User talk:Aza24/Archive 2

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
2,166		Eggplant (talk)	Add sources
3,294		Roy Moore (talk)	Add sources
3		Madina Air (talk)	Add sources
28		Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci (talk)	Add sources
107		Cecilia Gallerani (talk)	Add sources
32		Gongche notation (talk)	Add sources
45		James Sant (talk)	Cleanup
414		History of the United States (2008–present) (talk)	Cleanup
67		Calvert School (talk)	Cleanup
4,251		Islam by country (talk)	Expand
1,471		Christianity by country (talk)	Expand
709,693		2020 United States presidential election (talk)	Expand
34		New musicology (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
16		Extension (music) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,217		Grievances of the United States Declaration of Independence (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5		Anna's Walk (talk)	Merge
232		United States debt ceiling (talk)	Merge
44,192		President-elect of the United States (talk)	Merge
343		Canon (music) (talk)	Wikify
1,384		Mode (music) (talk)	Wikify
45		Estampie (talk)	Wikify
2		Joel Sheveloff (talk)	Orphan
1		Che vidi oh ciel, che vidi (talk)	Orphan
3		Eugen Ciucă (talk)	Orphan
11		Alessandro Longo (talk)	Stub
30		Leonardo's crossbow (talk)	Stub
4		Acora District (talk)	Stub
231		Semantic Scholar (talk)	Stub
8		Charles Nicholl (author) (talk)	Stub
4		Iveshead School (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I rather think KV 73q should be included with the doubtful works if we speak in WP-voice, as the source situation is similar to KV 73l (it's true Breitkopf & Haertel got KV 73q from Nannerl, but even then doubted it). I do wonder why it made it into the AMA main volume rather than the supplements though; might be good to research. Also there is some distinct difference in levels of doubt – I understand that while for nine of them possible authorship of Mozart (but with caution) is generally conceded (that would be 42a, 45b, 73l, 73m, 73n, 73q, 74g = Anh.C 11.03, 75, 111b), I am not aware of anyone currently advocating for authenticity of KV 16a or KV Anh.C 11.04 = 98. Perhaps the latter two should be treated simply as spurious. But I am only a Mozart fan and not an actual musicologist, so I may not be up to date with the latest research on the matter. Double sharp (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Double sharp, I've been meaning to go back to the list but seem to have forgotten about it. I mean to bring it featured list quality at some point, but as you're pointing out, more research is definitely needed. I wasn't sure about KV 73q, the place I got its status from was Mozart symphonies of spurious or doubtful authenticity where Brian did some work. Those other two you mention will certainly require more research and there are still some dating/location inconsistencies I found between sources on many of the works. This being said, I would be hesitant to move any of the works to spurious besides 2, 3, 37 since these three are more or less universally certain to not be his. I suspect as a result the "doubtful" category will be somewhat broad in terms of attribution status, but further specificities probably belong in the Mozart symphonies of spurious or doubtful authenticity article. Btw, since you're here I hope everything is going ok with the WikiProject Elements situation, I saw your name over there and it was getting rather intense. Aza24 (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A reasonable line to toe would be to ask "is it in the NMA?" (in which case 16a gets added to my list above, but not 98). Later scholarship may reveal some other things too about these works, of course.

Elements project is improving, hopefully. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Please use article talk pages for issues regarding a specific article. The "lost" full reference is at Discography of Bach's Magnificat. Someone must have removed it from the original article, possibly while, in the mean while, Amazon is frowned upon as a reliable source, or maybe I did erroneously when splitting off the discography list many years ago. But again, please, such issues should not be raised on user talk pages, but on article talk pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't trying to blame you for the issue, nor calling you out – I have gone to various people's talk pages for harv ref related issues since I like to bring up the script and it's sometimes hard to get attention on article talk. I also wanted to mention the Kleiber list so decided usertalk was best. I will contact you on article talks in the future should a similar issue arise. Best - Aza24 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please come to my talk with such things whenever you think I might be the most likely one to help. - I planned to get to your FAC, yesterday and many days before, - yesterday I suddenly had to take care of another article (not by me) that was sent to draft, and I hate when blue links turn red like that. Hoping for today. Thanks for all the high quality work, - thanks given with trees instead of turkey ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I'd say that while your input would be much valued at the FAC, it has attracted a lot of reviewers already so no worries if you don't get to it. That being said, I've put Weber's operas up at FLC, if you are available to give insight there. I feel guilty that Beethoven's 250th is going to pass in a month, I may have to put everything down in a week or two to just focus on his stuff... Aza24 (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aza. Sorry for having to contact you like this, but I wonder if you could carry out a source review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1989 (Taylor Swift album)/archive3? If not, I wonder where I could contact a source reviewer for FACs... Thank you so much, and hope you're having a great weekend, HĐ (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@HĐ: My weekend has been alright, thank you :) I'm always happy to help with your articles; I'll plan to do a source review later today. Aza24 (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, Aza24, and welcome to Women in Red. On the basis of the impressive work you have been doing on composers and early music, you should be a real asset to our project. While you say you are mainly interested in improving articles up to GA or FA class (see also wp:Women in Green), we hope you will be able to devote some of your time to creating new articles. In this connection, you might be interested in our redlists on women composers from Wikidata and from the International encyclopedia of women composers. If you come across any others you think deserve articles, you can add them to our crowd-sourced redlist. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Ah I didn't know Women in Green existed – I have a feeling I'll be checking that out soon as well! Thank you for the missing composer articles link – some of the people there look quite interesting, so perhaps I'll take a crack at some new articles there. Thanks for your message  – and your admirable work on Carl Nielsen :) Cheers - Aza24 (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Many of us go back and forth between WiR and WiG. The best way to bring our attention to collaboration on peer reviews or whatever is on our WiR talk page rather than on the membership list. If you are developing lists or improving existing articles, you might come across redlinked women who need to be covered. Let us know how we can help you along. Now that I am devoting nearly all my time to improving coverage of women and their works, I can't really concentrate on Danish composers the way I used to but one who really deserves attention is Hans Christian Lumbye (at least up to the standard of the DA and DE versions). Maybe I'll get around to it one of these days. I must say I appreciate the extent to which you have helped review GA candidates. You'll see there is a list of GANs on the main WiR page. You might be interested in Eleonora de Cisneros.--Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Yes that sounds like a very sound approach. That's unfortunate about being too busy to work on Danish composers, but I think you've "done your duty" – so to speak – with your work on Nielson :) Anyways, I'll try to pick up Eleonora de Cisneros soon if no one else does, and will gladly do some from time to time do some from the list on the main WiR page. Best - Aza24 (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, glad that I can help. And thank you for everything you do here (the list is too long...!) Aza24 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
6		Gautier d'Espinal (talk)	Add sources
70		Ars subtilior (talk)	Add sources
185		Volcanic gas (talk)	Add sources
93		Anglican church music (talk)	Add sources
677		Choir (talk)	Add sources
36		Notre-Dame school (talk)	Add sources
134		Psalm 100 (talk)	Cleanup
108		Chabad messianism (talk)	Cleanup
10		Mary Ellen Snodgrass (talk)	Cleanup
14		Siege of Belgrade (1440) (talk)	Expand
14		Guiraut Riquier (talk)	Expand
4		Vice-voivode of Transylvania (talk)	Expand
154		Organum (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5		Sydney Chamber Choir (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
899		The Satanic Temple (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
124		Born in the purple (talk)	Merge
72		Pahonia (talk)	Merge
43		Baháʼí Faith by continent (talk)	Merge
482		Texture (music) (talk)	Wikify
6		Pacific Environment (talk)	Wikify
27		Momolianism (talk)	Wikify
4		Bio-index model (talk)	Orphan
4		Musica Secreta (talk)	Orphan
2		Josef Komarek (talk)	Orphan
32		Day of the Covenant (Baháʼí) (talk)	Stub
10		Boymerang (talk)	Stub
8		Borlet (talk)	Stub
3		Women of Color Resource Center (talk)	Stub
4		Embassy of Indonesia, Moscow (talk)	Stub
10		Coat of arms of Norfolk Island (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gog the Mild, hopefully the first of many!! Aza24 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Congrats from me also. I never had a doubt that it would pass, and look forward to many more :) Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Portrait of a Musician --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Aza! Thank you again for your work on the John Neal (writer) FAN. I have initiated a move request to John Neal and it could use more input. Could you check it out if you have time? I thought I would ask given your familiarity with the article from the nomination process. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edit from Leonardo Da Vinci’s page? Editor man12115 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Editor man12115: I explained this in my edit summary. Leonardo's resting place is unconfirmed; see the lines from the "Location of Remains" section: While Leonardo was certainly buried in the collegiate church of Saint Florentin at the Château d'Amboise in 12 August 1519, the current location of his remains is unclear and A plaque above the tomb states that its contents are only presumed to be those of Leonardo. If you put that he's buried in "Chapel of Saint-Hubert" you are inserting an unconfirmed piece of information into the infobox, a place with limited space that doesn't allow clarification or explanation on the issue. Aza24 (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 

