User talk:Tim O'Doherty

Nomination of 2020s in history for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2020s in history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decades in history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sm8900 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sm8900 - Why am I receiving this message? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

it was an error, i thought you had made some non-minor edits on this topic. sorry about that. it appears your edits on this were only minor ones. Sm8900 (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Opinion

@Tim O'Doherty I hope your New Year is going well. I wanted to reach out to you regarding two points:

• Do you have any advice on how I can make my suggestions at FAC and PR more constructive and helpful to other editors?

• Is Catherine's article ready for another FAC nomination?

I understand you haven’t been active on WP much recently, but I would still greatly value your thoughts on the above. I also look forward to any future collaborations. Best regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what advice I can give to be more helpful. If you've addressed all reviewers' comments from the last FAC it might be ready: if not, then not. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty

Do you have anything to say to the first point?

Do you have any advice on how I can make my suggestions at FAC and PR more constructive and helpful to other editors? I ask this since you have been a great reviewer and I feel that I can learn from you. MSincccc (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you make your comments "more constructive and helpful". Maybe focus on one issue, such as a source review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The matter is that the users Tim riley and SchroCat want me to improve my comments when it comes to suggesting omissions, errors and improvements for an article.

• I fear MSincccc has yet to understand that a reviewer's job is not to say how s/he would have written the article but rather to point out errors, omissions and infelicities and suggest emendations.
• You may like to study the suggestions from all three of the previous reviewers. They do not say "I'd phrase it this way and so should you", but point out, most helpfully, omissions, ambiguities, confusing phrasing and factual inaccuracies. That is helpful. Calling for "initially" rather than "at first" and similar points of personal preference in drafting is not.

You can also take a look at my comments here and here for reference.

@Tim O'Doherty Hence I thought that you could advise me on the same given your experience at FAC and PR. I hope that I am clear. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty What do you have to say to the above? You have yourself conducted a number of constructive reviews. Looking forward to knowing your response. Thereafter, I will not bother you regarding this. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Those comments seem to point out the issues themselves. Don't base comments on personal preference. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)