305:
article has been nominated (that also helps to advertise the project!). I am planning to upload any "pre-qualified" articles, which would mean all of the core topics listings (unless we opt to hold back on Stubs & Starts until we can improve them). Note, I'm planning on revisiting the core topics list before adding it, to consider Vir's and
Silence's comments. I'd also like to list any FAs or A-Class articles that are on important topics - if these are obvious articles to include, we can save a lot of time at the start by just adding them. In other words, we would start with a base of perhaps 300 major articles already in place. If we do that, will that circumvent the problem you envisage?
1062:, can/should we start a short discussion of specific nominations below their entry? I don't think using the article talk to discuss it would be the best idea, as most people looking at those pages aren't familiar with the 1.0 and 0.5 system, and aren't reviewers anyway. And also, this talk page would be quite filled up and questions lost with so many questions about different articles. I don't think it's a simple matter of pass or fail for some articles, and specific discussions need to be started somewhere. Thanks,
31:
1334:
that could give rise to a poor FA (if an edit war breaks out, for example). Chuck has also raised an interesting point about online links - I think we should perhaps be encouraging the sorts of changes he is mentioning. However, this is a test release (and we're finding things out already!), and an
1152:
To address Chuck's point above, after reflection I think it would be nice to have a place to put comments. Should we add comments into the nomination section, such as "fix XYZ and then we'll pass it"? Should we have a page where we can leave comments on our reviews, "I passed it because we need the
878:
It says, "We are looking to include the following in this test release:", and then lists Core Topics, Continents and etc.., and Vital
Articles. Do these articles have automatic inclusion. If so, do we really need them here at the noms page. It just seems like based on the criteria, Vital Articles get
528:
There is a bit of overlap with GA, but since the end result is not the same, GA is not entirely adequate for our purposes. GAs are seen as benchmarks of articles that need "a bit more", while in a static version, one does not have the priviledge of doing that. The articles that qualify for GA may not
1122:
How could we make wikiprojects to nominate their best articles? If I nominate an article, can I be my own reviewer? I ask it because I nominated about 50 articles and moved at least 20 to
Version 0.5 and if there won't be any editor who will move science related articles to V0.5, then my nominations
994:
that has been nominated and this has scattered references (certainly not comprehensive) in text (in parentheses) and a short reference section. It is a FA, but I was gonna fail it for quality, due to the references, especially since importance doens't seem that great. I wanted to get an opinion here
318:
If we get a few reviewers that way, that's great - though I plan to include in the criteria a section on being a reviewer, and this will try to stop reviewers from simply reviewing one article then going dormant. I think the "importance" factor is such that we need reviewers with the perspective of
268:
I'm not sure that having people put a template on the article talk page when they nominate is a good idea. Many of the core articles are (at least mildly) contentious; since there seems to be no barrier to signing up as a reviewer, this might cause people who disagree with something in a particular
1174:
I'm concerned, however, that we're beginning to second-guess the FA system here. Insofar as 0.5 is set up as a test release with only a single reviewer, we should try to avoid wasting everyone's time by playing silly games with the criteria; failing an FA on quality should involve a problem worthy
640:
As things are written right now, the only requirement for reviewers is that they sign up as team members. I'm wondering if maybe we need to get a separate reviewers page going, where people would specifically sign up to review for V0.5. This is not because I think the team members couldn't do it,
571:
Yes, please nominate here, we should be accepting noms in a week or so (I think!). Getting approved as GA simply gives it a tag that says "This is a GA," and nothing more happens (though I still think that is useful). Getting it approved for V0.5 means (a) it will be included on a CD and/or paper
1377:
Yes, we are drawing heavily on the lists from WP:VA (as well as WP:CORE and the supplement), take a look at the nomination comments! However, we want to review every article ourselves, and I expect the scope to be broader than WP:VA. We really appreciate the work you guys have done over there at
1366:
in several ways, just more new and less polished in its inclusion scope. Perhaps those pages could be useful for this endeavor, considering that it deals with establishing "core topics" similar to the core topic list, but has a much more expansive and consistent listing, and is also accompanied by