On 16 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of monuments to Ludwig van Beethoven, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first of many monuments to Ludwig van Beethoven is a bust (pictured) created in 1812 by Franz Klein during the composer's lifetime? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of monuments to Ludwig van Beethoven. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, List of monuments to Ludwig van Beethoven), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven in 1803

Thank you so much for that monument, leading the birthday display! - Any chance that you might look at the sonata today? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks so incredible!! A bunch of my friends know me as their "classical music-loving friend" and have proudly wished me a "Happy Beethoven's 205th" :) The plan was to get to your GA today, though there is a less likely chance I may start it today but finish tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Congrats to the stats for the monuments! ... and the Weber operas FL! - 54k views for our composer wasn't bad and tells me we had the day right for the audience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! With 11,899 views, your Beethoven monuments hook is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of December. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS December. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know Cbl62! This is great to hear. Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks John, this is lovely and much appreciated – happy holidays to you as well! A remarkable painting; the reliefs are particularly enticing - Aza24 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I did a lot of of copy editing and pruning up to the "Uses" section. That section seems 95% off-topic to me, so I'm not the right person to edit it (I'd cut almost all of it out!). I hope at least I've left the rest of the article in better shape. - Special-T (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Special-T thanks, this is really great to see. The section you mention does certainly seem to be a hodgepodge of random examples with no real uniformity (not to mention completely unreferenced!). My Wikipedia editing has been lacking lately so I haven't even gotten to clef yet – but I'm hoping to do more in the next few days so I'll be sure to add some reference to both clef and CoF (does anyone call it that..?) soon. Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you removed the UDP tag on Joseph Stiglitz; sorry for not being more verbose in my edit summary – VentureKit was a very active farm and I simply didn't have time to write verbose explanations for everything I did, but as noted there, VentureKit involvement is almost never my sole reason for tagging. In Stiglitz' case, there are also a number of SPAs or near-SPAs in the page history ([1], [2], [3] [4], [5]), which, when present to this extent, is usually a red flag for UPE. If you're confident that all of these edits were unproblematic (I didn't have time to examine them closely), I have no issue with you removing the tag, but I do want to object to the statement that it is "pointless": This amount of SPA activity, plus involvement by a major sockfarm definitely merits looking into. Blablubbs|talk 12:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs thank you for your informative message here; your edit was, evidently, certainly not "pointless". The main reason I removed the tag was because as a BLP that is (somewhat) high-profile, having the "paid editing" thing can (in my mind at least) be extremely deterring for readers and give an overly negative first impression. This combined with your hasty response (which I understand your time restrictions affected) seemed a less than ideal rationale for the tag. Do feel free to add it back, I haven't taken a closer look the issue, which seems to be larger than I first assumed. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response – I understand the BLP tagging concern there; I've gone through the edits now. It looks like they are fine; the problematic ones are those by Special:Contributions/Kurkt and pretty blatantly push an anti-Stiglitz POV, as are those by another account. Ironically enough, there does seem to have been a fair amount of POV-pushing, just in the other direction; in this case, the tag appears to have been a false alarm – my apologies. Best and happy holidays, Blablubbs|talk 00:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

All righty. I have added you as a delegate to Featured Topics. Thanks for wanting to take part in this and I hope we can make some leeway with advancing the project. GamerPro64 01:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, I have quite a few ideas on how to help the project. I may try and create a template akin to Template:@FLC later tonight. Aza24 (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. Been thinking about that lately too. GamerPro64 02:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Was just dropping by to see if I could help with anything and saw this ... gratz! - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Dank! Aza24 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I was wondering if you could do a source review for 91st Academy Awards for featured list promotion. I would greatly appreciate the help.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Birdienest81 Yes! I will be sure to do this later tonight. Best - Aza24 (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The list of monuments to a monumental person is monumental! Do you think that you could quickly write an article about one of the monuments, or an artist, which would be good for DYK? ... which should mention the list! I have written a few short related articles, but would much like if it didn't look like my personal thing. I'd be quite willing to help and nominate, but no later than tomorrow if we want to stay with the regulations. I still have to work on 2 of these ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah my goal for the list was nomination to FLC by the end of the year – unfortunately there's no way to get it in before the 17th. As far as a DYK I'll see what I can do with Ludwig van Beethoven (Baerer) later today. Your insight in nominating would be greatly appreciated, although it's hard for me to picture what a DYK would look like that links back to list (but we can try!). Aza24 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, promising. We can just pipe "series of sculptures" to the list. We can word something here, and you nominate. DYK doesn't like more than one nom by the same user per set ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Another option might be to expand the prose of the list 5* which seems feasable, as it has no more than 600 chars. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmm not sure which route to go. Leaning towards the list, we'll see what happens tonight with it. Aza24 (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We'll see ;) I nominated one (which isn't ready, but at least mentions the Beethoven connection added last night), and will have to work on my other, after last day for two noms unrelated to B. - the normal last-minute-stuff ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

ps: the list would have the advantage of showing a really good monument, while those in the series have the person very small, and little context when cropped --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I hoped to get the Third Cello Sonata long enough today, but no. At least I found a book source which I hope will do the trick after sleep. Tomorrow is the last day to nominate for the 17th which is already a day later than the likely birthday, but the google doodle day 5 years ago, so probably same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see, I think I'll go with the list and try and nominate it later tonight then. Found a book that should help with the prose, I'm surprised that there's even scholarship on "depictions of Beethoven" – but I suppose, knowing his reputation, there's probably scholarship on what he ate for breakfast :) Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerda, I've just added quite a bit of prose that should hopefully be enough for the list criteria. I think I may have to go soon and may not have time to go through the (new to me) process and review another... would you be able to nominate it? Or does that go against the limit per user rule? Aza24 (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Perfect expansion! I'd give it a short lead and then have a header such as "History" because the TOC is practically useless so far down. I can nominate for you, will do that right now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I would suggest perhaps "...the first monument to Ludwig van Beethoven was created in 1812 by Franz Klein while the composer was still alive?" but if you find something better, go for it. Aza24 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Look ;) - no, I didn't see your suggestion. - A question for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I was bold and nominated the Cello Sonata for GA, - would you be interested in doing a review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes would be happy to, thank you for asking! I'll pick it up in a day or two unless someone else has begun it. Aza24 (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You could take it now, and say so. I'd be delighted. (... my last two didn't go well as you know) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Congrats to your FA! Any particular day when it should appear as TFA? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm still thinking about a day, as there are none associated with the painting itself. On my mind right now are his birth and death dates, perhaps death (2 May) as his birthdate is uncertain. I've initiated your GA btw – will begin this weekend hopefully. I'm glad we were able to get some DYKs up for Beethoven, especially in light of the hundreds of his concerts that were canceled this year. Aza24 (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I nominated it without specific day then. - We'll have one Beethoven set, - not my favourite solution but tired of struggling with DYK, very generally so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Probably better to keep it off his birthday/death day, since (hopefully) I'll have some more "important" Leonardo articles at FA by then. :) Yes ugh, the Beethoven situation is not ideal, but we did what we could, although you did most of the heavy lifting. Perhaps this is a good lesson in the future for us; looking at the choral wiki anniversary list there are some heavy hitters, like Stravinsky's 100th death anniversary on 6 April, and Josquin des Prez's 500th death anniversary 27 August – both huge composers with big anniversaries! Perhaps we could organize something nice (or others on the list) for them ahead of time. Josquin's article could rerun on the main page but would probably be rejected since it is likely the worst composer FA we have in terms of sourcing, comprehensiveness, prose etc.... Frankly I've been meaning to bring it FAR but have been holding up as I may end up just rewriting most of the article myself, and not needing the extra layer of FAR complication; if I do that though, rerunning on 27 August would make even more sense. Aza24 (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

All fine, I had my best Beethoven DYK early, and they didn't take the image, - better not to look back. I didn't get as far as wanted for his compositions, - my fault. Making Josquin's article good would be a great idea, and one featured article is seen much better than a few DYK. I just told an editor not to put her heart into articles, but mine is much more in Beethoven (also the article which restored my good name a bit) than Stravinsky, on top of being no friend of "celebrating" death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Making "Betovi"'s cello sonata a GA was the perfect Christmas gift for GA, thank you! Can you imagine to take a look at the failed BWV 227 before the year ends? Trying to clean things up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem; I'll happily try and help with that one sometime soon as well. Aza24 (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I started an Afd for Reedless wind instrument. Thought you might like to weigh in. - Special-T (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Will do so! Thanks. Aza24 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. Best Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil, this is lovely. I too agree we will get through it, but I fear that there are hundreds of thousands of more death before so, especially where I am in US. Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again! I hope you had a happy holidays and are having a wonderful end to your year. Thank you again for your source review for my previous FAC. It was very refreshing to learn better ways to present citations. If possible, could you do a source review for my current FAC on another song? I completely understand if you do not have the time, energy, or interest, but I just wanted to reach out to ask. I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy to, thank you for asking! Am happy to do any source reviews for you in the future as well. Will get to it later today or tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Online events: New: Climate and environment | Public domain Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest Year-long initiative: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi Aza24, hope all is well. On my peer review, you expressed an interest in reviewing this article at FAC. As such, I was wondering if I could interest you in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/O Captain! My Captain!/archive1. I'm loathe to request favors, but it seems that nobody is very interested in giving it a review and the co-ords have suggested that it may be in danger of getting archived. Hope your holidays are pleasant and I wish you and yours all the best as we enter a new year. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Eddie, I'm happy you've asked/reminded me. I'll be sure to leave some comments soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hassle you Aza, but would you be happy for me to publish what I've got at User:Ham II/Sandpit D in mainspace? We can always continue to work on it there. I'll be archiving the discussion on my own talk page shortly. Cheers, Ham II (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh my, I don't know how I missed your response on your talk, looking now. (and this is no hassle at all, I assure you) Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 

 

Happy New Year!

