User talk:Pbritti

Your GA nomination of Aquilegia paui

The article Aquilegia paui you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aquilegia paui for comments about the article, and Talk:Aquilegia paui/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 ZKevinTheCat -- ZKevinTheCat (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@ZKevinTheCat: Thanks for such a prompt review of Aquilegia paui! Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, I wanted to just make sure the article fulfilled the other criteria for GA. I assume it did, considering that you passed it, but I would appreciate a clear statement to that end so I can share that should I move forward with taking this article to a peer review or FAC. Again, thank you so much (I loved Uncus dzaugisi and read it in full when it ran at DYK!). Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Completely understandable. I probably won't have much to comment on, but here's what I can say about your article in terms of the criteria (see also this & this):

1.

   1a. There is nothing too agregious in the article here. There may be some issues for FAC, as they are quite strict with this criterion. For me, the article reads well enough. There is nothing confusing and parentheses are included where appropriate to explain certain topics. If I went over the article again, there would probably be things that I would have worded differently, but that's not really for me to be a stickler about. For GA at least, this is perfectly fine.

   1b. I couldn't find anything wrong with the article in this regard. Everything is organized neatly into sections and there are no problematic words that I found.

2.

   2a. I appreciate the page numbers given inline. Everything else is fine as well.

   2b. To my knowledge, all sources are legitimate and everything is cited inline.

   2c. I didn't find any original research.

   2d. You should be alright here in this regard. I believe you mentioned something about some sources including something along the lines of "narrowly endemic" when describing the range of the species. This might be an issue with FAC but I don't really think this is worthy of being regarded as copyrighted language (I am not too familiar with the FA reviewing process though, so take this with a grain of salt).

3.

   3a. I wasn't left wondering any more about the subject after I read it. This covers basically everything about the subject. The only thing I could think could be expanded upon would maybe be the description, but nothing really comes to mind in that regard.

   3b. Basically the same as what I said above. One part that could be an issue for FA is the conservation section where it talks about the 2011 study for a bit. I don't think this is really an issue though; it doesn't overwhelm the reader and is fine for just giving for info.

4. IMO this article is fine in this regard, as this isn't a controversial subject. As long as it's fairly well written this criterion should be no issue.

5. I'm not aware of any edit wars or stability issues; this really isn't a controversial subject.

6.

   6a. The image of Font Quer may run into issues for FAC. While it is presumably in public domain (p. 1929) there are some issues with the image layed out on | its wikimedia page.

   6b. All images are relevant. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

DYK for May Bradford Shockley

Hello! Your submission of May Bradford Shockley at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. I enjoyed the article, but provide two comments on the DYK page. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Pbritti:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Feeneyism Page Reversion

the proclamations of the Holy Office are not free from error and in regards to Father Leonard Feeney weren't infaillible and neither binding it wasn't even signed by Pope Pius XII more about this is the fact that Fr Feeney was excommunicated for discipline and not doctrine and was for this reason allowed again to communion without recanting anything he taught which if what he taught was heretical he would need to do a abjuration of it the reason Fr Feeney teachings were known and became relevant were not because they were a heresy but rather because of the controversy and divide that arose and also because of the statment of the Holy Office which like the statments about geocentrism aren't infaillible. So it is innacurate to describe what Father Leonard Feeney taught as heretical or considered a heresy especially when his view was held by various Popes and theologians before him it is true that some Bishops at the time opposed his teachings and many nowadays would say they are heretical but It was never condemned in a binding document by the Church otherwise this would render impossible his reconciliation with the Church since for this reconciliation to happen he would have to abjure/recant his heresies assuming he did hold heretical beliefs. 82.67.95.239 (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It is a tad unclear to me what you're suggesting should be changed. Please clarify this on the article's talk page and ping me there. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

AN/MPN-14K Mobile Ground Approach System

Hi... I have nominated the AN/MPN-14K article for deletion. There is a current discussion about the nomination here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AN/MPN-14K Mobile Ground Approach System. Since you have done some editing to this page (possibly a long time ago), I want to invite you to chime in with your thoughts on the deletion there. Thanks. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)