User talk:AirshipJungleman29

GA mentorship?

Hi, I'd like to start on the GA reviewing process, and to review a Good Article for my first time. (Though I've done a number of DYK reviews that have been accused of being close to the thoroughness of GA reviews! ) I found your name at the top of the list of Wikipedia:Good article mentorship, and it says Mentors can: Help find an article suitable for a new reviewer to review; Check a review to make sure it was done correctly. Would you be willing to do those things: pick a GA nominee that I would review, and then review my review of it? --GRuban (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure GRuban! Any subjects you’re particularly interested in and would find it interesting to review? I presume you’d want a fairly simple one to start? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Simple to start would be great. I've written over a hundred articles myself, listed on my user page - I think my main foci are interesting people, and non-video games, but I am willing to accept any subject. When you find me something, should I write my review on a userspace page first and let you see it before making it into a real GA review, or put it directly on the GA review page? --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, sorry for the delay. I'm always an advocate of getting stuck in directly, so putting it directly on the review page works. A few options that may work for you:

• 2012 emo killings in Iraq – Series of murders of Iraqi teenagers in 2012
• Mia Bustam – Indonesian painter (1920–2011)
• Blackwinterwells – Canadian musician and producer (born 1996)
• Elizabeth Debicki – Australian actress (born 1990)

I always prefer reviewing articles from editors with positive review-nomination ratios, which goes for the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

All right, I picked the last one (for now) and wrote Talk:Elizabeth Debicki/GA1. Please review the review! Depending on how badly you say I did there, I may pick up one or more of the others later. --GRuban (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good GRuban! Nicely detailed, a good overview of the article, and an appropriate focus on sourcing, which is generally where GAs can be the most hit-and-miss. Just one thing: I see one bullet point that says you've checked the references for source-text integrity, but GA does technically require a spot-check, so if you have checked more and just haven't said it's better to write it down for formality's sake. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Done and done and approved! Thank you, this was fun; will probably look at one or more of the other three. --GRuban (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm going to do Blackwinterwells next. But I'd like to consult on one WP:GACR point. #6 "Illustrated, if possible". The article doesn't have any pictures, and pictures for articles are kind of my thing. I found one Creative Commons licensed YouTube video showing the subject, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hum1m2dYuPE. I can grab a screenshot of the video, but while it'll be recognizable as the subject, and in my humble opinion it would be a noticeable improvement to have a photo for the article (from a quick skim of the article, the subject is not only a live performer, but also a former transgender woman, now identifying as cisgender again, and the photo would illustrate both of those), it won't be a great photo, since it'll be somewhat fuzzy and the color will probably be off. So:

1. Is it correct that even though it won't be a great image, it would still be a requirement under "Illustrated, if possible"?
2. Is it appropriate, for me as a GA reviewer, to also add a photo to the article? --GRuban (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

GRuban, excellent thinking. For the limits of "Illustrated, if possible" in the WP:GACR, see the adjoining note: "The presence of media is not an absolute requirement. If illustrating the article by media is impossible, the article may still be a good article. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided." With that in mind, it's perfectly appropriate for you to add a photo to the article; I'd just leave a note on the GA review that you have done so (if you do take it up). In terms of quality, MOS:IMAGEQUALITY is there, but everything there does sort of fall under common sense, so if you think it'll be fine I'm sure it will be. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, mostly done with Talk:Blackwinterwells/GA1. I would like to consult on two points:

• The most important one is the subject's first name, which was different for most of his career. A rather important point, and yet the sourcing for it is the weakest in the whole article. Am I being too picky?
• The second is the space given to individual critics' comments on the subject's musical style. I'm not that big of a music person, and I recognize this about myself, so I didn't even write much about that in the review, but to me it seems rather fluffy: full of poetic similes, metaphors, and words like "idiosyncratic", "weird", "spectral remnants", rather than actual facts. Which wouldn't even be a very good criticism, since that is what the critics said! I guess music critics talk that way. Do you think it's all right as is, or is there something that should be written? --GRuban (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry GRuban, I didn't see this. Yes, I think you should be strict about sourcing especially for details that fall under WP:BLPPRIVACY. On your second point: in this situation it's not too useful to consider how factual the sources are. I think to some extent it's a limitation that critics face of trying to describe audio in words, a problem that then gets passed on to us. The best that we can do is just to summarise what they write, and if it sounds like crap philosophy, that's probably what it is, but it's not our job to poke holes in it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, passed the second after much discussion with nominator. The remaining two are already being reviewed by someone, will look for a third myself, unless you have specific suggestions. --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to recommend or for you to strike out on your own GRuban, you seem to be doing a great job. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Well then, with that endorsement, I'll try a probably harder one, Talk:Susie_Wiles/GA1, which seems to be one of the top five or six at the top of the WP:GAN backlog. --GRuban (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 03:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked, please submit a new request by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The 2026 Core Contest Winners!

