![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks for helping with the refs on River Parrett but there were several refs to the Farr book which got lost/broken & rescued by a bot when you added the Harvnb format - I've tried to fix these but I'm not very familiar with that format so could you check I've got it right.— Rod talk 20:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for further additions but a couple of questions about "early 18th century the Steart Peninsula was longer than at present, with its northern end somewhat north of the Huntspill River" - could we loose the 2 x "north" & how can it be north of the Huntspill which wasn't built till the 20th c?— Rod talk 12:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Pyrotec for the thoughtful review. Peripitus (Talk) 12:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The zone of upward motion/low pressure within the ITCZ/monsoon trough is the upward portion of the Hadley cell. The downward portion of the Hadley cell is composed of the subtropical ridges in both hemispheres around 30 latitude which are caused by the sinking/subsidence. The Hadley Cell explains the presence of the ITCZ and subtropical ridges. A similar circulation occurs near 60N with a belt of low pressure which drives the westerlies which then helps form a surface high near both poles forming polar easterlies, which are not as regular as the trade winds. Even if the ITCZ is rain free (which is it on occasion), the downward motion section of the Hadley cell would dry out the air mass at 30 latitude in both hemispheres as it warms up since the absolute moisture amount within the air mass remains constant. This lowers the relative humidity of the air mass (dries it out) as warmer air can hold more moisture. When the dry air from the subtropical ridge manages to reach the surface (which is more likely to occur over land due to stronger vertical motions over land), it is known as superior air. Even if superior air mixed down to the surface over tropical oceans, the warmth/moisture at the ocean surface would mix within the bottom 5000 feet/eighth of the atmosphere pressure-wise, which would cause that layer to moisten, and led to a temperature inversion above 5000 feet. A temperature inversion is an atmospheric layer where temperature increases with height, rather than decreases with height (which is the norm). In this case, the air above the mixed layer (the top of the trade wind inversion) is drier. Superior air masses near 30 latitude in both hemispheres contributes to the formation of deserts, particularly on the western side of continents such as Mexico/the southwest US, western South America, and Australia. Coastal mountains parallel to the shore help in desert creation when the westerlies descend the lee side of north/south mountain ranges. Europe is different in this regard because it does not have a cold water current offshore nor a coastal mountain range. One has to get east of the Urals to get into desert territory in western Asia/far eastern Europe. Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and the pass. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for doing the GA review on Carbon monoxide poisoning, and the pass :) Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 21:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing Galveston Bay Area.
Question (if I'm not pestering you):
Regarding the referencing for explicitly specifying the city of La Marque as qualifying to be included, I am having difficulty finding a high-quality source that explicitly includes the city. Obviously looking on a map one can see it is not far from the bay. The issue that came up in writing the article in the first place was that, since there is no government source that explicitly defines the region, how do we decide in a neutral way which municipalities to include? What I have there is an attempt to provide a definition based on neutral geography and a merging of definitions from authoritative sources.
In your opinion is the section describing the boundaries of the region put forth in a neutral way? And do you feel that, in order to discuss La Marque in the article (not the most important community but some things are mentioned), I need to explicitly provide a justification to include it as "Bay Area". Or is it sufficient that shortly afterward I talk about the Texas City/La Marque area and provide a reference to the Texas City/La Marque Chamber of Commerce?
Thanks.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Not a big deal but I found a newby editor, User:TheAustinMan, who nominated an article for GA which he had not worked on and which clearly wasn't ready for GA. It was failed of course. Now I see he/she has nominated another article which he/she hasn't worked on and again isn't quite ready. Obviously such situations don't help the GA backlog. Is there something in particular that should be done about such cases (i.e. other than just evaluating the articles)?
Thanks.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to get some people together to work on the Fire article - you interested? Any thought on some ideas here? MrBell ( talk) 16:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The
January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
04:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pyrotec, I've been following your contributions to the River Parrett article for the past year or so and have really enjoyed seeing it grow during this time. I'm sorry that it didn't pass at FAC, I'm sure it will do so soon. I gather that you've decided to take a break from editing the Parrett for a few weeks and was hoping that this would be a good time to ask for some help/advice on the River Mole article. I've been editing the article on-and-off for the past three years or so (initially as a non-registered user, but more recently under my Mertbiol identity). Unfortunately I'm pretty much the only active editor on the Mole and am therefore responsible for the vast majority of the material on the page. I haven't really had much opportunity to bounce ideas for developing the Mole off other people. I was wondering whether you would be able to have a quick look at the page and to give me some advice on how to improve the article further. (In particular I'd be interested to know how far away it is from GA status.) I'd be grateful if you could leave any comments at Talk:River Mole. I've also asked Rod for his/her input too. Thanks very much in advance. Mertbiol ( talk) 14:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
In regards to: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Icelandair&diff=342784330&oldid=341880594
I don't think every single airline that flies to Scotland should get this template (or for that matter be within the scope of that project). I think the template only belongs in articles about airlines with head offices in Scotland and/or airlines that are documented by reliable sources to have extensive transport networks within Scotland.
