Hawkeye7

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

•   Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
•   Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
•   Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
•   AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). 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 for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was a pleasant surprise to your moniker, how are you keeping? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will be at Wikimania in August. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hawkeye7, I was just going to put the Battle of Saipan up for Featured Article Review today, but saw you already put up the battle of Tinian. (My original goal was to have it featured by June 15, but didn't realize the casual rate of the A article review process.) I'll hold off for a month, as having more than one Marianas project may split attention. I'll have more time in August to be more responsive as well. If the Tinian article needs help in August, let me know what I can do to help out. Wtfiv (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

A class didn't used to be like that, but there are not so many editors around these days. One thing you can do to help is provide a review. Just stating that you reviewed at A-class and believe it meets FAC is okay. I will have very little time to work on it from early August until mid-September. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. It sounds like A class could use more review help. Once things settle down, I'll try to pitch in there. The toughest part is trying to give meaningful feedback on some of the more esoteric topics. Wtfiv (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 23:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 21:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I read the main article up to the target selection subheading. This sentence is in the final paragraph of that topic: "The JWPC also considered targeting, but favored shipping and the oil industry, which could more easily be attacked from bases in Australia." It seems to me that something is missing from this sentence after "targeting". If so, do you know or have information that can show what it is? Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nothing is missing. I will re-phrase to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let us know if that doesn't work for you. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 01:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you today for Hanford Engineer Works, introduced: "This article was split from Hanford Site. During the FAR of Hanford Site, I decided to create a new article on the World War II establishment. This brings it into line with the articles on Los Alamos, Berkeley and Oak Ridge, all of which have subarticles on their role in the Manhattan Project. The sources complain about how Hanford has been overlooked compared with Los Alamos and Oak Ridge."! - On the same page: a Mozart opera, an article by many. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you today for your share in John Glenn, introduced (in 2018): "Six Distinguished Flying Crosses, eighteen Air Medals. First American to orbit the Earth. Four-time Ohio senator. Oldest person to fly in space. This article covers the good and the bad of his life."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Matterhorn logistics 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article John S. McCain Sr. you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:John S. McCain Sr. for comments about the article, and Talk:John S. McCain Sr./GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Operation Matterhorn logistics 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:Operation Matterhorn logistics and Talk:Operation Matterhorn logistics/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John S. McCain Sr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stars and Stripes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 00:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I have a question about the table with sunken ships during the Baker test (Operation_Crossroads#Baker_target_array).

1) I didn't find in the book (Delgado, James P. (1991), The Archeology of the Atomic Bomb: A Submerged Cultural Resources Assessment of the Sunken Fleet of Operation Crossroads at Bikini and Kwajalein Atoll Lagoons) the distances from the ships to point zero for the Baker test (only for the Able test).

2) According to the attached map, the distance from USS Arkansas to point zero is closer to 300 yards than the 170 yards indicated in the table.

3) I found a report (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0367496.pdf) on the Baker test and in it (page 280) some distances coincide with the table, and some do not (in particular, for Arkansas a distance of 259 yards is given).

Because I don’t understand where the numbers in the table come from, I can’t tell if they are correct or wrong. Could you help? Karavadgoo (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Footnote 68 says: "Data in the table and the map come from Delgado (1991). The Able map is on p. 16, the Baker map on p. 17, and ship damage and distances on pp. 86–87." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delgado is available for download from Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I downloaded Delgado. But on the indicated pages (pp. 87 - 90 actually) I found data only on distances for test Able, but not Baker.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/The_Archeology_of_the_Atomic_Bomb%2C_National_Park_Service%2C_Santa_Fe%2C_New_Mexico%2C_1991_by_Delgado%2C_James_P.%2C_et_al._-_NNPS_903_D160_-38840-pg0000.pdf Karavadgoo (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I almost figured out the issue. The link to Delgado appeared in 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Crossroads&oldid=253024309). And the original comment was: "Data in the table and the map come from Delgado, Archeology of the Atomic Bomb. The Able map is on p 16, the Baker map on p 17, and ship damage and distances on pp 86-136. The full text of this reference is posted on the Internet (see external links below) with the unfortunate omission of the key to ship numbers in the array maps, rendering the maps useless without access to the book in hard copy."

