User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch80

Malmö FF FAC

Hi! Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Malmö FF/archive1? I am the nominator and the FAC has been without activity for the last three days. I have answered all comments and concerns and would like to know where the FAC stands and how far the article is from being promoted. The article has been nominated since 31 January 2011. Thanks for your help! --Reckless182 (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Plan to go through today, but most of the page shares your situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! --Reckless182 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and it's not in danger of being archived-- I'll get through later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! --Reckless182 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll have mail, in a few moments...

So there. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

OK ! I'm waiting ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it ... still around for a few days ... I am certain all will be worked out soon ! All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Carabane

Maybe I am being too much of a hard ass, but this article gives me a bad feeling. It reads strange (seems like remnants of the translation process are still there). It's a really cool island and I would love it if National Geographic wrote a good article on it, so that I could pleasantly read about it! Because the Wiki article does not suffice.

The sourcing gives me concern. Almost all French and offline. Concerns me as to if the article has right representation and selection and concerned that reviewers have not been able to well study the sources (not just verifiability, but also general comprehension of the topic). And I don't get the impression of someone who is bilingual and has really read all the French and then written an article for the English-reading public. (Compare to books on the Arab world or Africa by famous Brits like RVC Bodley or TE Lawrence. Those dudes could and did read French and Arabic, but could also write English.)

There also seem like some parts that are talking about the country in general as opposed to the tiny island (climate). Then other areas (kitesurfing and tourism) where I worry that the discussion may be more relevant to Senegal coast as a whole as opposed to that village (and if so, ought to at least be said as so in the article).

Then just some general wierd logic stuff (the solar-lit roads with no cars, almost wondered if they meant lit by the sun, during the day). Three maps in article, but we never get a sense of where the place is in context of the continents (and the average English speaking reader does not know where Senegal is). Also seems like a couple maps are in different orientiation (I can't tell for sure, but the river must bend a lot if not), and then Gambia map does not have Gambia on it (and is too small to see labels). Given how important geography is to the article, just seems like we ought to better nail the picture of the river mouth island and all.

TCO (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're up late, I think, TCO. Is this a FAC? I could give another opinion, though not right now as once I finish going through my watchlist, I'm going to bed.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll go read the Acts. Had a big work day and was decompressing.TCO (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I remember this article, it was TFA about a year ago. I'll read it anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation issues came up on the FAC; (I think they should be forbidden, since Wiki is not a reliable source, and SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT-- articles should only be written from the original sources, but then Wiki, in all its wisdom, has entire Projects devoted to translations from other Wikis). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but as the English wikipedia is the source of many of the FAs on other projects (my Diefenbaker article is apparently a FA in German now, and there is an irony there that the man tried very hard to get away from his German-derived last name) surely we could put our collective foot down for en.wiki? Or at least reviewers could inisist on proper English?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You could sense the "handoff" from reading that article. It's not just a procedural point or verification issue.

The kitesurfing bugs me in there as well. I'm just a little skeptical on that much tourism for a place with a few hundred inhabitants. I tried googling around and looking at kitesuring forums and the like...and there's a little about kitesurfing in Dakar, but no one talking about it down in Carabane. Also, it appears from the wind discussion in climate, that the winds are better up in the north of Senegal. Sure, maybe there is some dude with a boat who will pull you in Carabane, but it just feels "off". Plus I'm willing to bet both the dolphin and kitesurfing pics are general pics, vice pics in Carabane. Not the end of the world. Maybe even acceptable, but better explained directly (i.e. "like the rest of the Senegal coast, Carabane blabla").

I never felt like the hydrology was well enough explained either. I had a huh factor when hearing that it was arid but in the mouth of a river. Obviously, it's where fresh hits salt, I get that but still felt a little slowed down and wondering. What is the percent salininty? Variance by season or side of the island? Maybe also better discussion of tides and flooding of the river (would think those are important to an island like that). Just a little firmer hand on the tiller would help.

