User talk:Rlendog/Archive 5

3478:"Deforestation in Madagascar" would ultimately be a topic, not an article... probably on par with what the lemur topic will be when finished. This page would definitely make a good summary page for one section of it, if it were ever to be written. As for the gray area between legality and illegality, you also have to factor in government corruption, which is very high. It's a tough one, and that's why I'm shaky on the title. But again, "deforestation" is far too broad, and "illegal logging" is probably the closest fit, since logging is for valuable timber, whereas most other deforestation in Madagascar is for slash-and-burn, fuel wood, or mining. In regards to the photo of the dead lemurs, let's wait and make that call when I'm done. The threat to lemurs (and other wildlife protected under these umbrella species) is what is driving all the attention that this topic gets. The last section in the article will talk at length about the threats to lemurs, and that *may* merit the picture. If not, I have lots of pictures to pull from... and probably even more can be obtained if I ask. Lastly, listing some of the major timber barons was done for two reasons: 1) multiple sources talk about them, sometimes at length, and 2) it illustrates their government connections (ability to corrupt legal processes), wealth (business ownership), and connections to other legal enterprises (vanilla, up-scale hotels, etc.). Basically it highlights the complexity of the problem. Should I list every name given in the papers for fairness? Should I just omit them? I don't know. If you can give me a strong opinion, based on Wiki rules and guidelines, I will honor that. If you're uncertain, then I may leave it and see how it fairs in a GA and FA review. Ultimately, it has encyclopedic value... the question is how much, and is it NPOV? – 3463:, but "Deforestation in..." seems to be a common title for these types of articles, and it avoids NPOV issues. "Rosewood logging" isn't quite accurate, since the article covers other woods (although rosewood is the primary one) and "Illegal logging" seems a bit limiting when legal logging and cyclone impacts are relevant to the issue. Cyclone impacts (admittedly intertwined with illegal logging) do get some mention in the article as you have it. Then again, your focus is the illegal logging aspect, but I am not sure it would take much to incorporate legal logging, since there apparently were times and locations where legal logging occurred. If you stick to illegal logging then the "Illegal logging" title may be best. The quote about "legalizing illegality" in the "Cyclical exports and cyclone damage" section also seem to point to a gray area in which the logging is technically illegal but the government allows it anyway. The photo of the dead bamboo lemurs, though effective, may be a bit problematic since, while the caption relates them to the article topic via the statement "The meat is often consumed by loggers...", I'm not sure the article itself supports that statement - the quote from Conservation International is ambiguous on the point. The one other place that I think was a bit problematic was the section listing 5 wealthy people orchestrating the logging and transporting. When I read that section it hit me as sort of an expose from 60 Minutes rather than an encyclopedia article. The names seem to be sourced, so may be okay, but is there a reason for naming these 5 people out of the several dozen Timber Barons? If not, I wonder if skipping the list of names may be best. The last few sections I probably need to look at later when the prosification is complete. Hope this helps. 3727:, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Knowledge." So when Allmusic takes the trouble to provide a review, as opposed to just a track listing (as it does on many albums), I take that as a large step in the direction of significance. Most allmusic reviews are just a paragraph but still can significantly cover a subject - I counted the words on one of the reviews and it was almost 300 words long - hardly the coverage you'll find of any Beatles album, but that is hardly the Knowledge standard. On the other hand, one of the early Dwarves albums (whose AfD I have not commented on, at least not yet, as I am unsure of my position; ironically, I am partially concerned that my revoltion at their material may be coloring my opinion) has a 2 paragraph allmusic review, but only a sentence or two discussing the album itself, so probably not significant there. For at least one or two of the albums I commented on, there was at least one other article I was able to access that was longer than the allmusic review. You may be right about the book reference, though. I don't have any books that cover this group so I can't tell how significant the coverage there is. I assumed it was significant, but I could be wrong. 2335:

criterion as written does not preclude other exceptions though I can't think of any, and I would expect they would be of a similar type to the exception specifically provided. On (3), I think that all 5 must be met in some way, but as I discussed in the prior question, I think there is latitude within the guideline itself to meet some of the criteria in ways other than literally having had a long duration of coverage or a demonstrably lasting impact or a wide geographical scope. As for (4), I think that consensus is the appropriate way to resolve this as AfDs come up, although the consensus should be based on the written guideline or in some cases an appropriate application of IAR. The consensus on the project talk page should be reflected a workable guideline on the project page. And I agree with you that the wording of the guideline, stating that all 5 criteria must be met but providing exceptions within 3 of them, ought to be improved. But if may be difficult to achieve a consensus on any particular rewording. I hope this helps.

