User talk:333-blue/Archive 12

GA review for Track and Field

I have deleted your submission of your GA review of this article as you failed to follow the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions on how to conduct a review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to strongly recommend, as per the instructions, that you find a mentor to go over any future reviews before finalizing them, if you decide to pursue GA reviewing. Also, I suggest you start with shorter, less complex articles—it takes a while to check the article against the sources (to make sure the article accurately reflects what is in them), to check the wording of the entire article for prose and grammar issues (including punctuation), and also to make sure all the images in the article are licensed, the article doesn't contain copyright violations or plagiarism, the sourcing is sufficient and reliable, the six Manual of Style sections listed in the GA criteria are properly followed, the article is sufficiently broad but not too detailed, and so on. Actually, what you might want to do first is to try to bring an article to what you believe is GA level, and then submit it for review; having your own work reviewed can give you a better idea of how the GA criteria apply to articles, and if it is approved, it will earn you a nice chunk of WikiCup credit. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

O Street Market/GA1

I have removed this review from your submissions page because it is not yet complete. It is also not a through review and fails to meet the criteria as given on the instructions page. I strongly recommend that you read the instructions again on how to properly review before submitting another review to the WikiCup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a question, what criteria did I miss? I read it several times and still can't find the answer. 333-blue 23:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Having just read the article, which is actually in very good shape, the problem appears to be is that you're not showing that the article meets the criteria as your comments are few in number. You might consider using these templates to show that you are using the criteria to review the article.

The only things that I would say that you missed in your review are that this: Adkins, who had also purchased Square 426, successfully petitioned the National Capital Planning Commission to close 8th Street between P and O Streets NW. Adkins planned to turn the street into a pedestrian mall, parking lot, and landscaped area. is in the wrong place and should be added to the end of the paragraph immediately below and that there shouldn't be any single-sentence paragraphs.

My apologies for misjudging you and this review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What I don't see in the review is sufficient attention being paid to problematic prose and grammar. For example, take the first paragraph in the 21st century section. The first two sentences both use the word "rehabilitation", which is unnecessarily repetitive. The third sentence has issues with prose and grammar, including unclear antecedents and referents: They proposed the partial closure of a 40-foot (12 m) wide plaza on 8th Street into a sidewalk, parking lot, and retail space, and for the addition of new windows in the walls. The fourth and seventh sentences start with "But"; starting sentences with conjunctions is something that should be done sparingly. Then the final sentence ends with but there were years of delays and the project stalled., followed immediately by the new paragraph's Redevelopment of the O Street Market then stalled for two years as the developers sought to meet the demands imposed by the Historic Preservation Review Board. First the projects stalls, and then it stalls for two years. Is this a second stall, or the same one? This is the sort of unclear wording that should be fixed during the review.

Unlike Sturmvogel 66, I am still concerned about your reviewing, since your statements are frequently generalizations. Take your new review of Talk:Hyōgo-ku, Kobe/GA1, where under "Style" you say "Not very well-written, but still quite OK." If it is not very well-written, then how can it possibly be at Good Article level, which demands that the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct? In addition, you completely fail to mention that the article's lead does not meet the requirements of WP:LEAD, a GA criterion that you should have checked, so either you're skipping steps in your reviews or not understanding what they should encompass. I honestly think that you mean well, but the resulting reviews are worrisome, especially that you keep starting new ones before you understand where your current ones fall short. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: so I put it on hold, do you have any questions? 333-blue 08:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• 333-blue, I'm frankly astounded that you just passed the article without checking back here, and when one of the passages I'd specifically cited above as problematic was not addressed in the recent edits. (You tell me: how do you "partial closure ... into a sidewalk"? This makes no sense, yet you must think it's GA quality because you passed the article.) I am going to ask you now to voluntarily revert your passing of this article, and that you find a mentor and agree to consult with said mentor before you pass it and any further articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So, what did you mean? Please explain it, the sidewalk. 333-blue 08:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you explain to me how you partially close a plaza into a sidewalk (and retail space). That's what the article says was proposed, and that wording does not make sense to me. What does it mean to you, since you clearly think it makes sense? BlueMoonset (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It is pretty well-written for me, APK has updated them, and it looks pretty making sense, if you have more questions, post a reply. 333-blue 09:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply here. I do wish you'd actually explained what that sentence meant in your own words, but the fact that you won't (or can't) is not unexpected. Do you realize that when you review and approve an article that still has known problems, it isn't fair to the nominator or to the readers of Wikipedia? If you continue to do problematic GA reviews—this is two in a row—you may be restricted from further reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I said that the "design" section has some small/normal/big problems. 333-blue 13:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Ahhhhhhhh it's nice to see a fellow Taiwanese person on here :D Dschslava (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

O Street Market, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

While you can make comments in the Specific comments section, for you to be inserting them in the middle of the Current status list is disruptive, especially when you have nothing more to say than "less error than you think, probably". I have reverted the disruption; please do not do this again. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Rieul (disambiguation)

Hello 333-blue. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rieul (disambiguation), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Let the AFD run, it's not clear cut enough for a speedy. . Thank you. GedUK  13:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meaningful to me

Wikipedia is meaningful to me, at first, I just read these articles and know infos, then I slowly edited as an IP address. Later, I finally create an acoount. Although I have been blocked by Jimmy in zh.wikipedia.org, I still learn things to use in en.wikipedia.org, thanks everybody. 333-blue 08:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Arcenciel

What does "Weurd" mean? re: your edit to Arcenciel. Thanks. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Weird, probably. 333-blue 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hyōgo-ku, Kobe

I see that you reverted my edit on Hyōgo-ku, Kobe. When intentionally linking to a disambiguation page, the link should be piped through the (disambiguation) redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. This helps those of us at WP:DPL (and the bots that help us) know that the link was intentional. Incidentally, the user who reverted my first edit (Athomeinkobe), thanked me for the second edit. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 06:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Ueutyi. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Fructuooligosaccharides, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Ueutyi (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A recent UAA report

Surely this was a mistake? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Juliancolton: discuss. 333-blue 03:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• ...discuss what? You reported a tenured editor with a username that isn't the least bit "offensive". Why? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate a response, at your leisure of course. Thanks in advance. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

QuickBooks

Do you know what's going on here? Thanks, GAB^Hello! 23:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

They vandals. 333-blue 23:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Seemed like it to me. Gotta love tag-teaming. GAB^Hello! 23:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your notice

Hello. I'm here about your notification. First, I've been here at least two years. Granted, sporadically. About my username, I don't see the problem. I went over the WP:UN, and found no violation. But thanks for helping keep spam off of Wikipedia. - Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)