Quarter Million AwardEdit

The Quarter Million Award
For your contributions to bring Trachea (estimated annual readership: 322,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.--Moxy 🍁 11:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not clear why this has been posted here, but thank you for the link to that discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


Hi, Tom... what is your preferred method for collaborating on content? I don’t take on GA reviews because ... well, I don’t find the GA process very useful, as one person’s opinion ... but I can help you tune up the prose for your GA review. Different people I have collaborated with use different methods. Have you ever worked with inline (hidden) comments, where reviewers embed hidden comments and questions in the text, so you can resolve them as you have time? Or do you prefer lists on article talk? Or do you prefer that I directly edit the article? Most reviewers are hesitant to edit directly, so as to not mess with your GAN ... But also, leaving long lists on article talk might discourage GA reviewers from taking it on ... let me know how to approach the work, and I will dig in as I have time. It is in pretty good shape already! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, I am always trying to rope people into collaborating. If you'd like to edit collaboratively that's great. If you'd like to collaborate by providing some feedback that's good too. If that's the case, I can still personally identify a number of areas in Prostate that need work so I would be more than happy to ping you when it's at a standard I'm happy with and then we can go from there (I don't see much point until then, as you'll likely start by commenting on those areas).
With respect to the utility of GA, I am a big fan. The anatomy space has really been quite untended since the mammoth work put in by Arcadian in 2007. The standards set by GA - that is; statements are verifiable; content is easy to read; article is comprehensive; images are acceptable - they are not difficult to meet but I find them very useful goalposts to get articles to, as anatomy articles often need quite a bit of work to get them there. I feel these standards are useful because they do help improve the reading experience and also the content. Once they hit that standard, I feel articles are also easier to periodically keep an eye on to ensure that they remain there. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
With regard to FA, a horrible and public experience that occurred to me earlier in my editing has really turned me off it. At that time I felt as if it was run by a cabal of editors who made a number of, what seemed to me, unrealistic demands in a very time-consuming manner that were not able to be discussed, and then concurrently edited in a stylistic manner, which at the end of the day served to utilise my hard work on the articles, but felt as it was mostly to remove my imprint and push me out of their editing space. It was quite stressful and time-consuming. So I prefer to stick away from that for the moment.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Manganese, MinnesotaEdit

Care to do a peer review? You peer reviewed the article Elcor, Minnesota and helped elevate it to FA status. This one has been sitting out there for a couple months. Thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  •  Done Another fascinating read. Thanks for your edits to the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)