3705:

paragraph pro-forma review anything but trivial. A number of these albums really have nothing more than a couple of single paragraph blurbs. If they were truly notable albums, we should certainly be able to find more than that. I've also noted that the same ref has been used on 7 of these noms. The ref is one page in a book that lists discographies. How substantial can the coverage be when 7 albums (or more) are all on the same page? It's nothing more than an entry on a list. If I were seeing actual articles from more than the same one or two sources, I'd gladly withdraw the noms. But I can't bring myself to do that when it's a couple of one paragraph reviews.

2326:

regard) so I am giving my opinions based on limited experience on the specific subject. On (2) I think the 1st and 4th criteria are clearly necessary, and are essentially clarifications of aspects of the general notability standard. The other criteria allow for exceptions, even within the criteria descriptions themselves, so I think that if those criteria are not met it would need to be for reasons consistent with the criteria. For example, it may not be able to prove that an event will have the duration of coverage or the lasting effect as soon as it happens, but we can often tell that it is likely. For example, when

1088:" to that particular article (which is proving controversial with some editors but c’est le vie). There was a statement originally in the article that said "Some women's groups criticized this because of its disparaging lyrics." I know that this is true because only a few years ago, a friend of mine who was doing feminist studies at university came to me to discuss Dylan's "Just Like a Woman" since the song and it's alleged misogyny was being discussed on her course. I just wondered if you would happen to have a reliable 3rd party source that corroborates this info about women's groups? -- 592:" page about the influence of The Byrds and in particular their version of "Mr. Tambourine Man" on the folk rock boom of the mid-60s. I've also added copious references to support the info just in case anyone feels like challenging it! I've only mentioned Dylan's influence on the sub-genre in passing because as previously discussed; his recording of the song wasn't overly influential on the genre, although his electric albums were. If you can or want to add a bit more about Dylan's influence then feel free. -- 3516:

perfectly legal, and therefore don't deny it. If anyone is denying anything, it's not in English or French, and it's probably only done by bribed Malagasy officials and Chinese buyers. Everyone else seems to hide behind the "we didn't know" excuse, pointing at the lack of documentation associated with the exported products. I have been looking for published pieces from the other side of the aisle, and honestly, I can't find any. If you have time to try and have better luck, please let me know. –

1432: 1648: 31: 1235:(the two Van Morrison experts I've recently contacted) will probably be fleshing out the beginning of the "Them's version" section of the article with some more info over the next day or two. After liaising with them both, it's beginning to look as if the single was only released in Holland and not in the UK or U.S., although this is not totally confirmed as yet. I'm hoping we will get some good biographical info on the group’s motivation for covering the song etc, etc from them. -- 1300:" article last night as well and that's an article that is crying out for our combined help I think. It's in a right old state currently - particularly the bits related to Dylan's original recording. The background info is sketchy, there’s hardly any inline refs, and half the article is taken up with an extract from an interview, which seems totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Anyway, just a suggestion for a possible new project that we could work on together. -- 4078: 797:! I've left a message about this on the GA talk page but I just wanted to send you a private message too. Unfortunately, my internet conection has gone down at home - which is where I do most of my Wiki editing stuff from. It should be up and running again by Tuesday or Wednesday next week at the latest, I would've thought. I will be checking in between now and then as often as I can but just be aware that I might not be able to respond to any comments that you or 5339: 3781: 904: 637: 495: 364: 4799: 2131: 3433:

be working off of. That should give you a good feel as to the contents of the upcoming article. Besides NPOV, my next biggest concern is an appropriate title for the article. So far, I'm thinking either "Rosewood logging in Madagascar" or "Illegal logging in Madagascar". If you can, look over the notes/quotes and tell me what you think. And if you'd prefer, we can have this discussion on the sandbox discussion page. –

1682:

Sorry if I sound paranoid, but the amount of plagiarism I've seen in my life and the frequency of dishonest behavior I have seen online gives me reason to hesitate. Remember: I use my work on Wiki on my resume and CV to further my career offline. What are your thoughts? Honestly, I'd love to create the sandbox so that I could share it with people I trust (like you) so I can get feedback throughout the creation process. –

1213:. It’s possible that it wasn’t even released as a single in the UK and U.S. because an awful lot of discographies I’ve seen online seem to have that single missing. I've asked a fellow Wiki editor who is a big Van Morrison fan and also the Wiki editor who uploaded the Them picture sleeve about this but as yet, I’ve not heard back from them. Hopefully I will do soon and I can flesh this section out a bit more. -- 4928: 4995: 5481: 1572:. In short, the bot is supposed to move the reviews to a pre-existing Reception section or if the article doesn’t have one, create a new Reception section. Trouble is, not all reception sections are titled that, they could just as easily be named "Release and reception", "Reviews", "Release and aftermath", "Release and legacy", etc, etc. Unfortunately, this already seems to be causing problems. 4357: 3127: 2013: 130:

listing prior to that. So it is more difficult to source general statements to a single source. An ugly example is the comment that Mordecai Brown was never the Cubs' Opening Day starter - odd for a Hall of Famer who pitched for the team for a decade - but to source it (when I proposed it for DYK) I needed to cite about 10 years worth or Retrosheerr opening day box scores. Still,