The winners of the 2026 Core Contest are announced 🎉. A huge turnout that resulted in one of our trickiest deliberation sessions. The judges (Aza24, Femke and Casliber) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners!

• First place (and a prize of £120) goes to Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) for his dual efforts on Flatbread and Tortilla! One, formerly an unsourced list-like article, and the other, once a poorly sourced and spotty overview, both now number 250+ citations from an impressively academic source pool. We particularly commend the efforts to globalize content, treat the topics comprehensively and thoughtfully select illustrations. Both articles (one now a GA) are of a uniquely high quality amid the often underserved food topics on Wikipedia. Bravo!
• Second place (and a prize of £100) goes to Phlsph7 (talk · contribs), a Core Contest regular who has once again shown a mastery of big topics, with his dual efforts on Agnosticism and Premise—both now GAs (one, with a review by our first place winner!). With immensely thorough sourcing improvements, alongside carefully nuanced text on these often misunderstood topics, both articles are a pleasure to read.
• Third place (and a prize of £80) goes to MCE89 (talk · contribs), whose improvements to the Heard Island and McDonald Islands article have led to a triumphant FA declaration. The incredible balance of detail between human, geographical and flora-fauna elements is a great achievement, and sets a high standard for future island articles.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. – Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Al-Altan, introduced as a "daughter of Genghis Khan, a princess of the Mongol Empire, the queen of the Uighurs, an intermediary between two peoples, an alleged murderer, an executed criminal, an object of censorship, a symbol of revenge. Interested yet?" -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Hushahu

On 9 July 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hushahu, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that soon after the general Hushahu, fearing harsh punishment, assassinated his emperor, another general, also fearing harsh punishment, murdered him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hushahu. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Hushahu), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 July 2026

• News and notes: An exclusive club
  Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger gets a community ban for canvassing.

• In the media: Battle for a soul – who won?
  Commissars, winners and losers, blocks or bans, a Wiki red card, social engineering on wikis, and Swift action!

• Opinion: We need to innovate with Wikimedia decision-making
  Rules we can actually read, trust and change!

• Recent research: LLMs and NPOV, 20 years of user blocks, Esperanto and Volapük Wikipedias
  And other research findings.

• News from Diff: How to host Wikicurious in your own community
  The Wikicurious team shares their approach to Wiki-event organizing.

• Community view: CUNY Newmark Wikimedian-in-Residence Quarterly Brief – April to June 2026
  Quarterly update on the activities of the City University of New York's Wikimedian-in-Residence, Richard Knipel.

• Special report: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act – for now
  A possible future recategorization by the UK Government remains an existential threat to Wikipedia.

• On the bright side: Fatherhood, weather, and diplomacy
  Father's Day, Canada Day, and the 250th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence.

• Op-ed: A Layup Easy Proposal for Wikimedia at 25: Spend 25% of Donations on the Community
  If strategy priority 1.1 is supporting the community, can we not increase the support to the community? Increasing grantmaking to 25% of the budget would be a move toward equality in the movement.

• Traffic report: The grass was greener, the light was brighter
  We reached the dizzy heights of that dreamed of World Cup.

• Comix: schnozzed
  on lollerskates

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Any final thoughts on Dam FAC?

Thanks for your suggestions at the Dam FAC. The nomination is nearing the bottom of the "Older nominations" FAC list. The nomination has three Supports, but there were several drive-by reviewers who have not posted a conclusion. If you feel you can post a conclusion, that might help the coordinators. No conclusion is required, of course. Thanks! Noleander (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Closing RFC

Hey, do you think it's ok if I close the RFC at women in Islam? In my opinion the RFC was never created properly and it's unlikely to be productive as it's unclear what is being asked. I got permission from the original creator here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Plasticwonder#h-RfC_help-20260714184600 Wik206 (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

closed. Wik206 (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2026 (UTC)