User talk:Kees08/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kees08. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

There is an RfC discussion on numbers of aircraft built in lists. As a contributor to previous relevant discussion, you are invited to join in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Sound suppression water system test at KSC Launch Pad 39A.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added an alternative image. Hope you don't mind! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it looks great, when I get home I will figure out how to change my vote for the alternate. Thanks for the work!

There's sort of a process - the Graphics Lab - but, honestly, how good the result will be can vary a lot. You're probably best either just asking me or asking on WT:FPC. I can't promise every image will be practical - some of the colours on the older images can be very awkward to fix. I am doing a self-imposed challenge to do 10 image restorations of images of or by notable women in 10 days, so start with ones that fit into that category, please. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That sounds pretty great. I was going to use this photo, but there is a RfD on it! Contacting the original photographer's company to change the copyright status, I will let you know when it becomes available. One of the most iconic photos of a woman in the program's history. Kees08 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I completely missed this window. Are you doing a different challenge? I am still trying to get copyright of two images of famous photographs of females in aerospace. Let me know if you have another self imposed challenge going on! Kees08 (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Eugene F. Kranz at his console at the NASA Mission Control Center.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You have tried to "disambiguate" [[Thruster#Spacecraft thrusters|thrusters]] → [[Rocket engine|thrusters]] my articles HS-393, Intelsat 26 (and many others). It is technically wrong and I don't know why you even proposed such a change. It is inaccurate, it should not be done, and is technically wrong. Most thrusters are not even a rocket engine. They have no choking at the throat of the combustion chamber. And many of the thrusters are little more than simple solenoid valves. A Thruster is a use, rocket engine is a propulsion technology, intent vs mean or what vs how. I'm working on a specific article for thruster and I've made the changes. But Thruster as a disambiguation page has the wrong layout and I will change it.

Are you sure? The articles I did it for, and the specific instance of thruster I did it for, had bipropellant rocket engine as the term before it. I based my disambiguation on that. Was that part wrong as well? Let me know and I can correct that. Also, choking at the throat has nothing to do with it being a thruster or not. In all instances that I am aware of, thrusters are choked at the throat (I work with rockets professionally). Let me know if you want to discuss any particulars. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

First, thruster here is the intent, that means not the primary propulsion, even if they are rockets. But in the specific articles it mentioned both the LAE and the thrusters, directing to Rocket engine would confuse the method with the intent. Second, you must be quite well aware that anything can be used as thrusters, things like cold gas are thrusters, and those are choked at the solenoid and lack combustion chambers. So sending the neophytes straight to rocket engine is confusing them not only by mixing intent and method, but by associating the wider meaning with the narrowed. I know that those satellites 99.99% have a small bi-propellant thruster that chokes and all that. I don't have the documentation and thus can't even imply it.

I've already denounced the so called disambiguation page, which simply fails at every single point of content and form to be such a page. It doesn't even starts by saying that there are many meaning, bu straight pits one single definition. I've written something quick at Thrusters (spacecraft)‎, because I don't want to still get corrections from Wikipedians automated edits. But if you know the MOS for a disambiguation page, you will find that the mistake was calling that such. In fact, I was not aware that it was a disambiguation page until I saw your edits. I hadn't scrolled to the very bottom, where they put the tag. That was my mistake and I will work on re writing that page. But it's been extremely difficult to find online definitions of the industry use and requirements of a thruster. I could write it all right, but Wikipedia is not for original research. If you know some document that states flatly the need for accuracy, repetability, granularity, reuse and such, I would appreciate it. – Baldusi (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good man, I would love to help. I will see what I can find and ask around. Kees08 (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate you doing copyedits, and you're fine this time around, but that's honestly really generous of a GA reviewer. It really should be left to the nominator unless he/she is having trouble understanding what you're asking for. It might take the fun out of competing for GAs for some. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 23:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was probably taking the instructions from the GA review too far "In the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself." The time it takes me to make a list of all of the individual copyedits I would like to see is typically greater than just making the edits. I don't know if you mean in any particular instance, but I can bring down the number of copyedits I do on GA noms in the future. Also, if you are beating around the bush and do not like my edits, don't hesitate to say so! Kees08 (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Roger B. Chaffee at a console in the Mission Control Center, Houston, during the Gemini-Titan 3 flight.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! I was just coming by to fix that EGG thing and I appreciate you for fixing that. I was going to leave it to the nominator, you, to be bold about, but I changed my mind and came to find it already done! Much thanks! dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, though 1.5 kb is the minimum requirement for the contest entries if you expand a stub a small amount but can't find enough or don't want to take it over 1.5kb you can still add it to the list at the bottom of the main page for the Destubathon and just say "improvement by Kee08". But obviously if it's under the requirement it won't be considered a formal contest entry or count towards the prizes. But what matters is improvement and diversity, so all entries are welcome on the main page list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I see you may have noticed my struggles expanding the Djibouti women Olympians. I am going to work as hard as I can to get them to 1.5 kb, whenever I have exhausted my resources and still don't meet the requirement I'll do that. Not giving up yet though! Kees08 (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't want any hard work on this being discredited. If you can't find enough for 1.5 on some they're welcome on the main list at the bottom anyway, though obviously you'll be doing your best to hit 1.5 and make them count for the contest!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Just got another one to 1.5 kb. There is one specific author that lives in Djibouti and writes about the female Olympians; she has provided enough source material to expand these articles. Anyways, should be able to get them all there! Small aside, for the regions of Djibouti, do you know of good places for citations in general for things like climate, geology, etc? If not I'll find some. Kees08 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your work so far! Can you do me a favour though and always add every entry you do to the main list here as well as the entries page, regardless if yet approved or not as that's the master list of all articles being done. It's just veyr time consuming for me to be judging the articles, trying to contribute myself and chasing up what people have done and filling it out for people each time. So if you can take care of that this would be a great help, there's some part filled out ones underneath so you just need to add country, article name and then you username. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh definitely, I thought you wanted to update that page as the judge. You may want to make it clear somewhere that we are to update it (a submission section, similar to what WP:GA does, would probably be a good guideline for detail). Kees08 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I Judge to update the score yup, but try to add your articles on the bottom list below that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Would you mind if I try formatting the contest a little differently in my sandbox, then you can look at it and see if you want to incorporate it into the real page? Kees08 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Formatting doesn't really matter, it's content that matters, but if you feel strongly about it I won't object to showing me what you want!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The article Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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:Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The article Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You've amended the entries page whilst I've been refactoring it ... I'll now make sure your edits are not lost. We're trying to keep the entry page size down, hence splitting it into six pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The article Roger B. Chaffee 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:Roger B. Chaffee for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please carefully read the instructions at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon for collecting your prize. I will need you to send me an email, your wiki name, what I owe you and your preference for currency in dollars or pounds/country of residence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kees08- Was the photo taken as a jpeg file or do you have a raw version that could be uploaded (regarding your comment/request for some light cleaning or touching up of the image?--Godot13 (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Godot13: I am pretty sure it was just a jpeg unfortunately, I'll double check my files though. Kees08 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Godot13: Unfortunately I did not take them in raw format. I remember thinking why bother, I don't have the skills to edit it anyways. Regretting that decision now. I have several other photos of the motor, but I think the one I uploaded is the best. Kees08 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If I try improving the image (light cleaning of the background), on the right side it looks like there is a thinner tube connected to the device, should that remain?-Godot13 (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that is a reflection on the background, unfortunately. Definitely shouldn't be there! Kees08 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you mind if I upload the cleaned version over the existing one? If you don't think it's an improvement you can revert to the original. I could load it as a separate file, but I personally try to avoid that...--Godot13 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not mind, have at it! I just pulled out my rocket propulsion book so I'll be writing the section of the article that the image will eventually go in. Thanks for cleaning it up; I am sure it looks better than the original. Kees08 (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kees08. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for John Glenn at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Since Glenn was a childhood hero, it was a pleasure. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 21:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will continue to work to bring the article up to GA, your contributions will make that task significantly easier. Appreciate the hard work and attention to detail. Kees08 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear sir I had nominated Mother Teresa for GA but there is no sign of review on it . It would be great if u take a little time and review the same --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 03:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:3D Printed Hybrid Rocket Fuel Grain.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 21:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I'm almost done with your suggestion. However, I have not added the details to the article before having your feedback. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that is great, will be a good addition to the article. Kees08 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I made the so-called edit. I'll nominate it both at WP:GA and WP:GOCE. Would you mind reviewing it as soon as I nominate it? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I just renominated the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Djibouti at the 2016 Summer Olympics 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 DatGuy -- DatGuy (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The article Djibouti at the 2016 Summer Olympics 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 9 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Djibouti at the 2016 Summer Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The article Djibouti at the 2016 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Djibouti at the 2016 Summer Olympics 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 DatGuy -- DatGuy (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Glenn 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 Joshualouie711 -- Joshualouie711 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Djibouti at the 1984 Summer Olympics 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 BU Rob13 -- BU Rob13 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Djibouti at the Olympics 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The article Djibouti at the 1984 Summer Olympics 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:Djibouti at the 1984 Summer Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BU Rob13 -- BU Rob13 (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The article John Glenn 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:John Glenn for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Joshualouie711 -- Joshualouie711 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The article John Glenn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Glenn 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 Joshualouie711 -- Joshualouie711 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The article Djibouti at the 1984 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Djibouti at the 1984 Summer Olympics 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 BU Rob13 -- BU Rob13 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The article Djibouti at the Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Djibouti at the Olympics 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kees08. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Gus Grissom has been completed.