2871:. I've made some edits as specified in the first lot of suggestions from our reviewer but I've also questioned a few of his suggestions. In addition, I've warned him that I'm gonna split the Byrds info off into it's own section - which is what I'm off to do now! Anyway, no doubt you'll be dropping by the GA review talk page and adding your two cents worth, so I’ll see you there! 2067: 4401: 2276:: How can this dilemma be resolved? (I am trying to help solve this dilemma). Do you just give in to the "consensus" on that namespace talk page? Or is the consensus what the community seems to do in general? More people on that talk page seem to support a strict requirement that all 5 criteria must be met. ANSWER:___________ 1976:. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. 289:

Cbben since I finally established contact with him and got him to register (you know that he was the annoying IP user who kept changing stuff, right?). Anyway, he seems a pretty cool guy and we seem to be on the same page regarding Knowledge articles. I take it as a big compliment that a total stranger nominated the

6167:

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work.

5830:

4651:

2569:

2310:

I am asking the questions because I seek genuine guidance on how the problem can be solved. I presume that Rlendog has prepared to become an administrator so he may know some possible answers. I did not ask at the RFA because some people purposely ask hard questions there. Other people look at the

2153:

Wow! So, the "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" article began its GA review and passed on the same day?!! That was fast and pretty painless, I must say. In fact, that was the easiest GA assessment I've been involved in!! I suppose that means is that the article was pretty good already and didn't need any

1711:

As for sanboxes, I've never had a problem, or seen a plagarism problem with others, but if you put your work here on your resume I can see why you would want to be extra cautious. That said, even if someone did plagarize your work in a sandbox, the history is preserved, so there would be evidence of

1681:

Also, I was wanting you opinion on using user subpage sandboxes. I'm thinking about creating one to store my re-writes while I work on them. My concern is that even if I don't link to it, someone may find it in a search, steal the content, and update the pages with it (taking credit for the work).

1352:

Thanks. I don't have a problem with separating out a Byrds section for "Chimes", although it would then be good (if possible) to have another paragraph on the importance of the song to The Byrds. I will take a look at "My Back Pages" too. At first glance, the Dylan section does seem to be a bit of

239:

Nice to see you again as well! I took a look at your comments, some of which I agree with, some of which I need to digest. I posted some questions/suggestions in response to the comment about the structure. I have some ideas on how the structure could be changed a little bit, but I am not sure that

137:

I assume by your note that you want to help with this, which would be great - I would have no issue if you wanted to co-nom, if that is your intention. Other then the specific sourcing difficulties I think it is in pretty good shape. I'm sure I used the wrong kind of dash a few times and there now

5572:

Activity in Wikiproject Aquarium fish has slowed to a crawl, it seems. We still have a few dedicated editors plus a few new faces (myself included). Any participation is appreciated, however we really can't tackle big projects with this level of activity. Give us a shout if you want to become active

5290:

I woudn't mind participating in such an effort, but I think a lot more good/featured items would be needed to get this topic to GT or FT. Off the top of my head, the Cubs main article, Wrigley Field, a list of draft picks, a list of players. I think a couple of basketball teams are GT or FT, but I

3551:

Just to let you know, the page has been coming along and I'm down to 3 relatively small, simple section to write. In fact, it will be the only thing I work on today, so I plan to publish it later this evening at the latest. If you have a chance to look it over this afternoon or evening, please do.

3515:

Herein lies a problem: there are no conflicting reports. I think the international community pretty much agrees that all of these activities are illegal and harmful to the country. No one has disputed the names given, and, if anything, I get the impression that the timber traders see their work as

3432:

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I hope to get the page written today. I have all my notes, references, and pictures, so I'll be working on it the rest of the day. If you have time, you can check out my #9 sandbox (if you need the link again, email me) and review the quotes that I'm going to

3372:

and writing an article on the environmental degradation in Madagascar that's accelerating due to political instability. As with the other upcoming re-writes, I plan to take the article to GA or FA immediately. I'm just worried that such an article could have NPOV issues. I'm willing to do most of

1884:

Rlendog, I'm really sorry, a few days after I asked you about the bit I lost regular access to the net for several months, when I finally got it back I'd completely forgotten about you. However, the fact that you haven't pestered me about it or anything makes me believe even more that you would make

1801:

re-write is going to be delayed a couple of weeks more and, for the admin nomination, I think I'm going to track down the first person who offered and see if they would mind following up on it. If they don't, I'll nominate you when my PC is up and running again... probably near the end of January.