Icelandair only flies to Glasgow. It is among many airlines that do. It's not particularly relevant to the overall transportation in Scotland. Now, Loganair definately would be "Transportation in Scotland" material. WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I came across your reassessment start, dated 1 February, but see it has not been concluded, need any help? Jezhotwells ( talk) 01:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the
coordinator academy course and in the
responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The
February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pyrotec. I am a bit unsure what to do, so thought I would drop you a note. The River Avon article was marked as RefImprove, and had a "weasel words" and "citation needed" tag within the text, so I set about sorting it all out, and expanded it quite a bit. However, I got a fairly terse note from peterkingiron, suggesting that my contribution was bordering on WP:OR, because it refuted a later work (written by him). I thought it supported what was written rather well. However he has reverted the text in that area, effectively recreating the weasel words, but obviously without the weasel words tag. (see discussion on River Avon and my talk pages). Should I re-instate the weasel words tag? He seems a bit adamant that Hadfield contradicts his own published research, despite the fact that I cannot see that it does. Any thoughts would be gratefully received. Bob1960evens ( talk) 19:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I believe some of the issues raised earlier have been addressed. It would be great if you could tick any you agree have been dealt with so we can clearly see what else still needs doing.— Rod talk 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the GA review of 1996 Manchester bombing. My experiences to date with Irish Republican articles have not been altogether encouraging, and I several times had to walk away from this one, so I don't think PR or FAC is on the cards, at least not from me anyway. I think it at least does the subject justice now though. -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with River Parrett which has really improved the article. You will have seen it failed FAC, but Ruhrfisch has offered to continue the review which I think would be helpful & maybe we can try again at FAC later.— Rod talk 09:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you are doing further ce and edits to this. I noticed there are a couple of broken links according to Checklinks. One has only been broken for a day or two (Ref 21 welsh language) but the other (ref 127 Environment Agency) for longer and I can't find any alternatives - what do you reckon?— Rod talk 18:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting for the
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pyrotec, we almost got into an edit conflict at Talk:John Barbirolli and I noticed that you added an oldid for the PR from Feb. 19, but the template description of Article history advises using one from the day {{ Peer review}} is replaced, which was Feb. 25. Regards Hekerui ( talk) 10:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the Irish Oak. Little unhappy with where to locate Capt Moran's death. There are a few things we cannot say for fear of OR. She did warn the convoy. There were three cats (who drowned with her). Last year at the Belfast commemoration, John Clarke was the only veteran and much was made of him, wish I had a camera, Hope he can make it this May [1] - regards - ClemMcGann ( talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the Irish Oak. A thought on the injury sequence. Chief Engineer R. Marsh, had a heart attack and was hospitalised in New Orleans. They sailed to St John without him. The company sent another engineer, O’Keefe on the Irish Pine to join the Irish Oak. Meanwhile, at the prompting of a repair yard, the Greek engineer was recruited. O'Keefe and the Greek were on board at the same time.
The article could give the impression the the Greek replaced O'Keefe.
What we cannot say, for fear of OR, is that the blow-back was deliberate sabotage by the Greek, who resented O'Keefe being placed senior to him. My source is John Clarke, who also said that the SC53 failure was also sabotage as the Greek feared being torpedoed. Given that the Canadians jailed him there must be records there. Books, such as 'the Long Watch' are rather circumspect on this issue - regards - ClemMcGann ( talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Warm thanks for promoting the article and for your kind words about it. At your service for GA, peer review or FA etc if I can be of any use. - Tim riley ( talk) 21:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Mjroots has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Thank you for your review of the David Carradine article. I appreciate you passing it to GA status.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
For a first review, would it be better to review an article by someone who creates a lot of GAs, or someone who is unknown to me as an editor? Mjroots ( talk) 10:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April. | ![]() |
– MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 46 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pyrotec, Thanks for your time and effort reviewing the Israeli cuisine article for promotion to GA status. I appreciate it! -- Chefallen ( talk) 19:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and I would like to improve the article some more. However, can I ask for some guidance regarding references... I'm not sure if I should repeat references that are available in other articles - for example the article talks about the Thameslink programme without any references as it is a quick summary of a much larger article, for which a link is provided. Should I repeat some references in this article or is it elsewhere you think references are lacking?
With thanks Ajcoxuk ( talk) 13:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)