I notice there are issues with the formatting of a number of citations. For example in citation #19 U.S. Astronaut appears in italics because it has been incorrectly called the work. Other citations have similar problems. I use this tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ProveIt to add citations. Perhaps you're aware of it? It is extremely useful as it takes all the guesswork out of citing a source and formats fonts, punctuation etc... correctly.

I added a link to the WP article on the L.A. Times in one citation I noticed. This should be done in others as appropriate. I archived one URL and this should also be done, where possible, for any that have not already been done. There is also one dead link that will need to be replaced.

Good luck with your GA or FA nomination.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, a little bit more work on my part and the article will be ready for GA! Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Roger B. Chaffee has been completed.

As with the Grissom article, I recommend that you check the citations for consistency, fonts etc...

Good luck with the A-class review.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Caleb Swanigan 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Caleb Swanigan 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:Caleb Swanigan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Caleb Swanigan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Caleb Swanigan 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Wrap Up Hello, GA Cup competitors! Saturday, April 1 concluded the 2016-2017 GA Cup. 64 reviews were completed by our finalists. Although the backlog increased by 42 over the reviewing period instead of declining, the increase suggests that the contest is encouraging editors to nominate articles for review. Congratulations to Shearonink, who is the winner of the Cup, finishing with 672 points! Once again, just as in last round, this is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! It was a close race for second place between Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who achieved 164 points, and Sturmvogel_66, who earned 150. Though Sturmvogel_66 reviewed one more article than Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga managed to earn 14 points more due to reviewing older articles. Our two wildcard competitors, Kees08 and Chris troutman, came in fourth and fifth, respectively. There were some bumps in the competition this time: The sign-up deadline and the first round were both extended due to fewer competitors signing up then was planned for. And there were delays in tallying points and getting out the newsletter. The judges apologize for this latter difficulty. Lastly, mid-way through the competition we bid farewell to Zwerg Nase, who stepped down from their position as judge due to other commitments. Information about the Final can be found here. Thank you to all of our competitors, and congrats to our winners! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. 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.

—MBlaze Lightning ^T 07:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

	The Olympics Barnstar
	I award you this Barnstar, for your work on getting Djibouti at the Olympics up to a Good Topic with me. It was a fun partnership and we should do it again! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: I agree, it was quite fun. I do not believe Djibouti had a single GA when we started, and look at them now! We will have to do another Olympic collaboration, and perhaps another topic someday as well. Kees08(Talk) 22:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

How would you feel about working on Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics for our next good topic? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow you work fast. I'm thinking the two I expanded that you copy edited Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2000 Summer Olympics and Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2004 Summer Olympics are ready for GAN what do you think? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Try to find qualification info, otherwise it should be ready to go. Kees08(Talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

While I was away there was a question relating to Deke Slayton's book. Now I have the book, but I can't find the question. Do you remember what it was? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: It was at the bottom of JustinTime55's talk page. Thanks Hawkeye! As a sidenote, still working through those Chaffee comments, got a bit distracted. Kees08 (Talk) 15:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You wanna be careful how much you review me & Yeepsi's stuff. You may get issues for tag-teaming and favoring certain editors. There's no specific rule for grinding out GAs like this to this day, but there was a case about this kind of thing (the artist/music stuff in question was all Mariah Carey) and someone raised a whole stink about it. You're technically free to do as many as you want and continue editing this way, but just be forewarned about stuff I've seen. I try not to involve myself too heavily with these kinds of things, even though I love those albums. I will provide a link to that discussion if ever I see it again. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor and Yeepsi: Thanks for bringing it up. It does not matter to me either way. I mainly review four different editor's material, due to similar interests and high quality writing. I do some now and then outside of those, but they are a ton of work. If you guys do not want me to review your articles for this reason or any other, just let me know. Otherwise, I will keep on hammering through them. Kees08 (Talk) 05:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a good rule to follow. I was just wondering what you'd be doing. That seems fine. The other ones I was talking about reviewed like eight albums and numerous songs together. This doesn't seem so bad. The problem that can come up with these is that liking another editors' nominations can sometimes lead to rather sizable oversights, but as long as you're careful. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 11:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have any time, would you consider looking at this? Only one person has looked so far (out of 2 that responded to my 7 requests). The first process got ignored completely. I am trying desperately hard to get this promoted before June. Can you help me? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but I have never done a FAC before. I have been pretty slammed lately, but I will see if I can make some time. Kees08 (Talk) 03:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eugene Cernan 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 Llammakey -- Llammakey (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The article Eugene Cernan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eugene Cernan 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 Llammakey -- Llammakey (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gus Grissom 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 Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I promised to do another astronaut article after Alan B. Shepard. Is there any one in particular that you want done? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Excellent, that's great! I think either Gordon Cooper or Scott Carpenter would be good choices, I have not worked on them at all. I am working to (as I know you are as well) get the Mercury 7 astronauts to a featured topic. I plan on taking Grissom and Glenn to featured, and since Shepard was done by you, we would need one more featured article then the rest just need GA. I suppose if you plan on taking one all the way to featured I would prefer Deke Slayton because he is my next favorite of the remaining astronauts. If you pick any other astronaut, I would be fine with that as well. Thanks again! Kees08 (Talk) 01:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The article Gus Grissom you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gus Grissom 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 Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

