyway...) Zawed (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll put the dashes back and see what happens, thanks again.Keith-264 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Zawed, I took the plunge yesterday and assessed some pages with incomplete B class checklists, courtesy of your good example. Do you have any suggestions for a beginner? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Gidday Keith, it is good to hear you are doing B-class assessments, there is a massive backlog there. I need to get back into doing them, but I have been focused on article writing lately. When assessing, I prefer bios given that is the type of article that I have written the most of on WP. Even so, I find that it is usually easy to tell whether an article is still a start class, the hard one is whether it is C or B-class, and this usually hinges on the the B2 criteria (content/coverage). It is usually straightforward to check off B1. Every paragraph finishes with a cite, plus any quotes should be cited - I will usually check the type of references as well; any website refs need to be reliable. The other criteria should be straightforward; B3 (has lead, headings and more than a section of content), B4 (reads well) and B5 (has infobox and/or image). I usually prefer a conservative approach, so if I can't decide between B/C class, I will usually go C. I would rather have a B-class article tagged as C-class than a C-class tagged as B-class. Its not exactly a suggestion to help with assessments but one thing I try and do when assessing is do what is necessary to fulfill the B3 to B5 criteria. A lot of these articles haven't been worked on substantively for months even years; who knows when a motivated editor will next come along. It will usually only take 5 or 10 minutes to knock most articles in shape to satisfy B3 to B5 at least. An infobox should be able to be put together relatively easily from the content of the article; if it can't this would indicate B2 criteria is not met. It is easy enough to expand the lead, add headings and do a quick copyedit to fix major spelling and grammatical mistakes. I will also add cite required tags where appropriate if the article is already reliably cited in most places and only missing a few to satisfy B1. I would be happy to look at any articles you were uncertain of. Zawed (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I decided to judge what was there on the technical stuff (infobox, footnotes etc) and what wasn't on the general criteria - prose, structure etc. Mind you it took half an hour to work out how to format the banner (even copying the layout of the Morval one that you did). Now all I have to do is avoid the temptation to dive in and start changing things, like I have on the Somme pages.... (apropos, I'm getting the Ancre Heights close to a review).Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2012, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you muchly. Zawed (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Zawed, thanks for reviewing John Hamilton (American Revolution) over at the MilHist request board. I appreciate your edits, and think they improved the article tremendously. I noticed, however, that you hadn't altered the assessment templates at Talk:John Hamilton (American Revolution); I would do that myself, but since I'm participating in the MilHist contest this month (and hopefully am doing well), I don't want to raise the appearance of impropriety. Thanks for your help! Cdtew (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I plumb forgot to do that. I have updated assessment templates now. Zawed (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry to bug you. Cdtew (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zawed, will you be taking this to A-class after GA? I want to review a few GANs, and I prefer the ones where I know someone will be checking my work. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Gidday Dan, yes, the plan is take Godley to ACR once it has gone through a GA review. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, I can get to it later today. - Dank (push to talk) 11:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Zawed (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Zawed; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for your GA and A-Class reviews of my deception articles :) It's much appreciated! --Errant ^(chat!) 14:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries, they are interesting reading. Zawed (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Zawed for his fine efforts in the February 2013 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 32 points from 4 entries. Congratulations! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! Zawed (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for undertaking the review on the article. Secondly, this is the first article that I have submitted for a GA review and I am unsure how to proceed with the correction and replies on the review page. It is new territory for me and I would be ever so grateful for some guidance where you feel it is necessary. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You're doing fine so far. Please bear with me as I will probably take a few days to go through the article; it's a long one! :) Zawed (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. As I said, I'm new to the process so I wouldn't know what to expect anyway. Thanks for the help. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried to create the page for your duplicate link suggestion, but after the creation of the page it just sits there, a lump if you will. Have I done something wrong? I am in very unfamiliar territory with this part of the operation. Help me out? ...and thanks for your forbearance! Cuprum17 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, we'll get there :). It's not like I'm a GA expert either so I may be more (or perhaps less) picky than some other reviewers might be. The page itself doesn't do anything but if you have done it correctly, when you go to the article page, in the toolbox section on the left hand side there should be a "Highlight Duplicate Links" link. Click on that and it should bring up a page listing all links that appear more than once. I can't remember if it distinguishes between links in the infobox/lead/main body, but according to the MOS it is ok to have the same link appear once in each of those sections, i.e. a link that appears in the lead once, can be used again on its first appearance in the main body of the article. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, it works! I just had to have the right key to put in the ignition switch...great tool. Thanks for the help...and just for the record, you are MY GA expert...well, I'm off to kill off some duplications...Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Under the Reference section of the GA review you have stated, "* Running a Citation Error Report, I note "Multiple references are using the same name". These are: USCGhistorian and CNFVMHS0870." I can't find a problem with this, or I am overlooking it...could you explain to me how to run a "Citation Error Report" so that I may see where the problem lies? I appreciate the help you have given so far. I do have a slight problem coming up in a couple of weeks...I have an eye surgery scheduled for the 10th of May. Not sure what to expect. A little nervous. I will try to keep working on this until the surgery, but I may have to take some time off after the surgery. Just thought I would let you know. Again, thank you for your forbearance, I have learned a lot about the GA process so far. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, this review will get wrapped in time for your op (good luck for that). I think you have addressed just about everything; you were going to work on the lead a bit more and the awards secton still needs some cites. What I called the Citation error Report is accessible from the article's edit page; at the top of the edit box (where you see the edit tools), click on the link for "cite". This changes the template to one associated with references; there is a link called "error check". Click on that and you get a checkbox with three types of errors you can investigate. Click on the checkboxes, and then the "Check" button. You can see the results of the report at the bottom of the edit page (underneath the edit summary box). Running it now, I see another multiple reference is "USCGcron3". If my recollection is correct, this means the same ref name is used but the text entered differs as in my crude example (using [ where they should be <) [ref]refname=CGB1]Coast Guard Book, 2013, pg 1[/ref] vs [ref]refname=CGB1]Coast Guard Book, 2013, pg 2[/ref]. The second one uses the same ref name, but the explantory text is different, the ref name in the second example should be CGB2. The Wikipedia help pages may provide further guidance in the case my recollection is wrong! Hope that helps. Zawed (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And I forgot to mention, in the "references cited", I don't think it is necessary to have the webpages you consulted in there if they are mentioned in full in the Notes section. That's my understanding anyway. It's not a killer for a GA review, but if you take this to ACR (which I think you should), then it may get picked up there. Zawed (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation errors are corrected, I think...for some reason the correction report mode only comes up on my computer about every second or third time I attempt it...the last time I tried it the report came up clear, please check me on this. Thanks. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

All good, I have passed as GA. Good work! Suggest you take it to ACR, it'll get a real good polish there (which will probably revert most of my changes/suggestions!). Zawed (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help in reviewing my first GA article. While it wasn't exactly a painless process, your easy manner and very helpful suggestions for article improvement helped me to gain the confidence that I needed to see the review to completion. I thank you. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		To my favorite Kiwi for your suggestions and assistance in my first ever GA review. Coast Guard Squadron One Cuprum17 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope you got a bit of buzz getting this article to GA and go on to do some more! Zawed (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Project, I'm pleased to present you with this A-class medal in recognition of your great work in developing the Howard Kippenberger, Herbert Ernest Hart, and Alexander Godley articles to A class status. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! Zawed (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request for Thomas Ellison I'm currently attempting to bring the article Thomas Ellison to Featured Article standard. I've opened a peer review, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas Ellison/archive1—any feedback, however brief, would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

- Shudde ^talk 07:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks AR! Zawed (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That was unreferenced. Fixed now. IIRC we used to have a non-free picture of that. Would be nice if somebody could take a free one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Aye there Zawed!
Thanks for all your time and effort reviewing and contributing to the Casimir Pulaski page. It was a pleasure working with you! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This user helped promote Tadeusz Kościuszko to good article status.

Thanks - but I think the GA box needs a tweak...:) Zawed (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks indeed, your review and comments were much appreciated! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Zawed. You have new messages at Talk:Edward Soriano/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

		The Croatia Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you very much for your time and effort spent reviewing the Operation Jackal article. Your input has been very valuable as it helped improve quality of the article and I appreciate it. Tomobe03 (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It is appreciated. Zawed (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)