Aza24,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Many thanks Hal and happy new year to you as well! Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

	Big Nerd Award
	It is my upmost honor and privilege to bestow upon Aza24 the Big Nerd Award, in recognition of his contributions to the nerd community. Your contributions provide the long needed foundation of knowledge for the nerds of the future. Ravishsingh00724 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Lol... many thanks! Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello sir. Could you please send me your email or reply back to this? Because I need some fixes in an article and I think that you can help me since you are very experienced on wikipedia and im new. If you have the time of course!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holloman123 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Holloman123: I'm happy to advise you in anyway possible, though I don't know if I can help you by adding content myself (since I don't know what article you're referring to). Either way, feel free to reply here with questions or concerns. Alternatively you could post at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, where you'll receive more help from the many willing editors there. Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
31		Grigory Ginzburg (talk)	Add sources
45		José María Arizmendiarrieta (talk)	Add sources
9		1513 papal conclave (talk)	Add sources
490		Arvo Pärt (talk)	Add sources
6		Mediterranean Day (talk)	Add sources
120,851		Jon Ossoff (talk)	Add sources
14		George Floyd protests in Illinois (talk)	Cleanup
44		Shunsuke Sato (talk)	Cleanup
3		Ferdinando Ponzetti (talk)	Cleanup
559		Renaissance music (talk)	Expand
44		National Library of Latvia (talk)	Expand
443		Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump (talk)	Expand
186		Socialist People's Party (Denmark) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
57		War of the Romantics (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
58		Sigismond Thalberg (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
4,913		Re:Zero − Starting Life in Another World (talk)	Merge
5,278		Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election (talk)	Merge
137		Medici Chapel (talk)	Merge
27		International Tchaikovsky Competition 2011 – Piano (talk)	Wikify
43		Für Alina (talk)	Wikify
3,584		Tor (anonymity network) (talk)	Wikify
2		Bohdan Pociej (talk)	Orphan
3		NER model (talk)	Orphan
101		Gardenia Bakeries (Malaysia) (talk)	Orphan
4		Nocturne of Love (1919 film) (talk)	Stub
45		Chopin's compositions for piano and orchestra (talk)	Stub
21		Roman Prymula (talk)	Stub
9		Władysław Żeleński (composer) (talk)	Stub
6		Wilfried Sätty (talk)	Stub
19		Antonio García Gutiérrez (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have the time, I would really appreciate if you could give my FLC on DNA and RNA codon tables a look-over. And thanks for the recommendation - just what I needed during this dreary time of the year. ~ HAL333 20:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy to take a look later today HAL333. And yes, Tatum is splendid; would recommend this as well... Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 13 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Many thanks Pm! Aza24 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the use of "#tag:ref". I did not know if it would permit the use of embedded refs (no documentation) so I switched to a documented template. I am sure the text used for <ref>, "refn", and "efn" is the same size. I appreciate the use of "group=n" make the note designators more distinctive, I have also seen "group=note" which is even more dramatic.

The Felix Mendelssohn article was started almost 20 years ago. I doubt the "efn" template even existed. Poor formats/techniques/methods get copied by editors from favorite articles used as templates.

I believe "refn | group=n | ..." will produce the same results as "#tag:ref | ... | group=n" and might not be as picky about syntax. Personally, I like the parameters before the text.

User-duck (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I am working on articles with a specific SFN error. Just reduced the number to < 4000. I figure it will take about 3 years to complete.

@User-duck:, thanks for letting me know about the "refn" fix – I'll try it out. And yes I've always thought "group=note" was a bit overkill as well, but it certainly does the job. I'm happy to hear about your sfn ref fixing endevours; I've had my fair share of experiences with the citation style. Besides using it for all of my articles, I converted John Neal (writer), Abraham Lincoln and Fanny Mendelssohn to sfn, to help out different editors. If you don't have it (or something similar) already, I'd highly recommend a useful script for spotting sfn/harv errors in refs (User:Svick/HarvErrors.js), it has saved me a lot of trouble. I may try and see if I can convert more high profile FAs (Elizabeth I for example) to sfn citations in the future; they certainly benefit the reader immensely, which is our goal at WP! Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've added a description to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Grade I listed buildings in Somerset. Could you take a look and see if this is the sort of thing you were looking for. I did notice the one at Wikipedia:Featured topics/1880 United States presidential election is uncited.— Rod ^talk 08:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rodw: that looks lovely, thank you. Yeah I wouldn't think references are required for this sort of this, but they're certainly welcome. The only thing I wonder is if "medieval" should be linked to Medieval architecture, the same way that "Norman" is already linked to Norman architecture. Aza24 (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Medieval architecture done & updated to Somerset West and Taunton (two districts combined since I wrote this originally).— Rod ^talk 09:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks again for your quick and admirable work here. Aza24 (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Aza. I hope you are doing well. Thank you for your source reviews on my previous FACs for Blank Space and 1989 (Taylor Swift album). I was wondering if you could do another source review for Shake It Off, given that the FAC has received a fair amount of support? Apologies if I come off as impatient, as I am planning to embark on a long-term off-wiki break soon... Thank you for your time and have a great weekend! HĐ (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

HĐ, you come off as nothing but kind; I'll leave some comments later today. I hope you enjoy your wikibreak – but don't leave us forever! Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help as always. Unfortunately this will be a very long break, so I can't warrant that I will come back. Who knows what the future holds anyways, haha. HĐ (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aza, hope you are well. You have been kind enough to do source reviews for some of my past country music number ones FLCs, and I was wondering if you might have the time to do one for the current FLC for 2020? It's had four support !votes for two weeks now, but isn't getting closed because it hasn't had a source review. If you are otherwise engaged then don't worry, only if you have the time...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: thanks for your message, I've just done so now. Since you're here, I'm wondering: technically the ISBNS for books should have dashes, when I did some of your source reviews I would change them but I realized you had done so many lists without them that it was too minor of an issue to worry about. But now I've discovered this tool which could allow me to update every list you've done in minutes (or perhaps seconds). Is there somewhere you have your FLs listed/ones you're working on listed so that I can quickly use the tool? Fine if not, but I thought I'd check. Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing both source reviews. I have a row of stars at the top of my user page which link to all my featured content, don't know if that works? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Aza24! I know that this is not a more modern article, but was wondering if you would be able to take a look at "Paint It Black" and comment at its peer review? I would appreciate your input (eg a source review or otherwise) and am reaching out per your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shake It Off/archive1, of which I am a co-nominator. I am curious your views on areas for the article's improvement and if you think that it is ready for FAC as I am fairly new to FAC and this is my first one where I am "leading" the charge. Thank you for your time and I understand if this is too far out of your interests to look or if you are unable (or do not wish) to. Thank you again, regardless. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about modernity TheSandDoctor, I'm happy to take a look. How exciting to have your first solo nom in the works! Hopefully the first of many. I'll leave some comments in a few days. Aza24 (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh and be sure to add it to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Aza24 (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!   It is exciting to be the lead on one...hopefully this does better than the Rolling Stones ones have fared lol. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for all your comments in the peer review for the Gibraltar national football team results. I want to now nominate it as a featured list candidate (it will be my first nomination of an article to featured status). To do so it says I must make sure the peer review is closed. If you have any further comments on the list then obviously we can keep it open. If there's no further comments, do you know how to close the peer review? --6ii9 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

6ii9, hi, yes everything looks good; I'm honestly not sure about if the access concerns are addressed by being able to see the win/loss based on the score. We can ask around at FLC, I'm sure it would be easy to implement if needed. To close the PR check out the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines#Step 4: Closing a review; basically you replace the {{Peer review|archive=1}} on Talk:Gibraltar national football team results with {{subst:Close peer review|archive=1}} and then go the Peer review page and replace {{Peer review page|topic=list}} with {{Closed peer review page}}. Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much. With regards to the access concerns, I agree we should ask around at FLC. I will be willing to implement them if most people think they are needed. Thank you, hopefully see you at the FL candidate page — 6ii9 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to let you know I have listed it for FL status (link). I hope it goes well. — 6ii9 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There's more to do, but the structure of Tallis's life is now in place. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Good to here; I've compiled some sources in my sandbox for the legacy section and will start drafting soon... Aza24 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The article F. Andrieu you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:F. Andrieu for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Smerus -- Smerus (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there,

If at all possible, could you do a source review for List of accolades received by The Big Short (film) regarding its promotion to featured list status? I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your note! I will get to it either later today or tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: I have made the necessary corrections based on your comments.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article F. Andrieu 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 Smerus -- Smerus (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice to see it passed! Will you nominate for DYK, or should I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! If it's not too much trouble I would greatly appreciate if you could nominate it. I suspect that the best hook would be something like "DYK... the ars nova composer F. Andrieu may be the same person as Magister Franciscus?", though "DYK... F. Andrieu wrote Armes, amours/O flour des flours, a double ballade déploration, for the death of Guillaume de Machaut in 1377?" would probably work too—which ever you think is best. Aza24 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll think about it. - Came to advertise Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hallo Aza24,

Please see here for the policy: MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. If you have questions it's better you take it up on the talk page there. Concerning consistency with the remaining articles it's a tedious manual task, so your help in completing the rest would be truly appreciated. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy 20th! I love the logo for this anniversary, though the other ones on the page you linked (which I hadn't seen) are also rather nice. I've always wanted to sang the Mozart Requiem; I joined a choir the year after they had done so...! Aza24 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the former logos did a better job in terms of accessibility, - you need good eyes to detect anything but bunt on this one, and not even 20 is visible. Would you mind repeating here? (Vivaldi etc. - it's cumbersome, I know.) - For a long time, it was exactly the same for me for the Mozart, but by now, it's probably the piece I sang the most. The Wiesbaden performance was one of four at different locations, for example. - I kept a promise to self and just nominated BWV 1 for FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No, not that tedious, just a quick copy and paste of an initial comment, so thank you for letting me know about them. Your first FAC of 2021, only 15 days in! I'll be sure to leave some comments at some point, I just have a few other in-process reviews to attend to first. I have a love-hate relationship with Mozart, and since a significant amount of the requiem wasn't even written by him (albeit with the use of his sketches) I always joke that "Mozart didn't even write his best piece!" – though I'm sure many would consider it blasphemy to declare anything but one of his operas his "best piece"...! Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Our Idstein conductor shares your relationship to Mozart (and both were born the same day, - not same year of course). His daughter is pictured on the Main page, DYK? (a pic I took) - We sang the Sparrow Mass for fun in a service, and the C minor in concert, and the Ave verum (possibly his best piece) often, but that's it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, you're making me miss singing in choirs! COVID has cancelled the choir I was supposed to sing in this year – though I'm still working on pieces by myself, "Automne" by Faure at the moment. Ave verum corpus is indeed a wonderful piece; I sometimes play the Liszt version on piano for fun. You know what's cool? If you haven't heard it, Tchaikovsky (who worshiped Mozart) arranged Liszt's transcription of Mozart's Ave verum corpus for orchestra in the 3rd movement of his Mozartiana (a recording here)... and its gorgeous! Aza24 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the Mozart-Romantic connection ;) - I sing daily, and for Christmas we even had a miniature group for Hark! The Herald Angels Sing but I miss choir singing tremendously. One group just stopped, the other one does virtual rehearsals but I don't take part. - Did I miss telling you of my pic on the Main page today! The contralto in the center is also pictured on my user page, DYK? Will write her article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, wow, that is a very COVID-esque picture of performance, congrats on getting it to the main page! Aza24 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah helped, a lot. The prep builder had the outside of the church pictured, which is nice (and even showing why it's in the list of tallest churches) but not to the point of the hook. I took another one when Praise God! That year is over was performed. On my talk. (In the article, I was removed as duplicate, imagine. I reverted, but will go to bed now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Congrats: 24 February is the Musician's day for TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! Aza24 (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for help with the Jerome Kohl article, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To let you know, I've completed addressing Gog the MIld's comments, although he may come back to me again. Please feel free to add your own comments, and I'll work through them asap. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I'll leave some comments likely tomorrow. Best - Aza24 (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Nudge—Gog the Mild has completely finished now. :) Amitchell125 (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, yes, thank you for the reminder. Getting busier IRL but I will try to get to it tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Aza24. Thank you so much for your help in my previous FACs. I am asking for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lights Up/archive1. This is not an article written by me, but by Ashleyyoursmile. As this is the editor's first peer review for FAC, he/she is in need of mentorship. I have input my comments regarding the prose, but as you are an editor not specializing in popular music, I believe you may have a broader view on other issues should I overlook anything. I hope this does not bother you. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Kind of you to help out a new comer HĐ—am getting busier IRL but will put this on my to do list. Best Aza24 (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aza. I was wondering if you could leave some comments for "Mood Swings (Pop Smoke song)" at FAC. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Ultimate Boss. Will be happy to give a look but am getting busier IRL so it may be a few days. Aza24 (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the vast number of thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog! Much appreciated—am getting busier irl but hope to do more soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be accelerating from where I am viewing it. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate all your feedback thus far, but Idk when I'll get to the page again, so in the event of the PPR eventually being closed I'd like to preserve the discussion on the article's talk page. Would it be possible to transfer this somehow, or copy it there? Is that allowed? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: if you think moving some or all of the PR comments would help to improve the article in the future, you're surely allowed to do so. That is the main goal here after all, working towards content improvement :) I would think the easiest way to do so is close the PR and just manually copy and paste any or all relevant comments to a new section on the talk page. Ping me or post here if/when you get back to the article if I can be of any help. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: I'll do that! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Aza24, I'm Netherzone, nice to meet you here. I recently created the article Pueblo pottery, and I think it might have potential as a "good article". I really enjoyed making it! Gerda Arendt thought you may be a good person to have a look at it, and possibly review it if you have the time and interest. I've never tried for GA status before, and I'll read up on the process/procedure. Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone: thanks for your note, nice to meet you as well. It looks like you're off to a great start, I could certainly see a future GA. I'd be happy to give you some feedback. It's up to you how that would work; I can give you some feedback now before a GA nom, or I could do the GA review and provide feedback there. I think I may have a lot to say, so the GA could take a bit. Best — Aza24 (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Aza24, thanks for the quick reply. Why don't we start with feedback in response before a nom is made. I'm not in a hurry at all, but it is a long-term goal of mine to try to make a GA as a personal challenge. I'd very much like to hear your feedback whenever you find the time to read thru the article and analyze it's weaknesses and strengths. All best and thanks again, Netherzone (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. Apologies in advance for the super random question. I was curious if Gigwise and/or The Spinoff would qualify as a high-quality source for a potential FAC? I would like to use the following sources, 11 brilliant albums that are let down by one dud track and Gwen Stefani’s Love. Angel. Music. Baby. was a pop gem flung out of time and space, but I wanted to ask you first since you are more experienced in this area of source reviewing. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47—sorry for my late response, have been distracted recently. Here's my take: both sites don't seem like outwardly high quality sources; neither are published by big media organizations or anything, and The Spinoff seems to have evolved from a blog and Gigwise from a gig listing site (hence it's name). The only chance for using them would be the reputation of the authors I assume. Sam Brooks doesn't seem to have a reputation beyond The Spinoff though Alexandra Pollard seems to be an accomplished and prolific writer. So based on the authors I think Gogwise is fine, but probably not The Spinoff. Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses, and no apologies necessary. That makes perfect sense to me. I was honestly leaning against using either of them, but given your point on Alexandra Pollard, it does seem that Gigwise would be permissible. Right now, I am just collecting possible sources to use for an article, and I find the process of formatting the citations to be oddly relaxing lol. Anyway, I hope you are having a wonderful start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is going alright, thanks! There is certainly something to be said about procuring a nice list of sources before one starts an article. Then we can just focus on the content, where the true fun lies :) Enjoy your weekend as well... Aza24 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you find the answer to this help desk question? While I wouldn't likely know the answer, it might be appropriate for WP:VPT. Sorry I'm two months behind.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: incidentally I already asked there and found help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 187#Template formatting issue. Thanks for your concern though! Aza24 (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

On the 1985 Tour de France review, you write "What makes van den Akker, Pieter a high-quality reliable source if it's self-published? How is there credibility or oversight here?". A valid question to ask if a source is high-quality and reliable, but why do you relate that to self-published? As far as I know, a publisher does not do fact-checking or peer-review. Another book is the book by McGann, published by Dog Ear Publishing, which was a "self-publishing company", so that is effectively the same as self-published, just in a different structure. Why do you focus on the self-published?

I'm not saying you did something wrong, I just want to learn more, so I know which sources to 'avoid' when I add info to an article. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@EdgeNavidad: The applicable policy here is WP:SELFPUB, which explains in detail which self-published sources can and can not be used, and why. BD2412 T 17:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks BD—that's what I was referring to. Sorry EdgeNavidad, I should have linked the appropriate policy with my comments. If you can prove the author in question is a subject-matter expert, then there's no issue. Otherwise you may have to look into finding an alternate source(s). Aza24 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! Should we give self-publishing publishers such as Dog Ear Publishing (they provided optional proofreading and copy editing, but the cheapest package just printed whatever you sent them) the same treatment? In other words: is having a publisher enough to be excluded from WP:SELFPUB, or are there requirements for the publisher? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Dog Ear is listed as a suspect publisher at WP:SPSLIST. It is probably best to treat a publication by any publisher on that list about the same as you would treat a personal blog, and apply the same determination of whether the author is nonetheless recognized as an expert. BD2412 T 03:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 

Hello, Aza24. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A response in less than a minute! Many thanks, I will be sure to put this to good use. Aza24 (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for Portrait of a Musician, introduced "... about Leonardo da Vinci's only known male portrait, and the first of his three famous black-background portraits. I've long been fascinated with Leonardo's works, and this one caught my eye to the point where I felt I had no choice but to improve its article. A big thanks to CaroleHenson who gave a thorough GA review and Ceoil, whose continuous suggestions, copy edits and encouragement was invaluable. Leonardo holds a special place in the art world, not just for his immense fame and prestige, but for the endless heated debates over attribution, dating, intent and subject matter – more so than arguably any other artist."! - A wonderful first TFA! Hope you feel more often that you have no choice but make something great. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Gerda, hopefully I can keep up FAs by bringing Cai Lun to FAC in the coming weeks. Ancient Chinese history is turning out to be more difficult to write about than Italian Renaissance painting :) Aza24 (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your extensive contributions to the article Lady with an Ermine. I was wondering whether it is complete and ready to be nominated for a Good Article status. Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, I appreciate your curtesy in coming here; regretably I still have much to add to the article, so I would ask that we hold off on the GAN process. There is still much information I have to add to the Attribution section, which has a lengthy history in itself. I also plan to add both a legacy and historical context section. You may want to look at Portrait of a Musician or La Scapigliata to get an idea of what I'm envisioning. I have been—admittedly—slow in doing these things; I've struggled to find much time for content creation lately. But I assure you, this article is still on my radar. I wonder, what seems to be the cause for your urgency in this matter? Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: - Very well, and thank you for clarifying :) No urgency at all, but I was simply curious whether the article is complete since the last edit by yourself was a while back. Kind regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193 Online events: New: Art+Activism | VisibleWikiWomen Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi again,

Is it possible that you could do a source review for the 51st Academy Awards regarding its featured list candidacy? I want to put the finishing touches and/or have a final proofread.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course, will do shortly. Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aza

Thank you so much for doing the source review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1951/archive1. If you have a spare five minutes, might you also be able to take a look at this one? If not, no worries....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Chris your "If not, no worries......." (7 dots!) makes me think you are getting a little hesitant about asking for source reviews. But please do not be! It's not pestering at all, if that's what you think; I'm happy to take a look. I'll be sure to give yours a look tomorrow, I've been trying to catch up with the FLC source reviews lately, which is why I did the one at 1951 earlier. Best - Aza24 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I see you have created Talk:Quantz (disambiguation), but it only has {{WikiProject Disambiguation}}. Please see Template:WikiProject Disambiguation#Usage, thanks. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 05:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; a bit odd that this project banner is different than the rest, but I will comply regardless. Best - Aza24 (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, just a quick comment regarding the Sorabji article. The sentence listing compositions is easier to navigate at present but I wonder if "he is best known for his piano music/works", when followed by a list, could be read as saying that all his piano music falls into those two categories (nocturnes and large-scale compositions). Is this an issue or am I merely seeing things? Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Toccata quarta, good to see you around. I definitely see what you are saying, what about something like "he is best known for his piano music; particularly/especially/primarily..."? Aza24 (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response (and helping keep Wikipedia up to par while I disappear into yet another unofficial wikibreak). I went through various synonyms but eventually settled for that most famous (and infamous) of words, "notably", which should do the trick. I've been keeping an eye on the Sorabji article and a few other pages, but I'm currently swamped with major "real-life" commitments and don't know when I'll be back. I do, however, have my eyes on an article or two that I would like to take to FA status, so, when the time is right, I hope to be back at least for that. Cheers. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Tq, I'm glad to hear you are prioritizing real-life commitments over WP, that is always the right approach :) But now I am curious, might I be so bold as to ask what the article(s) you have your eyes on? Aza24 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Once we are together: if he should appear as TFA on his birthday this year, I'd ask one of you to nominate, because I have already a suggestion for August (no music, so no conflict), and don't want to dominate the list ;) - WP:TFARP, - it's easy to mark the date there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Aza24: no problem with asking! One article I have had my eyes on and would find very appealing to work on is the one on Stockhausen, but that would/will involve a lot of preparation, not least because of the extensive "Sources" and "Further reading" sections. Gerda Arendt: I had put Sorabji on the TFARP page a while ago but chose October instead, since that will be his 33rd anniversary of death (a 33rd year has a lot of special symbolism, needless to say), while August 2021 will be his 129th anniversary of birth. (That leaves August 2022 as an option, but I fear I'm not patient enough for that. ;-)) Anyway, as I've indicated above, I'm keeping an eye on the TFAR page and will nominate the Sorabji article once the time is right and when (and if!) I'm able to. All best, Toccata quarta (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Gog! Not to sound ungrateful, but did you mean to give me this one twice :) ? Best - Aza24 (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Although I should have made it more explicit. I am running out of ways of expressing just how much your reviewing efforts are appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You could use different images ;) - Now that Aza supported, and I asked Nikkimaria if anything is open, - how about BWV 1? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 

On 5 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article F. Andrieu, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that F. Andrieu was the composer of Armes, amours/O flour des flours, a double ballade lamenting the death of his colleague Guillaume de Machaut? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/F. Andrieu. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, F. Andrieu), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 12:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for another good one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, thank you for nominating! Aza24 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you remember reviewing BWV 227? (second nomination not by me, but by the one who failed mine, - should be interesting) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to, but am still hesitant, I've found it especially difficult to compromise/work with the nominator in question in the past. I'll keep considering it, and will regardless, get to your BWV 1 this weekend. Aza24 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

it's done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for another ping today. I followed an obituary, a very unusual one. Bach music pictured ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree Garden

Sorry for yet another reminder, - the delegate is getting restless ... Wülfing-Leckie is now on the Main page. I went to the garden some great day in October 1996, remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Splendid pictures, thank you. No need to apologize, I've been inactive lately but I promised you your rightfullly deserved review so I will get on that now! Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for what you said on Mathsci, - encouraging! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I nominated BWV 159 for GA, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for picking this! What do you think about the instant GA of D 812? - Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Further down on the page, there are conversations about the current arb case request - I feel I have to stay away - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the Lenten roses are actually blooming ;) - Could you perhaps go over the open points in BWV 1? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Today, we have Doris Stockhausen on her 97th birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Have just looked at BWV, thank you for the reminder. Congrats on the article for Doris, wonderfully written! I remember seeing the D 812 GAN, but I had too many issues with it to review; the huge swathes of quotes and the overkill references in particular. I considered talking to some GA regulars about the instant GA but eh I think I'll let it slide. I've been following the arb case after your earlier mention of it and yes, it is a bad situation for all involved. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, all around. (The GAN was lingering since July, the reviewer does a lot, probably not in Classical music. They don't answer the question, not even by me first. Funny coincidence, the timing.) Antandrus had a great comment regarding the arb case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A token of thanks Hi Aza24! I've nominated you to receive a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, this is much appreciated, thank you! Aza24 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey - I was just wondering why you removed the cleanup lang template on Ukiyo-e?

The reason I added it in the first place was that I have roughly 400 pages on my watchlist, most of which are Japanese culture articles in need of language tags; my hope was that someone else other than me might add them, for a change.

I'd like to have done it myself, but it's a huge article, and not one I can do all at once. Rather than leave it, I added the template in the hopes that someone who isn't me might do so; MOS:ACCESS is a guideline, as you said, not policy, but accessibility is important. If the article was smaller, I genuinely would have done it without adding the template first - that's pretty much all I do on Wikipedia these days.

Also - I would've thought manual of style guidelines like MOS:OTHERLANG, though just a guideline as you pointed out, would've been acknowledged as important to improve Wikipedia's accessibility.

I have to say that I honestly do not see the point of removing the template. I'll go off and add them in myself, I guess, like you said, but I don't think it improves things to reduce other editors' awareness of the importance and need for accessibility on Wikipedia. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper, I appreciate you cleaning it up yourself—if I came off as confrontational, I apologize, here's how I see it: Ukiyo-e is one of our best Art FAs, and receives at least 1000 views a day. When a tag or more or less trivial importance (in comparison to "more citations needed", "neutrality" etc.) is so prominently displayed, the first thing everyone of those 1000 people will see is a tag which they don't understand, giving them an impression that the article has some issues and thus compromising its featured status and trust from readers. This being said, I completely understand the use of such tags on underdeveloped articles, but using them on FAs seems unnecessary. Additionally, as you've said, the task is tedious, so the template's use in this case will likely just hang out there for many months, those prolongating the issues I raised earlier. Aza24 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't have a clue that FA status was part of it. To be honest, I think I did raise lang tags being a part of FA status criteria a while back, as it seems like something that should just be there, yknow? That and alt captions for images. But I don't think I got anywhere with it, though it does seem like for an FA, all users should have that trust in their featured status, including those with screenreaders.

It's no biggie; once you get the hang of the nihongo templates and copypasting transl|ja, it's easy enough to fix, it's just a bit time-consuming. For most of the articles on my watchlist, they're so small and low-importance that I don't even bother to put a cleanup lang template on them - either they're not getting enough traffic that other editors would see it and act, or they're small enough that I can fix them quickly. For the larger ones, though, help is always appreciated(!) :) -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper if it's any reassurance, I've used the lang templates prolifically in my work on Cai Lun and I will note that FACs are increasingly including accessibility reviews. But yes the core of my concern was that the tag—of non-urgent concern—would remain prominently at the top of a featured article for many months unaddressed. Aza24 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem - it honestly seems like we could do with just raising more awareness of their importance to other Wikipedians, then. Glad to hear that accessibility concerns are becoming more of a consideration for FACs :) -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I just wanted to reach out and see if you were interested in doing a source review for the FAC for The Heart of Thomas. No worries if you're not available or are uninterested, I just figured I'd ask since you were midway through a source review in the first FAC. Thanks! Morgan695 (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I'll take a look though I suspect there will be few issues after F&F's initiative. Aza24 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, you did a source review for this article on its first nomination for FA. I was wondering if you fancied repeating this for its current nomination. No pressure. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, looking now. Aza24 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Here's a barnstar for your source (and general) reviews. It is much appreciated. ~ HAL333 18:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated Hal! Aza24 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Aza! I looked at the good topic page for Paper Mario and noticed that it's titled as a featured topic, and links back to Wikipedia:Featured topics instead of WP:Good topics. Was it accidentally named a featured topic? Panini^🥪 15:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Panini!, every time I see your name I get hungry... :) FTs/GTs are not organized properly; who ever started the process many years ago never set up any automation, and for some reason decided to name all good topics as "featured topics". If you look at the other video game GTs you'll see they're also named incorrectly. I've only been a delegate for a couple of months, so I have been trying to "keep the inconsistency", until I get around to changing them all at once, if that makes sense. Aza24 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Aza you forgot to put the Paper Mario nomination into Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/March 2021. GamerPro64 00:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops, indeed. Have just done so. Gamer, did you see my comment on organization above? Is that something we can think about doing; e.g. moving the good topics that are labeled as "Featured" to "Good"? It would make sense to keep the subpages organized. Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

We can give it a shot. Never thought it was an issue but we can always make the moves on all the topics. GamerPro64 00:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think for uniformity's sake it would make sense; granted that though the moving could be tedious; it probably wouldn't take that long. I also wonder about Category:Wikipedia featured topics categories, which seems to be sorted incorrectly... is there a bot that could help us with that? Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with bots on Wikipedia so I wouldn't know. GamerPro64 00:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok next point. You have been putting the Good Topic nominations in the wrong section. There is a page for Good Topics with Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Good log/March 2021. GamerPro64 00:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, I was confused because there's no link to those pages in the Template:Featured topic log... Aza24 (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like that one was my fault. I forgot to add the template in there. GamerPro64 01:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I'll ask a technical user about using a bot later today. I'll have a lot of time in the next few days so I'll try and move some of the good topics to be named as such; I don't think there should be any technical issues, but I'll be careful. Aza24 (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196 Online events: New: Plants & gardens | Gender studies New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I noticed your edit on Guillaume de Machaut and I tried to make an article on Gilbert Reaney. Hopefully you have more information and can expand it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, wow, thank you! I certainly do have more information on Reaney; I've had it on my "to create" list for a while now (and have been linking it everywhere as a result). Your efforts are much appreciated. Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I have challenged the closure of the discussion with the closer. Please stop removing the links for a half minute. Izno (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I was not aware that I would be required to advertise for such a thing, considering the central function of the namespace itself is already unsupported. Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This is perfect. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, cheers! Aza24 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of the images used are A-OK. I also have named some other things to change in the list. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your most thorough comments. I was planning on sitting down later today and going through all of yours and those of Ham & Hal—I'll be sure to ping you when I've done so. Aza24 (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It's looking better now, and I left some responses. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm looking into including more of the images that are currently external links now. Aza24 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)