All the new astronauts announced yesterday are currently proposed for deletion. Debate of notability of Ascans. Hektor (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. It hadn't happened for the previous classes of NASA astronauts and I am really upset by this. Especially after reading this. I think also that the group deletion is quite unfair because it prevents discussion of individual cases. All these individuals have extraordinary life stories. Plus the proposal was immediate, with no time to expand the articles. Hektor (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You commented on Royal Yugoslav Navy as a featured topic a couple of weeks ago. Would you revisit the page to see if Peacemaker67 has satisfied your comments? Thanx! auntieruth (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 1996 Summer Olympics 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landsat 2 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 1996 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 1996 Summer Olympics 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The article Landsat 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Landsat 2 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landsat 1 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The article Landsat 1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Landsat 1 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 3 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Apr to Jun 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on GhanaSat-1. Very nice work done. God bless and thank you. CrossTemple Jay 06:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Crosstemplejay: You are very welcome, I saw it on the front page and I have been a little interested in African spaceflight. I will try to take some time to get it to GA, and I have also contacted the agency to try to acquire some photos, otherwise I will put some representative photos in the article. Kees08 (Talk) 03:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you too. CrossTemple Jay 06:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• ReverseLevity (talk · contribs)
  • Rolls-Royce Phantom VIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Rolls-Royce Phantom VIII (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At this early stage, some days after launch, other sources will only be regurgitating what Rolls-Royce has stated in their launch materials.

You'll note the tone is neutral and contains no hint of subjectivity.

Nevertheless I have added sources from 3 respected car magazines, I hope this suffices.

Right, I presumed some secondary sources were out there regurgitating Rolls-Royce (that is the point of requiring secondary sources after all), so I added a couple more in, in the event anyone wants to use them as sources. I added some text in as well, although I am not going to be disappointed if you revert any of it. Anywho, article is accepted and in mainspace. Kees08 (Talk) 22:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Kees08, about a month ago you offered to do a second opinion/review of this article on the GA review page. I think it would help a great deal if you did just that, since the first reviewer did not review to the GA criteria, and the other made an opinion about sentence quality without giving a single example of the problem. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you have Landsat 6 on your project list. FYI: I was the lead structural engineer on that project, and also participated in the team that attempted to determine the reason for its destruction at separation from the booster. Feel free to ask me about it! RobP (talk)

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2016 Summer Olympics 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 TonyBallioni -- TonyBallioni (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2016 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2016 Summer Olympics 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 TonyBallioni -- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		For undertaking one Milhist A-Class Review during the period July to September 2017, you are hereby awarded this Wikistripe. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2012 Summer Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics 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:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2000 Summer Olympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2000 Summer Olympics 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:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2000 Summer Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2000 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2000 Summer Olympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2012 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The article Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Have you not considered nominating the above topic to good article status as it appears to satisfy the criteria?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:410F:1300:C00A:FD5F:6D35:9EC0 (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I am working on the NOC article, and after that is a GA I plan to do so. Kees08 (Talk) 14:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry confused this one for Tuvalu. The books feature seems to be having issues, I have never used it. Was waiting on it to settle down before I submitted it. Kees08 (Talk) 17:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. Maybe submit both at the same time. Congrats on your work. Unlikely that such small countries would ever have a good topics after their Olympic team without your work with others help of course. What other countries do you plan on getting to good topic? 2A02:C7D:410F:1300:F9FB:9666:E0A9:93FD (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, of course with DatGuy and Cameron11598, the work goes considerably faster! I am considering the Oceanic countries, they have a very interesting Olympic history and could use the extra exposure. Kees08 (Talk) 05:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Galle151 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Albert Posis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I forgot to add citations to verify the notability of the page I created. I have now added them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galle151 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.25% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for December: Seasonal celebrations First ladies Go local #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Wooo. Article number #1000 in the Women in Red World Contest. Well done and two others to support it. Nice article on Ginger Mayson. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Thanks! Though I think a deleted article pushed it away from the 1000 mark, it was there for a bit at least. I am trying to see if I can get all the Big Ten Conference volleyball teams and coaches created before the contest ends, I have a busy month coming up so we will see. Kees08 (Talk) 05:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landsat 3 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tuvalu Association of Sports and National Olympic Committee 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Kees08, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! joe deckertalk 01:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:TOKI (satellite), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Landsat 3 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Landsat 3 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Respected Reviewer,I was unhappy when I saw that my article was not accepted.You have made a comment that both the schools are same but it is not.The former is the oldest school in Tripura and the later is a newly established school.The former is a Bengali Medium School and the later is an English Medium School.Both the Schools are located at the same place and look alike.

So,I request you to review it again...Thankyou. Binamra Deb (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article BRAC Onnesha 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Tuvalu Association of Sports and National Olympic Committee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tuvalu Association of Sports and National Olympic Committee 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nigeria EduSat-1 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 Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Nigeria EduSat-1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nigeria EduSat-1 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 Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Elliot See 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:Elliot See for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Balon Greyjoy -- Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The article BRAC Onnesha you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:BRAC Onnesha 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article GhanaSat-1 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 Codyorb -- Codyorb (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The article GhanaSat-1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:GhanaSat-1 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 Codyorb -- Codyorb (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mazaalai (satellite) 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Mazaalai (satellite) 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:Mazaalai (satellite) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi -- I wanted to let you know that the GA review of GhanaSat-1 has been reopened; see here. I've started a re-review of the article and have left some notes on the review page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, just let me know when you both are done taking a look at it. There are a few other GAs for satellites in that family, in case you want something to base your review off of (I can also make suggested edits to those articles as well). Kees08 (Talk) 19:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I've left some notes at the re-opened review; let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

After reading the WT:GACR archives I don't think I'll post a query about the deadlinks. I'll keep mentioning them in reviews, though, since it would be better to fix them. I can see why there are arguments for keeping them, but it's a more general WP:V issue if a link goes dead and no archive exists. Would we keep a book reference in an article if it was known that every copy of that book had been destroyed? Probably, because it would be rare and we'd AGF. The argument for extending the same GF to (potentially) millions of unarchived URLs seems weaker, though. Anyway, if I see an RfC on this come up I'll let you know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:TOKI (satellite), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kees08. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "TOKI".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Home Lander (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Mazaalai (satellite) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mazaalai (satellite) 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TOKI (satellite). Since you had some involvement with the TOKI (satellite) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 11:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pete Conrad 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guam at the 2016 Summer Olympics 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Ed Givens has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Good luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 07:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Guam at the 2016 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Guam at the 2016 Summer Olympics 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joshua Ilustre 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Joshua Ilustre 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:Joshua Ilustre for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Joshua Ilustre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joshua Ilustre 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Peter Lombard II 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:Peter Lombard II for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Pete Conrad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pete Conrad 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for assessing so many of my submissions for B class. And for the feedback. Clearly I need to stop trusting any previous assessors' judgement entirely and check everything myself. I will start working through your points.

