User talk:SnowflakeWay

Welcome!

Hello, SnowflakeWay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

GA reviews

Thanks for your comments on barefoot. Many of your comments are valuable and can be incorporated into the article. While I disagree with many of your assertions on OR, citations, and neutrality, at this time I have chosen not to challenge it because I'd like more feedback from other editors, possibly through the peer review process. That being said, I think you should become more familiar with many of Wikipedia's policies and procedures before doing more GA reviews. From your edit history and total edit count of 149 edits in only 13 distinct pages, it's clear the you don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia and its policies. Which is why I am a little disappointed that you did not take my advice and ask for a second opinion on your review – something which would have increased your knowledge of the GA reviewing process tremendously. I would strongly encourage you to review policies on WP:OR and WP:CITE – just because every single sentence does not have a citation does not make it original research!

From my experience with WP:GAN – and I've reviewed 21 nominations thus far, and many, many more under a different account that I don't use anymore – most nominations go through the "on hold" process, ESPECIALLY nominations where there is an active editor that is working the article through. While "on hold" isn't for keeping articles there for several months, a typical period is 2-3 weeks. By not taking reviews through the "on hold" process, you're likely to risk alienating yourself at WP:GAN and really just ticking editors off – editors that work hard, as volunteers, trying to improve articles on Wikipedia. I would strongly encourage you to make use of the "on hold" and "second opinion" options when reviewing again, rather than simply failing articles because you don't agree with them. WTF? (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Barefoot

Please make up your mind whether you want to be a contributor or a reviewer to this article. You can't have it both ways, per the GA reviewing rules. WTF? (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've fulfilled the reviewer role. It's history. I'm a contributor at this point, and if the article passes GAN, the glory is yours. I don't need to partake of any award. SnowflakeWay (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You did a rather poor job at fulfilling the "reviewer" role, IMHO. But alas, I will chalk it up to history. I've added a dictionary definition citation to your "bastinado" contribution, as well as an inter-wiki link. Other contributions are welcome, of course; but please, for the love of God, don't insert too many unnecessary subsection headers! It makes the article look horrible! WTF? (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Plus, for what it's worth, I'm not necessarily interested in "glory", either. I'm merely interested in improving our encyclopedia. WTF? (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw your addition from Wikitionary and that's great! Thanks! I want you to think about some subsectioning - especially the sports section. It would be easier to locate specific information in this section if appropriate titles were available for the reader but I'll leave this to your discretion. Thanks again! Also, any additions I may make will be posted first to the Talk Page for your review, suggestions, approval, etc. before sending to the article. OK? SnowflakeWay (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of subsection in the sports or urban legends sections, because I like how those sections flow as prose, discussing the overall topic of barefoot sports and urban legends dealing with bare feet. To me, excessive subsections read more like bulleted lists, and not really like a good, well-written, encyclopedia article discussing the topic. However, I think the cultural/historical section is getting a bit long, and some of that could be split out into subsections. I've already split out the 'arts and entertainment' into its own main section, which would be a good place to add info on barefoot dancing, if you wanted to do that, since you brought it up. While "arts and entertainment" after "historical and religious aspects" does somewhat go against the alphabetical order of sections the article has been using, I still don't think the article should begin with the arts and entertainment stuff. WTF? (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as it turns out, the sports and recreation section seems to work well with a couple of limited section headings, for the three major activities. Still don't think a section for the placekicking is necessary -- that was originally added more as a footnote anyways, and I don't really want to see 10 million anonymous editors adding bullets for everyone who has been seen kicking barefoot in the NFL, college football, or high school. WTF? (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)