User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

Would you be willing to take a look at the Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season? My main concerns are making sure all the important events are covered accurately and the prose is fine. Are there any tools that can add non-breaking spaces or does that have to be done manually? I can handle everything regarding images. I will add more images and alt text later. I haven't written a timeline article before and this one is a mesh of work from several people over a long time period. Noah^Talk 20:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk page watcher - disamb Puerto Escondido; you can make disambiguation links appear orange in gadgets in preferences. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hurricane Noah I don't think it can be said that I avoid helping the cyclone project people whenever they need it. But, over at WP:URFA/2020, we still have not marked Satisfactory or moved one single cyclone or hurricane article, even though I posted to the Project asking for help months ago. [3] I don't have unlimited time. How about we make a trade? You get hurricane editors to help us make sure all the older FAs are cleaned up to the point of being able to mark them "Satisfactory", say one a week, and I continue helping hurricane editors with their articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with FAC nomination for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered

SandyGeorgia Hi. Having been one of the users that contributed to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered's peer review earlier in the year, I was wondering if you would help contribute in reviewing the article for its FAC nomination? It has been open for a few days but I've received no responses from any editors. It would be really appreciated if you could give any feedback and help move the article further towards reaching FA standard. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is an article being riddled with dead links reason for a FAR? As I take the criteria, if it can't be checked for accuracy, it is unreliable for the FA standards. Many others disagree with me. Noah^Talk 14:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether that reasoning is correct, as we do accept off-line sources. Having loads of dead links is a red flag however, which indicates that the article hasn't been maintained. I assume it's not possible to restore the links with IABot (go to the history of the page, and click fix dead links in the right top corner)? FemkeMilene (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - dead links in and of themselves are not a very good FAR reason. If they are a sign that the article wasn't maintained then you can have a reason for FAR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hurricane Noah. I would not bring an article to FAR only because of dead links, but I suspect you know that and are actually asking a bigger question. WP:DEADREF gives the necessary guidance and tells us to wait at least 24 months. I suspect you may be referring to a bigger, underlying issue? If there are hurricane/cyclone sources that were web only, were not archived, no other sources exists ... what is to be done? And if that is the case, there could be a genuine problem, as often I see that small local online newspapers are used, and some of that content could be lost. That would not mean the article was no longer FA though. Can you give more specifics about your concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problems have been resolved. Someone found a suitable replacement for the sources. Noah^Talk 22:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A relief for all ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am working on writing out a subsection for tropical cyclone intensity now that the semester is dying down. I know most of the other editors have been tied up with college right now, which is likely why the article is still "eh". I had my last midterm today and have finals on Monday for the courses I am in. What do you think about the plan for the subsection? Any thoughts on what has been written out thus far? I know I need to dedicate a few sentences to the Dvorak method since it is the most important way of assessing intensity. Noah^Talk 00:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Med protection: same mission, new venue

Hey there, per my post last week, I've moved the med protection discussion to User:Ajpolino/Med protection, where we can conspire more slowly and freely. I'll probably investigate the protected pages slowly and annotate the tables there. Feel free to do the same if you're interested! Hoping we can knock a few more off the list over time. I hope all is well on your end! Ajpolino (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: - If you ever run into something like that where you're involved and need an uninvolved admin to remove protection, I'm willing to do that and trust your judgment. Hog Farm _Talk 16:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ajpolino; sincerely appreciate your efforts! I have been swamped, but have your subpage watchlisted now. My sense so far is that established editors cause more issues on most articles I watch than IPs do, but that when university terms are ending, we may need to re-semi some articles if students don't read talkpages. Please ping me whenever you need my attention; my to-do list is still a mile long. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar San Diego PR

Hey! I was hoping to hear back from you regarding the Rockstar San Diego peer review. You said that you were going through other PRs first so I didn't want to constantly annoy you with asking for an update, but I see you closed the PR just now. The article was GOCE'd during this time as well. If you have the time, do you mind going over your critique points again? Do you think the article is in the ballpark of FA-readiness? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was so far behind and did not notice ... l would you rather I reopen the PR before commenting? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right here is fine. IceWelder [✉] 19:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after a bit (busy now) ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:IceWelder, catching up with this now. I see I had promised to circle back, yet never made it, and I apologize for that. WP:OVERLINKing has been addressed,

