User talk:Philcha/Archives/2011/March

Phoronids in the Arctic Basin

Temereva E.N., Malakhov V.V., Yakovis E.L., Fokin M.V. Phoronis ovalis (Phoronida, Lophophorata) in the White Sea: the first discovery of phoronids in the Arctic Basin. Doklady Biological Sciences, v. 374, 2000, p. 523-525

Phoronis ovalis is a burrowing species, in the White Sea it has been found in shells of Chlamys islandicus (Onega Bay) and Modiolus modiolus (Kandalaksha Bay). The body of the specimens from the White Sea was 3–7 mm long. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Hi, Aleksey, thanks for the Arctic phoronid! --Philcha (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Steph

Hi, Raintheone. There were requests on 18 and 21 Feb 2011 for a 2nd opinion, and no response as at 1 Mar 2011. I'm afraid I'm the only reviewer you're going to get. I've added comments on the remaining sections at Talk:Steph Cunningham/GA1. I'll give you another 2 weeks (i.e. to 15 Mar 2011) to resolve all issues. I'll keep the artcile and review on my watchlist, and response as soon as possible.

• quotes
• "dramatic"
• concise --Philcha (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Meaning I have to do everything on the list or just those points you listed there? (BTW, There is the GA backlog drive as well now)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 14:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Meaning I have to do everything on the list or just those points you listed there?" You need to resolve all the points in the review which are not yet resolve. PS please don't mark points  Done, I use that to make it visible when a point is really done.

I'll review the lead when all other points are resolved, as the lead must strictly summarise the rest of the article.

My 3 bullets above were a quick checklist for me, as I received a phone call and had to save quickly. Some advice I think will help you:

• Learn the GA criteria, and read WP:V (included "Reliable Sources"), WP:NPOV and WP:NOR - and WP:COPYVIO, as you use quotes a lot.
• Use fewer quotes, and make them shorter. Disadvantages of more and longer quotes include: it makes it harder to read, for general readers and for reviewers (:-D); quotes often are poorly written by the source, and include "fluff", e.g. advertising for the show; they reduce your options in constructing sentences and paragraphs.
• Use WP-speak, not soap-speak. Avoid fancy or dramatic phrasing, including the word "dramatic". WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK forbid attempts to influence the reader. The plain facts in the right order are much more convincing.
• Be concise.
• Vary your sentence length. Short sentences are good for emphasis, especially at the start and end of paras, but constant emphasis is like shouting. Make most of your sentence flow, with a (very) few sub-clauses per sentence.
• Revise, revise, revise. A few editors write good prose just like that, but the rest of us have to work and revise (including me, and including in this Talk page). --Philcha (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A second opinion would have eventually come. More so with the backlog drive. I cleary carried out the points you made and marked them, you marked them not done because you added more there after. Therefore I asked for a second opinion. Another reason is because in some cases I agree that some info should be removed, but you want most of it taking out. I don't like things sounded bitty.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 16:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't assume that a second opinion will eventually come. I remember a few months ago a few reviewers said they don't want to review soap articles because: most soap articles are poorly written; they are in fan-speak rather WP-speak (see WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK); the nominators want all their favourites included verbatim; and they scream blue murder when reviewers want to change their babies. A few (?4) of my reviews had 2nd opinions, the 2nd opinions came in a week or less, and said "fail" in all cases. 2nd opinion is not an easy option.

Note that your request for a 2nd review is no longer in WT:GAN, it's been automatically archived.

I think you'd better start improving the article. If a 2nd opinion is not forthcoming, you need to convince me that the article is a GA, and at present it's a long way from a GA. If a 2nd opinion appears, the 2nd reviewer will be more impressed if you've improve the article in the meantime. --Philcha (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

After everything that's already been done and you say that. Why don't you let it have a fresh review? Why won't you? Why haven't you failed it so I can have another go with someone else?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Homer the Moe/GA1

Hi Philca. Sorry for taking so long fixing the article. I hope the change I just made to the plot section makes it GA-worthy. Queenieacoustic (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done :-) --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks for reviewing it, and thanks for your patience! :D Queenieacoustic (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sinosauropteryx

Hi, Philcha;

Thanks for the notes! I'll see what I can do. J. Spencer (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Credo accounts

I thought you might be interested in getting free access to Credo Reference, see Wikipedia:Credo accounts. Shdjuey (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)