Jump to content

User:Epicgenius/Quality article contributions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of quality achievements on the English Wikipedia by Epicgenius.

This is not a full list. An asterisk (*) denotes significant text contributions and a bullet (•) denotes works where a plurality or majority of text was contributed by Epicgenius and he initiated or jointly-initiated the improvement process. Other articles consist of moderate text contributions or nominations of others' work.[b]

Some of his achievements can be seen using this tool made by Legoktm.

[edit]

This list includes articles he nominated for good or featured article status, as well as those he worked on extensively but did not nominate.


Interesting facts

[edit]

Milestones

[edit]

He forgot all the other milestones in between, but it took him a bit over 2 years for his first 100,000 edits, then more than 4 years for his next 100,000.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ According to this link, which does not include co-nominations, demoted GAs, or GAs promoted to FAs.
  2. ^ this includes collaborations with the following users for some of these: Another Believer, Dr. Blofeld, Kew Gardens 613, Rhododendrites, Tdorante10, Vami_IV, .
  3. ^ Almost all of the below articles in "Buses" and "Services", and many in "Stations" and "Lines", are works of Kew Gardens 613 and/or Tdorante10.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca He created this page.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i Improved an existing good or featured article.
  6. ^ a b Helped out Vami_IV with his nomination.
  7. ^ Helped out Rhododendrites with his nomination.
  8. ^ Collaboration with WikiProject New York City.
  9. ^ a b After the original World Trade Center article was split, he also created these two pages.
  10. ^ This article initially got delisted from GA status. It turns out that the article never met the current version of the Good Article criteria upon any of its previous reviews. This user then improved it back to GA status.