1677:

Just stopping by to let you know that I'm back in the States and ready to start resuming my work on the lemur pages. Thanks for helping to keep an eye on things while I was gone! BTW, did you ever end up going through the RfA process? I tried looking for it but couldn't find anything. You seemed

801:

leave on the GA talk page as quickly as I normally would. I see from your comments that you're gonna be away for a few days yourself, so it looks like the GA review's gonna be on hold until after the weekend. As I say, I should be back to full functionality by early next week (hopefully) but I just

430:

article which is also currently under GA review. What I like about him is that he's very thorough but has a "hands off" approach in that he only alters punctuation, Wiki specific formatting and doesn't actually alter text unless it absolutely needs it and even then, he only alters it to a minimum. I

5456:

Hi Rlendog! Yes, I was thinking the other day that we should nominate this but I'm not sure it's quite as comprehensive in its coverage as the "Mr. Tambourine Man" or "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" articles were when you nominated them. It's difficult because there doesn't seem to have been as much

3704:

I appreciate that we disagree and have been able to do it civilly thus far. I really do question the significant label being placed on the allmusic reviews. They do a review for many albums that never do even marginally successful, even from groups we've deleted. And I have difficulty calling a one

3477:

Thanks for the initial feedback. It sounds like we're on the same page in regards to the things that concern us about the article as it stands now. As you point out, since the article is focused on illegal logging, I'll probably just switch the title to "Illegal logging in Madagascar." Honestly,

2961:

I suspect that the reviewer decided to review a different article that was nominated earlier (since, as of a couple of days ago, he was listed as the reviewer of an article further up the list) and dropped Chimes as a result. It's still in the queue though, so I assume that he will come back to it

2200:

Yeah, I know what you mean…I was tentatively thinking that I might have a go at reviewing a GA article myself but I don't know, I'm not sure I feel confident enough to do it. You've got a lot more experience than me though. Although I've certainly got a pretty good idea now of what constitutes a GA

1597:

which I've dealt with now by transplanting the relevant info into the new created section. Not that this is a lot of work for one article but I can see this creating an awful lot of work for Wikipedians in the long run. Also, I've noticed that when the bot creates a new "Reception" section and adds

1249:

I see you've been doing some good work on the "Chimes of Freedom" article today. I was looking at this article last night and I got to wondering whether The Byrds' cover should have its own section. The only reason I say that is because currently about half the "Cover versions" section is dedicated

833:

has begun. We will be assessing over 50,000 articles during the drive and we need your help! 200-article ranges can be adopted and completed at any pace. A variety of awards are available based on the number of articles assessed. Please help review whatever you are comfortable with, and if you have

288:

about it actually but I think his work on that particular Byrds article is finished now. I think I might add a media sample and I still need a couple of page references for two of the inline references but other than that, my work on it is pretty near done too. I've been working pretty closely with

5086:

itself. While that article does feature a section dedicated to the song (which I've had a hand in expanding), I can't help thinking that folks searching for the song don't necessarily want to read about the history of the town. It just seems like a slightly spurious redirect to me, especially when

3500:

I wouldn't list all the names - that would just detract from the article, which is not a list. The question with naming these names I guess is whether there is any dispute about their role. The source is written pretty definitively, but would a source from a different point of view make the same

3098:

this sourced statement and the citation. I would jump in and revert because of the deletion of sourced material, but I don't have time to deal with this. (I'm very busy with the Lemur re-write at the moment.) I also don't feel like splashing mud on my reputation by arguing with a bunch of animal

2908:

Yeah, that's a pretty good suggestion about sub-dividing the "Cover versions" section, so that's what I've done. It also gets around my slight concern regarding The Byrds' having their own section, now they're still sharing a section but it's better laid out. I don't mind the geographical linking

2889:

Thanks. I linked Toronto and Atlanta, because I don't think there is any harm. I originally also removed that "see 1964 in music", but you're right that that is the preferred way to handle it so I self reverted. How were you going to split out the Byrds section? Will there be 2 main sections:

1796:

The motherboard on my PC just died yesterday, and being both flat broke and stuck waiting for a new credit card to arrive, I may be dead in the water for about 2 weeks... just to let you know. (I may do some editing using my girlfriend's new laptop, but I don't want to monopoloize her new toy.)

1205:

I'm currently trying to dig up a bit more discographical info on Them's version of "Baby Blue" since currently that section launches into critical commentary on their version almost straight away. I feel that we need release info, the band's motivation for covering the song and any other relevant

129:

Sure. Not only that one, but similar lists on the Reds, Pirates, Tigers, Indians and White Sox. The challenge with these (as opposed to the similar lists that are already FL) are that Baseball-Reference has a list of Opening Day starters going back to 1954, but there is no similar comprehensive

2325:

For (1), I of course would follow the guideline to the best of my ability. I will point out that even if my RfA is successful, I do not intend to close AfDs anytime soon. I also have not been involved in AfDs for events (other than sports events, which usually don't seem to have issues in this

2260:

There is a discussion to clear up the contradiction. Some editors seem to say that all 5 must be met. Some seem to say that all 5 should be met but if one criteria is not met but the others are solidly met, the article should be considered notable. Some seem to say that widespread coverage is

2201:

album article, having worked on three in just the last two months. Anyway, yes, I'll take a look at "Chimes" over the next few days. I'm gonna split The Byrds' cover into its own section for a start, as previously discussed. Then, when we’ve both given it another once over, we can nominate it. --

1175:

Ah, nice one! I knew I could rely on you to dig up a good reference. I thought that there was probably a good chance of Dylan and Morrison doing "Baby Blue" at Slane, since they'd played it earlier in London. Thanks for your help on the "Just Like a Woman" article too...your re-wording and extra

994:

I'm glad that you've asked me what we're gonna be working on next because I was thinking about that as well.:-D I guess it makes sense for us to work together on these songs done by Dylan and The Byrds, although I'm a pretty big fan of Dylan as well - not just some crazed Byrds nut. I honestly

2185:

Wow, I missed that. That is the first time that has ever happened to an article I nominated. I guess that means I should start feeling comfortable enough to start reviewing articles. As for the next nomination, I was intending "Chimes", but hadn't gotten around to nominating it yet (I hadn't

1621:

I've left some comments about my concerns on that particular bot's talk page, so it'll be interesting to see what feedback I get. Anyway, I just wanted to give you the heads up that this change in location for professional reviews has now begun and to keep your eyes open for this kind of thing.

5106:

I think it should have a separate article. I think the section on Bells of Rymney within the Rymney article should be split out (properly, to be consistent with licenses), since the song (and poem) is notable in its own right, the section in the article is solely about the song, not about any

2334:

also provides for guidance on the duration-related criteria. On geographical scope, the criterion itself provides for an appropriate exception - i.e., "Events that have a demonstrable impact on the region, such as city-wide elections, are presumed to be notable enough for an article". But the

1544:

Yeah, I think that you're right. I'm gonna refrain from doing anything just yet. I believe there is a Bot being developed that will carry out this task anyway, so I'll probably just wait until I actually see an article get edited like this by a Bot first, before I start to do anything on other

1498:

page. The discussion seems to have reached a consensus to remove the reviews, although it is still accepting further input on the matter. At the moment, there's discussion on how best to proceed and what steps should be taken next. As far as I can see, the proposal at the moment is to move the

1070:

last night, I noticed that there was a picture of Dylan and Morrison on stage together at Slane, Ireland on the last date of Dylan's 1984 European tour (July 8). I'm wondering whether they also performed the song together at this concert? I don't suppose you would be able to confirm or deny

2311:

answers and oppose the RFA if they don't like the answer. I am not trying to sink the RFA but just would like answers. Others, besides Rlendog, may also help out with the answers. There is an administrator which I've asked before, Abra-cadabra, or something like that, whom I might ask.

4211: 3022: 5125:

OK, thanks for basically confirming what I already thought. I'll split this at some point over the coming days, although I'm thinking that "The Bells of Rhymney" should really just be about the song, with the poem (which doesn't feature the word "The" in its title) located at

5457:

written about "My Back Pages" as some other Dylan songs, which is surprising considering it's essentially his farewell to topical protest songwriting. Anyway, I guess we'll just have to see what the GA reviewer makes of it and whether they deem it to be complete enough. --

2890:"The Byrds version" and "Other covers", or will those just be subsections with in the existing "Cover versions" section? The latter may be the way to go if there isn't much additional Byrds material to add, since otherwise we'll have 2 pretty short main sections. 719:. 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! 3501:

statement? If so, if this is really undisputed, then maybe naming these 5 is appropriate. But it still may be better to state their roles - i.e., a former member of parliament, the heads of particular trade organizations - to stay clear of possible BLP issues.

5087:

the song is almost certainly notable enough to warrant its own article. Just to be clear, I'm proposing leaving a brief section about the song in the existing Rhymney article but relocating most of the information about the song's history and cover versions to "

4014:

that I wrote tonight? I'll probably submit for GA review soon. I'll may go for FAC after I comb the academic literature and significantly expand it. But for now, it covers all the secondary sources and a few of the newer primary sources. Anyway, thanks! –

1559:

Hi Rlendog! Looks like it's started in earnest. I've just come across a bot moving infobox review ratings to a newly created "Professional reviews" box. Relevant places that you might like to check out concerning Wiki policy on these moves are probably

2244:

There is currently a contradiction in the guidelines. One part says all 5 criteria must be followed. However, if you read each criteria, following only 1 results in notability. These criteria are things like wide coverage, persistent coverage, etc.