1040:
in
November and concluded that it was a good FA, I would go with that (assuming the article hasn't declined since then). As for notability, I'm not very knowledgable about art, but I have heard of this artist as one of the top Spanish artists. I don't consider him to be in the top ten, but he is
611:
My view is that we have covered all of the bases, and I think we're about ready to open this page up on
Thursday (May 25). Any objections to this? Any problems? We still have a few jobs to do like getting the "held nominations" page up, and there's a lot of work needed over at Core Topics so we
242:
Thanks a lot for looking over this page - just looked over this as I was away much of the weekend. As you found, it's still a work in progress. I'd missed the "good-faith effort" part (now removed), which as you guessed was left over from earlier when I was copying material from the FAC page. I
304:
No, you weren't missing anything, I'm just very tired! I fixed the duplication - I think the nominations section was actually meant to be the area for adding the articles. Regarding the template comment, I don't have strong views on this but I think it would be helpful for people to see that an
188:
Thank you for raising that. I had looked at those pages before, but hadn't yet thought about including that in V0.5, but we should. I see V0.5 as an adult version, but I think we will still want to clean up or omit some sections of some articles for a variety of reasons. I think we should also
1170:
For articles that fail, the instructions already call for comments to be left on the talk page; this is probably a better way of communicating with the actual people writing the articles than an obscure project page would be. For articles that pass, I'm not sure that anyone would bother reading
1138:
I will do my best to start reviewing some science articles - though I have been trying also to review subject areas that have not had many reviews. I think on principle the nominator should not be the reviewer, we must always get a second opinion. Also see my talk page answers. Thanks for your
551:
We will be collaborating with GA somewhat, also with FA, but our goal is very different - it is to produce a CD of the most important articles on
Knowledge. GA is not interested in making a CD, and is also not concerned about the importance of the topic, so many GAs will not be included in this
652:
I'd like to put in writing somewhere something along the lines of "If you only sign up to review one or two articles as a one-off favour for your friend who nominated them, we may treat your review as suspect. We want people who are committed to the project as a whole." However I need a more
1106:!). Part of the reason for creating that page was so that reviewers could discuss these types of issues away from the nominations page. I'd like to see how things go there, I'm hoping that once we get a team of reviewers who know the ropes, most reviews can go through pretty easily. For
1017:
I'd say that you should point that out on the talk page first, and if no one objects, ask back here. Lack of inline citations is not a FARCing reason, so it may be still considered high quality. Inline citations are a fairly new development... I don't know, what does everyone else think?
860:
Thanks for spotting that! Yes, we abandoned that for V0.5, though I think we are planning on having separate nomination pages for V1.0. I simply deleted it - but if there is a useful link we can put in its place, then that should be added in. I think it'll work OK as it is, though.
1153:
article, but could do with a couple more pictures, a longer section on the history and a cleanup of the formats in the references section." No article is going to be perfect, this might be helpful. At the same time, I don't think we want to slow down the flow of articles. Comments?
345:
Well, about adding all the Core Topics: I would hold on that, if they're not FA/A-Class articles. GAs and B-Class articles need to be determined on a per-article basis, and Start/Stub articles should not be added, but rather failed on quality and be allowed to be resumbitted if fixed.
248:
Could I ask you to look over the rewritten version of the procedure to see if this addresses your concerns? I'm very keen to get an outsider's view of this process - Tito, Maurreen and myself can end up getting too close to the project, so your insights are valuable. Many thanks,
210:
Why would nominators "be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised, if they are actionable"? Presumably any significant objections would cause the nomination to be failed; or, if it is approved, there would be no place for objections to be
1335:
offline release, this means that there will be lots of redlinks and other problems we will just have to put up with in these early releases. I assume we can fix the refs problem and renominate poor Tony (he's taken quite a battering recently, hasn't he!).
