User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cladistics and vandalism

I'm afraid cladistics is out of my area of expertise, User:Opabinia regalis is better qualified on this than I am. As to the vandalism, it is only a few per day so seems pretty normal for a FA. Have a look at the Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages to see how comparatively lucky we are! TimVickers 16:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected influenza. Let me know when tuberculosis gets worse. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me know when you nominate cladistics. I have half a handful of books knocking around about this somewhere. Someone translated the Willi Hennig bio a while ago. As for helping with issues on my talk, things seem to have calmed down, but you can take a look at this AfD if you've got time. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA nomination for Bacteria

Hi there Sandy. I've nominated this page for FA. Your comments or corrections on its nomination page would be very welcome. TimVickers 17:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I was running through my list of editors who have expertise in this area and didn't notice you'd already contributed! Thanks for semi-protecting influenza, I suspect it's getting vandalised simply because it is a FA high up in the alphabet and near the top of the list in the biology section. TimVickers 17:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

An editor has made some major changes to this article, could you please return to the FAC and provide some feedback on whether or not these are an improvement? TimVickers 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tazzie

If you aren't busy (which I'm sure you won't be after the holidays - ha), could you have a quick glance over Thylacine. I've rewritten it more or less from scratch over the past week, and I'm sure there wil be a few glaring mistakes to which I'm now blind (having rewritten and reorganized everything about 20 times). Any little improvements greatly appreciated. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I really appreciate your time. I thought exactly the same about the footprint pic, but haven't been able to find one yet. The capitalisation is a bit of a nightmare, as we use uppercase for the specific species references and lowercase for the more general groups; therefore "foxes" but "Red Fox", "Dingo" but "possums", "Hyena" but "kangaroos" etc. Add to that the different conventions for different areas (fishes are all sentence case) and it does look confusing, but I think I have them all right. Yomanganitalk 23:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That helping hand

I will try to finish the work, but I do need to focus on school first and for most. During the last few weeks of school I view Wikipedia time as my reward for studying really, really hard; I typically take an hour or two to work on the articles and other things that I like if I feel I have learned something from my self-enforced study confinement. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

One other thing: Since you commented that the reference citations were incorrectly done I wonder if you wouldn't mind checking out the page Wikipedia:Inline citation to ensure that all information presented on the page is accurate and up to date. I would apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tuberculosis check

Re:Tim, please check this edit - while reverting a bunch of vandalism and unsourced edits, I accidentally deleted this (and later re-added it), but I'm not sure if it's correct. [1] Sandy (Talk) 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The information is correct. TimVickers 17:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR templates

I won't get into a revert war with you, but please see the discussion at Talk:Super Mario 64 and Wikipedia talk:Featured article review, as well as User talk:Joelr31. Andre (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

 Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sad note

I didn't have a clue he had left - indeed it is most unfortunate. I hope he returns soon. Wiki users seem to be fast leaving, and it's hard to recognise any familiar faces these days. That can get rather lonely at times. LuciferMorgan 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you feel he'll be back soon. I wish him a speedy recovery. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Sandy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Damn. Joelito (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured: London Underground

London Underground has been a featured article for over two years now! Unisouth 09:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chess

I prefer Fanorona - I'll have a look, but I don't think I have much that will be useful for references. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spyware FAR

Thanks for seconding my concerns. Amazing what doing this sort of thing can do ... I didn't even know there was a malware project. I think it would have helped to have had the project banner on the talk page all this time. Daniel Case 17:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "horrible, unreliable web site with a huge bias"

All fixed now. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's right, it's a terrible website. Jayjg (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If I nominated you for admin

Would you accept? It seems you would be able to put the tools to good use. --Tbeatty 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No - never - not my cup of tea. Thanks for asking. Sandy (Talk) 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No worries. Let me know if you ever change your mind. --Tbeatty 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't expect to :-) Again, thanks for asking. Sandy (Talk) 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, I would have supported, even co-nominated, but I think you made the right decision. Being an admin is not as much fun as people think - especially if you want to be an editor at the same time. And you've got Opabinia, myself and others to ask for special admin favours if you ever have any. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind thoughts and wise words, Samsara. Sandy (Talk) 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That was quick!

I'd barely hit "submit". By the way, do you want to be an admin? Reading your edit summary I can't be sure. Arf. Yomanganitalk 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL :-)) Sandy (Talk) 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for the footnotes fixes at Central Coast Mariners FC. If I may ask, did you do it by hand, or do you use a semi-automated bot (AWB etc.)? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a bot from User:Gimmetrow. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
More info here. Sandy (Talk) 01:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V for Vendetta

He appears to have turned up now, but I weighed in anyway. Yomanganitalk 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodyline unreferenced section

Hi, I noticed you've re-added the unreferenced section tag to the Bodyline article. I'm not quite sure what you want - there are multiple references listed at the bottom of the article. Everything written in that section (and every single other fact that currently has a citation needed tag stuck on it) comes from the book Bodyline Autopsy, which is listed in the references section for the article. Is it really necessary to add explicit citation tags for the exact same book to every statement in the article? It seems redundant and silly to state multiple paragraphs of facts and have a citation tag for the exact same reference stuck on to every single paragraph or sentence. If you have a good way to satisfy your desire for citations without making the article look stupid, please edit the article to add it, as I don't know what will satisfy you. -dmmaus 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't have the book, I can't add the references, as I don't have the page numbers. One cite per paragraph should suffice, but opinions attributed to various persons should definitely be cited. Sandy (Talk) 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, page numbers. Okay, I can add those. I'll do it when I have time. Thanks. -dmmaus 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chavez

Have left a comment on your other ID about the Chavez article.--Zleitzen 07:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA nomination for California Gold Rush

The California Gold Rush article has been nominated for Featured article status. If you would like to comment on this nomination, please go here to leave your comment. To leave a comment on that page, click the [edit] link to the right of the title California Gold Rush.NorCalHistory 20:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Will read it soon, but the first thing I noticed is that a lot of the image placement is messing up formatting on section headings, etc., and that if you'll reduce the first image from 500px to 400, the layout will be much nicer with respect to the Table of Contents and the large white space left. With your permission, can I move around some of the images, and then if you don't like it, I'll revert it back ? Sandy (Talk) 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Sandy - give it a try. I know that it's different on each person's computer monitor. The current placement looks great on mine, but if you've got better, go for it! thx!NorCalHistory 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, wondering why all biblio, footnote entries correctly have author last name, first name listed first, except the Google buys Youtube entry, which doesn't list author first? Can you put author last name first on all for consistency? Sandy (Talk) 22:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sandy - I fixed using a WP:CITE template.NorCalHistory 23:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Posting your list (gulp), on my talk page first, would be easiest for me, Sandy. After that, if there are things left undo, then a post on the FAC page would be in order. Thanks for your continuing assistance!NorCalHistory 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
(Bigger gulp!) - Thanks! Interestingly, many of your suggestions are actually reactions to other editors' changes where I said, "Well, what the heck" (like that question mark in the section title), and left in. Let me read through this list carefully, with all the same (much appreciated) attention you put into it.NorCalHistory 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking through your very good suggestions makes me think that almost all of this can be done pretty easily this evening and tomorrow. Anything that I don't do by in the next twelve hours or so (or perhaps don't agree with!), feel free to post on the FAC page - but if I could have a chance to clean this up a bit more before you do so, that would be appreciated!NorCalHistory 01:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts: Of course, I love it. These are some ideas to make it even better:

Table of Contents: I don't like the section headings with question marks. Special characters should be avoided in section headings, and they aren't "encyclopedic". I also don't understand why "Path of the gold" is a sub-section of the Forty-Niners - not entirely related, shouldn't be a sub-section. I also have a problem that some of numbers that should be discussed in the Path of the gold are included later under Development of gold recovery techniques - a better discussion of those overall numbers would be included in Path of the gold, *after* the techniques for extraction/mining are discussed. I also have a problem with some of the repeated words in some of the sections (you should avoid repeating words in TOC). So ... I suggest the following order of sections: Overview Forty-Niners Legal Rights Development of gold recovery methods Profits Path of the gold Effects (on California and elsewhere is redundant - that's everywhere) Immediate Longer-term Modern-day (missing section - to be discussed) ??? Geology etcetera By doing this, you can discuss the methods, and then move the numbers that are currently (mis) listed under Techniques to Profits, where they are a better fit. I'd like to see the profits section expanded to give a better overview of all of the money/gold taken out of CA.

Done

Modern-day - not sure what to do with this. The article tells us when the Gold Rush began, but it never defines or explains when it ended. Did it end? Gold is mined today in California with increasingly aggressive methods. Where should/does the article end? Either 1) deal with current gold mining, or 2) define the scope of the article by detailing when the Gold Rush petered out. Remember, there are contemporary events such as the Ironstone Vineyards in Murphy's (the very successful conversion of a gold mine to a tourist trap), and the fact that the largest piece of gold ever was taken out of Jamestown in the last decade -- do you want to cover modern-day "gold rush" in CA, or better define the scope of the article?

Done

Now, line by line ...

This sentence is awkward: "The Gold Rush laid the foundation of the “California Dream” as a place to begin again, a place where untold wealth was just waiting to be found." The "dream" isn't the place to begin again - California is. You handled this well in the text - can you do the same in the lead? Also, you repeated the same twice in the text: the California Dream is first mentioned in Effects, and then the text is repeated in Longer-term effects - need to say it only once.

Done

Tailrace needs to be defined or wiki-linked the first time it's used - it's here in the lead: "found shiny pieces of metal in the tailrace of a sawmill he was building; ..."

Done

I'm not comfortable with "Stories of the fabulous "Golden State" and shiploads of California gold spread to every corner of the world," shiploads: were the entire ships really loaded with gold ? Or was gold spread by ship ...

Done

Something wrong here with punctuation, not sure how to fix: As Sutter had feared, he was ruined as his workers left in search of gold and squatters invaded his land and stole his crops and cattle.[ Short, choppy sentence should be better merged into surrounding text: The then-tiny settlement of San Francisco at first became a ghost town of abandoned ships and businesses whose owners joined the Gold Rush.[8] Then, it boomed as merchants and new people arrived. infrastructure ... was (not were)? Like many boom towns, the infrastructure of San Francisco and other towns near the fields were strained

Done

Something wrong here with change in tense: An alternative route was to sail to the Isthmus of Panama, take canoes and mules for a week through the jungle, and then on the Pacific side, wait for a ship sailing for San Francisco.

Done

Towards the end of overview, when you begin to talk about Southern California (blick), you should start a new paragraph. "Gold was also discovered in Southern California ... "

Done

Caption: Native Americans strike back at miners

Done

Expand the entire Path of the gold section by 1) including some of the numbers later given in the Development section, and 2) giving a better summary of the overall numbers. There are terms throughout that need to be defined or wiki-linked: I suggest starting the wiki link articles on each. "However, panning cannot be done on a large scale, and industrious miners and groups of miners graduated to "cradles," "rockers," and "long-toms" to process larger volumes of gravel ... Development section - move numbers out (they aren't "development"), and include them in the Profits/Path sections

Addressed by moving order of sections; will add a few more links

"Eventually, hard-rock mining wound up being the single largest source of gold produced in the Gold Country." I think (not sure?) this sentence is what brings you into contemporary mining, as this is the method used now - this is the sentence that leads me to feel the scope (time) of the article isn't well-defined and needs to be better dealt with.

Done

In Effects, this needs to be sourced: "In addition, the environment suffered as gravel, silt and toxic chemicals from prospecting operations killed fish and destroyed habitats." Without a source, it reads like POV and OR.

Done

Awkward grammar, not sure how to fix: "Within a few years thereafter, in 1863, the groundbreaking ceremony for the western leg of the First Transcontinental Railroad was held in Sacramento." Don't know what "within a few years thereafter" means.

Done

Don't know what he is referring to here with "more benevolent" - needs better explanation or expansion: "or at least been born to a "more benevolent group of founding fathers."

Done (and moved entire thought to footnote).

This sentence is unencylopedic - I think it could be completely eliminated, if not completely reworded: How the gold came to be uniquely in California, and not elsewhere, so that the "first world-class gold rush"[92] could take place there, is a story involving global forces.

Done (on second try!)

Still awkward, but I don't really know how to fix it - "Why the gold was in California involves global forces, and hundreds of millions of years. " I'm not a great grammarian, but maybe something like, "Global forces operating over millions of years resulted in the large concentration of gold in California. Sandy (Talk) 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Done

Thanks, Sandy, I think that these made it a better article! Much appreciated! NorCalHistory 02:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Punk Rock

Thanks for the request on my talk page, and sorry for the late reply. The main problem with the article is that to give it justice you'd have to own relevant literature on the topic, and I don't own as such. By right, this article should be a flagship article of the Punk Wikiproject and the main contributors there should be able to help with it - who helped with the Sex Pistols awhile back? They might be interested. I'm more of a Metal guy myself, but most of my time is focused on preparing for interviews with minor groups. LuciferMorgan 00:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could see if the Punk Wikiproject is interested? Even if an article is improved it's better than nothing. LuciferMorgan 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
|I'll just put it up for FAR and hope they come along. I have bit of a reputation as a grouchy so and so, so I'm not bothered about ruffling a few feathers. I'm surprised the Beatles Wikiproject hasn't swung for me yet! LuciferMorgan 00:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image questions

Hi! I think you had been sorta mentoring User:Jamesshin92, I just wanted to let you know I updated a question he had asked you, and then cross-posted to my talk page. No big deal, but those images are probably going to be deleted. :( Anyway, If you or s/he have any other questions let me know, or ask at WP:MCQ. - cohesion 18:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to tag them as copyvios etc on the off chance that he is actually the photographer, rather than deleting them right away. This way he can see that process too I guess :) - cohesion 18:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military brat

Hi Sandy, I responded to your questions/concerns. But I did have a question about the "There is a large number of references that need cleanup of the blue links" what do you mean by that? I'm not sure how to fix it, so could you let me know. I'll watch this page and the FAC for a response. AS for the "Useem" and "Deployment Center" those are websites/studies that are reported in the references. There are no page numbers/dates, but if you look at the references, you will see them listed as names.Balloonman 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to do a few as samples than to explain: I'll go edit a couple on the article now. Sandy (Talk)
Thanks, I'll look at it probably tomorrow... I have a book due tomorrow that I want to finish rereading before I have to turn it in...Balloonman 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, you have really impressed me with your perfectionism (it's a trait my wife has, but she hates to review my work for some strange reason ;-) )Anyway, I know that you are opposing the Military Brat article for FA, but I was wondering how close you thought it was? I know you said it needed to be copy edited and had concerns about the references, but beyond that anything else?Balloonman 09:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] superscripted punctuation separating refs

Added a line to handle superscripted commas, semicolons or dashes (-) between refs. HTML comments would still interfere. Gimmetrow 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Gold Rush FAC map

Sandy, after reading through all the other stuff that you were doing at the same time (above), I'm triply impressed that you found the time to lend a hand on this little California Gold Rush FAC project! If you do have another 35 seconds to spare . . .

Following up on the suggestion to include a map in the article, two maps are available. If you get a chance to go to my talk page, both maps are posted there for your review, and any comment you might have would be appreciated (unfortunately, neither map has Highway 49 (which would be a squeeze to fit in!) NorCalHistory 07:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That Highway 49 map reference is appreciated! Thanks!NorCalHistory 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was a very educational exchange of views. I think that if all that's done is a transparent application of the Dec. 2006 valuation of gold to "273 pounds of gold," that shouldn't be viewed as OR. PS: I will remember that Feather River gold amount for a long time! NorCalHistory 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused by your comment

What did you mean by "refer to peer review" in your comment about Parâkramabâhu I? Did you mean it should be peer reviewed before it is nominated as a FA? I am the one who assessed it as a GA, and pointed Doc to either a Biography project peer review or FA nomination as options. Could you elaborate? I should add I have no emotional stake in what happens to the article. Though the subject holds no interest to me, I am very impressed at how Doc managed to expand a stub to what I consider FA quality. Thanks for your time. Jeffpw 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I got crossed up with you in attempting to correct the nom; we were doing the same work at the same time in trying to get it correctly listed, so some of my edits weren't recorded, as you were slightly ahead of me on correcting the faulty nom. It means that, rather than list everything that needs to be done still, it would be better to list it at peer review to better prepare the article for FAC, since it still needs work in many areas. Sandy (Talk) 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll pass that on to Doc. Jeffpw 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've been unable to find a WP:GA or WP:GAC listing - can you please let me know which section it is in at WP:GA? Sandy (Talk) 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Copied from the article talk page: *Doc originally asked me to assess this as part of the biography project (I have assessed several articles there). I originally gave it a B rating, then after he wrote to me that he had completed it, I reread it and assessed it as GA. If I did not follow protocol, please accept my apologies. I wasn't aware that it needed to be nominated for GA. I thought it could be assessed that way. Hope this clears up any confusion. Jeffpw 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly question

Sandy, are you the same person as User:SandyDancer??? I'm just curious. I owe you a reply to your post of last June in my talk page, which I have postponed (rather: procrastinated) until now. Sí, debemos tener amigos en común, me interesa tener trato epistolar contigo (I'd like us to become pen pals). Regards, AVM 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not me, but it's curious that there's another Spanish-speaking Sandy on Wiki. Saludos, Sandy (Talk) 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
ah, sorry, just checked your talk page, and I did leave you a message once, and it does sound like we may have friend in common - but I'm not SandyDancer. Feel free to e-mail me anytime, Saludos, Sandy (Talk) 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Sandy, I'm honored you included me in your list of recommended cawpy-editors at User talk:Balloonman. Thanks. –Outriggr § 05:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for recommending Outriggr and for your assistance with the Military Brat page. Balloonman 16:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for recommending Outriggr and for your assistance with the Military Brat page. Balloonman 16:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I really do appreciate the time and effort that you and Outriggr have put into this article to help get it over the hump.Balloonman 16:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re DS

Yes, I certainly do... It makes you wonder whether the exposure an article gets on the Main Page is worth the barrage of vandalism it attracts. I like to think of myself as something of a policy wonk, but this made me wish some rules would be seriously broken. Fvasconcellos 20:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the problematic citation (Mikkelsen et al.), what exactly is wrong with it? Do you mean the year of publication? Fvasconcellos 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can't be sure it's the same source, and after things calm down, we need to try to determine who deleted it and if there was a valid reason. Sandy (Talk) 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] look again

that editor was removing vandalism.--Kchase T 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've lost track - which one ? Sandy (Talk) 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
lol. I think we're all reverting past each other (like talking past each other), but somebody else seems to have figured it out. Anyway, thanks for your help with today's FA.--Kchase T 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Kchase, sorry if I goofed one. Sheesh, this is no fun. Sandy (Talk) 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Both instances of vandalism which you tried to revert were (separately) courtesy of 88.106.38.255 and 167.128.62.94. Both have been {{test4}}'d, I'll report on WP:AIAV if they try again. Fvasconcellos 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, FV - you're the best. I lost track of a couple of them. Sandy (Talk) 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! That was unexpected... :) Fvasconcellos 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hello Sandy, I know you're commonly on FAR and I've noticed Raul has left a comment. Do you know what he is referring to when saying I made 20 or so nominations at once in the past and been disruptive? I never have done so. LuciferMorgan 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really follow that - maybe he meant to say you left twenty *tags* on the article? I recommend taking a breather, and backing off for a day, and hope that Marskell will rejoin Wiki soon. Things are much too tense on FAR right now, and stepping back a bit might be the wisest course of action for now. It's always regrettable when an admin uses his/her own power to protect his/her articles, but I understand how defensive FA authors can get. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll take your course of action Sandy, which is likely for the best. LuciferMorgan 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't condone what happened - just trying to find the quickest path to cooling off the issue for now. Wiki is an imperfect place at times. Best, Sandy (Talk) 21:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It' some editor called JudgeSurreal who made a few noms (Lord Emsworth's), but whether it was 20 I'm unsure. I'm not going to respond to Raul's reply as I've stated my opinion quite clearly numerous times - I particularly despise him leaving comments on my userpage. Many thanks though for trying to cool things down, which I heavily appreciate - you're quite reasonable and a voice of sanity. LuciferMorgan 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Cooling off would be best for all at this point. I'm still disappointed in Raul, as his actions could be perceived as weakening the integrity of the FA process, and I believe admins should call in another admin when their own work is involved, but getting worked up about it won't help right now. Take care, Sandy (Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I need a break right now I think - maybe I can return in a week or two. I just have some off Wiki issues to deal with also, which are intensifying my mood. My apologies to everyone. LuciferMorgan 02:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize ... nothing to apologize for ... and whatever is happening off-Wiki, I hope it resolves quickly to your satisfaction. Don't let a few Wiki articles get you down. Sandy (Talk) 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Down Syndrome

I shall undo my edit. My mistake. Sharkface217 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but I only reverted once. I didn't want to start an edit war, just in case I was wrong. Thanks for pointing it out though. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

^^^ No need for me to revert, per above post. Everything is good now. Sharkface217 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So, who's going to put it back ?  :-) Sandy (Talk) 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but 3RR can be broken when fighting vandalism. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What you mean is that 3RR does not apply when removing vandalism. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I just need someone to put it back - it wasn't vandalism, but if I put it back, I could be brushing 3RR, since I made so many changes on the article today. Sandy (Talk) 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sandy nice work on that Down Syndrome article. Good article, looks nice. SmartGuy 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy - I hope this is okay...I just wanted to commend you also for your diligence on the Down syndrome article. I try to keep a watch on it myself, mainly to revert vandalism, and often see that you are quite on top of things there. It is really appreciated. Jeannedb 13:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR notification template

I created a template for this at my userspace (see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#Notification_text). Let me know what you think, and if we should move it to the Template namespace. Gzkn 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some advice

Hi, i noticed you review a lot of FACs. I have recently been doing a lot of work on Slayer to get it up to FA status. Perhaps you could take a quick browse and point out any thing thats missing or not written well. If you don't, thats fine as i see you're very busy. Thank you for you time :) M3tal H3ad 06:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really swamped for the next few days (both in real life and on Wiki), and should be able to get to it by the weekend. Can you make that timeline a bit smaller - it wraps off my screen. If I forget to review it by this Sunday, pls do ping me again - I'm so busy, I might forget :-) Sandy (Talk) 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for taking some time to read the article and comment on it. It's greatly appreciated. I have changed some things but it still needs a lot of work. Thank again! :) M3tal H3ad 07:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDMOS

I know you're a fan of MEDMOS, and I'd like to thank you again for your excellent work there, and also with the FACs, by the way. But maybe you should refer to MEDMOS a little more cautiously, since it's only a proposed guideline... When I'm back I'll try to resuscitate it, but for now I'm afraid it'll just lie there for a little while longer...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Steven: Requirement 2 of WP:WIAFA is, "It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects" (bolding mine). Do you think my interpretation is incorrect? Sandy (Talk) 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No I don't, I noticed that one and I think it's a correct interpretation. I just think it has to be balanced with the fact that our consensus on MEDMOS remains relatively unvoiced for the moment. But hey, it's just a detail.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harvard Film Archive

Hey, I noticed you fixed some of my footnotes in this article -- problem is, I can't seem to see what it is that you did -- the diffs looks identical to me. If there's something I'm missing about the footnote process, I'd love to know it so I don't keep making the same mistake. Cheers Dina 19:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dina. It's a bot to correct refs to agree with where to place ref tags. In this case, it only removed the blank spaces between the punctuation and the ref, which doesn't show in the diff. Sandy (Talk) 21:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Correction noted. Dina 03:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proud to be a Brat

Hi Sandy,

How do I say this, right now I am quite pissed at you... and I think the reason is because I have so much respect for you. I've only seen your posts for about a week, but I have a high regard for your thoughts and opinions. You've earned my respect. Having earned it in such a short time, I find myself very frustrated that you seem to believe that not "ALL" brats are brats. Let me quote

Use the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use.

  • Self identification: When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use. Transsexual people, for example, should be referred to using the personal pronouns (male, female, or another) that they themselves prefer.
  • Do not assume that a different term is more inclusive or accurate. For example, a person who appears female or who was born female may identify as male or something else other than female.

The term brat or military brat is the term that we use and we take pride in that term. I've cited a few outside sources. ALL of the research use the term. NUMEROUS professional studies use the term. Military news agencies use the term. A quick search of the web will show numerous websites/books/organization that use the term with PRIDE. The FAC has had two people object to the term---you and Tony. I think it is safe to say that neither of you are military brats. It has also has a least 5 different peole , none of whom I knew before last week, who are self identified brats. ALL of them support the article because they recognize themselves as brats. NONE of the self identified brats has objected to the term, in fact they support the term. The name IS how we identify ourselves. It IS the appropriate name. It is the term, we use. There may be a few people who don't like the term, but there are people who don't like the identification of "caucassian," "African American," "Hispanic," etc.

Again, I would not be as frustrated as I am if you hadn't earned my respect. PS I'm watching your page, so for ease of communcation, please respond here... I hate jumping back and forth between talkpages.Balloonman 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have disappointed you, Balloonman. I understand the term and how widespread its use is: my confusion is over the implication that *all* military children identify themselves as brats, or that all parents of military children identify them as brats, and more importantly, the extension of study results to entire populations without specifying the breadth of the study or methodological limitations. I think you can incorporate all of this without diminishing the "brat" terminology. Sandy (Talk) 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
NP, I don't mind explaining it to people. When used in this context, "Brat" is in no ways derogatory or insulting. It is the term that is universally accepted in the U.S. military community. It is one that most brats have come to take great pride in. I suspect it is also one that every brat has struggled with at some point in time. (E.G. when I first heard the term, I hated it... I wish I could find something to make that non-OR) But then it becomes a badge of honor. It is who/what we are. When you said, "As if ALL" that is what caused me to get upset, because the answer is, in the United States at least, the answer: yes. Here are some blogs and 'non notable sites' discussing pride and being a brat.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
Brats take pride in our heritage, but we do often feel alone and like outsiders... which is why your "As if" got to me. I think the reason why the brats are in favor of the article is because it is the first time they realize we are part of an identifiable culture/community.Balloonman 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand it's not considered derogatory and that those who consider themselves brats take pride in the term, but that's different than the assertion that *all* military children identify themselves as brats, or that all parents of military children identify their children as brats; that is not an assertion that should or can be backed on Wikipedia by blogs. Again, I'm sorry to have disappointed you, but my concern is assertion of fact versus attributing opinions to their source. Of course, if there is a broad-based, controlled, randomized, replicated study that shows that the *vast* majority of military children/families consider themselves brats, I'll reconsider - it's a matter of discussing the strengths of the studies you present, rather than presenting study results as fact, without discussing the study samples and methodology. Many studies are flawed, based on small samples, have poor design, or contain ascertainment bias. Sandy (Talk) 08:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The acceptance of the term brat is not something that you are going to find an actual study on. Nobody is going to sit down and survey brats about this because it isn't even a question in the community. It is a term that has been around since the at least the Civil War! I suspect that there is more acceptance of the term in the brat community than there is in the "Native American/American Indian" community. Like I said in the FAC, many of the researchers were reluctant to use the term "brat," but chose to do so after investigating the subject. But even if you did find some brats who didn't like the term, or object to its usage, that doesn't change the fact that they are brats and fit the definition of an objective term. A Native American is still a Native American even if they prefer the term "American Indian." The term has grown beyond its original exclusive usage in military communities. So, even if you found some brats who opposed it, it is now an accepted research term.
But I digress, I wanted to let you know that I've indicated that I wanted to pull my FAC nomination. I want to try to address your concerns in more detail. I doubt if I'll address them all because I don't agree with all of your concerns. (The issue of the name being foremost and the consistency of the research.) I'll probably renominate it next week, but I want to go through and make some changes that I've noticed this week about the article... changes that you and Outriggr reaffirmed to me.Balloonman 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll respond on Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture), where there is also ongoing discussion, to keep everything in one place. Sandy (Talk) 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Deer Hole Creek