That Japanese squadron. Not "on", that's when they got their first delivery. The source doesn't say when they were fully replaced - which is likely to be a matter of opinion anyway. I have rewritten to try to make this clearer.

Japanese italics. MoS says: "Text in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek, Cyrillic or Chinese) should neither be italicized as non-English nor bolded, even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page. However, titles of major works that should be italicized are italicized in Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, and Hebrew scripts (but not in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean)." Gog the Mild (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I did not know the non-Latin scripts caveat. Learned something new! Small note on that, is the English supposed to be first? That might be another misconception I have.

I figured 'from' was used for that reason, but it seems odd to have from and then not list a range. I suppose I should have just checked the source. Maybe say starting instead of on?

No worries, I saw them start to pile up and I decided to tether my phone to my tablet while riding passenger on a long trip. Made for some interesting reading. I normally do not assess, but since I add articles there from time to time I will probably do more in the future. I felt bad not giving you the pass for things that other people have said were okay, not sure if that is because time passed from the original assessment, if the original assessment was poor, or if I am too harsh. If it is one or two things I just take care of it. I think it is smart to work on the ones that are close to B and getting them over the edge, so hopefully that keeps going well for you! Kees08 (Talk) 08:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have started doing some assessing myself, it only seems fair. No problem - if I come across one where I think that you are being too harsh I will let you know  :) ; as I said, you seem fair. in your judgements. Mostly slack initial assessing.

I am newish to this, so starting with articles where it has, purportedly, been established that only one area needs attention has been a good sand box. Inevitably this has led to me picking up other issues. You have neatly picked out the articles where I have been a bit slack - fair cop. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Two of the three articles you bounced have I think been sorted. You may be interested to here that one of the uncited statements was erroneous. Good job you are so strict. If you could run an eye over them I would appreciate it. No rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to those article so promptly. I think that I shall leave HMS Porpoise. The original author is active again and while some of his edits have been very helpful in other areas s/he seems to want things in a particular way. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, there are plenty of articles after all, and the other editor seems to be improving that one now. Kees08 (Talk) 07:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

HMS Porpoise (1804) This one was nagging at me, so I finally got round to sorting out the missing references. Hopefully it now really is done. And apologies that it has dragged out. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Ref 13 has an error, and the lone sentence in Fate needs cited or removed. Although, if we mean 'unknown' instead of obscure, then perhaps it does not need one, because how would you cite that... Kees08 (Talk) 21:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I wrote "Lord Melville' fate is unknown." with the edit note "Working around the lack of a reference". As you say - it is difficult to cite a negative, and hopefully acceptable at B class. (I wouldn't normally do it, but the article needs ending somehow.) Within 30 minutes it was changed. If you're not happy with the new wording, fair enough; we probably both have better things to do. If you can live with it let me know and I'll look into ref 13. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me know when you have that ref fixed and I will promote it to B. Kees08 (Talk) 21:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Phew. I think that my last GA review was less work. Which is not a dig at you - you have been very patient. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I missed this! Yeah, GA and B are actually pretty similar, B is just a little less intense. Always interesting to see how different our subjective grading scale is! Kees08 (Talk) 06:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have carried out a clean-up of Neil Armstrong, an have co-nominated it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Neil Armstrong for an A-class review prior to sending it to FAC. This required a lot more work on the references than first thought. (Aparently, I made 84 edits and added 11,841 bytes of text, making me the third largest contributor to the article.) All the sources have now been checked and verified. The error tags have been resolved and removed. I corrected some minor errors in the article (and found some in the sources, including a couple in Hansen). The main thing you'll notice is the new image I uploaded of him as an ensign, and the removal of the ribbon bar, which I could not source. He was never entitled to a Presidential Unit Citation; the USS Essex earned this for WWII service. It was awarded a Navy Unit Commendation for Korea. The Armed Forces Reserve Medal was also problematic. I could find no evidence that he received the award. You need ten years in the reserve, but the article says recall to active duty do not count. If so, then he did not serve ten years. All Original Research, and unlike Shepard I couldn't even locate an image. (Btw I just love the image of him parachuting after crashing the LLRV) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! I decided to check the edit history yesterday and saw you were going HAM on it, which got me off my ass to work on the Collins article a little bit. That article is in super rough shape, going to take a long time to get it up to snuff. The LLRV story is one of the most badass in the Apollo program. Good research on that, we should be able to get some of Aldrins awards figured out because of that work (I specifically remember not finding sources for the awards you mention above). Hopefully the A-class review goes well! I will respond to as many comments as I can during it. Kees08 (Talk) 06:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the Apollo 11 article, and it needs even more work. I have a list of things that need fixing, but I'll post on its talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Regine Tugade 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 Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The article Regine Tugade 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:Regine Tugade for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The article Regine Tugade you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Regine Tugade 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 Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If you've got a few spare minutes, could you consider reviewing We choose to go to the Moon? I've overhauled the article. It's a short article, but I believe it is GA-worthy. Watch the whole speech if you've ever heard it before. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I have the famous bit in my space playlist. I have listened to a lot of it, not sure if I have listened to the whole thing yet. I will try to review it this weekend (and will listen to the whole speech as well). I saw it was nominated and was excited! Kees08 (Talk) 05:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you're changing "image_caption" parms to "caption", but in many cases, there's already a "caption" parm. This gives an error at the top of the edit page, and the page is listed on Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. Suggest not adding "caption" if there's already one. Davemck (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the notification. I will go through all the pages I edited and check for this issue. I was replacing image_caption since it is not a valid parameter for the infobox, but obviously causing another issue is not my intent. I spot checked a few as I went but did not notice the error. Thanks again, I will stop and fix any issues I caused. Kees08 (Talk) 01:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Davemck (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the Schirra article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kees08. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Eugene Cernan at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Jim Lovell has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Good luck with the GA process.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Hope you like the astronaut articles, most are in decent shape to begin with, but the copy edit will definitely help take it to the next level. Kees08 (Talk) 20:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do enjoy them. It takes unimaginable bravery to do what they have done. In case you missed it, I had some time so searched for and added a number of citations in the Other awards... section. The only one I could not locate was this one: Awarded an honorary doctor of laws degree at William Paterson College's commencement exercises (June 15, 1974). Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I did, and I very much appreciated it! I will see if my sources have that in it. Glad you enjoy them, I hope to get at least the first three groups up to featured topics. Kees08 (Talk) 06:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Kees08:, I tagged you in the GAN for Planetary Missions Program Office to get any additional feedback on my review. The author has done a good job of making the suggested edits, and I think the article is deserving of GA status, but I wanted to get the opinion of a more experienced editor before giving it a pass, and would like to here any comments/feedback you may have. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, I kept putting this on the back-burner. Took care of it just now. Kees08 (Talk) 05:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Paralympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pilar Shimizu 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Benjamin Schulte 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Paralympics 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:Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Paralympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Pilar Shimizu 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:Pilar Shimizu for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Benjamin Schulte 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:Benjamin Schulte for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Benjamin Schulte you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Benjamin Schulte 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Paralympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Paralympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Pilar Shimizu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pilar Shimizu 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The article When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a Milhist article at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Houssein Omar Hassan 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Houssein Omar Hassan you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Houssein Omar Hassan 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks so much for helping me understand conversion templates, and looking over (and fixing) my work! ⇒ Lucie Person (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for Roger B. Chaffee, John Glenn, and Neil Armstrong. MilHistBot (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Birds-1 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Can I be of any assistance in collecting data about GAS? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have someone working on setting up data collection for the project that will work in the future. For the past, bit of a different story. I have been trying to think of ways to organize and collect the data. I started writing up something I was going to ask you to do, then ended up doing it myself. Graph will be posted in the GAN talk page thread shortly. I have nothing in particular for you to work on, but will try to think of something. Kees08 (Talk) 02:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Birds-1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Birds-1 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure if you can help me. I am GAN assessing Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho. Checking the images I have come across this one File:Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho Campaign Poster 1976 (cropped).jpg with a warning on it: "Please check the source to verify that this is correct. In particular, note that publication on the Internet, like publication by any other means, does not in itself imply permission to redistribute." Image copyright is an area where I am only marginally competent at the best of times and this has me stumped. Advice as to how I might best tackle it would be appreciated. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the question. From the image's own page you may use EPHEMERA material at your discretion as long as it indicates its origin. , it looks like the tag that you pointed it is in error. It requires attribution, and it is currently tagged with something that says no attribution is required. I will do some further digging to see if using ephemera material is even allowed. Kees08 (Talk) 07:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Looking further, clearly ephemera did not make the image, it is just documenting. As such, with an unknown author, Portuguese law says that the work is protected for 70 years after publication, so until 2046 in this instance. Therefore, the copyright claim is invalid, and it should be deleted from Wiki Commons. Kees08 (Talk) 07:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. I am reassured that I can pick up obviously dodgy images, as generally my knowledge pf copyright and of handling commons images is on a par with my knowledge of brain surgery. (Which is why I haven't responded to your query on my ACR.) I would appreciate it if you could either do the deleting or point me towards an instruction page so I can learn how to do it myself. (File:Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho and Fidel CAstro.jpg also needs to go.) Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There should be a link called 'nominate for deletion' or similar on the Commons page; unless I activated a gadget to get that. Should be pretty self explanatory from there, let me know if you do not see the link though. Kees08 (Talk) 19:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note that References 1 and 5 are peer reviewed articles that describe and discuss the API 682 standard.

