User talk:Chiswick Chap

Archives

2006…11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 -

Your good article nomination of the article Fig is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wind turbine has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be rude, but I don't see what's wrong with removing the statement "While many do not cuddle much..." from the chicken article. I do not see how it is any more encyclopedic than the statement I added, which was "Some are even cuddly". I also believe that a chicken hopping into a person's lap and falling asleep does constitute cuddling, so I don't see why that statement cannot be removed.

I'm sorry if this seems silly. TheNatureKid (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing. It seems we basically agree that the tone and content of the addition had a trivial, anthropomorphic quality. I noted at the time that it was not encyclopedic. The article already discusses chickens' capabilities and the addition therefore seemed superfluous as well as lowering the tone. We really can't include material of that kind in serious articles. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that the statement that was already there ("While many do not cuddle much..."), seemed contradictory with the statement that they hop into people's laps. Do you think that simply removing that statement would be okay? TheNatureKid (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that got in there, but it shouldn't be. Removing it is plainly correct. We may have to remove a bit more as the whole thing seems wrong in tone and content. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that concise chapter summaries would be useful, and better than the rather sprawling summary we have now.

Let's get it to GA status! (And The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable.)

What do you recommend by Gould? Charlie Faust (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you reverted the change I had made to the Pecan article regarding the "fermented" nature of powcohiccora and the reference I had removed. I'm curious as to what you think the relevance of the reference is. As I mentioned in my edit, I read through that text and couldn't find anything related to pecans or powcohiccora except an incidental mention of the tree in a place name. In my opinion it looks to have been added erroneously, but if you can point to the relevant info I'd gladly cede the point.

As for the fermentation bit, I've never come across a primary source which mentions powcohiccora being fermented. There are no accounts of fermentation when the drink is discussed by William Bartram, John Lawson, or Pehr Kalm in their respective travels. The two references currently on the article which do mention fermentation are blog posts which offer no citations of their own. A more well-cited modern treatment can be found at a source like https://poorprolesalmanac.substack.com/p/hickories. Unless you have info otherwise, I'd be keen to remove any reference to fermentation.

Best Graffoj (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]