User talk:Sarastro1

Title TK

Hi Sarastro1. How are you? You kindly offered to look at Title TK some more outside of FAC. Since then, I've done quite a bit of polishing of the text, and looked for other instances of the issues you mentioned. The one section I haven't really touched is the Reception part, because during the FAC you didn't respond to my reply to your concerns about it [[1]] (which is fine—I know you felt there would be too much to comment on within the time period of the FAC). I'd like to get more clarification from you before tackling any changes to this section. During the FAC I also didn't get any indication whether you felt I was on the right track for the Songs section that you suggested I add.

I would like to open up another peer review as a forum for your (and any other editors') feedback. Would that suit you as a good way to proceed with giving me further suggestions on the article? Thank you, Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'll open a peer review sometime in the next week and alert you, and you can join in whenever you have time. I'm not in any big rush. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro1. I have now opened a peer review Wikipedia:Peer_review/Title_TK/archive2. I understand that you are quite busy, so whenever you have time is much appreciated. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your help requested

Hello Sarastro1, I have nominated Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851 as an FA candidate. Brianboulton had suggested that if you might be free, I request your assistance for improving the article. I wanted to enquire whether you would be able to help me on this? Thanks and best. Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

PR request

Hi Sarastro, hope you are doing well. You may or may not remember but a few years ago I'd asked you to perform a PR on the Arsène Wenger page, which you kindly did. The article failed at FAC, and I've only recently started cleaning it up. It's more comprehensive than before, and I've taken on board the comments left by other reviewers. I was wondering if you could leave some feedback here whenever you get the time; I hope to get it featured before his 20th anniversary in October. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

1947 English cricket season

Hi, you deleted some non-free images recently that had just been inserted by someone who's banned from the site. I've picked the article out of the GA review queue and obviously I'm concerned that someone had compromised it. Are you entirely happy with all the other images he inserted that are still there? Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. Thank you for your help on this and at the GAR page. I'm afraid I had no choice but to fail it. Sub-standard intro and loads of citations needed. Really interesting article, though, with a heap of info. Well, back to the footy for me. Thanks again. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment at Emma Stone

I saw your note at the Emma Stone FAC about having concerns about the way reviews were used that went beyond that particular article; would you mind sharing whatever you had in mind? I ask because I recently got fed up enough with reception sections to write an essay about how to improve them, and I'd be interested in hearing other thoughts. I think these sections are hard to write, and hard to fix once written badly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest

Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Jack Crawford again

The latest edition of the Surrey CCC Supporters' Association newsletter has a review of Keith Booth's book. Unsurprisingly, it's very favourable. One part of the review caught my eye: But in Keith and Jennifer Booth's excellent book Crawford comes across not, as one might expect, as someone who was regularly running away from his past (although there were personal relationships that ended with him doing so), but more as someone who believed the grass was greener on the other side, For instance, why, when Surrey told him he would never play for the club again, did Jack favour South Australia rather than serve a two-year qualification period and turn out for another county? It was not because he needed the money. It turns out that, even before his spat with officialdom, Crawford was already planning to move down under. JH (talk page) 07:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Do you ever regret starting an article??" :) That hasn't happened to me so far, but I can well understand how it could. JH (talk page) 15:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A PR for Taylor Swift

Thanks for your comments at the Stone FAC. Would you be willing to post some comments at the PR for Swift's article? I would really appreciate the help. FrB.TG (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for signing up. The response from would-be mentors has been most encouraging. Schemes like this are often slow to take off, and it may be a while before we know if it's working. But with this level of support, including that of many of our most experienced FA editors, I think it has every chance. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

FA

Curious (via the FA mentoring page, and you being one of the only sports editors) what you think about William A. Spinks? Absent discovery of a trove of additional old newspaper sources, what's available seems to be exhausted. I could probably find a source or two on his oil-company stuff, but I never did see much on it, just something like "Present at the 19xx meeting of the Foo Bar Baz Oil Company board meeting were W. A. Spinks, ...". And he's not notable for that, but for the billiards stuff, and the avocado, which in its day was a leading cultivar before Hass.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I've had a quick look, and it seems in decent shape. If you are thinking about FA, there are a few places where I'd say the prose needs tightening, and I think there are places where the sourcing would need a little work to reach FA standard; not the sources as such, rather how they are used to support statements. The other thing I notice (which isn't necessarily a problem if nothing is available) is that most of the sources are newspapers. Something from a written history of billiards which mentions him would be a good thing. My biggest worry is that we have a few places in the references where we are passing judgement in wikipedia's voice ("This questionable article", "amusingly listing"). It would need working on before taking to FAC, but could well be worth a tilt. I can give specifics, but it might be a day or two; my time on here at the moment tends to come in bursts of a week or so before real life swamps me again! Let me know if you want my detailed ramblings, and I'll take this to the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That's enough to go on. I do actually need to pare down the amount of annotation in the citations anyway; much of the "this source contains X, Y and Z facts" stuff could be put into HTML notes, and some of it just eliminated by citation placement. I haven't much worked on the article (even GA only needed tweaks) for years. I remembered that a few FAs are quite short, but wasn't sure if that was from "the olden times" or still something that was possible (versus having to be developed to the level of the Mark Twain article or whatever). I did write to the county library of the area where Spinks lived in later years to see if they had any local history items on him, and they did not. Billiards history sources: There's not much to go on beyond Shamos 1999 and Stein & Rubino 2008; anything else will probably just be citing them. Most non-US sources on the topic also (like those two) go back to "Jack Carr's Twisting Powder" a century or so earlier (which turned out to just be plaster). By the time modern, composite billiard chalk made its way to Europe after the Spinks and Hoskins formulation, the Europeans didn't know anything of its origins, and international patent law most mostly theoretical in this era, so the Eur. manufacturers (and later historical works) didn't know or care who Spinks was. There was near-zero transcontinental billiards competition, either, aside from demo games, and an instance of an American balkline champion trouncing the UK champion of English billiards by using balkline-style nurse shots that were technically legal but unknown in EB, and viewed as unsportsmanlike (and shortly explicitly banned in EB), but most if not all of that stuff would be off-topic in the Spinks piece. Anyway, my main concern about it was the (at this point necessary) use of some primary governmental sources such as passport and census materials. I appears that literally zero publications ever asked Spinks when he was born, where his house was, what his wife's name was, etc., etc., and the pic of him with Clara is a nice human-interest touch, I think. People are always complaining that our articles are "dry and dull".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

2003 CWC PR

I've adopted (though not to a great extent) your earlier suggestions to the article. I'd be pleased if you could offer a full review this time. Thanks, —Vensatry _(talk) 09:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)