5416:, has been making this mess a whole lot worse than it needs to be. I told him several times to stop, but he continues to do it anyway. Now that you are an administrator, can you try to block him indefinitely so that his vandalism will come to an end? 1159: 607:

I think it looks good. We obviously don't want to turn this into an article on the history of folk rock, but given the song's importance to the genre, some background seems appropriate. And your addition seems to strike a good balance. Hopefully,

3305:

Thanks. Looks like a bad call on the part of the admin who speedied it. Would either of you mind doing a history merge to put the deleted revisions into the article history? I would like to copy and paste some of the useful content back in there.

2186:

expected "Baby Blue" to get reviewed this quickly). I suppose the next step for "Chimes" would be for each of us to take another shot at reviewing it for additional edits and then nominate it. And "My Back Pages" is definitly on my to do list.

2866:

Hi Rlendog! Thanks for the heads up about the GAN for "Chimes of Freedom". However, I wouldn't worry about having "to see how long it takes to move up the queue" because the GA review has already started! You can find the relevant page here -

5894:

However, I had never seen that site before; all that is on that page is derived from the genus page at Fishbase. I've done exactly what I've done with this page, with other pages, and no one ever found anything wrong with it. What do I do?

2962:

or, if not, someone else will eventually pick it up. I still haven't done much with the My Back Pages article. RL has been pretty hectic lately, but hopefully things will calm down in a week or so and I will have more time to look at it.

1507:, songs, and films don't have reviews in the infobox...but that's only my humble opinion on the matter. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know incase, like me, you were unaware of this development. Obviously this will mean that a lot of 1697:

Welcome back! It sounds like you had a great trip. I never ended up going through RfA. I never got nominated - maybe the person who offered didn't see my acceptance. My primate work here since you left has consisted of getting

4712:

An individual film is released in one particular year. A baseball player (usually) plays for multiple years. Hence a baseball player article is much more likely to need a table covering multiple years than a film article.

1730:

You made a good point about the history, so I've posted the work I've done so far to my SB. I provided the link in a message to you on Facebook. Feel free to peep in from time to time, as well as offer suggestions or

3868:

and discuss it there instead? Alternatively, could you just make the move if you feel that it's not likely to be contested? In the latter case, I would move it myself, but redirects already exist for these names. –

1258:

famous but it's probably fair to say that it's the most famous version of the song after Dylan's own. I dunno, I'll be guided by what you think on this matter really. It was just something I thought I should bring

3211: 1119:

Actually, it looks like there is an RS for Morrison duetting on Baby Blue (and Bono on Blowin in the Wind) at the 7/8/84 concert. This website may not be an RS, but the original source for this interview should

3268:. Could you please userfy the deleted revisions for me? The reason I'm asking is that some friends of a friend were unhappy that it was deleted, and I'd like to be able to explain to them what happened. Cheers, 435:" article? Myself, I think it's pretty good as it is but it's often good to get another pair of eyes involved in these things. What do you think? No worries if you don't want to. By the way, I’ve now joined the 3631: 3037: 5910:

I don't think you need to do anything. You noted on the talk page that the bot was in error. I added a comment agreeing with you and noting some evidence that your list was not copied from the link that

1622:

Really, any of these bot moves can be rectified with a few quick edits and a little bit of common sense on the editor's part. But it does rather smack of some ill thought out bot programming at present. --

4839:

is next. I finally did some work on the Dylan section a couple of weeks ago, but it probably needs some wordsmithing, and I didn't get around to expanding the lead and making it summarize the main text.

2294:

Are you asking for advice or is this a hypothetical question? If its the latter you should ask these questions on Rlendog's RFA, its its the former then do you have specific reason for asking Rlendog?--

4728: 1011:, which in this instance is the most influential cover of the song. So yes, please feel free to nominate "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" for GA review and I’ll gladly help you get it up to scratch. -- 746:'s concerns as outlined on the "Mr. Tambourine Man" GA talk page. There's a few points that I've left for you to answer though, so you might wanna take a look at what he's suggesting or querying. -- 224:

Hi, I've posted comments about coverage and structure. I think we should discuss these before I start the section walk-throughs, as the comments about coverage and structure may lead to changes. --

3688:

I think some of those articles should be redirected (and I suspect that the AfD process will end up with that result for some of the albums), but others seem notable enough to remain as articles.

1102:

I'll bet Dylan and Morrison did duet on Baby Blue on July 8, 1984, since the song right after that is Tupelo Honey. But unfortunately, the set list info from Dylan's site doesn't comment on this.

1030:". We'll see how long it takes to get reviewed. I think that one is in very good shape, although obviously going through it a couple more times for additional copyedits couldn't hurt. I think " 1206:

details (recording, country of release, chart positions, contemporary live performances by the band etc, etc). I've checked my books and I know that the single didn’t chart in the UK or make the

1003:" next. I think that like you, I'm definitely leaning towards "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" though...yes, it's probably a less influential song and consequently a less complex article than " 178:. I've pretty much rewritten the page, putting things on a much more encyclopedic basis, and rationalising a lot of stuff that was scattered around the article. I'll leave it in my sandbox 1766:

If you think I would make a good admin, I would be honored to accept the nomination. Ironincally, I first thought that becoming an admin might be worthwhile when we were dealing with that

775:

Oh, I took it to mean that I should leave it out. :-/ I think it could be taken both ways but on second thoughts, you might be right. I'll add it to the article in a moment then and see if

2163:" next, right? Although, I'm not sure that there's too much work left to do on that article...I know you've been working on it yourself a fair bit already. As I mentioned the other day, " 1499:

reviews in the infoboxes to an "External links" type section at the foot of the article. Myself, I wouldn't be sorry to see the reviews go completely because this is an encyclopedia, not

3656: 1066:

I've added a piece of info I managed to find about Van Morrison & Dylan performing a duet of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" in 1984. While I was looking through my copy of the book

3744: 1850:, in addition to many of the lemur species commonly seen in U.S. zoos. Unfortunately, pictures at the zoo were poor, but I may try posting one of them. I was also hoping to see the 2874:

Oh, and congratulations on you new status as an administrator, by the way. I'll be sure to tell you if it starts going to your head and you turn into some power crazed maniac! ;-) --

317: 258:

Thanks for the heads up on the "Mr. Tambourine Man" GA review Rlendog. I'll take a look at and keep an eye on any discussion and chip in my twopence worth if I feel it's needed. --

3896:. That will give it most attention from the editors who are likely to be interested. It probably wouldn't hurt to wait a week to see if there are any objections before moving. 977:

for featured list status. I would therefore like to ask you to make a couple of comments about that list, provided that you have enough spare time on your hands. Many thanks. –

179: 3373:

the writing, if you want, but would you at least be willing to help me keep the article within the guidelines of NPOV? If so, send me an email and we'll discuss it further. –

1979:

I've wrote out a nomination passage, although I will probably add to it/edit it. Take a crack at the questions in your own time, and let me know when you want to make it live--

2083: 4746: 1598:

the "Professional ratings" box, if the article has no inline refs (and therefore no references tag), you get a red warning message at the bottom of the page - again, see the

3950:

I was able to change 3 of the 4 names, but one will require admin action due to there being too many edits to the redirect that I need to over-write. Can you please change

1452:. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. 2108: 4771: 2868: 1770:

incident, and neither of us had access to the deleted content to demonstrate that it should be restored. By the way, what kinds of wild lemurs did you see in Madagascar?

703: 182:

for a couple of days before replacing the existing page (although I think it's already much better), but if anyone wants to comment, please do so here or on my talk page.

829: 131: 3205: 2909:

really, I don't usually do it myself but I could go either way in this case. Glad you reverted the piped link to "1964 in music"...this is one of my personal Knowledge

5952: 5615: 4436: 3580:<< Please check it out, leave comments/corrections, and give a quick assessment if you have time. Once it's been assessed at B-class, I'll submit for GAC. – 3288: 1530:

Thanks for the heads up. I don't really have an opinion on this, although I would wait for the dust to settle before I start doing a lot of work implementing this.

1250:

to The Byrds' recording, which creates a slight imbalance I feel. Perhaps we should separate this section into "The Byrds' version" and "Other covers", like in the "

4854:

OK, I'll try to have a little look at "My Back Pages" over the next week or so. See what more I can add and see if I can improve the quality of the prose at all. --

821: 4881: 2354: 1140:

chronology, and apparently Taylor played at that concert. It seems to be self-published, but by an author who has non-self published books on the Rolling Stones.

1561: 5435:

Rlendog, I honestly don't think 24 hours of being blocked is good enough. He is at it again, apparently not learning his lesson. What are we supposed to do now?