Thanks for your support and praise at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White Deer Hole Creek. I believe I have now addressed all the issues raised. I removed 51 duplicate or non-essential wikilinks from the article and fixed a couple of disambiguation links that had snuck in there along the way. I also fixed the extra bracket in the second footnote, but left my beloved very long title (for now at least). Is this OK? Please let me know if you have any more concerns or suggestions for improvement. Yours, Ruhrfisch 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the long title, but since you indicated that is the actual title, although the website listed an abbreviated title, that's the right way to go. Nice job! (I added my support earlier today.) Sandy (Talk) 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry I missed your reply until now. Thanks again for your support. Ruhrfisch 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parakramabahu

Hi Sandy. Thanks for looking over Parakramabahu - I've changed some things as per your suggestions and would appreciate if you could let me know what you think. I'd really like to get this up to FA status and any help/advice you can offer is very much appreciated!DocSubster 12:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Did some work, added comments to peer review, more later. Sandy (Talk) 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodyline

I have been a contributor, but I wouldn't say I was a significant contributor. I did not even see the article before it had become a featured article, and whilst I started the section on Bodyline in England, the real work on the article has been performed by others. I don't recall it being standard that minor contributors to articles declare themselves as such. If things have changed though, please let me know. jguk 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I used to have a brag-list of FAs I considered myself to be a major author of on my userpage. Bodyline was never on there: the credit belongs elsewhere.
On another matter, Sydney Riot of 1879, which is my favourite of the FAs that I am a major author on, I'm afraid I still don't know what you're driving at. When I have time, I'll add the page references in History of Australian Cricket to the relevant sections. However, I really do feel I have added all the references used here, and that anyone who really wishes to locate those references would be able to do so based on the information provided. jguk 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I sure wish I didn't have to do that work myself: I'm already doing it for about four other articles which have new and less experienced editors. Did you look at the list and the samples? Sandy (Talk) 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When I ceased being very active, around March this year, there was nothing wrong with the article as measured by reference to the criteria in place at that time. Whilst I've returned, I'm nowhere near as active as I used to be, and I don't intend becoming that active either.

At present, I can't really see what's wrong with the references. I'm not trying to be difficult here, if I knew what to do, I'd do it, because I really don't want to lose this one as a FA, but I just can't see it. If you see something wrong with them that you are able to fix, please do so, and I will take note. But I can't see what you're up to with just one example that I still don't follow. Kind regards jguk 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it this weekend: I have a growing list, and it's hard to keep up. Sandy (Talk) 18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. jguk 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space opera in Scientology doctrine

Hello Sandy.... could you take a look at the discussion (or attempt at one) currently going on at Space opera in Scientology doctrine? Although they were indeed mentioned by Hubbard in lectures, most of the wacky things the article gleefully chooses to dwell on are not "Scientology doctrine", and the article does not back up these specific assertions with specific sources. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the discussion on the article talk page, or on the FAR? Please leave me a link - I'm going to be out for the entire evening. Sandy (Talk) 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It's mainly on the article's talk page, starting here and scrolling all the way down, although I've also mentioned it on the FAR. Highfructosecornsyrup 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read through it, and most of it is "Greek to me", so I'm not sure how I can help. I think you have a good case about the title, but a lot of time is being chewed up - are other editors there concerned about whether the article retains its featured status? I can't help resolve a POV dispute in an area I'm unfamiliar with (other than to reiterate that the article will be defeatured if it doesn't conform to WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NPOV), but if others want to retain the star, there is a LOT of cleanup and referencing work to be done, so I guess I'd ask them if that is their interest. If it is, they should get crackin'. Good luck - looks like you'll need it !! Sandy (Talk) 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] urgents

Sandy, please change it as you see fit. I see that only a few people have it on their page. I wonder how we can spread the template around more ... Tony 08:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] urgents template

I guess we could always post the template on discussion pages, saying "Look, here's something useful—we wonder whether you'd agree to place it at the top of your talk page? Tony 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Robert Baker

working on it now, Sandy. Is that tag really necessary? Jeffpw 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that I know you're working on it, I'll remove the tag. All too often, even FAs are not on anyone's watch list, so a tag is needed to get someone's attention. Let me know if you need help. Sandy (Talk) 20:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I check this article daily. It is very important to me, for many reasons. Jeffpw 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm disappointed that it get through FAC without full citations - I glanced at it, saw that it was well written and endorsed by respected reviewers, and didn't look at the references. I wish other reviewers would pay more attention to WP:V; at least it should be easy to fix quickly. I'm glad to see you're at work on it: I changed your last news cite to a format that may be more readable - change it back if you don't like it (last name of author first, etc.) Sandy (Talk) 21:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you so much for your help, Sandy. I had never written anything for Wiki before, so I hadn't a clue about how the references were supposed to be formatted. And no, nobody said a word about it during either its GA or FA process. I have everything saved to computer, though(I bought most of the articles from Lexis Nexis), so I should be able to get it properly formatted by tomorrow afternoon at the latest (it's almost bedtime here). Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Jeffpw 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Yea, I'm troubled that no one else notices references (some seem to see the footnote, and not check that the notes have all the requisite info, leaving me as the stickler for refs :-) ... fill in what you know, and I'll go back and reformat and add URLs and anything else I can find once you give article names - I'll stop working on it now so I don't get in your way, and will check back later. Best, Sandy (Talk) 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Brettingham

Replied at my talk page. Chick Bowen 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing of featured articles

Hi Sandy. I'm confused by your reverts of my recent minor edit to Down Syndrome. I don't feel strongly about the subject, but I would like to understand where you are coming from. I assume we agree that reaching FA status does not mean that an article should thence be frozen from further editing? And that unrelenting vandalism doesn't mean that substantive editing should cease? Your last edit summary asked not to add unsourced facts, which I fully agree with, but I don't believe I added any new facts at all, I just reordered and reformulated what was already there.

My motivation was some minor but obvious problems in the text as it was:

  • The sentence "Since the risk of spontaneous abortion is approximately 1/200 to 1/300, amniocentesis confirmation presents a risk of spontaneously aborting a healthy fetus" makes sense only if the quoted risk numbers represent the added risk of miscarriage caused by amniocentesis, but the sentence starts as if it were talking about the total normal risk of spontaneous abortion. The phrase "spontaneous abortion" is also a bad choice here – "miscarriage" would be better – since the miscarriages being discussed are not in fact spontaneous but rather induced by a medical procedure.
  • The paragraph before the Prenatal Screening section is already talking about prenatal screening (and more than as a lead-in to the following section). That paragraph ought to be incorporated into the Prenatal Screening section.
  • The Prenatal Screening paragraph starts talking about "non-invasive" screening methods without having explained what it means by "non-invasive", and that the term is meant to contrast those methods with amnio and CVS that are considered invasive.

I tried to address these problems by reshuffling what was there, without adding anything new except to explain what "invasive" means here, and that amnio and CVS are considered invasive in that sense. I expected this to be rather uncontroversial.

Anyway, I am writing here, instead of on the talk page, because I really do want to understand, in case I am missing something. My edits may of course simply have been bad, but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying. Is there some policy regarding more restrictive editing of featured articles that you are referring to? Or is there some underlying unstated concern? Or just too many vandals lately?

(By the way, the Prenatal Screening section could actually use a lot more attention. I would suggest that its beginning be organized something like this:

  • Trisomy 21 can be detected by prenatal tests
  • Testing with the intent of aborting affected fetuses is common but controversial
  • There are invasive tests with high accuracy but some risks, and non-invasive tests with little or no risk but lower accuracy
  • The false-positive rate of non-invasive tests give them an indirect risk, because positive results are confirmed through invasive tests
  • Then give the details.)

--mglg(talk) 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy for explaining. Regarding the sentence "Pregnant women can be screened for various complications in their pregnancy, or due to risk factors such as advanced maternal age", it confuses me. I understand the first clause as saying Pregnant women can be screened to check whether various complications to pregnancy are present, which makes sense as an introduction to testing. The second clause, however, seems to imply that the meaning is Pregnant women may be tested/offered/recommended testing if they have certain complications or are of advanced age, which is something entirely different. I assumed that the intent was the former, and therefore dropped the second clause. I certainly agree that maternal age is an extremely important risk factor, and central to whether women are recommended to undergo testing, but I didn't think that was what the sentence was (or should be) about. If I dropped something that does serve a purpose, please fix my mistake. --mglg(talk) 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks Sandy! --mglg(talk) 02:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Hi, I added the missing citations along with some extra info and fixed the punctuation mistake in Tiridates I of Armenia.--Eupator 01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ohio Wesleyan University

Dear SandyGeorgia,

I am writing because I wanted to ask you why you removed the fac tag to facfailed? The article had been listed only for 4 days prior to your removal, but there is still a major momentum to address many of the comments and so far only 4 people voted with several others still waiting to see the outcome of addressing comments that came out. Could you please let me know what your reasoning was? Thank you for your time! WikiprojectOWU 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I updated the talk page tags per Raul's list of articles which failed FAC. [13]. In the December 9 promotion (see diffs), Raul did not promote the article, but he doesn't have time to close all the talk page tags. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military brat --- Research section

Hi Sandy,

Could you take a quick look at the research section only of the military brat article?[14] I think I might have revised it in a manner that will explain why brats do not object to the term. I'm doing a fairly major overhaul on the rest of the article... namely I didn't like how "moving" kept showing up throughout the article, if felt as if it wasn't as compact as it could be, so I'm reorganizing it a lot.Balloonman 17:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's getting MUCH better - I left a number of inline comments and questions, so pls be sure to review them, and remove the inline comments afterwards. For your reference, here are my changes: diff. Sandy (Talk) 19:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You made some excellent changes. I fixed one citation (Williams) and have to add the other one, I have the Cottrell information in the other room. As for Wertsch being recognized as an expert in the field, what kind of citation do we need? She is oft quoted in the various literature, interviewed by various sources as an expert in the field, she is invited to speak at brat events. I don't think I can [easily] find a specific source that says she is a well known expert---but the number of citations in the literature stands as testimony to that. I worded it as recognized, because that I believe is easily discernable... I don't think respected would be discernable through the frequency of citations.Balloonman 20:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
One thing you might be able to do there is to look up websites of conferences or something where she has been engaged as a speaker, and quote what they say about her in her bio. Ping me if you want me to have another look later, Sandy (Talk) 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA number template

Dear Sandy, I thought I should write to you directly to head off any collateral dammage in your disaproval of the new FA count template (primarily in order to have an FA count on the main page). The "folks" you refer to who proposed this was in fact myself and, correct, I was not aware that 6 or so pages were needed to be edited to close an FA/FAR. The original question I placed on main page:talk was to discuss whether there was consensus of having a count of how many FA's there were on the main page - the mechanics of this were not raised, only the merits of the idea itself. I had assumed that people involved in FA administration would have been pleased with a quantitative measure of their efforts up there for all to see - afterall, the idea was to promote quality on WP, not make your life difficult. Once the idea had gained consensus user:banyantree (who has a much greater technical knowledge of WP than me) created the template, which was meant as a labour saving device, and suggested that all mentions of the number of FAs use this to create consistency and reduce the number of pages to edit. From there talk of a bot to do this work automatically was raised and seems to be a win-win situation for all concerned - less edits, more accuracy, efficiency.

So, as you can see, once the suggestion moved beyond the purely theoretical the main drive has always been to make the process as simple as possible for you and Raul etc. Please look at the advantages of having a milestone indicator on the main page (you've seen what the total page count does for press releases and community spirit) before you dismiss the idea entirely.

Thanks for listening, Witty lama 05:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for touching base, Witty lama - now that progress is being made on the bot, it looks like it will end up OK. I was concerned earlier that FAR was overlooked in discussion of the process, but in hindsight, it should not have surprised me that few people are aware of how much more labor intensive FAR is, and that others are involved in FAs. All's well that ends well ... the bot should help all involved :-) Regards, Sandy (Talk) 05:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks to you! California Gold Rush FA

Your "early and often" support was a major incentive - couldn't have done it without your steady optimism and excellent advice! Thank you so much! NorCalHistory 06:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Riot of 1879

As you may have surmised, I was away over the weekend, so could not look at it.

It seems that ALoan has supplied the information you needed. If some is still absent, please let me know what you need and I will do my best. I am currently hampered by some of my books being in storage (I'm in the middle of moving), but I haven't unpacked the main ones I used in the article.

I am disappointed (to say the least) that someone called Marskell is proceeding, seemingly automatically, with defeaturing this article. I'm yet to be convinced that he has even read it. We can rework on citing the sources differently, but that in itself does not mean there are (or indeed were) problems with condition 1c: all sources were cited, and inline citations were used where it was considered by editors to be appropriate. (I note that is not a requirement that inline citations be used universally, just where appropriate.)

I should add that I have no problem with citing things in a slightly different way if you insist (I've just been unclear as to exactly what you've meant). But I do strongly believe that the article fully complies, and has at all relevant times complied, with the FA criteria. jguk 12:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look at soon as I catch up here, but rest assured that Marskell isn't moving to defeature the article. He's been away on personal business, so you haven't seen him around FAR perhaps, but he tries very hard to make sure articles are saved. However, he tends to keep articles moving on time (two weeks of FAR), and then gives them the extra time when needed at the end of FARC, while Joel was giving the extra time at the end of FAR. Marskell moved it down, but that doesn't mean he wants to see it defeatured. Markskell's system works well, because sometimes reviewers don't even check the articles until they've moved to FARC, and sometimes editors don't get involved until they see it in FARC, but rest assured that Marskell will allow all the time needed to finish the work, and tries hard to make sure articles aren't defeatured, often doing the work himself. Best, Sandy (Talk) 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good News!


Thanks again for your support and comments - White Deer Hole Creek made featured article!
Take care, Ruhrfisch 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prose

Prose itself is not my strong point, as mine is rather turgid, what I do is content edits, and my standards are very high compared to what I think Wikipedia does and what Wikipedia should and can offer. I'm not sure the editors at Sei Whale are that appreciative as I've created a lot of work for them. Surprisingly the dinosaur folks want me because of that. I will look at FAR, which I just learned about, and would like to send a couple dozen articles to. I notice there is a good article review also, it needs more use, too. People do great research, but don't read and interpret what they read very well--not the problem with the Sei Whale article, though, it's rather excellent, I just think it can be superb. I will look at Chess, although I'm not a player, as I grew up in a house full of ranked players, which I'm not. It turns out that reviewing is a lot of work. KP Botany 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But what is it with the good articles? There are articles that don't even appear to be in English, that are GAs. It's appalling. I think it's fair to ask the editor to get someone else to copyedit, if you've done the FA review, which is a lot of work. There are a lot of good copyeditors on Wikipedia. I have 3 who follow my horrendous prose around and translate it into English. I'm going to start blasting on GAs, though, there are some really awful ones that had no excuse asking anyone to consider them as GAs, and many pass, and I think one person is having her sock puppet pass her latest! And I just found out what a sock puppet is. Wikipedia desperately needs more reviewers: substantive and copy. KP Botany 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I started reviewing because of how shockingly bad so many GAs are, and I do want to change that.. I've found pretty much what you see, total abuse of the status reducing it to no meaning. Yes, I think it does suck energy from FA and Peer Review. KP Botany 01:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I'm actually reverting a change from yesterday - I'm so slow that I look fast ;) Yomanganitalk 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Faster servers over here. You got in ahead of me on the warning, although perhaps that was from the earlier one. Yomanganitalk 02:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Blocked now. Too boring. Yomanganitalk 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

WOW! This was so helpful! Thank you, SandyGeorgia!!! WikiprojectOWU 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC opinion

Sandy, you seem to be a regular at FAC. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking at New Coke for me to determine it's chances of passing? Just a skimming would be helpful. I want to nominate one of the primary editors for adminship, but he'd be happier if he had an FA under his belt first. Obviously it'd be better to nom it for FA if it has a good chance of succeeding. BTW, do you have any interest in becoming a sysop?--Kchase T 08:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look as soon as I can, and get back to you. Regarding sysop, see here. Thanks for asking. Sandy (Talk) 08:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The structure looks sound: I'm not good at checking prose and grammar. This is not a reference: Newsweek, July 22, 1985, 40. It needs an article title. YouTube is an iffy source - that footnote needs to be fixed - source to something else. (Footnotes 12, 13 and 26 aren't good citations, rather statements that need to be cited themselves.) There is an inconsistent style in citing news sources, none of them employ a bibliographic style I recognize. Look up how to cite news articles at some of the links on WP:CITE. Popular culture needs to be written in compelling prose - that is, prosified, rather than listy. Popular culture is massively undercited. Conspiracy theories is undercited, reading like an essay or original research. Words like "it is also thought" really don't belong on Wikipedia :-) WP:AWW The article overall is extremely undercited. It also uses mixed reference styles, mixing cite.php with inline citations. I found two places of missing punctuation on a quick glance, suggesting a thorough copyedit is needed. In short, there is enough wrong to tell you that, no, it wouldn't likely pass FAC in its current state. But more, I seem to remember a big POV issue the last time a coke article came up at FAC or FAR; Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coca-Cola. Sorry for the quick and brief review: it's past my bedtime. Good luck ! Sandy (Talk) 08:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sandy, that was excellent and way more than I expected. Thanks very much for your review and for all of your great work around here, in general. You really go beyond the call. I will add this to my to-do list and try to fix some of these problems myself. Thanks again and sleep well.--Kchase T 09:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ELAC notice

Hi Sandy, as to a "negative tone", breaking up tensioned articles can sometimes be dirty business. This is a very new project, you may like to join our group so guide us in this direction? A common question is, however, should we let, for example, five or six anchored and seasoned editors on some particular page drown out the appeals of the anon contributor who makes the suggestion “hey, this page is kind of long, could some one fix this?” Editors are usually smart people, and can surely handle reading a 20-50 page article no problem. We have to remember, however, that there are two sides to the Bell curve – some people can’t read that much or that fast, especially with online reading.

And, no we are not going to go around tagging all the FAs. Currently, we are testing things out and feeling the water so to see how this project will function in the future. At present, there are only three articles tagged:

  1. List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1991
  2. List of registered political parties in Spain
  3. Psycho (1960 film)

We are currently studying these with aims to develop “new” long page formats among other possible concerns. We picked two extra-long lists and a one shorter article to practice with. Digging into a tensioned, controversial, extra-long, and "locked" article like Hugo Chávez is not a good started project. To note, the Psycho film was submitted to us, we did not seek it out. I have implemented a new tagging method with the inclusion of the WP:ELAC-R notice, so to prevent further incidents. We are currently discussing the use of the “new” long article tab method for use in the Psycho article. If it goes well, it could function as a catalyst for other long articles. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz (at least) is also tagged, so your information above is not correct. Psycho is not a long article: Wizard of Oz would be a better place to experiment. It appears that your "committee" has no regard for how much size is taken up by references and other overhead. Of greater concern is the extremely negative and un-Wikilike tone this "committee" has set, with strategies for dealing with reverts, conduct, tag-teaming, etc. WIki is based on consensus, and some articles, by nature, will need to be longer than others. To wit, I removed the Psycho tag with a good justification (and calculation of prose size), and one of the ELAC cabal reinstated the tag with 1) no talk page discussion, and 2) no edit summary. That isn't Wiki-like. The tone set on all of your committee pages and templates is not a good one, and the idea that you plan to revert anyone who disagrees with your limits is misguided. WP:LENGTH explains that 30 - 50 KB of prose is readable, and it doesn't appear that any one on your committee even considers calculating prose before tagging articles. If you start out deceiving people they will feel, well, deceived. I'm been trying to get the article size down on Chávez for a long time (and it wasn't locked when Stuart started there); now I see Pat Stuart's appearance there as contrived, and unWikilike - others will see it also. If you assume it's "dirty business", it will become dirty business, and that is the feel your "committee" already has assumed. Sandy (Talk) 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sandy, for one, I just added this for future reference. Second, I did not know other articles were tagged. I will try to figure out how to add a category page for the ELAC tag. If you know how to do this, please do so. As to WP:Length, it also says that articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span which is 30 seconds to 20 minutes. As to tagging shorter articles, presently any article over 32kb gets a file size warning. Now, I did not implement this file size warning, but I assume it is there for a reason? As to the Chavez article, I will gladly work on that with you in due time. As to "deceiving people" I am blank on this one? Could you elaborate? Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to carry on a conversation in two places: if you are going to copy talk page comments to an article talk page, then please keep the conversation there, or keep it where you started it. Sandy (Talk) 11:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As a quick aside, the "what links here" page serves pretty much the same purpose as a category associated with the template. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There was a category in place all along - he either didn't see it, or doesn't know how cats work. This ia a nightmare. But, the silver lining is that I now appreciate - for the first time in my almost year here - the tone and culture of Wikipedia, now that I've seen what it could be like. 1984 - you have been reported to the committee !! Sandy (Talk) 12:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
In that case, welcome to the Brave New World. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You might have to break up your talk page into archives now, or it might come to the attention of the article size "police"! Just wanted to say I don't really like the idea of this specific Project. LuciferMorgan 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the police away from my talk page ! Sandy (Talk) 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template for deletion

Just saw the template up for deletion, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Long-article-committee Sandy (Talk) 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And the MfD for the most offensive subpages, but not the overall project: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Incidents Sandy (Talk) 23:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA template protection

Thanks for the head-up, I'll ask Raul654 about this. TimVickers 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repromoted article talk pages

Re:this - for demoted, repromoted FAs, I generally prefer just to have the featured tag and nothing else. Otherwise, you end up with one template saying "This is a featured article" and another saying "This is a former featured article", leading to confusion. Raul654 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So you really need a template specifically for a repromoted article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't tell me - I don't do templates LOL !!! Sandy (Talk) 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I really thought Raul might like to do a little bit of maintenance as FA director. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a better idea. Rather than thinking up yet one more thing for the overworked people who do the FA stuff to take care of (the 4th or 5th suggestion this week, in fact), why don't people spend their time and energy reflecting on ways to cut down our workload? Raul654 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with Samsara's first comment. LuciferMorgan 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of anything that cuts down the workload :-) I don't think many people realize all the steps involved. Sandy (Talk) 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
So who helps with my excess workload, Raul? You think you're more important because you have a title? You think we need to do extra work for you so you can hang on to it? Damn, I should have asked for a title ages ago, so I could walk around being self-important like you. Apologies to Sandy. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
When I want words in my mouth, I'll put them there myself. As far as what I do around here - I have no problem doing the jobs I volunteered to do and have been doing. However, when people come along and start coming up with all sorts of addition jobs for me to do, I don't appreciate it (this includes but is not limited to: Facfailed tagging, adding the FA star to the articles themselves, and doing main page date template tagging. I didn't come up with any of these and I am not going to take responsibility if someone else doesn't do them). So yes, if someone wants to add something to the FA process, I damn well expect whoever proposed it to be the one who does it. And if you have a problem with that, I really couldn't care less. Raul654 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind at all when others use my talk page for discussion, but if it gets too long, the article size police may report me. Sandy (Talk) 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me a template like that would cut down on the workload by making the links to all the discussions, promote, demote and re-whatever clear and unconfusing. pschemp | talk 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Raul and Sandy: there would have to be a pressing reason to complicate the FAC/R/C jobs. Simplifying is the right direction. Tony 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[Apologies of I incur the wrath of the talk page length police, and the FA maintainers but...] I wonder if an all-singing, all-dancing featured article talk page template is the way to go, like the all-singing, all-dancing WP-milhist one. It could have lots of optional parameters, like "FAC=yes" and "FA=yes" and "FARC=yes" and "FAR=yes", with most of them hidden by default (the FA text would be displayed by default for FAs, then the FAR text for FFAs, or the FARC text for older FFAs, then the FAC text for failed FACs). Optional parameter for second, third FACs or FARs... The maintainers would just have to add a "yes" to the right parameter in the template. Would this help at all? --ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

One template to rule them all. Sounds like simplification to me. pschemp | talk 11:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
And on the talk pages find them. Yes, my precious. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, a basic one is there if anybody wants to try it {{FAmulti}} - defaults to the FA box, but if you add type= FAC/FAR/FFA it will use the appropriate message (so {{FAmulti|type=FAR}} would replace the FA message with the FAR one). It's just pulling in the existing templates at the moment, so it will need some work to list x number of reviews, FAR passes etc., but I'll do that if anybody wants to use it. (Why is this going on on Sandy's talk page, by the way?) Yomanganitalk 14:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
haha. /me points at Raul. Great work, but yeah, there's probably a better place to show it off....? pschemp | talk 15:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Because I saw the above discussion about talk page templates and the idea came to me. Perhaps we should move or copy to WT:FAC or similar.
Thanks for diving in with an idea, but that is not really what I had in mind. I was thinking of something like {{WPMILHIST}} with multiple optional parameters to trigger different bits of the text. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff -- add main page date ? Sandy (Talk) 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
A thought - I should have my coffee - parameter=yes might not work, because LOTS of people archive their old FARs and FACs with non-standard article titles. Need to allow the parameter to be the article name. Sandy (Talk) 15:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The existing parameters to all the templates should carry over in this template, so in effect it does have the multiple parameters. It would be quite easy to convert the existing FA templates, so you could have "This is an FA"+"it was on the main page on this date"+"it was reviewed on this date" all in the same box, but I didn't want to start work on that until we knew there was some interest in it. (I'm going to copy this thread over to WT:FAC as ALoan suggested) Yomanganitalk 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dweller (talk • contribs) is asking questions on WP:FAC - we can refer him to the discussion, which started because I was trying to add all the templates to the repromoted FAs - no wonder he's confused - the history is gone from Bodyline's talk page. Sandy (Talk) 15:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brabham

Hi Sandy. Thanks again for having a detailed look at the Brabham article currently on WP:FAC. I think I've responded to all your points now. Noting that your time is yours to do with as you wish, and I certainly have no special call on it, I would really appreciate it if you could have a read and comment on the writing in the article. (Either for or against - I hope I am always open to criticism!). For some reason the Formula One FA nominations never seem to attract much interest from those with strong views on good writing. Somewhat perversely, I would be quite disappointed if the article passes FA with support from WikiProject Formula One members and none from neutral parties. If that means more work redrafting, or my finding someone else to redraft, so be it. Cheers. 4u1e 10:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 4. I read the entire article quite a while back: the article structure is now sound in terms of referencing, formatting, layout, MOS, etc., and is impressive. But I was disappointed in the prose: I didn't comment on the FAC, because I don't consider myself a good grammarian or copyeditor, and I'm not that good at explaining prose problems. If you can get a good copyeditor to run through the entire article, you'll have my support. Try asking Outriggr (talk • contribs) or Deckiller (talk • contribs): I would also suggest Tony1 (talk • contribs), but he is most likely too busy. Sandy (Talk) 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - that's exactly what I'm looking for. I will try asking for some advice. I've been through the thing many times, and while I've got several ways of achieving 'strategic distance', I think I'm losing my way in my own mind slightly in terms of where I'm going with the writing style. If you had any general top level points, no matter how vague, about what was 'disappointing' (I promise not to quiz you too hard on them if that helps!) I would be glad to hear them. Cheers. 4u1e 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Still having my morning coffee here: will get to it soon/today. Sandy (Talk) 16:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
While this side of the Atlantic the working day is winding down.... No hurry - and don't worry if you have more pressing matters in hand ;-) I've asked Outriggr to have a look as well. Cheers. 4u1e 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/n/User_talk%7ESandyGeorgia_arch7_9104.html"