The 2006 water pump didn't make sense either. It sounds like they drilled down to depth X to get non-potable water and then to depth X+Y to get potable water. (But then why not say that, even without numbers, just relatively). Also, wouldn't they need a pump to get the non-potable water out also? Unless they were lifting it with buckets (still in that case, tell us!)

I used a translation to get "Wilmer Tanner" started (actually had an interlanguage wikilink at first, but said eff it, the man is American, let's get him a little stub here). And it's nothing special as an article. Still very start class, but I did rewrite the thing and get a couple refs and start to add from them. (And other people did too.) I don't think you can see the remnants of French writing, just content gaps that I need to fill in from Copeia profile.

Obviously we need to be cognizant of the opposite problem, writing about niche subjects (there are a lot of FAs on very minor topics) that are foreign and not having adequate coverage of foreign language sources and just perspective. As an example, consider that on "Tanner", the French original author had the BLP (Tanner is alive) getting his Ph.D. at the the BYU in Kansas. You know...that second BYU! Obviously there is a lot good that comes from the local langauge knowledge and Carabane might even be an example where the translated article is better than what we do on our own if we didn't have the translation. That said, it just sorta feels unfinished.

TCO (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I knew about the BYU in Hawaii, not aware of the one in Kansas ... if I was from Utah, I'd prefer a warmer climate (I have friends from Utah, two out of four have moved to LA). I was also taken aback by the lack of tourist facilities in what is supposedly a major kitesurfing center, as one would expect, just by general knowledge, that the winds (and temperatures, geez Louise, what is it 1 degree south latitude?) would be best at sunrise or sunset, and getting there at night ... well, I personally would not, but then, I'm not a crazy driven kitesurfer. TCO, why don't we start making a list of faults in one of our sandboxes, see if we can interest the main writers in making improvements, and if not, take it to FAR? I haven't nommed an article for FAR in two years, but they seem to be still in business nonetheless.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Starting a sandbox list makes sense. I get the impression, we will end up fixing that article ourselves wether via FAR or not, with consultation from the French author (or not), but probably using schoolboy French to read some original sources. I may dawdle a little. Just don't have your production speed...and turtles...and some paying work coming in. But let's start the list, it's a process start.TCO (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Slow but steady ... I'll get you out of your shell yet, TCO!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Potential FAC

I just came across this totally awesome good article, and think that, subject to a quick copyedit and check for comprehensiveness, it would be worthy of joining our selection of the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Alternatively, it may serve as a good illustration of the differences between GAN and FAC. ;) —WFC— 08:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I think this is not quite fair on GAN as a whole, but symptomatic perhaps of the way in which articles can be awarded the green cross. Either way, WFC is a very naughty mischief-maker...! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, that really needs to be addressed. It should be re-reviewed straight away. I think I'll have to start the process... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Mischief? Moi? —WFC— 11:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you... And funnily enough, I don't think (in the state I found it) the article even met the GA criteria. Ridiculous. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Troublemaker :) And Pumpkins. Thanks for starting my day with a smile! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Autism article

Hi Sandy - If I'm not mistaken, you appear quite frequently in the history of the Autism article. I recently wandered across Effects of equine assisted therapy on autism, and thought I'd drop you a note to see if you had seen it before. I'm not sure what the state of the autism treatment sub-articles are, and if it's normal to have articles on the effects of every treatment. Not really a big deal, just thought you might be interested, Dana boomer (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dana ... wifi on a plane, briefly, I doubt that article meets notability, and surely it doesn't comply with WP:MEDRS. I suggest searching PubMed for medical sources, salvaging anything that can be sourced, and redirecting it to Autism therapies. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC on WP:V and non-English sources

Hi Sandy, there's an RfC here on an issue you've raised in the past, in case you'd like to comment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Sorry to bother you but it seems I have inadvertently rekindled an argument you were previously involved with here. If you had time or inclination to comment I would be grateful. Hope you are thriving. --John (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, John, that article has lots of issues (advocacy piece); I see the problems, but am skiing and won't be able to focus on them until next week. If I forget, would you please ping me? I see I have dozens of talk page posts going back a month or more that I've neglected ... ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

My end...

... of the bargain, to review at least two of your FACs (per month) has already commenced. I believe I've made three so far, and have enjoyed them, so I'll be back for more. I've already seen a few more candidates for the pedant-known-as-TRM! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you're a dear ... if I don't break a leg today, I may be able to peek in tonight or tomorrow am! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Do try to not break a leg! Enjoy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Grrrr.. dnt talk about breaking legs to me... life sucks! — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

FAC style question

Hey Sandy, just wondering how/where/if I should note this. I current have 2009 World Series at FAC, it's going well. BUCS is the only commenter who hasn't ended with a support, though he noted that I'd dealt with his issues on my talk page. Should I mention that in the FAC? Just want to make clear to you directors that that's not an outstanding/unsatisfied reviewer! Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

AMX FAC

I'm curious, why would you close The Autobiography of Malcolm X FAC due to it being a month old while leaving several other noms that are even older? Also, we were getting comments and supports. Why are two supports and no opposes not a consensus? — GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Revolution Will Be Somewhat Widely Read

I guess you've seen this? Truth be told, I was vacillating about nominating it for something more date-appropriate next month. I eventually decided it might be better on the tenth anniversary next year, but that might have been my rationalising my cowardice. :-) (After all we went through to create something stable and accepted by both "sides", I would almost be happy for it to rot away forgotten in a corner, unread, if it meant not having to fight off POV-warriors.) Then again, American Beauty's main page appearance was something of an anti-climax, so perhaps it'll be memorable at least! (I should be around for a reasonable portion of the day; it's somehow coincided with one of the times recently that I'm not working or busy with the other thing). All the best, Steve ^T • C 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, have been meaning to let you know but have been very busy and will be busy the rest of the day, it will attract POV warriors, may be damaged, but more importantly, it links to the coup article which is blatantly and seriously POV, so as soon as I'm settled later tonight, I need to pull up some research and tag that article POV. Yuk. I will be free tomorrow to help, but today is tough. Does Erik know it's on? If I get enough time tonight, I'll try to neutralize somewhat 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, but it needs weeks to months of work to get it right, and anything I do is likely to be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Thomas_Beecham/archive1

Hey Sandy, just letting you know that this appears to have been withdrawn by the nominator. There are supports and opposes on the page, but given the circumstances I'm not sure whether the review should be included in articlehistory or not. If not, let me know and I can delete it. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria-- I'm on a slow connection and didn't initially understand why it wouldn't be archived, but on second look, saw that it never should have been nommed and all opposes were because the significant contributor already had it at PR, so I db-g6'd it. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We R Who We R/archive1

You have a reply on the page =] - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Article History errors

Re your comment at Talk:Mitt Romney "I could make an entire wiki career out of removing article history errors, pls read instructions and scroll to bottom of talk to watch for red error cat", I was trying to show the tangled history of the GA1 process, which was started then abandoned by the (probably sock) reviewer, restarted/relisted as GA2 by someone at the GAN page, and then "stopped" by the reviewer making a delayed reappearance. The article then went through a normal if long GA2 and passed. I thought maybe a bot would have a problem with what I did, but I didn't expect a human to have to expend energy on it. I didn't see the red error at the bottom. Sorry for the bother ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No bother-- keeping that red error cat clean is just one of my pet peeves :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you both need to lose the mop in order to properly address this controversy. (But first, WTR and SG, you'll have to become admins.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I had fixed that a couple minutes before your edit, Sandy. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw that later when I tried to sort an edit conflict! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

2009 World Series

I fixed up your comments as listed, excited to finally have the old girl near promotion. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephant-footed tortoises

Go Wiki! Go reptiles! Go USA!

Mike and I and NYM can help the nom get that thing across the goal line if you want the added featured content. The thing actually has a nice lightness in the coverage of the content. Not the faux science paper that I hate from the typical species FA (and I can swing a lot more sciencey than the typical biologist, Bessel functions like a MechE!) Just depends on if you want to get this thing done or not. I would put the emphasis on getting it done and put a blowtorch to our assholes to make it happen.TCO (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

TCO and Staxringold, I'll finish up tomorrow-- pooped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Slack, slack. {{mean-assed picture of Louis Gosset, Jr. from some 80s military movie}} TCO (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please, everyone knows what's REALLY intimidating. File:Richard-dean-anderson-c1985.jpg. <3 Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I still have nightmares about that hairstyle... Risker (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As we don't know when Laser Brain would be back

Would you mind if I asked Raul to look at Kennedy half dollar? Or would you care to do so? I think it is ripe, after more of a difficult process than I expected.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll revisit everything today ... just gearing up to read, and leaving Shakespeare til last, since there is a lot to trudge through there. I owe Laser, so I'll get to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm very grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Slowly but surely trudging through those left from yesterday ... I'd prefer to see one more review from an experienced reviewer (Jinnai often seems confused) ... I'll watchlist it, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Two more reviews, promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I slept the sleep while RHM22 toiled. Thank you both for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dashes

I don't think I will ever be able to fully internalize MOSDASH, let alone the rest of MOS. I looked at those law titles and went to the US government website to see what they use, and they do use an en dash -- see here. I couldn't figure out from MOSDASH what the rules were, so I left the en dashes there in place because the source used them.

What do you think so far of putting comments on the talk page? I've done four so far this weekend, and none of the nominators have complained. Do you need me to make it clearer on the FAC page what the status is of my comments? E.g. "Comments", "Unresolved comments", "Partly resolved comments", or whatever would be helpful? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why it gave me fits :) This page doesn't use endashes, so I went back to the definitions from WP:ENDASH, and it is not a range or a disjunction, it is the separation of a congressional section and a public law. I could be wrong, but the one who would know is Tony1.

My current dilemma with *trudging* through FAC (and I mean, trudging) is that we find pages and pages of prose review, indicative that the reviewer should have just opposed with a few samples and told the nominator to clean it up before bringing it back. FACs are getting longer and longer, without clear declarations of Support or Oppose, and being carried for months without clarity. Moving nitpicky stuff to talk is preferred, but even better would be, "I found plenty of prose issues, samples only, Oppose and suggest withdrawal", so that we can get the backlog down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem that I sometimes have with that is I give a few examples, someone fixes those examples (and those examples only, not everything else) and asks me if I'll revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have exactly the same problem. One example is the current iLoo nomination; there's so much wrong with that article it makes my eyes water, but I'm expected to keep revisiting after the examples I point out are fixed. And then again after the examples I point out are fixed. And then again after ... Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to oppose on first commenting, but will do so if I think the problems are serious. I think if someone fixes everything I find, I'm willing to revisit, but not necessarily immediately -- real life and other Wikipedia tasks have to have their turn. So if the oppose remains, because I find more examples, I would expect the nom to be archived within a week or two if other reviewers are doing the same. I have to say I have sometimes opposed, found a great response from a nominator, and ending up supporting, and that's a pretty good outcome too. I also often get sucked in to working hard on an article to help it out -- that happened recently with History of Sesame Street, but the net result was that it was promoted second time round, so I think it's worth doing. I know that means fewer reviews when I could be reviewing more, but if the outcome is good content I'm not too concerned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Malleus and Nikkimaria, the problem you raise is a separate but related one. When one reviewer finds significant issues and opposes, I can't archive the FAC without more feedback from other reviewers. It continues to defy me why reviewers don't support each other-- "I also had a look and found significant prose issues, some samples below, and suggest withdrawal". If three reviewers would do that, I could archive quickly and you wouldn't be sucked into the "fix a few, identify a few more" cycle that goes on for pages and weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's important to frame your examples as representative of the whole text. Consider doing a spot-check at a random place ... a few paragraphs. "Please have the whole text independently copy-edited.". I believe that once a nomination page shows signs of bloat, and the duration of the nomination looks like being longer than two weeks, the reviewers need to recommend it be withdrawn, worked on, and resubitted. Tony (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, did we ever decide if accessibility of text to a non-specialist was part of the FA criteria? There's one current FAC on a very specialized topic which has received little feedback that I'm trying to review, but I can barely understand it, never mind make reasonable comments on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if "we" ever decided, but I did :) If an intelligent person can barely understand it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look. I can understand the lead, so that is a significant difference over the issues raised at rhodocene. If the difficult-to-digest sections are isolated, I'm less concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I told the nominator he might want to seek specialist review, per Brian's recommendation, and I'll see if I can offer some comments on prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Butting in - I've been fairly busy work-wise and writing when I'm here but took a look at FAC a few days and gulped. I've been working my way, very slowly, up from the bottom. I'd like to review the Shakespeare authorship article but quite honestly reading the FAC page will take more time than I have at the moment. Anyway, welcome back Sandy. I'll do what I can to help, but agree that long FAC pages are off-putting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead of that star article looks fine. Rhodocene was a lot worse off. TCO (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Sorry about this, but I'm not going to have much time for Wikipedia until the beginning of April, so I can't help much here. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

State of prose on SS Edmund Fitzgerald article

(FAC at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald/archive2)

Your review of the prose was, of course, very relevant. Was it your general impression that it just needs a few more fixes, or that it needs a more substantial rework? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I only looked far enough to see that Nikkimaria's concerns were justified-- when you've found an independent person to massage the text, you might ping Nikkimaria for a new look before re-nominating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

That was the IP's second go, thanks for fixing it. I wonder if it's related to your post to our pages? We must have something in common. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same, since I have both of you watchlisted as a result of yesterday's post. I 'spose I'm next :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger of a Featured Article into a non-Featured Article - heads up

• World Science Festival
• World Science Festival, 2008
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/World Science Festival/archive1

This was on my watchlist because it was on the main page recently. WSF, a FA, underwent a FAR last year, which ended as a "keep" after the "dirty hack" of focusing the article on the 2008 inaugural festival, renaming it "WSF, 2008" and spinning out an article about the general topic to the old name of "WSF". On 20 March, a {{merge}} template was added, suggesting combining the articles under the title "WSF"; on 21 March, without any further response, another editor merged the two articles and redirected the FA to the non-FA. I have removed the Featured article tag from the foot of the merged article, as I didn't think that FA status ought to be transferred between articles in this way, at least not without discussion. The article history is still at the talk page of the redirect "WSF 2008". I would have thought that this was something that you, and / or your talk page stalkers, would be interested in knowing about, not least because someone might be wondering why the FA count was 1 out! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 19:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Update - the merger has been undone by the mergerer (if that's a word), but the merge tags have been replaced by the original proposer. Bencherlite^Talk 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I clued in to all of that after the FAR closed, and wasn't happy at the suboptimal result. I think it should have been de-featured then, but after I cleaned it up (post-FAR), I begrudgingly decided it more or less met FA crit. OK, I'm busy the rest of the day, but will catch up later, and yes, it is something that FAC and FAR regulars should clue in to ... I think (can't remember) that I expressed my concerns on the talk page of the closed FAR. Thanks so much for the alert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to try that stunt if one of my articles ends up at FAR. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I still think that the outcome of the FAR was the right one, but the subsequent merger is clearly a bad mistake. Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The FAR result may have been right, but it wasn't effected correctly-- the 2009 content was simply deleted, and the main article wasn't created, which was what troubled me. An FA isn't comprehensive, so we delete content? How does that work? As I recall, I fixed that: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/World Science Festival/archive1. Still not sure where things stand now, will catch up tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the main article should have been created, but it apparently wasn't. That has nothing to do with the "child" article though, which is what was ultimately being reviewed at FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the main article was created -- I did it over the redirect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Main Page FA bot...

Any chance someone knows how to fix the bot or stop it or something? I"m getting very tired of reverting its bad edits ... and I'm sure others are also.. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it, E ... Shutz weighed in on his talk about six hours ago and said he would look at it ASAP, so I think we have to give him a day or two. If not, guess what-- we need to find another bot to do that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good. Eventually I'll not be around some evening and we'll have weird characters on the FA page if this doesn't get fixed soon... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

all is settled, at last

• That's good to hear!  – Ling.Nut 12:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

La Stazione reply

Main page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Stazione/archive1

Just wanted to let you know, I responded to your comments on the La Stazione FAC. Some other editors have begun reviewing it, and I've made changes where I felt it would be beneficial to the article. Could you please drop by and let me know how it's going?
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I've left messages on the talk pages of editors who reviewed by didn't explicitly state whether they supported. The nomination has been open for two months now, and I'd hate to see it archived now. I believe all the issues you identified almost two weeks ago have been corrected. I know that the delegates are all busy with offline stuff, but I wanted to thank you for providing the input that you did. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Busy day, I hope to be able to read through tomorrow! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Speedy

Could you look at HMS Speedy (1782) - I think its ready for promotion. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1

Are you going to be looking at this any time soon? I was thinking about digging into it, but do not want to waste my time if you're going to check it out in the next day or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Sandy has been procrastinating about looking at this one (I think it must be because I'm so intimidating or something ;D) for close to a week now, and making worried noises about the number and depth of reviews all the while, I would very much appreciate it if you could take the time to provide a review. While the regular editors of the article are fairly confident of its quality, we had expected at least some unreasonable, nitpicking, uninformed, and impossible to satisfy demands from those mean old FAC reviewers; and so far the reviews have been remarkably… well, in the interests of being circumspect and not unduly influence the Delegate, let's just say they've been pretty tame compared to the livelier FACs. I would hate to see the article fail the nom not on its merits, but on a mere lack of reviewers; and there's a small murder of editors standing by to address whatever the reviews might turn up! --Xover (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it later tonight. Dinner is almost prepared here, and would not want to miss it. Bear in mind I actually dislike Shakespeare's plays (whoever wrote them) and I'm very much a historian and not a literary historian, so you'll be dealing with a non-specialist with a bias against the plays (grins). It's not that they aren't good, but I'm reacting against the whole Bardology thing... I can't quite believe that he's the single best writer ever in the English language. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh excellent! This thing should be right up your alley then: it has very little to do with the plays qua plays and everything to do with the social and historical context. I fear the weight of consensus may be against you on Shakespeare's qualities as a writer—on the main article we actually had to put in “the world's pre-eminent dramatist” because that's what the sources say—but while I actually do very much enjoy the plays (the sonnets not so much), I'm a history and biography wonk, so whenever we get to the “Themes and motifs” and “Interpretation and criticism” sections I tend to run away screaming. Anyways, enjoy your dinner; and thanks again for any kind of review you have the time and inclination for! --Xover (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone somewhere owes me a beer. Actually, several. (whimpers). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Xover said it all ... and I must stop procrastinating. If you reviewed, I'll personally deliver the beer, but my initial concern was that the Overview was redundant to the lead, and was actually better written (less defensive, argumentatitve) than the lead ... I haven't looked further than that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed. I didn't detect that much defensiveness that was wildly overt. I did point out some spots (okay, quite a lot of places) where improvements could be made, but it wasn't as bad as some of the comments on the FAC would have you believe. They'll be a while working through my comments, I'm afraid. 3300 words of review ... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, goodie, I can procrastinate for another week :) By the way, it appears that between Dabomb and Ucucha, Zorglbot is shut down for now, so we'll have to manually bold until either he fixes it or someone writes a new bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just call me Ealdbot ... (and now I've got "just call me angel of the morning, baby... " in my head ... argh!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean that I need to fork over myJuice Newton LPs now, Ealdbot/Ealdgyth? :-) Imzadi 1979 → 17:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, god, no. I just got that song OUT of my head, it doesn't need to return to earworm status... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom Driberg FAC

I nominated Driberg to FAC yesterday. Whoever nominated Introduction to evolution shortly afterwards managed to delete Driberg at the same time. What an oaf. Can you please restore my article, with whatever comments it might have gleaned? I am most upset. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I restored it to WP:FAC. Ucucha 14:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not upset any more. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rude

Rude, rude, rude. You have some sort of personal vendetta I should know about? No one had even voted yet, but I check back today to get through Nort's comments and it's gone. You bet I'll open another one. Hell I'll open as many as I godamned need to get it through. ResMar 14:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is probably one of those comments where you'll either be apologizing for it later, or certainly wishing you never posted it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

hmmm ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the FAC review

Thank you for helping to review Netball. I've never been through the FAC process and I found your edits and comments regarding what needed fixing to be extremely helpful. While the article may have failed, the feedback was insightful, on point and offers a clear route to addressing issues in the article. Speaking for myself and other regular contributors, we'll definetely be addressing the problems raised so that at some point in the future we can renominate it and get it passed. Thanks again for the assistance! --LauraHale (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Sandy, I think it would be very helpful if somewhere a "restart" at FAC was explained in some detail. When I read restart, I think start from scratch all over again, but I am not sure that is what you mean. If there is some sort of FAC restart FAQ, I have not been able to find it, and I wish there were either a link to it somewhere on the FAC page, or else that it existed for the occasional case where the need for a restart arises. Respectfully yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such FAQ-- I'll have to think about how to write it/where to put it, but yes, it does mean start over from scratch, erase everything previously done, except (depending) for maybe image and source review. It's used when a FAC has become so jumbled, or when the article has been substantially rewritten while at FAC, or when there has been so much disruption that the FAC gets to a point where you can't sort out what has been addressed, what has been looked at, etc. That's pretty much it; think of it as a second chance, "get out of jail free" card. When the FAC is such a mess that there isn't clear consensus to promote, this allows an opportunity for reviewers to take a fresh look and re-explain why or if they still Support the article, hopefully with the "mess" before the restart behind. Alternately, it allows reviewers a chance to say that X, Y or Z still haven't been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - I moved my question here to keep the FAC page slightly less jumbled. I remian, respectfully yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandy IMO there is a clear consensus to promote and the article certainly hasn't been substantially rewritten (March 1 to present diff), but I certainly see the utility of removing everything off the FAC page except for actionable items and their replies and I think it would be helpful to all. Is there any way a cleanup like that could be done to clarify the page? (And FYI we have tried to address the reasonable points that were made by the SPA commentators; we didn't ignore them.) Tom Reedy (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

SAQ..

I'm going to get back to it, but RL dropped a couple of rather large projects that need done ASAP into my lap... so it may be tomorrow before I can start moving more comments and evaluating whether I can support or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ... I've been holding off on catching up there, pending resolution of your concerns. Hang in there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing that is left is enough for me to oppose the article. If you want to go ahead and promote, I won't object at all... I'm not sure when I'm going to get free enough to read more in depth and feel comfortable supporting, but as of now, they've resolved the things that would have led me to oppose. I'm now officially "neutral". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... I have app'ts all morning, so will get through FAC sometime later in the day tomorrow. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ping! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go have a look now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome‎

I offer a part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome‎. I had edited the article thinking that it already had 7 uses of {{cite journal}}, so increased use of citation templates was reasonable, whereas it actually only had one (I must have seen the count post- initial reformatting rather than pre-). I assume you'll now remove that existing cite journal too? I'll then see about manually re-adding the extra available DOI and PMC links, since it will be worthwhile to have them. However, to say cite templates are not used in the article is not exactly right when there seem to be about half a dozen uses of {{cite book}} also. Had there been strictly no citation templates in use I would not have picked up the article in the first place. Rjwilmsi 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rj, I've been meaning to get back over there and fix any stragglers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)