4299: 1007:" but I feel that there's still plenty for us to get our teeth stuck into. Obviously you've got Dylan and The Byrds' version but there's also the recording by 2147: 6203: 5866: 4683: 4229:, which is now featured. Throughout the past few months, your writing and referencing was essential in getting the article to where it is now. Many thanks, - 5130:", if somebody wants to create that page one day. I'm only planning to touch upon the poem so far as its relevant to the song in the new article located at " 4734: 3095: 3091: 957: 2601: 4369: 851: 4979: 4912: 4255:

when you updated the status to GA? I'm curious because I was going to go around and standardize all the subfossil lemur pages to have those 3 banners. –

3368:

Due to an influx of support (photos, journal articles, etc.) from researchers in the field, I'm seriously considering branching off temporarily from my

707:

of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the

5246: 894: 691: 627: 111: 4903:

That was an old version with a typo. The real page is spelled correctly. I forgot it was still there; it no longer is. Thanks for letting me know.

1591:

album didn't already have a Reception section but it does now and this new section will need filling with the relevant info. Same thing happened with

152:

Sorry it took me so long to responed. I have now set a PR for this article to see what may be holding it back. Personally I think the refs look fine.

2320: 2305: 2288: 1524: 715: 709: 4815: 2820:

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Knowledge, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

2344: 888: 4059: 3623: 3606:

anyway. You can still give it a quick assessment if you want. However, I would still value your feedback on the article when you get the time. –

3597: 3450: 2944: 1631: 1309: 1244: 1097: 811: 302: 4830: 2176: 1602:

article, although I’ve now fixed it. It also looks as if the bot is hardly fool-proof even when there is an existing Reception section, as in the

973:. Without your help, we wouldn't have yet another featured list here! As a follow-up to that list, you may have noticed that I have now nominated 588:

Hi Rlendog! You may have already seen this but I just wanted to let you know that I've added a couple of paragraphs to the legacy section of the "

5944: 5930: 5444: 4776: 4331: 1485: 984: 970: 835: 5193: 2689: 869: 5020: 4955: 4891: 4422: 3094:

a statement along the same lines as I had been trying to add and cited a valid source (news article from an Oregon newspaper). Today, someone

962: 857: 448: 5529: 5300: 5173: 5147: 5116: 4863: 4849: 4287: 4272: 3989: 3975: 3945: 3931: 3905: 3838: 3533: 3510: 3495: 3472: 3427: 3405: 2971: 2922: 2899: 2727: 2703: 2210: 2195: 1867: 1779: 1753: 1721: 1554: 1539: 1362: 1222: 1114: 1105:

As for Just Like a Woman, there should be plenty of sources for feminist objections. I'm sure I can lay my hands on one (or two or three...)

1061: 1043: 788: 770: 621: 477: 463: 267: 4360:

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,

4330:. Suggestions are now being canvassed for the next article to work on, as part of the WP Dylan collaboration team. Please voice your opinion 4195: 3864:, where it is likely to sit for days or weeks while people who really don't care (or know any better) glance over it, or should I post it to 3755: 3736: 3714: 3697: 3637: 3351: 3333: 3319: 3300: 1441: 4343: 3569: 3390: 2659: 2261:

enough and that widespread coverage is the actual standard that is used day-to-day (and that the guidelines are out of touch with reality).

2099: 4897: 2855: 2047: 1740:

As far as the other stuff, would you want me to bring up the RfA nomination? You'd make a great admin. Otherwise, congrats on the GA for

1665: 2995: 2031: 2005: 1941: 1927: 1911: 1048:

OK, nice one. I'll take a look at it over the next day or two and see what I can improve - I'll need to look up specific page numbers for

4693:"baseball articles lend themselves much more readily than film or music to year by year tables". Will you kindly justify this assertion? 3139: 1170: 1149: 1131: 755: 601: 249: 5223: 4821:

Ha! Well, it took a while to get there but at least this article passed GA review in the end. Was all pretty painless too. Good work! --

732: 346: 233: 219: 5026: 5023: 4958: 4894: 4722: 4425: 2840: 2674: 2638: 4032: 3455:

It looks like a really good article once the sections that are now just quotes are prosified. think the name of the article should be

161: 147: 4492: 3115: 2220: 415: 1996:

I responded to the questions. I think they are ready to go live. Thanks for the very nice comments in the nomination, by the way.

4386: 4293: 4246: 1972: 5396: 5100: 4428: 3911: 4961: 3886: 3651: 2619: 2613: 2078: 196: 5892: 1494:

regarding the scrapping of reviews in infoboxes on album articles? I only heard about it today when a message was posted on the

4759: 3363: 2883: 974: 963: 927:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 660:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 551:

Since you expressed an opinion that the Whiz Kids should be in the Phillies navbox, would you mind looking at the new article?

518:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 387:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 5576:

We are now ready to restart the awards program, but no one has done it yet. If you are up for the chalenge plese come forward.

5362:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 5284: 5107:

specific place or attraction within Rymney, and the song is not actually about the Rymney, but indeed refers to other places.

3281: 583: 6129: 5904: 5489: 5378: