Wiki Article
User talk:Esculenta
Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net
Your nomination of Methodus qua omnes detectos lichenes is under review
[edit]Your good article nomination of the article Methodus qua omnes detectos lichenes 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Misti
[edit]Greetings,
was wondering if you could take a look at Misti, especially its religion section. These are always the toughest to write in my experience, and I am not sure if I did it particularly well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- These days, I tend to offload these kind of tasks to LLMs. If that idea does not offend you, I'd be happy to provide a full FAC pre-analysis review of the entire article with GPT 5.2 pro; this way, I would take me minutes rather than hours. I would provide it with the two previous FAC noms for extra context (so it would see what the previous reviewers had issues with) and make a prompt that asked it to focus on prose flow and accessibility. It will produce lots of suggestions that you can reject or incorporate at your leisure. If you're interested, just tell me where to post the review. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- It won't offend me - quite the contrary - but personally I haven't had much luck with using LLMs for copyedits. Probably because I don't have any of the more advanced models nor much skills at prompts. On Talk:Misti seems fine. (I had half in mind to once have Lake Tauca assessed in this fashion by a LLM, but that article's one of my older ones so it would need a much more thorough rewrite to go to FAC ever) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, I've dropped the pre-FAC review as requested. Pro tip on prompts: explain to the LLM what the issue is, and have it draft the prompt for you (as I did for this)! Let me know how useful this was for you; if you want, I could have a different LLM perform a similar prose audit after you're done with revisions (it's useful to get a "second opinion"). Esculenta (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! Out of curiosity, how difficult is it to write an useful prompt for this purpose? I was wondering for a long time whether to try something on the Tauca article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Writing the prompt isn't hard as long as you can express clearly what you want it to do, and are aware of its limitations. For example, if I wasn't using a high-end LLM, I wouldn't have fed the entire Misti article into a single copyediting prompt (too much cognitive load/token limits), but would have done it section by section. I wouldn't ask "do a FAC review", but instead, make separate prompts to address particular FAC criteria individually that I thought the LLM might be useful in helping with. Anyway, let me know if you'd like a similar prose audit for Lake Tauca sometime; it only takes me a couple of minutes to do. Esculenta (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, please! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done! I used the same chat window as for the previous Misti prompt (so it already had the background info in memory). Esculenta (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I figure that list of related events and dates will probably need further rewrite in the future, I don't think it's close to FAC ready. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done! I used the same chat window as for the previous Misti prompt (so it already had the background info in memory). Esculenta (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, please! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Writing the prompt isn't hard as long as you can express clearly what you want it to do, and are aware of its limitations. For example, if I wasn't using a high-end LLM, I wouldn't have fed the entire Misti article into a single copyediting prompt (too much cognitive load/token limits), but would have done it section by section. I wouldn't ask "do a FAC review", but instead, make separate prompts to address particular FAC criteria individually that I thought the LLM might be useful in helping with. Anyway, let me know if you'd like a similar prose audit for Lake Tauca sometime; it only takes me a couple of minutes to do. Esculenta (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! Out of curiosity, how difficult is it to write an useful prompt for this purpose? I was wondering for a long time whether to try something on the Tauca article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, I've dropped the pre-FAC review as requested. Pro tip on prompts: explain to the LLM what the issue is, and have it draft the prompt for you (as I did for this)! Let me know how useful this was for you; if you want, I could have a different LLM perform a similar prose audit after you're done with revisions (it's useful to get a "second opinion"). Esculenta (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- It won't offend me - quite the contrary - but personally I haven't had much luck with using LLMs for copyedits. Probably because I don't have any of the more advanced models nor much skills at prompts. On Talk:Misti seems fine. (I had half in mind to once have Lake Tauca assessed in this fashion by a LLM, but that article's one of my older ones so it would need a much more thorough rewrite to go to FAC ever) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Your nomination of Methodus qua omnes detectos lichenes has passed
[edit]Your good article nomination of the article Methodus qua omnes detectos lichenes has 
passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)