User talk:SchroCat

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by .

"doing what little one can to increase the general stock of knowledge is as respectable an object of life, as one can in any likelihood pursue" Charles Darwin

Articles seeking peer review
before featured article candidacy

May 27 Tapir!
May 30 Chinese characters
June 6 Jenna Ortega
July 3 Shirt (song)
July 3 Military dictatorship
July 7 The Sims 4
July 17 Pagtatag!
July 18 Henry Clay Work
July 23 Tulsa King
July 29 Sport in Vatican City
July 29 Beebo the God of War
August 2 Dexter's Laboratory
August 6 Metaphysics
August 6 Charles the Bold
August 9 Corleck Head
August 15 1939 Liechtenstein putsch
August 23 River
August 29 Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)
August 31 List of chronic pain syndromes
September 17 Lock's Quest
September 17 Martha Bradley

Unanswered peer reviews

New FAC and PR

To any friendly talk page watchers, I have:

Caption text
Header text	Header text	Header text
	Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh	at FAC (with Tim riley)
	You Only Live Twice	@FAC
	Martha Bradley	@PR

If there is anyone who fancies commenting, I would be grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)

What's FAC like these days?

Coming out of seven years of "retirement", I've got a couple things in the pipeline for a potential FAC – right now, The Great Mecca Feast and The True Record. What's FAC like these days? Based on the two reviews I've done so far, it doesn't look like it has changed, but standards can change a lot in a decade. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I don't think there's been any major changes in that time - although it's difficult to judge if there have been a lot of incremental changes that all add up to anything major. Maybe it's fair to say that it's much as it was, but just "more so": a slight ratcheting up of standards here and there across the board without anything fundamental to affect things. Best thing to do is to pick the stronger of the two and pitch it in to see how it goes. I'd be happy to do a pre-FAC PR if you're up for it, and I'm sure I can rope in Tim to assist too, if that sounds okay? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm not in a rush - I just pushed them to GAR, and I'm seeing that some articles are waiting there for six, seven months. I know that DYK has been cracking down on quality issues, and it appears that POTD has put more emphasis on article quality than it did before. I'm still a decent writer, even with my new job having nothing to do with writing (government clerk :/)... it's just the access to sources that has changed massively in the past few years. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat is quite right: I'll be more than pleased to offer preliminary reviewing if wanted. So glad to see you back here. Tim riley talk 19:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be back, honestly. It was unfulfilling not writing or doing anything, and it's been long enough that the people I was having issues with are mostly gone. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]