336:. I made all the mistakes, and Tito made it much better and made it look pretty. Please can you give us more of your helpful remarks? I apologise in advance for more silly errors from fatigue - I almost uploaded two "Law" sections just now! Thanks,
243:
took FAC/WP:V1.0N and GAN, combined them, then rewrote things to fit what was needed. I hadn't done the rewrite on the "nominations" section, that's why it didn't make sense (it also had 1.0 links, not 0.5). I'm sorry if this wasted some of your time.
189:
make it "clean" enough for a teen audience, as high schoolers will be a major audience. Probably less critical when it is a test version full of disclaimers, but we should probably also test out our abilities at vetting articles. Good idea. Thanks,
653:
diplomatic way of saying that, because we need all the help we can get and I don't want people to get put off helping. I think the vast majority of people signing up will do so for the right reason, even if they end up only reviewing one or two.
1237:
But to have it rather have a description (as someone might not want to take the effort (sometimes with static copies it won't be as simple as clicking a link) to go to a URL if they don't know where it leads. The following should be used (IMO):
648:
Many folks sign up for WP1.0 just because they're interested in some aspect of it, which may or may not include reviewing for WP0.5. Conversely we may get people interested in reviewing who may not want to sign up for the main
1110:, the plan is to have a separate review page for each article, but the idea with 0.5 was to try and keep it simple. I'd say, only if the Review Team talk page proves inadequate do we need to create a more sophisticated system.
214:
Why create per-article nomination subpages at all if there's not going to be any substantial discussion there. We could get away with just providing a link to the article and waiting for a reviewer to do something with
669:
Hmm... makes sense. I'm trying to think of a diplomatic way to say it (perhaps "reviews by new members are subject to further review") and I'm not sure what wording would work. Where should that list be located?
561:
Yes, it helps me understand this process. Since I'm working on bringing EB1911 incorporated articles to a better standard and would for sure be included in the CD, should I then nominate here instead of WP:GA?
1041:
probably in the top fifty - is that high enough? I'd probably support inclusion, because I'm pretty optimistic that we'll get 0.5 big enough to include a lot more than ten artists. What do others think?
692:
I think the key thing is to emphasize the positive - which would be the main thrust anyway (thanks a lot for helping us!), and let folks fill in the blanks for themselves. As for a location, how about
116:
I don't mind removing this, because I think it will arise only rarely. This reflects the fact that WP1.0 will be wider in scope than 0.5, so (for example) you might want to include on WP1.0 an FA like
990:
Should we fail an article based on references? Specifically, should we fail articles that don't contain inline citations, but rather just a reference section at the end? I was looking at the article
269:
article to sign up just so they can fail the nomination. (Which would probably be a valid point in terms of 1.0 generally; but allowing this here might impact the timetable quite heavily.)
923:
Alright, that's what I thought. Another quick question. If something's already VA and FA, doesn't it already pass the imprortance and quality? So are those good (all the ones that
165:
although I am intending to rebuild using a tag of {{WPCD}} which perhaps cuts across and needs incorporating into this. Are you planning to have a list of section excludes like
1314:
The "major deficiency" failure, which is what should involve a FARC. I've failed articles this way, but most of the time, the FARC was already in discussion in the talk page.
1204:
article, my reasoning was this. When viewing a static version of the article, whether on DVD or paper, it would be inappopriate to have a reference list that looks like this:
465:
I would take "tribunals" out of "Military camps, tribunals and facilities." If you want a section designated for tribunals, I would put them under "Legal issues and treaties."
1036:
I agree with Tito here - inline refs are to be preferred, but shouldn't be a requirement. I notice that our WP1.0 sister project (FA's First) did one of their extensive
1103:
1085:
453:
Some of these seem more or less developed than I would expect, or in comparison with other. For example, the music subcategories seem more detailed than those for art.