Indeed, pages 86 - 136 describe individual ships in detail. And sometimes the distances from point 0 at the moment of explosion are indicated for them (and sometimes only the distance from point 0 to their resting place). But, for example, for the USS Arkansas, I never found the required distance (170 yards from article table) on these pages (only 170 feet from the surface of the water at the place of sinking). I propose replacing the distances in the table of the article with distances taken from the report (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0367496.pdf pp. 280-281), which most likely was the primary source for Delgado Karavadgoo (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

By the way, it’s more pleasant to use the Delgado's book at another link: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/swcrc/37/chap4.htm Karavadgoo (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Operation Matterhorn logistics you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Operation Matterhorn logistics for comments about the article, and Talk:Operation Matterhorn logistics/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hawkeye. I am looking for a late replacement TFA for 29 August. Would you have any problems with that being Galileo project. If not, do you fancy having a go at the blurb or are you content with my having a thumb fingered attempt? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have created a blurb. I will be in Paris on that date, so you will need to watch the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, after some horse trading between the coordinators this will now run in October instead. I am trying to get it scheduled for 18 October to mark the 35th anniversary of it being delivered into Earth orbit, but no promises. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No worries. That would be a fine date, and I will be back by then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Hawkeye7, I hope you don't mind my asking here as you seem pretty experienced in managing templates, in addition to being well versed in the backend of DYK and GAN.

I've recently completed a RENAME and I was curious how that would impact some of the records of the templates. Specifically, a DYK you've recently reviewed but is not yet closed, as well as an outstanding GAN that is yet to be started that has my former name on the the GAN page as well as the template on the article's talk page.

Specifically, my concerns with the DYK records are that the template maintains attribution in regard to the requirements for reviewing. I've only nominated one and haven't reviewed any so the impact there should be minimal.

And then in regard to the GAN, the review hasn't started but I believe the template has mechanisms to notify the nominator and maintain a record with wmtools as well? This, I'm even less sure about the impact. My assumption would be that I could replace the name in the templates, but I didn't want to (1) break anything or (2) miss something and then break something that is harder to track down and fix (see number 1).

Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated, or if you could point me in the right direction

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk), formerly MicrobiologyMarcus (talk).

Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The template does not notify the nominator; this is done by a bot.

• For the DYK, edit the nomination template to change the {{DYKmake}} card to reflect your new name. When the nomination is transferred to the prep area, the prep area builder will cut and paste this template. It gets picked up by a bot that will notify you. You can change it yourself until it reaches the queue; then you will need an admin to make the change for you.
• I am unsure as to whether simply changing the name on the GA nominations page will work or not; ask on the Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The notification is done by a bot, and it keeps a database.

Regards

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hawkeye,

A certain user is claiming that MOS:MILHIST does not allow for mentioning Treaties in a bullet point in the Result section of the infobox of War and Battle articles. This user has been deleting these treaties out of the infoboxes of multiple articles. This user also claims that MOS:MILHIST does not allow for the duration of the war to be stated in parenthesis after the dates that the war lasted from. For example if the Date section originally said "8 February 1904 – 5 September 1905 (1 year, 6 months and 4 weeks)" he will delete it to "8 February 1904 – 5 September 1905" and claim that MOS:MILHIST does not allow for the parathesis containing the duration of time.
Please let me know if this is truely following MOS:MILHIST and that this user is doing the right thing.
Thanks, Alexysun (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not aware of any such stricture. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Therefore, based on the information I have provided at least, is it accurate to conclude that this user has an inaccurate understanding of MOS:MILHIST? Alexysun (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hawkeye7, I was confused about an issue I hoped you could help out with. I was wondering if the Chalukya dynasty, Western Chalukya Empire and Western Ganga dynasty articles could be added to the WPMH FA list. I know more milhist could be added to these articles and I will surely do so. Wdyt? Thanks in advance Matarisvan (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Normally the bot adds articles but it does not know when you add one to the project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that! Also, do you think the FAs Cadaver Tomb of René of Chalon and Tomb of Philippe Pot fall within the WPMH mandate, particularly the memorials task force? Both died in battle so I think they might. Thanks in advance. Matarisvan (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have assessed B for military history and biography. The high points of his career are noted in the lede. I have asked for a slightly longer lede for B if the article is of some length in some cases. This is about all I can see at first glance that a GA assessor might want but some assessors might add other comments, as you know. I have added

in the article Frederick Butler. There is another such tag in the Frederick Butler article. Donner60 (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 23:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply