User talk:SandyGeorgia

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link. To leave me a message, click here.

Featured article removal candidates
PowerBook 100	Review now
1981 Irish hunger strike	Review now
Battle of Red Cliffs	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

User:SandyGeorgia/FAs for review Archive1 (3 Feb - 16 Feb, 2006) · Archive2 (20 Feb - 23 May, 2006) · Archive3 (27 May - 28 July, 2006) · Archive4 (20 July - 29 Sept, 2006) · Archive5 (30 Sept - 14 Oct, 2006) · Archive6 (14 Oct - 27 Nov, 2006) · Archive7 (27 Nov - 13 Dec, 2006) · Archive8 (13 Dec - 31 Dec, 2006)

Happy New Year

(Feliz Año Nuevo)

Happy New Year from Tony the Marine 02:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year.

FAC note on Mahabharata et alia

Just wanted to mention a few things. Some you may know already:

• The Mahabharata article was never "awarded" GA status - it was only mentioned within a project template and never had the general GA template. Some editors are treating GA as just another assessment category within their project, unrelated to the GA nomination process.
  • Thanks - Jeffpw (talk · contribs) has offered to help me check future FAs, and take care of the facfailed tags, so we now have more eyes watching all these templates on the talk pages.
• Cite.php now allows named refs to be used before the content is defined. That is, now you can have <ref name="ab"/> appear before <ref name="ab">some text</ref>.
  • Good news!
• I've drastically rewritten the ref-fixing code. New version is at User:Gimmetrow/fixRefs.js, and provides a toolbar link rather than a tab. I think the code is a lot easier to read, and it should operate a little bit faster. I'd like you to try it out a while before I invite the other users to convert over. I've also changed the User:Gimmetrow/regexp.js to a toolbar link; don't know if you were using that.
  • OK, I'll load them up on monobook - since I'm technologically challenged, you may be hearing from me :-)
• Have a question about short FACs. There are a couple of short FACS on narrow topics now. On one, the argument is made this is all the information available, so it's comprehensive. Something about that bothers me. I mean, I could write an article on topic so narrow that there really isn't much more to say than a few paragraphs. For example, there isn't too much more to say about Bob Beamon, but an article could focus on just the jump. (And it could easily be fascinating!) Shouldn't there be some sort of "scope" requirement to FA too? How carefully should "there is no more information" be distinguished from weak research?
  • I have the same discomfort level on short FACs - you may notice I don't usually support them. Not sure if something can be done, but I thought GA originally came about for short FAs, and now GA is just a grabbag of junk.
• Happy new year! Gimmetrow 05:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The Happiest, Joyous and Healthful New Year to you and yours as well! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ref fixer

Gimmetrow, it seems to work, but it doesn't look right - User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.js - the first pre is dropped on mine, compared to yours? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using regexp - I forget - what does it do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You should just delete that code and add {{subst:js|User:Gimmetrow/fixRefs.js}} to your monobook, so when I change the code again you'll have the updates. Gimmetrow 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, I just love it when I so publicly display my stupidity :-) Thanks, Gimmetrow ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Military brat

Well, somebody beat me to the category of military brat, but I went through last night and updated all of the brats on the List of famous military brats to have the category on their page. Well, the category has already been nominated for deletion. The reasoning is because it is a "non-neutral" term and parental occupation is irrelevant. Thus, I'm letting people who have contributed to the Military brat article know so that they can support the category. Here is the link to the discussion [1] Balloonman 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My thanks

The Editor's Barnstar for tireless & good-humoured work on Featured articles; well done Sandy! TimVickers 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Feliz Año Nuevo

Thanks Sandy. Feliz Año Nuevo to you too. As you can see I am unable to dedicate time to the project for now. In mid-January I will be able to log in in a more consistent manner.

Also, thanks for letting me now about the fauna of Puerto Rico. :-) Joelito (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearing some out of FAR....

Any further comment on V for Vendetta and Titanium? The USS Wisconsin has also received very little comment. Marskell 07:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Happy New Year. I shouldn't be all business :). Marskell 07:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, too - health, peace of mind, and tranquility. There is sure a bottleneck clogging up the bottom of FAR. Titanium has me so frustrated I can hardly stand to look at it again, but I'll muster my forces and do that - no reason for the ongoing neglect and sloppiness there. V for Vendetta, ditto, the same issues just keep going on and on - I'll give it one last pass, but if they still haven't completed the work, I'll be a strong remove - it was loaded with OR and POV, and they've had well over a month to deal with it. USS Wisconsin - frustrating as well - I have been the *only* reviewer to look at it, and that's not right, since my emphasis is on references. Someone else needs to look at it, since I shouldn't be the only one opining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I'll look at USS Wisconsin and Titanium (as long as they're the battleship and the metal, respectively) as these are both areas I have technical experience in. I'm going to have to limit myself to just this, areas I have some expertise in. Will you review the references for the Sasha (DJ) article if you haven't already? They've done a lot of work improving it--it's quite readable. KP Botany 17:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, KP - refs look good now on Sasha - I struck my object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Immune system FA

Hi Sandy. We have gone through this article and made some improvements. Could you have a look at the new draft and see what you think? Thanks. TimVickers 17:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Tim. I looked at it last night and noticed the *vast* improvement. But, as a layperson, I'm having a hard time with it. Without a background in biology or medicine, there are many parts I don't expect to be able to thoroughly digest (and it doesn't trouble me if some sections are over my head), but unlike DNA or Enzyme stuff (and more like Tuberculosis), as a layperson, I do expect to be able to understand certain sections of this article. If a family member has an immune-related illness, I want to be able to digest certain parts of this article, even without a biology background. Can you all run through it again with people like me in mind, and then I'll have another look? In particular, can the lead be made more non-biologist-friendly, for folks like me? The lead dives straight in to some very technical stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review on College Football Wikiproject

I saw your comment on the Peer review page of the College football WikiProject wondering why the peer review wasn't linked from the article's talk page. I am the one that added the peer review to the WikiProject and I just wanted to let you know that the link was on the talk page but it was hidden in a dropdown in the project banner. This was the way I saw several other projects handling it so I mirrored this but I thought it would be easily missed, which you proved. So thank you for that. I have removed the dropdown so it should now be clearly visible if an article is going through a peer review. Thank you for your feedback, even if you didn't know you were giving it.--NMajdan•talk 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - those drop-down thingies make me crazy :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

V for Vendetta (film)

Many of the problems you are pointing out (over 3/4 of them) have been added by users after the FAC and your comments are a laundry list of most of the new changes that have occurred after the FAC. The original FAC, did not contain many of those issues.

Original FA nomination can be found here and can be used to measure the current article's development.

This is very disheartening, as it is evidence that an article like V for Vendetta (film) will degrade over time, if there is not a significant amount of time and energy spent updating the article.

I will address a majority of the issues that you have outlined later this evening through reverting sections and adding the required information. I encourage you to maintain open communications and not to remove the FA status as of yet.

--P-Chan 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

P-Chan, I believe I'm the only Remove vote so far, so it's not likely to lose its star, but yes, FAs need to be tended and maintained or they will deteriorate - this is a concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I'll still keep vigilant.--P-Chan 04:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just finished a major revision to the article. What do you think? I'm quite aware that I reverted significant sections of the article, but that was to help hasten the process. I'll be thorough in evaluating the post-FA materials that were removed during the reverts. But as I know you've noticed already, most of the post-FA additions were uncited or in someway speculative. --P-Chan 06:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy for putting the closing disclaimer at the bottom. It will help to alleviate any time pressures and allow for better work.--P-Chan 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I just wanted some other reviewers to look in on the article, as I seem to be the only one involved. To be doubly sure the review isn't closed why you're still working, you should drop a note to Marskell (talk · contribs) and Joelr31 (talk · contribs) (although Joelito is off-Wiki temporarily). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany FAC

Please take another look at the German FAC page. I tried to address the new concerns you mentioned there and explained why I disagreed with some proposed changes. However, that page is becoming too bloated and it's hard to follow comments, so I want to pose a question here. Are you sure that by having some subarticles of inferior quality linked using the main template that WP:SS is violated? I mean, I can agree with Germanic History or Education in Germany, for example, but others, such as Economy of Germany or Demographics of Germany have a lot of useful information and the summary is mostly based on them. Now, I agree that some inconsistencies might have arisen over time, but my understanding of Wikipedia policy is that the articles should be synchronized, not that the link to the subarticles should be removed. Of course, it wouldn't present any difficulties to remove those, however I think in this case it would be better to leave them as they are and slowly improve the quality of the subarticles. TSO1D 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, don't remove them - it's not that Summary style is violated, it's that the articles can be considered Further information or See also at best (it's the "Main" template that is misused), and the main article can't rely on them (for example, for references, since most of them are unreferenced stubs). I hope this is more clear? I'm heading out for the evening, but will recheck when I can - I thought you had withdrawn the nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I think I understand now. So for sections where the "main" article is inadequate and/or is not what the summary is based on, a see only line should be added in that paragraph? I will do that. As for withdrawing the nomination, I was a bit frustrated yesterday about a number of things and crossed out my initial nomination (I'm not sure if the nomination can be ended by anyone except the FAC director), but then decided to let go until the end. Unfortunately I don't think it will pass this time around, however some users are continuing to give useful advice that can be used to improve the article. Besides, even if the FAC fails, that doesn't mean I'll stop working on the article. TSO1D 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just let people know if it's active or not - I stopped following when you struck. Please remember that you don't have to pass on the first try - if you decide to come back later, you can come back with a much cleaner, more prepared article - there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not sure if you should switch the Main templates to See or Further templates - you might want to read up on each of them, and then make sure that your text in the main article is well-referenced in the cases where it can't depend on the daughter article. You've made such improvements to the article, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would probably be best, my only concern is that I wouldn't know what else to change in the article. The suggestions of others were what mostly kept me busy during the last two weeks or so (especially from the FAC), and I'm not sure how I would go about doing that on my own. Oh well, I guess you're probably right. A new nomination is probably for the best. I'll talk to the coordinator and ask him to archive this round. Then I'll go through some major guidelines (I saw that you compiled a nice and thorough list :)) and hopefully come back in a few weeks with a more solid article. TSO1D 03:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Give yourself a day to think about it - you've brought the article pretty far, and many articles in far worse shape end up getting promoted - no need to rush your decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)

I think something went horribly wrong with the moves that the nominator tried to do. There was at least one previous nomination, and I can't seem to find it. Do you happen to know what might have happened? Gzkn 01:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, Sandy! I went through the nominator's user contributions to see if I could repair it, and I can't make heads nor tails of their thinking process! There are so many edits I don't dare to try to untangle this one. Sorry! Jeffpw 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's taken care of. Gimmetrow 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Gimmetrow! Gzkn 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Guaranteed that Gzkn or Gimmetrow will fix something while my back is turned :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this case is a good case for arguing FAC should use the AFD approach - don't move pages, but make new pages with increasing numbers. This nom saw there was an old nom, and moved it to /archive1 presumably because it was, after all, the 1st nom. Then, for reasons unknown, moved /archive1 to /archive2, setting the way for the 2nd nom, then edited /archive2. The article talk page FAC template, and the inclusion on WP:FAC, both correctly linked to /archive2 as the 2nd nom. (That's something, considering it's not very well documented that {{fac}} can use an optional parameter.)

It's the moves that cause most of the problems. Gimmetrow 01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else is seeing how bad the problem is - we need to do something. Also, the FAC instructions are out of order - by the time a novice nominator gets to the "move" instructions, they're probably already in trouble. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and switched the instruction order. Hopefully that will at least prevent some of the move train wrecks we've been seeing. Gzkn 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That should help - although I suspect those who get into deep doo-doo don't read the instructions anyway :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Alas, I was about to do the same edit. However, because the moves leave a redirect it's not a simple thing to just say "move" first. The edit link should have a "redirect=no" flag, which means it shouldn't be a wikilink but should be a full url link. Otherwise newbies are editing a redirected page, and they end up editing the old nom they just moved! Gimmetrow 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't follow any of that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll explain. There is no problem at all for an article's first FAC nom. For the second nom, FAC currently asks them to move the old nom then edit a certain link. As it stands, if they follow the directions as they were just modified, that link points to a redirect that points to the old nom. So someone who didn't know what a redirect as (ie, a newbie) would just end up editing the old nomination. The *fix* for that, while straightforward in itself, makes the simple case (an article's first nom) look a bit odd and unnatural. I think it would make the non-existent page to edit a blue-link rather than a red-link. Gimmetrow 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ah, OK, now I'm with you - yes, I see. There are more steps. I would get back to the original with the redirect and edit over the redirect, but explaining that to a novice in trouble won't work. Gzkn's edit hasn't solved the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the add comment link works now, and will not follow redirects. That took a few tries. Check out Talk:Enter_the_Wu-Tang_(36_Chambers). Gimmetrow 02:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to follow everything you did - over my head, take your word for it. Thanks so much for sorting that out, Gimmetrow, it was a huge hassle every time someone did it wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This may help some people avoid one trap, but people will still do it wrong. Gimmetrow 03:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think there would be any great opposition to the AfD style? The one big problem there is that old FAC histories would be in a crazy order and look different. A page with 3 failed histories would (if everyone followed the current rules) have the 1st nom at PAGE/archive1, the 2nd at PAGE/archive2, and the 3rd at PAGE. If we change to AfD style, the 4th nom for that page might go at PAGE/nomination4. Gimmetrow 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't really opine - I haven't been able to decipher AfD very well. I guess (?) some would argue that there are SOOOO far fewer repeat FACs than there are AfDs, that we should just keep dealing with these on a case-by-case basis?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is repeated submissions of the same article. I don't think FAC falls all that far behind AfD in that regard. Gimmetrow 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ah, OK, I see - yes, we don't have that many repeats, neither does AfD. But I still don't speak AfD, so don't know how repeats happen there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Aw shucks, my first barnstar. Thanks. Gimmetrow 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not right - I shoulda give you one a *long* time ago! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Rootology's article

I'm no longer an admin, but maybe the thing to do is post a link to it on the Stratford, Connecticut talkpage and see if anyone there needs any of the info, or nominate it for deletion via Mfd. I dare not touch it since someone will surely accuse me of something!--MONGO 06:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gone. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to HSR-350x

Should I move Korean G-7 to HSR-350x?

Search results for "Korean G7" by 69.245.43.115 show

• 1 on the 1st Google pg
• 1 on the 2nd Google pg
• 0 on the 3rd Google pg
• with 775 total pages and 795,000 similar pages

while search results for "HSR-350x" show

• 6 on 1st Google pg
• 10 on 2nd Google pg
• 10 on the 3rd Google pg
• with 162 total pages and 575 similar pages.--Jamesshin92 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, James. It looks like the G-7 is a far more common search term, so it should probably stay there. Since you've got a redirect from the HSR, people will find the article. I made some adjustments to your references - Wikipedia can't be used as a source. Since anyone can edit Wiki, it can't be considered a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Korean G-7 should be changed into HSR-350x

There are people commenting that Korean G-7 is rarely used, and I agree with them. HSR-350x is more specific and it is the official term for this train. --Jamesshin92 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

James, do you need help with doing that? If you'd like, I can do it for you, leaving a redirect for the G-7 article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate your help, if you move the page into HSR-350x for me. --Jamesshin92 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

James, I'm not able to move Korean G-7 to HSR-350x because the other page already exists: I will ask an admin to do it for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it and fixed a couple of double redirects it created. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Govt sources for SA election

Hi there and thanks for helping to get the article on it's way to FA status. I do know why the sources for the parliament website aren't available - I believe they may have recently undergone a website makeover which involves the address being www2.* as well as other minor changes. Again though, thanks for helping out with this. Very much appreciated :-) Timeshift 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=76906 - seems to work this end. Start reads: "Calls for tram extension to be scrapped - Friday Jun 9 10:03 AEST - A petition signed by more than 2,700 South Australians calling for the scrapping of an extension to Adelaide's historic tramline has been presented to state parliament." Unfortunately all the other links are - you guessed it - news.com.au. [2] Looked on factiva and can't see it on there, although Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun allegedly carried it. Thanks for your work (and for spotting the dead links) tonight - I apologise for my earlier comments on the FAC page (I've said as much there). Orderinchaos78 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found some stuff at the internet archive - will post a talk page message on the article talk page about how to do those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

PS, no problem, Order :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

You could put it up for MfD - it doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose and the user who created it seems to have a very brief history of fairly useless edits (the only thing I found that seemed constructive turned out to be a copyvio, so I deleted it). Cheers, Yomangani^talk 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that should have been TfD, but having reconsidered I deleted it under any number of speedy criteria - patent nonsense, inflammatory, and even (inferred from the title) by author's request). Yomangani^talk 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NeXT FAC

Citations have been fixed in the article. Also check my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NeXT. Thanks — Wackymacs 17:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Sandy. I hope I didn't get too harsh during my reviews. :-) — Indon (reply) — 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're harsh, *I'm* in trouble :o) I'm just relieved to see another editor doing some indepth analysis of more than the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that I'm bad at prose, so can only check technical matters. Oh, I saw you used {{color}} template now. It's nice huh for a review? :-) — Indon (reply) — 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Me, too. Yes, I stole the color idea from you (and how did we end up with sigs in the same color?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that since you changed your sigs color. I thought that I have a fan. :-) — Indon (reply) — 10:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you do! I needed to change my sig because there's another Sandy on Wiki who I was being confused with - I went to someone's RfA and found an example I liked - maybe it was yours, and I didn't even know it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

DuMont Television Network FAC

Hi Sandy,

If you have time, please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/DuMont Television Network again. I've made the changes you suggested (or I believe I did). And if you have further comments or criticism, I will try to address it. Sorry for taking up more of your time. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Sandy,

I heeded your advice and did a huge overhaul on my article: Ernest Emerson. I'd be honored if you looked at it again, your feedback was the most helpful!

Thanks! --Mike Searson 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Heading out for the evening soon - will get to it as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help, amazing how I miss those little details after pouring over it for hours!

Viper Knives was the name of the company at one time, so I believe it is considered a proper noun.

As for the images, some are from my personal collection, some were posted by another user from his personal collection and both of us posted and released them per wikipedia's policy, the rest came from Mr. Emerson who also emailed a release to the public domain. I have an email from Martin Peters and he fixed the tags on the images, himself. --Mike Searson 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

El Hatillo (continued)

Hi, I'm sorry, I will continue the work very soon. Happy new year and happy Christmas.--enano ^(Talk) 01:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

FA bot

I've put in a bot request. It seems straightforward to check the archives and logs for updates and act accordingly. Adding headers/footers to the FAC discussion page should be easy. Should also be able to update the fac template for non-promoted articles. This could help you quite a bit.

Did you notice someone else working on same at the talk page of WP:FAC? [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ah, ha, see you've been there - I added a comment top the bot request (if it can be done for FAC, same can be done for FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I also had an idea related to the problems with second and further submissions. The main problem seems to me in the page moves, and handling the variations that occur. What if after a FAC ended without promotion, the FAC discussion page were moved preemptively and the redirect erased? Then future FACs of the same article could be handled just by adding {{fac}} and editing a blank page. It could simplify a lot of the issues. Gimmetrow 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've thought of that every time I'm in a jam with an incorrect nom or archival - if we just automatically archived the failed facs, we eliminate that problem for new nominators who don't understand the move - but is it too much work? We can't ask people to take on more chores - as it is, I seem to be the only one doing the facfailed tags (not that I mind, or won't do the archives, but if we can automate it or get others interested, it solves a problem if I'm hit by the proverbial truck). I was "grooming" someone else to help me with facfailed tags, but there's much to-do on his talk page, and I'm not sure if he's committed to staying around Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw someone had put in a bot request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Tagging_closed_FAC_nominations. There is no problem identifying completing discussions from changes in the log and archive. I noticed that someone other than Raul edited the December archive, so if a bot depends on it, it may be helpful to have it protected. Once a completed discussion is identified, the headers people want on the discussion can be added. Updating the article talk page should be easy enough. It's possible to automate moves too, so the discussion page can be moved to /archiveN (where N is the lowest available number), and the leftover redirect edited/blanked. The big problem would be old FAC pages. If left where they are, the problems would still happen. They could all be moved to /archiveN and the talk pages updated, but that would also mean updating all the log links. Would be a lot of edits, but would be automated and would only be a one-time conversion. Anyway, that's the idea to think over. See GimmeBot Gimmetrow 05:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it - would solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought of a problem with this page move solution. If closed FAC pages move, then the transclusions in the current archive log would need updating right away too. Still thinking of alternatives. Gimmetrow 15:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, because no redirects would be there. Always something, huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Exploding whale

I have made a number of improvements, but can't do much more temporarily as I'm travelling in Europe at the moment and I don't have easy access to the Internet! --Ta bu shi da yu 18:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No urgency - it's got at least two weeks in FAR, followed by at least two weeks in FARC if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely when I am back from Europe :) But I very much appreciate your great work on that article! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

36 Chambers - citations

Thank you for expanding your comments on the need to improve the citations for Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers). Your advice is much appreciated! Venicemenace 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when I should have another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Military brat

Hi Sandy, I don't want you to rush off and re-read the article, but based on what you've seen from the last peer review, do you think this article is to the point that you would be able to support it for FA? I am not ready to nominate it (namely because of some questions raised during the CfD that I want to address) and the fact that I'm going to be moving cross country next week (and thus won't be able to respond to comments/recommendations).... but I was wondering if you thought it was at the piont where, when I address the concerns above, I should go ahead and nominate it?Balloonman 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look - but two things: let the CfD stuff die down, and don't you dare nominate it in the middle of a cross country move - FACs need a large amount of babysitting :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nod, which is why I'm not going to nominate it for at least 2 weeks... more likely 3 weeks (assuming I can get access to the internet that soon.) I want to work on the CfD questions that were raised (some VERY good questions/objections that I want to address.) And then I want to have a few weeks before coming back one last time for a review.Balloonman 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

An article that I've started working on, but I wouldn't even nominate it for your favorite category of GA yet, is Third Culture Kids. It's an article that I think you and your kids might be interested in because it sounds as if your kids are TCKs. (MB's, as you know, are the largest group of TCKs, but there is more general research on TCKs and more international research on the subject as well---which in turn means more criticism of the approach.) The article MIGHT be B class or even "start" class... so it is nowhere near ready for your expert review ;-) Balloonman 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Metformin

Hi Sandy. I can see you're quite busy (understatement warning), but I was hoping you'd have a look at metformin; I was recently reading WP:WIAGA and thought maybe it could satisfy the criteria. I don't know how you feel about the general value of GAs, but if you could have a quick read-over when you have time and comment, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) P.S.: Acamprosate and heparin are, I believe, the only drug GAs on WP at the moment, if you'd like to compare :) Thanks again!

I've little use for GA, but for you, I'll do what I can :-) After my nap, that is :o) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Lord, that was fast :O It's a 9 kB article, I don't see it becoming FA without expansion far beyond my powers. No wonder there hasn't been a drug FA in nearly 3 years... Thank you! Fvasconcellos 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done anything yet - Christmas/New Year's has caught up with me, and I need a nap! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just meant your reply. Go take your nap, you've earned about a week's worth of sleep :) Fvasconcellos 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, before I could do anything, I had to fix acamprosate and heparin - can't stand sloppy refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I should ask you for more favors :) One request, and two articles are the better for it! Fvasconcellos 23:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your last ref doesn't point directly at anything - is this what it wants? [4]

• Expand the lead (see WP:LEAD). Spell out the drug class, as something like ...
  • is an anti-diabetic drug from the biguanide class of oral hypoglycemic drugs used for treatment of diabetes (other biguanide drugs are the withdrawn agents phenformin and buformin).
• I like the article organization (TOC) of heparin - is that a possibility?
• Is that how you spell "concomitant" (I'm not sure - looks funny).
• The paragraph about PCOS and steatohepatitis seems to need a cite.
• This also needs a cite: Doses of up to 3 g a day are commonly prescribed.
• I hate parentheticals - they distract me, like I have to go somewhere else in the text to see something out of order - can you rearrange to avoid? (see Side effects section),
• Combine these two sentences into one? In 2005, all current stock of Avandamet was seized by the FDA and removed from the market. This was due to problems at the manufacturing plants, not to any medical issues resulting from the drug's use
• Remove redundant words: The drug pair continued to be prescribed separately in the absence of Avandamet itself, which was readily available again by the end of that year.
• Do we need the word "clinically"? Not sure. Clinically, the 'average' type 2 diabetic has ...
• Passive voice: It has been shown that metformin also decreases intestinal absorption of glucose. Change to - Metformin has been shown to decrease ...
• "Third" lost me, since first two weren't enumerated - A third mechanism is that metformin improves insulin sensitivity by increasing peripheral glucose uptake ... Maybe leave off the third, or mention early on there are three, and enumerate them?
• I don't like mentioning specific researchers - Zhou et al showed that metformin stimulates - maybe lose the author names, and combine this sentence with the one before it?
• Maybe combine sentences here to improve flow and avoid and/or: The most serious side effect of metformin is lactic acidosis; this complication is rare if the contra-indications are followed, and seems limited to those with impaired liver or kidney function.
• Reword to avoid clause in the middle? Avoid recent, as it becomes outdated: Studies have shown that metformin is safer, and the risk of lactic acidosis approximates that of people who are not on the medication, when it is not prescribed to patients who are at risk.
• Combine for flow: The most common side effect of metformin is gastrointestinal upset, including diarrhea, cramps, nausea and vomiting.
• In a placebo-controlled clinical trial of 286 subjects, 53.2% of the 141 who were given Metformin IR reported diarrhea, and 25.5% reported nausea/vomiting. (How did that compare to placebo?)
• Gastrointestinal upset can cause severe discomfort for patients; it is common when metformin is first administered, or when the dose is increased. The discomfort can often be avoided by beginning (at a low dose?) and increasing the dose gradually.
• Should these be included earlier, where you talked about at risk patients? Metformin should not be used in any condition that may increase the risk of lactic acidosis, including heart failure, kidney disorders (creatinine over 150 μmol/l), lung disease and liver disease.
• (such as a CT scan or angiogram), as contrast may temporarily impair kidney function, indirectly causing lactic acidosis.
• Mention FDA is USA - It was first marketed in France in 1979, but did not receive FDA approval for Type 2 diabetes until 1994

Then go for GA - let me know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Sandy—I'll start working on your recommendations, but I'll probably not get to most of them until tomorrow. I'll comment, if necessary, and thank you properly then :) Fvasconcellos 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Sandy—could you please have a look at the "new and improved" version on my Sandbox before I move it to Mainspace? I've changed that last ref to point elsewhere, though I'm not sure it's the best solution, and rearranged the sections. Thanks again, and sorry for the bother... Fvasconcellos 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ah, heck, I got distracted and forgot to go there - glad you popped up on my watchlist again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'm in no rush, I know you're busy :) Fvasconcellos 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to do something relaxing :-)

• Darn, those references are purdy :-) (Don't think you need to wikilink press release, but doesn't hurt that you did)
  • Thanks, I'm proud of my ref skills :) That's auto, from {{cite press release}}.
• Article structure, layout, TOC look sound.
  • Thank you, thank you...
• Should there be a comma after INN? INN, trade names Glucophage, ...
  • Tempted to switch to a semi-colon, but that looks so weird!
• Redundant? ... with nearly 30 million prescriptions for it filled in 2005 ...
  • Removed.
• I Hate Parentheticals :-) Can you lose them? As a layperson, I can't figure out what the parenthetical is saying. It has also been shown to decrease intestinal absorption of glucose, and may also improve insulin sensitivity by increasing peripheral glucose uptake and utilization (although such an effect will occur nonspecifically following the lowering of glucose however achieved).
  • Rearranged... may have made it worse, though?
• I completely understand the "predicts" in this sentence, but some of my articles have run into statistically/linguistically-challenged reviewers who objected to any terminology they didn't recognize - to get it by GA, you may need to dumb it down: The dose and duration of metformin use predicts B12 deficiency, ...
  • I have no idea what to do about this. :/
    • In case you get the same GA reviewers I did - something along the lines of ... Higher and and prolonged dosages of met increase the likelihood of B12 deficiency ... something that avoids "predicts" as a statistical outcome - the reviewer I had on some GAs (I don't know *why* some other editor submitted the TS daughter articles to GA - I have no use for GA, and he didn't ask me, and they weren't ready, so I withdrew them) seemed to be completely flummoxed by the most common statistical lingo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'd combine these two sentences: Metformin should not be used in any condition that may increase the risk of lactic acidosis, including heart failure, kidney disorders (creatinine over 150 μmol/l), lung disease and liver disease.
  • Done, thanks.
• Redundancy: Avandamet was seized by the FDA and removed from the market; this was due to problems ...
  • How's this, too libelous? :)

In 2005, all current stock of Avandamet was seized by the FDA and removed from the market, after inspections showed the factory where it was produced was violating Good Manufacturing Practices.

Looks ready to go !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you yet again, you are now officially my one-person Peer Review team. I'll move my changes to the Mainspace article and list it on WP:GAC! Fvasconcellos 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck - on the other hand, don't have high expectations from GA :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominated. OK, before I forget :)—

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For juggling countless articles at once, responding to queries and requests and still taking time to help me by reviewing and commenting on metformin, I award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar! (A long time coming, I might add) Fvasconcellos 15:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have added it straight to your User page, but didn't want to mess up the formatting. Thank you, Sandy. Fvasconcellos 15:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

AC/DC FAC

Hi Sandy, in the last days User:Random Passer-by left a message on the WP:LoCE page about the copyedit on the AC/DC article, but no one came to finish it (excepting User:Ceoil, who ce'd some sections), so I was wondering if you know who might be intrested on ce it before the FAC process ends. Also I wanted to ask if you see any other issue besides the copyedit. Thanks in advance. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 23:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll check in as soon as I have a free moment. It's so hard to find someone to copyedit - best to be sure that's done before coming to FAC - maybe ask Deckiller (talk · contribs), or he may know of someone who will help ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask him. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 00:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See if you can entice Gzkn (talk · contribs) or Outriggr (talk · contribs) - not sure they would be interested, but they're good, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...the subject isn't too enticing to me...I'll take a look at the lead though. Gzkn 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ProtectionBot

Since you've commented quite a bit on the template vandalism, just wanted to bring this to your attention in case you haven't seen it yet. Gzkn 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm going to have to tackle that tomorrow when I'm fresh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Monty Hall problem

Hi there. Good work with the refs in Barack Obama. You're more versed in referencing than me, so I was wondering if you could take a look at the arguments in this FAR. Thanks so much! Gzkn 06:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw that earlier - it is more a problem of mixed citing method than lack of citation, but there is still some lack of citation. This is a hot potato among a small core of math/physics editors - some of them don't want to cite at all what they believe is common knowledge (big problem that started on WP:GAC), and some of them prefer Harvard inline refs (parenthetical) over cite.php, but this article has both, so you have to read very carefully. At any rate, the lack of citations and the mixed referencing style is a problem, so it's a valid FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

PLease check article?

Could you please check to see if all the objections have been met for Avatar: The Last Airbender? It has been three days and I am the only one who said something. The Placebo Effect 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avatar: The Last Airbender The Placebo Effect 14:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On my list for today, but Wiki's servers were miserably slow this morning, so I'm trying to catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

California Culture Clash

Dynamite is what's needed, I'm afraid, and I'm on a wikibreak! (I think it'll still be in that shape when I get back!) NorCalHistory 16:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought so - perhaps the California Project can help? It really does need dynamite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ref fixing cat

The ref fixer currently handles <ref name="hi"/> .<ref name="hi"/> when there is a space before the period. Here it was a line break. I tried treating line breaks as spaces, and it would catch the problem in cat, but it would also catch a section header that started with ; following a ref mark. There may be other situations where the following paragraph should start with a punctuation mark, so I think I'll leave this one alone.

Is there a minimum reasonable time after an article is promoted to FA before it can be taken to FAR? Gimmetrow 04:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Still looking - we discussed that somewhere, but I haven't yet found it in archives, and that's troubling me (especially since we just let an article through FA with 91KB of prose - now the longest FA) - darn memory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, misread your question - the answer is at WP:FAR (on the instructions) - "Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances)." I'm also looking for something different (time on main page) - problem on Gerald Ford FAR. Also wonder if 91KB of prose is extenuating ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled which one article you mean? The one that went from 67k on January 5 to 84k now? Gimmetrow 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's another one: B-movie was just promoted with a whopping 91KB prose- no one bothered to read it, I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Same one, in fact. Gimmetrow 23:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm slow. Well, three months it is, I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Old FAR

Deleted mindlessly. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 10:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament building

Hi Sandy, this article is still at FAC, I'd voiced some objections about the comprehensiveness of the article in respect to its architecture, which I've now resolved. Would you mind casting your hawk like eye over it again. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching that one - relieved to hear that your concerns are addressed. I'll peek in later, but have a busy day and might not catch up until later tonight or tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mcginnly, I see it's already promoted - I didn't make it in time. Is there anything in particular you were worried about or wanted me to look at? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No nothing really - we did quite a bit of editing to it and I thought a fresh pair of eyes would help - but someone other than myself and globaltraveller went through it picking up the typos etc. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Palladian architecture

Hi Sandy, could you get a few people to vote on the FARC of this one? I don't wish to influence voting or anything, but this article only has 3 inline citations and I'm the only one who seems to think it doesn't meet FA at the moment. LuciferMorgan 14:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be abstaining on that one, Lucifer - I don't know anything about architecture, and I can't really judge if any of those facts are common knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

stuff

Hi Sandy. Which extra-long recently promoted FA were you referring to on Talk:FA(C)?

Also, I was experimenting last evening with a way to use AWB to programmatically fix reference punctuation—that is, scan the article, and move periods, commas, etc. to before the citation numbers. This is a relatively common annoyance in cited articles, of course. Since you work on MOS and reference-related article issues, I thought you might be interested. I plan to distribute the idea on AWB Talk, but if you come across an article that's a real mess in that regard, send it my way. I'm still in the testing stage. see ya, –Outriggr § 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

B Movie has an FA record, 91 kb prose. Gimmetrow already has a script that fixes refs - have you seen it? I use it all over the place. I've been working my way through fixing everything at WP:FA - the first section (art and architecture) - you could test starting at the bottom of the FA list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Where do I find it? –Outriggr § 22:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up on my talk page - it's one of the first entries on my talk page (about the third, I think). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cladistics question

If I have new material to propose for the Cladistics article, what is my best course of action? I notice that User:Crzycheetah and User:Marsden have commented in 'FARC commentary', but I don't wish to spam everyone associated with this, due to my limited understanding of the process. Please advise if you know what to do. Thanks, EdJohnston 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The best place to propose new material would be at Talk:Cladistics, the article talk page. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

New peer review of Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan

Hi SandyGeorgia. You come highly recommended by User:Yannismarou! Yannis reviewed the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article in an earlier peer review, and after I exhausted his suggestions, he recommended that I solicit your feedback. I would really appreciate if you would take the time to read the article and provide your comments at the article's current peer review page. Kind regards Cimm^[talk] 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really snowed under a load of work right now, but will get there as soon as I can. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of Threshing-board

Thank you for your help peer-reviewing Threshing-board. Your suggestions and changes are very much appreciated. -Fagles 02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Notification of Henry VIII of England FAR

Hi. I am a bit perplexed why you notified WikiProject Scotland of this FAR. While of course the person in question was tremendously important in the foreign affairs of Scotland at the time, he is not really within the remit of that WikiProject, as his reign was in England, Ireland and Wales only, as it preceded the Union of the Crowns!! --Mais oui! 09:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

When I prepared a spreadsheet of Projects on articles lacking citations months ago, the Scotland Project showed up in the article's "What links here". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hippocrates FAC

Please forgive me, but I was quite hurt by your comments on the Hippocrates FAC and recently on Dwaipayac's talk page. You seem to be completely ignoring all of the work that I did for the articl, which I humbly would call "quite significant". Simply because I argued with some objections to the FAC and Dwaipayac just went ahead and appeased the objector (who you were sometimes) doesn't mean he deserves all of the credit.

That being said, I also recognize the many hours Dwaipayac and others spent helping Hippocrates become Featured. I myself congratulated him just before you! But it's quite inappropriate, in my estimation, for you to completely leave me out of your congratulations. I know there can be no real argument concerning participation: it cannot be quantitatively measured. But pointing fingers and solely recognizing only one editor in this manner is in my view reprehensible. -- Rmrfstar 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)