103:
The page says: "Articles deemed by the team to fail on the criterion of "importance" will also be archived, though these may qualify for nomination at
Knowledge 1.0."
66:
612:
can bring articles in from there, but none of these should (IMHO) prevent us from getting things started over here. Any comments? Volunteers for article reviewing?
730:
I kinda like it as is. Math, Technology, and
Science are together, Arts, Language, and Philosophy are together, and Society, Geography, and History are together.
206:
Looking at the general overview, it seems that this will follow the early-GA model of a single reviewer approving (or not) each nomination. If this is the case:
471:
I would switch around "Engineering, applied sciences, and technology" so that "technology" is at the front. That is the word people are most likely to look for.
106:
Can we delete the second part of that sentence: "though these may qualify for nomination at
Knowledge 1.0."? Or did we misunderstand each other the other day?
1330:
In principle I agree with
Kirrill's comment - in general, approving an FA on quality should be a formality. There may be cases with a few unstable FAs like
1102:
I was going to suggest the very same place! Chuck, you could be forgiven for not being familiar with this page, it's only been up for an hour or so (PLEASE
407:
Psychology together with philosophy and religion; this is an edit war just waiting to happen. Maybe a "Psychology and sociology" section might be better?
489:
The categories are a direct copy of the GA categories, so feel free to add any relevant ones. However, some of the points you bring up should be done at
80:
658:"I found this problem in this article I'm reviewing, should this prevent it being accepted? Have other reviewers seen this kind of thing before?"
47:
17:
748:"...and a little more action, please". I've submitted the first review for inclusion into a static version, so this process has now started.
948:
Not really. Some FAs may be in the process of FARCing, and should be failed on quality if they are indeed bad, after an editor's review.
1037:
656:
We may want a forum for people to discuss reviewing issues separate from the noms page, somewhere where people can say things like,
1059:
626:'s member list, but I'd like to know if it is a good idea to allow everyone in there to review articles. What do you think?
462:
The "Media" section, now under "Society", might be better split between "Arts" and "Language, Literature and Communication."
424:
283:
228:
879:
in right away. And as a side-note (as mentioned before), a forum to ask other reviewers questions would be a good idea.
404:
Archaeology together with the arts; history might be a better parent, but that's probably just a question of preference.
698:
1300:
As for second-guessing the FA system: there's two types of failures by quality, which should be handled differently:
694:
741:
419:
278:
223:
38:
791:
162:
1363:
1382:
1371:
1339:
1323:
1295:
1183:
1157:
1143:
1132:
1114:
1097:
1078:
1045:
1027:
1011:
978:
957:
943:
918:
895:
865:
851:
828:
813:
795:
775:
757:
734:
724:
705:
679:
664:
635:
616:
601:
580:
566:
556:
542:
522:
502:
481:
432:
380:
355:
340:
291:
253:
236:
193:
179:
153:
132:
110:
93:
1285:
1068:
1001:
968:
933:
885:
785:
172:
the 0.5 version? I strongly recommend it as otherwise things get fragmented and the articles look messy. --
159:
1367:
FA/GA denotations so you can easily identify topics that are both high-quality and extremely noteworthy. -
909:. A core topic that's just simply bad won't be included, so we want to make sure we do review everything.
319:
this project, not simply the perspective of what is important in their (perhaps narrow) area of interest.
333:
572:
release in the fall, and (b) it will be automatically nominated for future versions of the CD such as
265:
Am I missing something, or is the "Nominations" section a copy of the "Nomination procedure" section?
87:
84:
1318:
1180:
1092:
1022:
952:
913:
848:
841:
808:
752:
674:
630:
537:
497:
429:
416:
350:
288:
275:
233:
220:
121:
which was rejected for WP:0.5 as not important enough (we might only manage to cover major cities).
118:
1290:
1276:
1242:
1073:
1006:
973:
938:
890:
1266:
1229:
1208:
991:
410:"Royalty, nobility, and heraldry" under "Everyday life"; wouldn't "History" be more appropriate?
219:
It seems to me that much of the material here was written with a more FAC-like process in mind.
576:(c) it will in effect become part of the "canon" of "important articles on Knowledge" (IMHO).
1303:
The "quick fix" failure, like the reference system above. If the failures are truly minor, {{
518:
Couldn't this be done in collaboration with WP:GA since it has almost the same goal in mind.
1304:
1128:
176:
169:
166:
847:
link to a nomination subpage? The instructions for that were removed from the process.
1176:
376:
OK, I can go along with that. We need to check on POV disputes and the like. Cheers,
1379:
1336:
1280:
1154:
1140:
1111:
1107:
1063:
1042:
996:
963:
928:
880:
862:
721:
702:
661:
623:
613:
598:
577:
573:
553:
478:
377:
337:
250:
190:
150:
129:
107:
90:
456:
I would think train-related items would only need one subcategory, instead of three.
1368:
1356:
1250:
1215:
768:
764:
563:
530:
519:
512:
490:
401:
Looks very nice. There seem to be a few unusual choices on the hierarchy, though:
824:
And, of course, I screw up and forget to mark the talk pages appropriately. Oops.
149:'s list of 2,000 articles he used. But I don't have the link handy at the moment.
1315:
1124:
1089:
1019:
949:
910:
825:
805:
772:
749:
731:
671:
627:
534:
494:
347:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1331:
1201:
927:
added). Thanks for the help, I want to get started on reviewing the articles.
173:
146:
1088:
could do the job, but I'm not sure if it would scale. Good question, though.
800:
Agreed. That said, some of them are currently on FARC; I'd like someone to
468:
It might be worthwhile to broaden "Sports and games" to include recreation.
1258:
1222:
781:
1058:
Sorry to barrage the talk page with questions but...Like is done at
1311:
unless the comment is not addressed within... let's say, two weeks.
529:
be adequate for the release, and since the same issue is true for
1243:
http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/mena/roles/oil/1998/0048.html'
25:
1275:
I hope this makes sense, and if I'm completely in the wrong,
1267:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2019678,00.html
1230:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2019678,00.html
1209:
http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/mena/roles/oil/1998/0048.html
459:"Water transport" might be broader than "Maritime transport".
332:
Finally, I have just put in place the listing page, called
720:
Do you think these would be better in alphabetical order?
1307:}}; however, otherwise, leave a comment on the talk page
167:
User:BozMo/tidy#Remove_Sections_.28updated_list.29and
1269:- Religious hate Bill lost after Blair fails to vote
763:
Given the above, I went ahead and nominated all the
552:release. Do we need to clarify this more? Thanks,
1251:http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_3.4/seddon.htm
1216:http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_3.4/seddon.htm
1086:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Review Team
1123:go to waste. :) I hope I was understanable...
1253:- America's Friend: Reflections on Tony Blair
622:I modified the link of reviewers to point to
8:
415:Overall, though, it's quite well laid-out.
804:an article before we start failing others.
474:"Cryptography" is broader than "Computing."
81:Knowledge talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team
837:Out of curiosity, is it intended that
262:Much better! A few further comments:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
18:Knowledge talk:Version 0.5 Nominations
901:Yes, because there are two criteria:
79:Earlier discussion about this was at
7:
1259:http://www.labour.org.uk/aboutlabour
1223:http://www.labour.org.uk/aboutlabour
1179:, not a minor formatting complaint.
493:so they can adjust accordingly too.
1362:This project seems very similar to
533:, it has to be a separate process.
170:User:BozMo/tidy#Delete_sections:for
597:The buttons are nifty. Good work.
24:
699:Knowledge:Version 0.5 Review Team
1261:- About Labour: The Labour Party
1060:Knowledge:Good articles/Disputes
607:Opening up to accept nominations
449:Hi, a few thoughts, some minor:
29:
695:Knowledge:Version 0.5 Reviewers
145:You might also want to include
99:Failures because of importance
1:
274:Other than that, looks good.
1245:- ROLE PROFILE OF TONY BLAIR
202:Instructions too complicated
1378:WP:VA, it is a great help!
1399:
742:A Little Less Conversation
163:User:BozMo/version 1 list
1383:02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
1372:23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
1364:Knowledge:Vital articles
1340:05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
1324:04:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
1296:04:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
1184:03:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
1171:further comments anyway.
1158:03:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
1144:03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
1133:19:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
1115:06:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
1098:06:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
1079:06:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
1046:06:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
1028:06:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
1012:06:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
979:04:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
962:Alright, cool...thanks.
958:04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
944:04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
919:03:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
896:03:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
866:12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
852:12:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
829:22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
814:06:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
796:03:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
776:06:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
758:06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
735:06:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
725:04:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
706:04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
680:03:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
665:03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
636:03:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
617:03:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
602:04:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
581:15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
567:15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
557:22:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
543:20:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
523:19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
503:20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
141:Eligible for nominations
482:03:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
433:11:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
381:04:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
356:04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
341:04:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
292:03:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
254:02:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
237:23:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
194:15:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
180:13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
154:02:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
133:02:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
111:17:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
94:02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
1084:The talk page of the
716:Nomination categories
334:Knowledge:Version 0.5
42:of past discussions.
1104:SIGN UP AS A MEMBER
445:Listings categories
119:Ann Arbor, Michigan
1309:and do not fail it
794:
784:, also VA/FA. --
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1390:
1321:
1288:
1095:
1071:
1025:
1004:
971:
955:
936:
916:
888:
846:
840:
811:
790:
755:
677:
633:
540:
500:
427:
422:
353:
286:
281:
231:
226:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1360:
1319:
1286:
1131:
1093:
1069:
1056:
1023:
1002:
995:first. Thanks,
992:Diego Velázquez
969:
953:
934:
914:
886:
876:
844:
838:
809:
767:that were also
753:
746:
718:
675:
631:
609:
595:
574:for Version 1.0
538:
516:
498:
447:
425:
420:
351:
284:
279:
229:
224:
204:
143:
101:
77:
75:Historical note
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1396:
1394:
1386:
1385:
1359:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1327:
1326:
1312:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1263:
1255:
1247:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1226:
1219:
1212:
1200:Regarding the
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1181:Kirill Lokshin
1172:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1147:
1146:
1127:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1055:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1031:
1030:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
875:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
855:
854:
849:Kirill Lokshin
834:
833:
832:
831:
819:
818:
817:
816:
798:
745:
739:
738:
737:
717:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
685:
684:
683:
682:
660:Any thoughts?
654:
650:
645:
644:
643:
642:
608:
605:
594:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
546:
545:
515:
511:Same thing as
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
476:
475:
472:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
454:
446:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
413:
412:
411:
408:
405:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
297:
296:
295:
294:
272:
271:
270:
266:
257:
256:
245:
244:
217:
216:
212:
203:
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
183:
182:
142:
139:
138:
137:
136:
135:
123:
122:
100:
97:
76:
73:
70:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1395:
1384:
1381:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1370:
1365:
1358:
1355:
1341:
1338:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1322:
1317:
1313:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1283:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1268:
1264:
1262:
1260:
1256:
1254:
1252:
1248:
1246:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1159:
1156:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1053:
1047:
1044:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1000:
999:
993:
980:
977:
976:
972:
967:
966:
961:
960:
959:
956:
951:
947:
946:
945:
942:
941:
937:
932:
931:
926:
922:
921:
920:
917:
912:
908:
904:
900:
899:
898:
897:
894:
893:
889:
884:
883:
873:
867:
864:
859:
858:
857:
856:
853:
850:
843:
836:
835:
830:
827:
823:
822:
821:
820:
815:
812:
807:
803:
799:
797:
793:
789:
788:
783:
779:
778:
777:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
760:
759:
756:
751:
743:
740:
736:
733:
729:
728:
727:
726:
723:
715:
707:
704:
700:
696:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
681:
678:
673:
668:
667:
666:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
646:
639:
638:
637:
634:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
618:
615:
606:
604:
603:
600:
592:
582:
579:
575:
570:
569:
568:
565:
560:
559:
558:
555:
550:
549:
548:
547:
544:
541:
536:
532:
527:
526:
525:
524:
521:
514:
510:
504:
501:
496:
492:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
480:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
451:
450:
444:
434:
431:
428:
423:
418:
414:
409:
406:
403:
402:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
382:
379:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
357:
354:
349:
344:
343:
342:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
293:
290:
287:
282:
277:
273:
267:
264:
263:
261:
260:
259:
258:
255:
252:
247:
246:
241:
240:
239:
238:
235:
232:
227:
222:
213:
209:
208:
207:
201:
195:
192:
187:
186:
185:
184:
181:
178:
175:
171:
168:
164:
160:
158:
157:
156:
155:
152:
148:
140:
134:
131:
127:
126:
125:
124:
120:
115:
114:
113:
112:
109:
104:
98:
96:
95:
92:
88:
85:
82:
74:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1361:
1308:
1291:
1281:
1265:
1257:
1249:
1241:
1228:
1221:
1214:
1207:
1121:
1074:
1064:
1057:
1007:
997:
989:
974:
964:
939:
929:
924:
906:
902:
891:
881:
877:
801:
786:
747:
719:
657:
610:
596:
517:
477:
448:
218:
205:
144:
105:
102:
78:
60:
43:
37:
1277:let me know
641:but simply:
36:This is an
1332:Tony Blair
1202:Tony Blair
1054:Discussing
1038:FA reviews
903:importance
417:Kirill Lok
276:Kirill Lok
221:Kirill Lok
874:Reviewing
67:Archive 2
61:Archive 1
1380:Walkerma
1337:Walkerma
1155:Walkerma
1141:Walkerma
1112:Walkerma
1043:Walkerma
863:Walkerma
722:Maurreen
703:Walkerma
662:Walkerma
614:Walkerma
599:Maurreen
578:Walkerma
554:Walkerma
479:Maurreen
378:Walkerma
338:Walkerma
251:Walkerma
191:Walkerma
151:Maurreen
130:Maurreen
128:Thanks.
108:Maurreen
91:Maurreen
1369:Silence
1305:sofixit
1177:WP:FARC
907:quality
593:Buttons
564:Lincher
520:Lincher
39:archive
1139:work,
1125:NCurse
1108:WP:V1N
925:Nifboy
826:Nifboy
782:Canada
780:Added
773:Nifboy
732:Nifboy
624:WP:1.0
1357:WP:VA
787:Samir
649:team.
513:WP:GA
491:WP:GA
211:made.
174:BozMo
147:BozMo
16:<
1316:Tito
1129:work
1090:Tito
1020:Tito
950:Tito
911:Tito
905:and
842:V0.5
806:Tito
802:pass
792:धर्म
750:Tito
672:Tito
628:Tito
535:Tito
495:Tito
348:Tito
177:talk
86:and
1175:of
769:FAs
765:VAs
744:...
697:or
531:FAs
215:it.
161:or
1320:xd
1292:ck
1282:Ch
1279:.
1094:xd
1075:ck
1065:Ch
1024:xd
1008:ck
998:Ch
975:ck
965:Ch
954:xd
940:ck
930:Ch
915:xd
892:ck
882:Ch
845:}}
839:{{
810:xd
771:.
754:xd
701:?
676:xd
632:xd
539:xd
499:xd
430:in
352:xd
289:in
234:in
89:.
83:,
1287:u
1070:u
1003:u
970:u
935:u
887:u
426:h
421:s
285:h
280:s
230:h
225:s
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.