User talk:Jaguar/Archive 12

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.

Hang tight on evaluating the plot section for a little while. Another user's made a lot of changes recently, such as apparently creating Characters and Setting subsections, and I need to wait until we can work out a solution and the article stabilizes. Tezero (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, did you want me to review it later until you sort the plot section out or should I review it sooner? I hope something can be agreed upon. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

At a first glance, I actually think the plot section is good the way it is? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to have stabilized, so just review it for now. If we make any major organizational changes in Plot, we can wait until after the review. Thanks for your patience. Tezero (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Thank you for all you have done to help me with the Boat Race articles. Tonight we hit a landmark, over 50% of the race articles are now Good or Featured Articles, which is a monumental achievement considering that none of the articles even existed eight months ago. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Was actually going to review a few Boat Races tonight but got caught up. I promise to review a lot more this month. Regards ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a note: I'm rewriting the Reception section in one of my tempspaces, so don't concern yourself with that right now. Should finish before day's end. Tezero (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed that too. Looks good. I'll leave the reception section alone but will be working on the prose/sourcing issues of the rest today. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like most of your and Phil A. Fry's edits have been on Development, which is probably for the better: I'm thinking of rewriting Gameplay like I did recently for Adventure 2 and in the preceding months for Sonic 1, 2, and Advance 3. I might go to bed in a couple of hours, but I'll get cracking on that either today or tomorrow. Sound good? Tezero (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great. If you feel like the gameplay needs a re-write, I could help you with that, otherwise I will continue to source whatever claims that need to be sourced. Thankfully Sonic 3 has a respectable amount of information on the internet (unlike Jumping Flash!, where I had to travel to the Amazon rainforest to search for information). ☯ Jaguar ☯ 11:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about my absence; I've been busy with tasks mostly related to my upcoming interview for a paid internship at a local indie game studio and helping my brother with his programming homework. Today I actually have the interview, and I also need to finish writing something and help another friend with other homework, but then I think I'll be done. Tezero (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I wondered where you went then... that sounds great, well done! Good luck with your interview today. If you need to prioritise other things first, don't worry about it as I still haven't finished with fully sourcing Sonic 3 yet. No rush, as you have the drafts in your userspace and I will probably copyedit the article too. Speaking of which, I have only recently picked up learning programming code, particularly C++ as I'm on a gap year with nothing to do (not to mention suffering from insomnia), so I want to gain something. Good to hear anyway, let me know when you plan on putting your userspace drafts in the article. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, do you think you could take a look at Freedom Planet's current FAC? Not much has changed since the last one (though obviously feel free to speak up if you see anything wrong), but you supported then and I could always use another vote. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look now ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So I just rewrote the Gameplay section of Sonic & Knuckles. You seemed keen to tackle Development for the last one, so maybe you can continue that here; shouldn't be too much different. Tezero (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd be happy to take the rest Tezero. I'll start re-writing the article now and will most likely finish tomorrow morning ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This may sound shocking, but I'm thinking of taking a break from Sonic articles before too long, and with that, likely Wikipedia altogether. I'll return eventually, maybe in a few months (I still need to get Sonic '06 to FA, and the Archie comics up to at least GA after getting current with them, so I can't disappear completely), but there are some other RL things I'd like to take care of in the meantime. Looking ahead to until then, though, would you mind reviewing Sonic 1's FAC here? We can also plow through 3D Blast to finish off the main Genesis games, and maybe Adventure 1 or Heroes or something if you want, or I can help with one of your projects since I grew up with a lot of that as well. Tezero (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to do that Tezero, and I understand. When do you plan on leaving? I'll review Sonic 1's FAC tomorrow or Wednesday at the latest, as I have a batch of reviews to do. For me it's been the other way around for once, I haven't done anything lately and that's what's keeping me more on Wikipedia. I'd like bring Sonic Spinball (I think I'm the only one who actually liked that game) to GA in the near future too. Thanks for the offer, I appreciate it! To be honest almost all of the TV shows I picked look very undesirable, so I'll set my mind on the video games first. Don't worry if you can't do any, if you find yourself too busy with RL I can always take after you if needed? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I've done an awful lot of GA reviews recently, but the sheer volume and determination you have put in just leaves me seriously impressed. Keep it up and you'll win the GA cup, but more importantly clear the backlog of articles that people want to see at a higher quality. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey bro. Would you be interested in reviewing this Rajinikanth film? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, and yeah sure I'll start the GAN right away ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lyndhurst, Hampshire you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Lyndhurst, Hampshire you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lyndhurst, Hampshire for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, any chance you can review this one?