Gordon (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gordonsbuck: Thanks for bringing that up Gordon, I had not noticed that for some reason. Would you be able to find one more reliable source on it? I think that probably exists. If not, I will look at it closer and make a decision, or pull someone else in. Kees08 (Talk) 07:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I added a reference from Pumps and Systems Magazine. This caused the references to be renumbered. The additional reference is now reference #1. Gordon (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello :) i am sorry if i do some wrong. I only wanted to merging olympic committee with Template: Sports governing bodies. Greetings :) Filipid011 (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand! I had just merged that back into the Olympics article not long ago because I did not find any sources on the NOC itself. Looks like someone else reversed the change, but if you can, you can expand it in the Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics article and we can fork it off if it becomes significant. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 20:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Much belated reply here (like, February, but...) I may get those missile articles to GA someday, once I have more reliable time to spare, thanks for the interest and I'll let you know if I need help. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Four moonwalkers are still alive: Buzz Aldrin, David Scott, Charlie Duke and Harrison Schmidt. I suggest we put a priority on getting their articles up to GA so you don't have to scramble when the next one dies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Kees08 (Talk) 19:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Mildly related, do you think Michael Collins (astronaut) is ready for a GA nom? I just noticed I have a lot of edits to the article, and it has a lot of work until FA, but might be worth letting it sit in the GA backlog for a bit, if you think it is ready. Also, I started working on Schmitt's article, since he was a senator and I have some experience with astronaut-politicians because of Glenn's article. Kees08 (Talk) 09:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Kees08, you opened this GA review page back on May 12, but haven't yet posted an actual review to it. Do you plan on reviewing this GA nom? If not, please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I do plan to. Busy IRL for now. Will try to get moving on it, thanks for the reminder. Kees08 (Talk) 06:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kiribati at the 2004 Summer Olympics 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maria Dunn 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guam at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Maria Dunn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maria Dunn 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Kiribati at the 2004 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kiribati at the 2004 Summer Olympics 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Guam at the 2012 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Guam at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kiribati at the 2008 Summer Olympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Kiribati at the 2008 Summer Olympics 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:Kiribati at the 2008 Summer Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Kiribati at the 2008 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kiribati at the 2008 Summer Olympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kiribati at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Kiribati at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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:Kiribati at the 2012 Summer Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kiribati at the 2016 Summer Olympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Kiribati at the 2012 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kiribati at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Kiribati at the 2016 Summer Olympics 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:Kiribati at the 2016 Summer Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Kiribati at the 2016 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kiribati at the 2016 Summer Olympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Samoa at the 2016 Summer Paralympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Samoa at the 2016 Summer Paralympics 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:Samoa at the 2016 Summer Paralympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Samoa at the 2016 Summer Paralympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Samoa at the 2016 Summer Paralympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, thank you for your review during the April to June 2018 quarter. Here is a WikiStripe for your contribution to our article quality processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pakistan at the 2010 Winter Olympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pakistan at the 2018 Winter Olympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Pakistan at the 2010 Winter Olympics 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:Pakistan at the 2010 Winter Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Pakistan at the 2018 Winter Olympics 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:Pakistan at the 2018 Winter Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Pakistan at the 2010 Winter Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pakistan at the 2010 Winter Olympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Pakistan at the 2018 Winter Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pakistan at the 2018 Winter Olympics 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kees! I notice that both Roger B. Chaffee and John Glenn's articles are still listed as GA-class in WP Spaceflight. Given they passed A-class review in Milhist after all your hard work, are you happy for me to list them as A-class in Spaceflight as well? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 14:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah there is no problem, thanks for asking! Kees08 (Talk) 22:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Israel at the 2010 Winter Olympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pakistan at the 2014 Winter Olympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Belgium at the 2010 Winter Olympics 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Pakistan at the 2014 Winter Olympics 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:Pakistan at the 2014 Winter Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Israel at the 2010 Winter Olympics 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:Israel at the 2010 Winter Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Israel at the 2010 Winter Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Israel at the 2010 Winter Olympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Belgium at the 2010 Winter Olympics 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:Belgium at the 2010 Winter Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Belgium at the 2010 Winter Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Belgium at the 2010 Winter Olympics 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Michael Collins (astronaut) 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Solomon Islands at the 2012 Summer Paralympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The article Solomon Islands at the 2012 Summer Paralympics 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:Solomon Islands at the 2012 Summer Paralympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The article Solomon Islands at the 2012 Summer Paralympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Solomon Islands at the 2012 Summer Paralympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. You may remember, way back when, very kindly doing a photo review on this ACR. I was left to try and obtain the two photographs original publication dates. The Library and Archives Canada, where the originals are archived, has, finally, replied. They haven't given the original publication dates, but they do say "the photos are Crown images that were published for over 50 years". The French surname of the sender makes me suspect that his English is a little shakey, but his meaning seems clear. See their email below. Is this going to be good enough?

Re-examining the email, it is from a real, named person, so I could go back to them and ask them to dig a little deeper; their email does look a little "form". What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Your request for copyright permission for material from our collections has been received by Copyright Services of Library and Archives Canada.

Because the photos are Crown images that were published for over 50 years, the material is now in the public domain. Which means that the copyright protection has expired and there are no other restrictions applicable to this material. Therefore, it may be used freely without seeking permission or paying royalties.  We would ask that you kindly acknowledge the source as follows:

Photo: Personnel of The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor) with a captured German flag, Friesoythe, Germany, 16 April 1945

Source: Library and Archives Canada/Department of National Defence fonds/a167250

Photo: Brigadier R.W. Moncel (left) and Major-General Christopher Vokes, General Officer Commanding 4th Canadian Armoured Division,observing a German counter-attack, Sogel, Germany, 10 April 1945

Source: Library and Archives Canada/Department of National Defence fonds/a159242

Please note that identifying our institution “Library and Archives Canada” in the credits will be sufficient when material is being used in video/film format

Try replying back asking again for the specific publication date, does not hurt. Otherwise, they said it was published over 50 years ago explicitly, so you should be good to go. Kees08 (Talk) 02:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. Got this response. Does this put it to bed? If so I shall log the emails with OTRS. And many thanks for bearing with me as I stumbled through this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As these photographs which were taken by Alex Stirton while enlisted in the Canadian Army, they are Government of Canada material. While we don’t know the exact date the photo was published, they generally would have been published (most likely around the date they were created) in Canada to inform the population of the activities of the Canadian forces in Europe.

Canadian Military Photographers:

http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/military-heritage/second-world-war/faces-second-war/Pages/faces-second-world-war.aspx#e

Faces of the Second World War - Library and Archives Canadawww.bac-lac.gc.caFaces of the Second World War - Library and Archives Canada Government of Canada photos can be used if the Government of Canada approves of the intended use. Government of Canada material does not fall under copyright restrictions of any other country (e.g. the 70 rule of the U.S. and Europe) as the copyright belongs to the Government of Canada.

Therefore, we consider these photos as © Expired (Crown material published for more than 50 years) and, because they are Crown photos, they are expired no matter where they are used. In fact, Wikipedia is full of expired Government of Canada material.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions with this request.

Sincerely,

Eric Mineault

Services des droits d'auteur

The article Pakistan at the 2014 Winter Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pakistan at the 2014 Winter Olympics 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Kees08, the nominator has replied on the GA nomination page; please try to get back to your review there when you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		It is with great pleasure that I award this barnstar jointly and severally to auntieruth, AustralianRupert, Kees08, Nick-D, Peacemaker67 and Zawed. It has been earned partly for helping to nurse Razing of Friesoythe through ACR. I was awed and humbled by the amount of attention, effort, detail and support the six assessors brought to the task. But mostly it has been earned by your doing the same thing for many, many other articles week after week, month after month. Assessors sans peur et sans reproche. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I have noticed that you did a fair bit of work on this article. User:Balon Greyjoy expanded it and put it in for GA. He also nominated it for DYK, but then went on an extended Wiki-break. At DYK it has been stalled for close paraphrasing and a request to cite the films he appeared in by referencing a cast list or movie book. It occurred to me that this may be something you were happy to do. If not, no harm in my asking. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that will take a bit but I can do that. I found out later that that particular portion of NASA's site is riddled with inaccuracies (per Colin Burgess, probably my most cited author), so I will try to phase it out completely while I am getting rid of the paraphrasing. Likely was confused on which parts of NASA's sites are public domain. Long story short: sure, may take me a bit though. Kees08 (Talk) 03:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you ok with me letting DYK know that? They want to know whether to scrap the hook (they would rather not) or if someone is going to resolve it. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. Kees08 (Talk) 14:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Any idea how soon this might get taken care of? It's been four weeks so far. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Would you maybe have time for this? Would give us a DYK hook for next year. I am busy IRL and on-wiki and am unsure when I could get back to this. Kees08 (Talk) 04:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08 and Gog the Mild: Absolutely!!! This is exactly the type of monotonous work I am best suited for. Could we reserve this for WP:S2019? We can ask Balon Greyjoy's permission when they are back from Wiki-break. Gog the Mild, WP:S2019 is a Main Page take-over project that I and several others are working on to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11's visit to the Moon in July 1969. This article's DYK would be a perfect addition to this project. The project is still in the initial stages of developement. More relevant discussion about the initiation of WP:S2019 can be found at User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs#Space 2019. I will try to have the nomination ready for re-review over the weekend.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please kindly add yourself to the WP:S2019#Participants and voice your opinion or co-sign at WT:DYK#S2019 to get the discussion rolling. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landsat 4 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiStripe for reviewing a total of two Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The article Michael Collins (astronaut) 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:Michael Collins (astronaut) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The article Landsat 4 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:Landsat 4 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The article Landsat 4 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Landsat 4 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I assume I should nominate for DYK. Right? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to, as I do not intend to. Kees08 (Talk) 06:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback on the Bulgaria FAC! - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The article Michael Collins (astronaut) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Michael Collins (astronaut) 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job with the Neil Armstrong and the John Glenn articles. You deserve this.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on getting John Glenn to Featured Article status! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Buzz Aldrin 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 Balon Greyjoy -- Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The article Buzz Aldrin 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:Buzz Aldrin for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Balon Greyjoy -- Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

Congrats, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

(Uw-paid1 template removed in the hope that it will help the discussion --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC))

What edit caused this accusation? Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your most recent edits: Besides the three edits of yours that I reverted, which you should have been notified, your edits to Passivation (chemistry) look far too similar. My first concern was your account might be compromised. These certainly don't look anything like edits from someone who works on FA and GA articles.

I'd like to think there's a simple explanation other than a coi... --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I have an explanation: Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what constitutes reliable sources? It's a fundamental requirement for much of the editing on Wikipedia, but not all. At a glance, I see a lot of MOS and WikiProject work from you, and this comment could suggest that you tend to (or would prefer to) rely upon others for providing and reviewing sources.

What do you think of my explanation? --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I can promise you that Kees08 isn't a COI or paid editor. I think his logic here was that adding a basic ref is better than no ref at all. Yeah, it's not ideal, but he's not a paid editor, and he also knows how Wikipedia works given then number of GAs he's worked on and the fact that he's taken two articles to FAC. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the specific edits. I am not a COI or paid editor. I like to go through the article and find where all the information comes from in my first pass. That includes citing to less reliable sources in the beginning. This helps me target information that is outright wrong and not supported by anyone (for example this). In the process, I replace the less reliable sources with more reliable ones, as I inevitably will eventually come across them. Otherwise, I end up removing the material.

As for this edit, the date in the URL is July 28, 2016 and the 'posted' date is January 12, 2018. Due to the timing, I assumed the 2018 date was an update rather than the initial posting. It is not in the Wayback Machine, so I cannot verify the real post date there. Actually, it looks like it was added in April 2015 to the article, so it was likely on Wikipedia first and copied to the blog. So that was a good revert, thanks. The Ultrasonic Cleaning 101 reference seems like it should be fine given the material it is supported. I can try to get another source for the water-based solutions, but as you can imagine not many reliable sources write about ultrasonic cleaning. Per WP:BLOGS, I think it would fall under the 'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' clause. I would have to find some sort of third-party publication that writes about ultrasonic cleaners, I will look for one and not add that source in the meantime. Do you still think the Ultrasonic Cleaning 101 source cannot be used? Kees08 (Talk) 19:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. When I realized that you were simply using the first, non-Wikipedia, link from a Google search for your references, I was very surprised, but it made much more sense than that were trying to restore the spam link. My apologies for thinking you were contributing to the spamming.

For the blog entry, I don't think the president of the company is the type of expert as required from WP:BLOGS. For the unattributed Ultrasonic Cleaning 101, I don't think we can assume it was written by an expert either.

I'd assume an engineering library would have references. The science and technology is rather old for the most part. Have you looked through the other refs, as well as those in Cavitation and Ultrasound?

(On a side note: How are you finding the potential copyvios like [1]?)

My apologies again. Glad we got this cleared up. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I looked up cleaning MEMS with ultrasonic and I think that was the first result. It made me really suspicious since the wording was the same, even though I did not search for any specific phrase (think I did MEMS ultrasonic). I have not looked through the cavitation and ultrasound references yet, I can give those a try. I will see what I can find. Hope to add things like the aluminum foil test in the future, with pictures. The trouble with tech articles is always reliable sources for me. I did purchase two valve books so I can contribute to a few articles with those. Kees08 (Talk) 19:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: Something like this would be good, but I do not have access to it. Do you have any ideas on how I could get free access? The research desk would only be allowed to send me portions of it, when the entire paper seems like it would be a good reference. Kees08 (Talk) 18:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I tend to leave reference access problems to others, but here is a post-print version. It cautions to use the published version.

Are there ways to get access through WP:LIBRARY resources? --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on the Good Article status for Buzz Aldrin! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The article Buzz Aldrin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Buzz Aldrin 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 Balon Greyjoy -- Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Since Buzz received such a comprehensive review at GA, I've co-nominated it at A-class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work guys. I will be busy for the next couple of weeks, but try to contribute where I can. I really do appreciate it. Kees08 (Talk) 08:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Mifter (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I started working on other Apollo articles to get them ready for the anniversary. What other articles need to be done? We have Apollo 11 and Buzz Aldrin in the pipeline. Otherwise I am going to return to finishing the Mercury Seven. I intend to do Scott Carpenter, Gordon Cooper and the main article over the next few weeks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I specifically meant Apollo 9 and 10 for their anniversaries, they are both in pretty bad shape. Collins article also needs work, as well as the articles we were planning to nominate for DYK located here, if that is the list we want (there are a couple I want to switch, and I have little Russian sources at this time). I was also hoping to get a new list generated as well (current list extracted from List of Apollo Astronauts, with some edits). I think your goals are fine as well, but I could use help in any of the above if you are interested. Kees08 (Talk) 01:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the Collins article. I'll need to get it moving if you want it to be Featured too by July 2019. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Once either Aldrin or Collins passes A-class, I can nominate it for FAC solo correct? Perhaps that is the best option considering how much time we have left. Kees08 (Talk) 01:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the amount of work I put in, I'd like to co-nom, but you're right, we need to solo nom them in order to get them all through FAC simultaneously. As soon as the first one finishes A-class, you should solo-nominate it. Then I will solo-nominate the other unless Apollo 11 has been promoted in the meantime. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good; we will play it by ear. Thanks for all the work you have put into the article set thus far. Really great stuff. Kees08 (Talk) 01:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your work on Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, you are hereby awarded The Epic Barnstar. Congrats!TomStar81 (Talk) 19:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your work on Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work on Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, you are hereby awarded The Right Half of the Half Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TomStar81 for the recognition and Hawkeye7 for the help and guidance. The John Glenn article was especially difficult, I do not want to think about how many hours I committed to editing that page. Here's to 2019! Kees08 (Talk) 21:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Kudos to you for your work on John Glenn, which was by far the most difficult of the astronaut articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

	Space Pioneer Award
	For taking the time to welcome me, and for your doing all the page reviews, please enjoy the Space Pioneer badge. :) Neopeius (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Neopeius. You are always free to self-assess articles up to B-class if you wish, but you can submit to the assessment page if you want someone else's input. It is good to have more spaceflight editors, especially in the satellite department, which can be overshadowed by other aspects of spaceflight. Let me know if you need anything. Kees08 (Talk) 21:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You're the best! I will be more comfortable self reviewing once I've been through the process once or twice. I want to make sure I do it justice. When you get the chance; we have time. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neopeius (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hey, I am currently reading Deke! to get data to improve the Deke Slayton article, per the discussion with you and Hawkeye7. I was just looking it over, and saw that you have made a bunch of small edits on it recently. Are you planning on rewriting the article, or do you still want me to tackle it? No problem for me if you are planning to rewrite it; I'll just begin working on some other pages in my ever-growing queue. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I should have pinged you to let you know specifically what I was doing, but my girlfriend always says "I like to come home to a clean house" before we leave for vacation (so we clean). I like to have a clean article when I start, figured you might want the same, so I was trying to cite the information that was there that is no fun to cite and write (like the awards section, portrayed as, etc). Let me know if you want me to do anymore, I was pretty close to done on it anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 03:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent; appreciate the help! I, too, like to come home to a clean house when I leave for vacation, but I'm inevitably going to procrastinate on packing and return home to a house that looks like a bomb went off. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Trust me, without her mine would be the same. So one of the things I was thinking of doing was removing the In media bullets that I cannot find reliable sources to. To me, it says the actor's role in the film was pretty minimal. I can give it another go, but did you have thoughts on that at all? Kees08 (Talk) 04:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally like the bullets that reference Slayton being portrayed in various media, as I think it ties him to things that people may recognize (in the same way that my friends didn't know who Gene Kranz is, but they knew him when I said he was played by Ed Harris in Apollo 13). Unfortunately, Slayton hasn't been portrayed in a pivotal role in any movies (as far as I'm aware), so it's not like there are big-name actors that people will recognize. In the past, I've used IMDB cast lists as sources for portrayal in media; I don't know if IMDB is considered an unreliable source, but I think it's safe to cite such lists. As always, though, if there is no good source for a portrayal, I think it's better to remove it than have false information. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I've done the same with Gordon Cooper. The article is now completely sourced and properly referenced, so it is a fully-fledged B-class article. I hate articles without sources which had me running around looking for where things came from. I guess I should put it up for GA, but I fear a long list of proposed changes. He really is the least interesting of the Mercury 7. If either of you want to take a look, please do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Great work with that, looks pretty good. The intro could get expanded, and if this is considered an RS I would love to see it incorporated. I thought it was a really interesting read and could help to balance the UFO sightings section, although it may make it unduly large. Couple of other quick points:

• Cooper, Slayton noted, had a very small chance of receiving the Apollo 13 command if he did an outstanding job with the assignment, which he did not. - who is the 'he' in this, does which he did not refer to Cooper not doing a good job or Slayton not giving Cooper command? If I remember right, both are true.
• Cooper was selected as backup Commander - should commander be lower case?
• Gemini 5 mission could probably be expanded a bit
• Cooper was designated for next the next mission, but was nearly replaced I would fix this but not sure what it is supposed to say

I had the goal of getting Gordon Cooper to GA (my goal was to get the original Oklahoma astronauts up to GA, after I started with Stafford). Then I read Cooper's book and promptly gave up. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I will probably expand the award and honors section to try to make it interesting. I always disliked the organizations section; it was clearly just copy/pasted from the NASA bio before anything existed on Wiki and then no one ever removes it. I did not read the entire thing, but those comments should cover most of it. Presuming the license imaging/sources are good, I imagine it could pass GA. Kees08 (Talk) 07:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Lunar Flag Assembly has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with your GA nomination.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you, the edits look good. Still a bit of work to go until GA, I would like to find good sources for each flag that was placed on the Moon and describe any difficulties they had. Getting closer though! Kees08 (Talk) 20:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help. I've been meaning to get back to extending and improving some of the NASA articles, especially in Heliophysics, which is my specialty. I see you won awards for Neil Armstrong and John Glenn articles. They are two of my childhood heroes and one of the reasons I work for NASA. I actually got to meet both of them at the same time (and a friend snapped a poor-quality phone photo) and I talked to Neil for about 10 minutes. Definitely one of the highlights of my NASA career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.r.christian (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

How exciting! I was lucky enough to see Armstrong give a talk, but not Glenn. Your specialty could use a knowledgeable subject matter expert, I am sure your contributions will help out quite a bit. Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually went "Oooooo!" at my desk when I read your edit summary on this version of the Apollo 1 page. Fabulous. If I could thank you for that edit multiple times, I would. That was wonderful. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

My article on Polaris (UK nuclear programme) has been archived at FAC, so I can't nominate another article for two weeks. Buzz Aldrin should be finished at A-class by then, and can be co-nominated at that time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: To be clear, you want me to co-nominate this with you once the ACR is officially closed? Kees08 (Talk) 21:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

No, on 1 February. I cannot nominate an article before then. Buzz should close at ACR with 24 hours. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Roger, that is what I misunderstood. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I see all your hard work on Sputnik 1 and I'm really impressed. Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I really need to study Russian harder, it would make this easier. The article is in rough shape since no single editor has taken initiative on the article, which results in a mish-mash of writing and citation styles, good and bad sources, etc. It is coming along though! Kees08 (Talk) 06:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! You said you had a newspaper clipping re Solrad 4? Could you tell me where to find it? Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I couldn't see the link on my mobile. ^^;; --Neopeius (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, let me know if you need me to find more. Kees08 (Talk) 02:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be grateful if you could take a look at the FAC when you can. I'd especially appreciate a source review, but obviously any substantive comments would be appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping to get to it soon. I have some medical issues going on now, so I have been working on things that are easier for me right now. I will try to prioritize it though. Kees08 (Talk) 23:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see this^ I wanted to ask if you have any further comments or vote on this nomination from earlier this month, for the article Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies. Dan56 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant to reply and let you know the same, my apologies I must have forgot. I had the tab open for a few days just have not been able to review. I will give it a shot right now, I am feeling a little better. Kees08 (Talk) 00:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=category&target=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCategory%3AFeatured_lists&range=latest-20&subjectpage=0&subcategories=0&sort=views&direction=1&view=list --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

	The Vanstar
	Kees, thank you so much for working with me and others of Spaceflight to keep the placing humming. Neopeius (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see anything obviously inaccurate but I didn't go looking either. The changes in numbers were rounding/unrounding. Looks like it passed. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you have time to look over my suggestions, that would be good. Regardless of it passing, I spent a lot of time reviewing the last few sections. If you cannot find the time, no worries. Kees08 (Talk) 08:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit], I would consider SETP membership to be important for astronauts, not all of whom are test pilots. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose, but aren't all test pilots a member of SETP? I have not been sure where to draw the line, the citation always comes from the NASA biography, and always includes things like their fraternity, AIAA, etc. I ended up drawing the line where at including no organizations. Is there a different line you would like to suggest? SETP, plus any other specific organizations? I have no problem with including organizations, but the current organizations that we list consists of 'whatever NASA felt like putting on their page'.Kees08 (Talk) 21:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You're not wrong there, but SETP has members, associate fellows, and fellows. The fellows have to accept you as a fellow on a black ball vote. Shepard, Schirra and Slayton were fellows; Glenn, Cooper and Carpenter were members; Grissom was not a member. See Schirra's Space, p. 51. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a great point; I never realized there were different levels. Is that the only organization you think should be left in? I can try to put it in chronologically if I can figure out when that is. Kees08 (Talk) 22:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zond 5 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to follow up with you to make sure everything was okay involving the images for Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018). Noah^Talk 01:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The article Zond 5 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:Zond 5 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The article Zond 5 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zond 5 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles Bassett 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

		The WP SPFLT Distinguished Service Medal
		Kees, you've been the backbone of Spaceflight since I got here. Thank you for keeping the place going. I hope to emulate you and earn one of these someday! Neopeius (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Congratulations! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The article Charles Bassett 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:Charles Bassett for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The article Charles Bassett you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charles Bassett 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Can you have a look at the comments on Talk:Neil Armstrong#Korean War incident Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Can do, was actually just looking at it and plan to check Hansen tonight to get the wording of it all correct. Kees08 (Talk) 22:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Michael Collins has now been promoted, completing the group we started working on last year. You can now proceed with plans to showcase all four articles at TFA during the anniversary in July. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I like the current plan of Armstrong as TFA, Collins as lead DYK, and Aldrin's photo in OTD. Kees08 (Talk) 05:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, just a heads up, I saw that you added my name for John Young and Jim Lovell on the Adopt an Astronaut page. No problem, but I removed myself, since I don't intend to work on those pages in the near future, and don't want to make it seem like I have staked a claim. My list of astronaut articles to improve is my pipe dream of astronauts that I personally consider especially significant, or that I've met (which is really just Drew Feustel). Other than waiting on my Deke Slayton GA review, I'm taking a temporary hard left turn from astronaut bios and working on the Space Shuttle article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, not sure if you saw my edit summary when I added that, but it included that you could remove yourself if you want. Since there are so many GA/FA articles to go, I like to include names of persons interested in expanding the articles, and if for some reason all the other ones got done and only those remained, I would just edit them myself at that point. No worries though, thanks for the explanation! Kees08 (Talk) 16:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It may still be a little rough in spots, but I'm thinking that Apollo 9 is more or less ready to start the review process. Could you take a look at it and see if you concur? Also, do you wish to be a conom on this as well when it gets to FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I will take a run-through it and shore up the little typos and things, and then you can nominate after that, if that works? Kees08 (Talk) 23:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I admittedly did not read every word, but I think it is good enough to nominate now. Kees08 (Talk) 03:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)