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I've opened the GAN and will finish the review within today or tomorrow! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 15:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jaguar. Glad to see you've taken this one on too. As I've done most of the recent development work on the article, please keep me informed of any difficulties. I'll also be looking for your own comments on the talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott! I will keep you informed, and will finish the review tomorrow morning ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ipigott's addressed them all I believe. Thanks for looking at it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Well done on the article ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks once again for helping out so efficiently with all this. Maybe you would be interested in handling another Danish city in the not too distant future? And let me know if I can help you out with any of your own articles.--Ipigott (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, I would be happy to review more Danish cities in the future! I was thinking about bringing Portsmouth up to a GA standard soon (I nominated it unsuccessfully in 2010), but I'm not too sure yet, thank you for the offer ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at Portsmouth. It looks to me as if it needs quite a bit of work. In particular, the referencing needs attention. There could also be a better account of the "cityscape", landmarks and churches. The prose and presentation need quite a bit of work too. I'll have a look at it again tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it, I think the article has degraded a little since 2010, so I will get to copyediting most parts and adding a lot of references later today. I'll see about writing a new "cityscape" section too! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jaguar. Feel like exchanging reviews? I'll review one or both (preference both) of your GA nominations and you can review any one or two of the five video-game related articles I have nominated. Also just throwing it out there, you can get ahead of me if you like; if you review more than two just notify me when you nominate something else and i'll review it in exchange when the time comes. And while i'm begging, I do happen to have a video-game inspired film currently nominated for FAC if that subject interests you; i'm happy to exchange pretty much anything for comments on that. Oh and just so you know, I pretty much wrote the entire FAC article, but the five GA nominations I just cleaned up and adopted; they were mainly written by somebody else. Don't feel obligated to exchange any of these, just thought you might be interested. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, Freikorp! I am currently participating in the GA Cup, and in this instance it makes me happy to accept as many reviews as I can. If you like, I could review all of your VG nominations (no problem) and would greatly appreciate if either Wipeout 2097 or Jungle Strike were reviewed soon. I'll start one of your oldest GANs later today, and will probably review your FAC soon. Regards ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wipeout 2097 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Wipeout 2097 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wipeout 2097 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jungle Strike you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Jungle Strike you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jungle Strike for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting feedback at PEER Review. MaRAno ^FAN 14:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I will leave some comments when I'm done with two GANs today ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder of the impending feedback. MaRAno ^FAN 14:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I know, will leave comments shortly ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Jungle Strike you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jungle Strike for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, any chance you could review this one?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I've opened the GAR ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm afraid that your submissions of both Jungle Strike and Wipeout 2097 fall foul of the requirement that "significant work" must be contributed during one of the rounds of the current cup. Although there's no doubt that you did do significant work overall on those articles, the work that was done in 2015 on both articles were in response to the Good Article reviews. We appreciate your work on these articles, but they won't count against your round one score - but based on the Good Article reviews that you've been conducting, I think it's pretty safe to say that you're through to round 2 already. By the way - big fan of Jungle Strike, I vividly remember that first level where you save the President even though I haven't played it for like 20 years. Miyagawa (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks for notifying me Miyagawa. I understand as most of the work I conducted on both articles were in 2014, but at least parts of Jungle Strike I made some work to before nominating it at the GAN, but no matter, I really don't mind as I'm happy to contribute to promoting articles anyway. I'm sure the next GA I'll nominate will have all the work I've done in 2015, so I'm under no pressure for now. Both Desert Strike and Jungle Strike are timeless classics - I still play both on Mega Drive to this day! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jaguar. I saw that you took on the review for Rocket (Beyoncé song) and wrote in your final comment that you would quick pass it if it was renominated. I've just addressed your comments and wanted to notify you that I am nominating it again now. I Am... ***D.D. 12:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I got caught up with some things today. Will open the GAN now ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Driveclub page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 5/Final GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though! Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all! Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month. In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [1] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish! The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Good luck to all our finalists! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jaguar, would you mind reviewing Deepak Tijori, an Indian supporting actor and director. Its a small article. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, at a glance it looks small and compact. I'll start the GAN right away ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Any chance you can review Bhopal: A Prayer for Rain, an article on a film based on the Bhopal disaster?--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I've opened the GAN ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can you find some more content and a source for this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it's one of my favourite rivers and I was shocked that there wasn't an article on it! This article (though I won't add that in the page) lists Hart as the best place in the UK to live, with the river captioned. I've found a more official/statistical source here, which I'll add and expand with now. There are also a few more sources here and there. Do you plan on doing anything with the article? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Nope, just filling in a final red link of Bramshill House which I've recently nommed for FAC. Providing the colonel is kept locked up at some point we might open a peer review for Bentworth. Still would be good at some point to get Alton up to GA of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes I was just about to ask you about that! It got me reminded that we should bring it up to GA soon. I have all the sources and am ready to make a start on it when you are, provided I'll turn some of the horrible lists in prose! Alton is just out of the colonel's territory, we should be safe ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the template on Bertha Swirles/page metrics. I would be grateful if you could explain why you did so? Leutha (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about that, I think that one slipped past me as I was using AWB. I was running through new articles and it usually tags the ones that are orphans, which have no links to them. Should I remove that from the page? I apologise for any disruption! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 01:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrew Ryan (BioShock) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1916Walker987 -- 1916Walker987 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sonic & Knuckles you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you claim to be a "90s kid" (despite being born in 1996, haha), could you perhaps help me with the articles related to the Cartoon Cartoons? I took out the cruftwhacker on some of them, but they still need work if they're going to be GAs.--Phil A. Fry (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out, which ones did you have in mind? And yeah about that, I think this generation (everyone born 1990-1997 I'd say) grew up with elements from the 90s, as it didn't disappear throughout the early 2000s. I remember some parts of 2000 but I think I have at least one memory from 1999, as a three year old... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much all of them need fixing, except for Dexter's Laboratory and The Powerpuff Girls. Also, the main article itself needs sourcing. Someone redirected it a while back but re-created the page, though I guess it could be re-directed again if not enough sources are found.--Phil A. Fry (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That will be good, I'm well aware of almost all of them (except two or three), do you plan on getting anything specific there to GA first? I can find some sources for the main article, unless it's going to be redirected again... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see all them get up to GA status.--Phil A. Fry (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Feedback Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it. Your responses will only be visible to the three judges. Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition! 2014-15 GA Cup Feedback Form Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to conduct a GA Review on Naayak? Please let me know if you are interested. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay! I didn't see the notification. I'll open the GAR ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have replied to the suggestions you placed at the GAR page except for one as i could not find references for the cast section except for two. Suggest an alternative for this. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added the citations with the help of Ssven2. Suggest changes required if any after visiting the article and the GAR page. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, no worries there! I passed the GAN as all the changes made concluded that it met the criteria. Well done, please feel free to let me know if you have another GA that needs reviewing ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You don't know me, but I've noticed your fine contributions to GAN, and I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing one or both of the articles I've nomed: Irataba and Rose-Baley Party. I'm pretty sure they both meet the GAC, but I can't seem to find anyone interested in taking a look at the material. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, Rationalobserver! I'll open the GANs right away and should complete the reviews within a day or two, if that's OK. Thanks for the compliment too. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The article Sonic & Knuckles you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sonic & Knuckles for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It has been renominated again. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll open the GAN ☯ Jaguar ☯ 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot believe you closed the review without even a holding period whilst I was blocked. I could've easily addressed your concerns in a day, at most. Please reopen the review so that I can actually respond. I waited nearly five months in the queue for this. What's more, many of your concerns seem to be misunderstandings. Everything you said was "unsourced" has citations with page numbers. I think you must've misconstrued the citation style. What's more, the name of the organisation is "Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain". Do you want me to change their name for them? "Great Britain" is commonly used in British usage when referring to things that do not include Ireland (i.e. Northern Ireland). Did you check the citation? This could've been easily verified by doing so. Please reopen the review. RGloucester — ☎ 18:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I'm sorry about that; at first I thought that there would have been a lot of problems to face but regarding what you said, I think most of them were misunderstandings. I also thought that you would have been away for some time, and I always offer people to review it again if a GAN ever closes. "Great Britain" sounds fine, historically it's always known as just "Britain" because the UK once covered the whole of Ireland, but it depends what point in history is being referred to. I had no idea you would come back earlier, I can only apologise for the aggravation this must have caused. I'll reopen the review - please could you renominate at GAN? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reopened it. RGloucester — ☎ 19:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Re your query to Victoriaearle: "what do you mean the GA reviewer didn't do any favours?" at Talk:Rose-Baley Party, I've answered it there. EChastain (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added more problems e.g. the picture is of the wrong man and a link goes to the wrong man's article. Please take a look and help Rationalobserver get the article to a true GA. That would be doing her a favour. Kind regards, EChastain (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply there, I'll have another read through the article and will leave some comments on the talk page shortly. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to the Giant Bomb page, I'll go over your comments and make appropriate changes tomorrow.--FLStyle (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries there! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, made the edits later in the week than planned, better before the deadline than not at all though! I've made the appropriate changes barring anything that needs changed further. Regarding the history section, specifically Ryan Davis, if it's a deal breaker on GA status I can type up a history paragraph tomorrow. Thanks.--FLStyle (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look through the GAR and will let you know if anything is outstanding. No worries about the deadline, I can always put it on hold longer if you want? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. I've been waiting for a while and it's satisfying to get some feedback. I've attempted to fix all the issues you found with it. I had already linked SSX Tricky in the Development section, so I did not need to add another link where you pointed to. Again, thanks a bunch for helping. BlookerG ^talk 00:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, you're always welcome. I have passed the GAN as thanks to your edits the article now fully meets the GA criteria. Well done, if you ever plan on sending to FA good luck. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

	The GA Cup
	Congratulations! You are the winner of the 2014-2015 GA Cup! Thank-you for being part of the success and we hope to see you next year!--Dom497 (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations Jaguar! Well deserved in my opinion. good888 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm speechless! I'm still getting to grips with actually doing something worthwhile like this on Wikipedia! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Congrats, J. I know you worked hard for this, so I hope the win was as sweet as the pursuit. czar ⨹ 04:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, czar! The outcome as well as the work put in was absolutely worth it. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Jaguar! This is a well-deserved acknowledgment! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists. The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats! Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year. We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition. There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form. Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

In a particular film, except for the female leads, none of the other characters have names. If, as a part of a GAR, the reviewer asks to cite the characters' names, what to do? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: if there are no names for any of the characters, then ideally it should either be cited with a single source or if nothing can be found, no source. I think referencing the character's section as part of a film is not essential for a GA, but it shouldn't hurt to leave it unsourced. Hope this helps! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You might have seen my comments about the ethnic groups section of the United Kingdom article. I'm willing to help improve that section, and am happy to give you advice on it (I know the sources quite well) if required. I know it's only a small part of the article, but the section as it stands, stands in the way of GA status as far as I see it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for any help you offer, Cordless Larry! I read your comments and am aware of the problems the article has at the moment. I was looking through the list of vital articles and saw that this was at a steady B class, and also given the amount of time it will be before somebody reviews it, it should be just about enough time for me to replace all the dead references and re-format them. That's what failed the GAR back in 2010. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would think a better approach would be to fix known issues, and then nominate it for GA. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to conduct a thorough c/e on this article? Let me know if you are interested in doing so. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look through tomorrow and will go through anything that needs copyediting. Unfortunately I haven't been as active as I should be around here lately.. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks bro! Do inform me when the c/e is done and complete it ASAP only if you can do so. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry Pavanjandhyala, I'll be on it within half an hour! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: I've given most of the article a copyedit and cleanup, though I may come back to the rest later, but I think that's all of the major issues out of the way. Unfortunately I couldn't work out on what the first half of the plot meant because I haven't watched the film and didn't understand what was happening, so I apologise if the first sentence still looks unclear! Do you plan on nominating this for GA soon? There are some overlinking in the lead and also half of the non-essential cast can be taken out. I will probably get back to cleaning everything soon, please let me know what you think? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 15:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Great job by you till now. I and Kailash29792 wanted to make this article a GA upon the latter's request and my partial interest which grew manifold after expanding the article. I began working on it from 30 December 2014 and am planning to file a GAN once the c/e process is "completely" done as i don't want to take chances. Another reason was that the film was remembered for its technical brilliance and was declared the greatest Indian film of all time in 2013 by CNN-IBN after conducting a poll. Please do what you feel right, and i hope the c/e process would be completed very soon, considering the article's length and your pace. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you would continue the c/e process today. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry about that Pavanjandhyala, I was busy today and yesterday but now I'll get to copyediting other parts of the article I have missed. Given that more reliable information can be found it should be a reachable GA soon. I wasn't aware it was declared one of the greatest films! I could add that in the lead given I find a source ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: I'm happy to say that the prose is overall looking much cleaner, but a few content issues such as more overlinking and extensive lists in the Legacy section would hold a GAN back... it shouldn't be too much to address though. As I go through the article I'm beginning to like the sound of the film, is there an English dub? Anyway I think the lead is now all good, it summarises the article and if I was the reviewer I would spot no problems with it. I think the "Remaining Cast" could be cut safely, but it's up to you if you want to keep that in? Please let me know what you think so far, I've got work tomorrow but I will promise to complete my polish of the article ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Mayabazar wasn't dubbed into English till date, and sadly both the official prints available in YouTube have no subtitles. However the source is already in the Legacy section and thus the aspect of "greatest film" can be added in the lead. Do complete the c/e soon. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: just letting you know I've finished my overall copyedit of the article and will add the line regarding the greatest film in the lead now. Before I leave it over for you to nominate I'm going to make sure it's all 100% ready, though I haven't checked the sources yet (even though I doubt a reviewer would point out any concerns with them, they are all formatted correctly!) ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Just finished cleaning up the article now, so the syntax is looking better and now there are no grammatical errors. The only downside is that I haven't watched the film itself so I'm afraid I wasn't able to fix any content errors (if there are any). Please have a look and let me know what you think, if you feel that it's ready to nominate please let me know! In the mean time I'm going to learn the language... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The remaining cast has been listed again by me. Please don't think otherwise because the film's script gave importance to every role, from the lord to a servant in a palace. Moreover the film's another male lead and all the antagonists were in the remaining cast list. I'm nominating it now! Thanks for your valuable help. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You still planning to help me with articles relating to Cartoon Cartoons? It's been a while since you responded.--Phil A. Fry (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, Phil A. Fry! I'll be happy to help you bring up a GA tomorrow. I've been busy lately but now I've got more free time on my hands I can definitely help out now. What article in particular did you want to promote first? Most of them seem solid C classes ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The main article itself would be good, though I don't know if there are enough sources available.--Phil A. Fry (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jaguar! I'm not sure if you usually get involved with peer reviews, but your GA review of Irataba was very helpful, so I wanted to invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Irataba/archive1. No worries if you're too busy or disinterested; I'll understand. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey RO, and I do review peer reviews on occasion but I'd be happy to review Irataba again. I have an interest in him after reviewing the GAN weeks ago, and respected the fact that he is a pivotal figure in native American history. I'll leave some comments tomorrow morning, if that's alright! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jaguar! Dr. Blofeld has added lots of great material that really helps to bring the man out of the article, and Tim riley has offered some especially helpful advice. I think you'll like the recent improvements, but feel free to nitpick, okay? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look at it - I can't believe how much the article has improved since the GAN! It is definitely looking like a reachable FA already. I might go to bed in a hour, but I should finish the review tomorrow ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jaguar,

Thank you again for taking on the Mind Meld good article nomination. I have submitted the article for featured status here. If you would be willing to contribute to the discussion, I would be grateful for any further constructive comments you might provide.

Neelix (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, I'll be happy to leave some comments at the FAC tomorrow, though the article is in good shape as it is! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For conducting a c/e on Mayabazar, making my job easy to go through its GA Review. Thank you! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!! Please let me know if I can help out during the review in anyway. And sorry about editing the quotes, I put some phrases in brackets to make them sound clearer. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

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.