In Medellín, Angel opened game development opportunities, which failed due to a lack of government support and talent in the area. ... not working. Opened opportunities? Failed because of lack of government support sounds ... odd.
This is probably not reliable: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/capcom-no-longer-sponsoring-red-dead-revolver/1100-6072100/ (Gamespot reliability depends on the author). THat is a member, not staff ... same for https://www.gamespot.com/articles/rockstar-rescues-red-dead-revolver/1100-6085873/ and https://www.gamespot.com/articles/red-dead-redemption-on-track-rockstar-saddened-by-working-condition-claims/1100-6246814/ ... unless you can establish that these authors meet WP:SPS, those sources would probably be rejected at FAC. You should check all Gamespot sources that are not authored by Staff (rather members).
Redundant ... later attended ... later describing ... try to vary the wording ... later attended the Art Institute of Chicago.[4][6] During his studies, Angel grew fond of computer animation, later describing computers as ... in fact, since there are 15 occurrences of the word later, I suspect it is a common redundant filler in the article, similar to the word also.

If you can address the sourcing and these prose redundancies, you are probably as ready as you can be for FAC, but be aware that the problem at FAC these days is a serious shortage of reviewers, and if you haven't followed all the advice in my essay, and previously engaged FAC to establish yourself as a serious participant and reviewer, you will likely have a hard time getting reviewers to engage. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! See these edits. To reply to your individual points:

I rephrased this sentence a bit to hopefully make more sense. Unfortunately, the source is not as detailed as you would like. It reads:

For a while, he tried to cash in on Medellín’s growing tech industry by establishing game development opportunities here and for Colombia at large. It worked for a while, until lack of help from the local government and technical talent — specifically in programming, Angel says — slowed progress.

All GameSpot articles are staff-written. Their authors are denoted as "Members" because they no longer work for the site, some longer than the current profile system exists. User-generated content (blogs and forum posts) is always indicated as such. Good to know that this could come up in the FAC, though.
I reduced the number of occurrences of "later" to five, either by exchanging it for alternatives ("eventually", etc.) or rewording the phrase. In other instances, the "later" feels natural, e.g. in "later that year" or "three days later".

I will be reading your essay again in the near future. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 10:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fad diet ref Khaw2016

Would you consider restoring this ref to Fad diet? Your given reason for removing it was predatory journal, but the multiple uses of the reference do not appear to be used in support of fringe or non-NPOV content. David notMD (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, if you had supplied the link, I would have replied sooner. [4] I don't know why we would use a predatory journal to cite basic facts, which should be available elsewhere, so I'm just not following your thinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may get around to rectifying the citations needed without that ref. I've edited the article sporadically in the past, but I am not the editor that originally added that ref. David notMD (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

learning more about the FA process

Greetings SandyGeorgia, I was reading User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving_excellence_through_featured_content#Advice_for_FA_aspirants, and it reminded me that I saw multiple medical articles were upcoming at FAR per Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/April 2021. I wondered if engaging at FAR / the talk pages of those articles (in relation to the featured article criteria) might also have value. I ask because I would like DVT to meet the FAC per Wikipedia:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive4, thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there, Biosthmors; I hope you are well! I don't know how I missed adding Deep vein thrombosis to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (except that I have been up to my eyeballs in a big garden project for more than two weeks now), which I have just done. On the articles which need to be submitted to FAR, any kind of engagement would be wonderful ... I will shortly submit Alzheimer's disease to FAR as it is so badly outdated. RE preparing DVT for FAC, I will try to kick in next week to help, hopefully after the garden is finally all in good order and ready for spring! We have a team of medical editors who are excellent in prepping for FAC, and I will ping to the peer review after I have had a chance to look in. If I forget to get to it by next week, please pester me here to remind me. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Things are going well, thank you! I read about your encounter with the tree. I'm sorry to hear about that happening, but quite glad to see you were well cared for! Regarding the FAC prep steps, that sounds like a great plan, thank you. As for gardening, that's great to hear you're ready for spring! I'm happy to have 12 tomato plants in the ground. The Kalmia latifolia has been blooming and the fragrant Rhododendron alabamense just started blooming. I planted several juvenile trees this year: American beech, blackjack oak, pawpaw (Asimina triloba), shagbark hickory, and pecan so far. The aphids had their way with the Lonicera sempervirens like they usually do earlier in the year, which stops it from blooming. I hope it starts blooming again for the ruby-throated hummingbirds soon! I've also started a few Campsis radicans vines up trees that I hope will make the hummingbirds happy one day. Happy Spring! Biosthmors (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biosthmors, I too was excited to see you bring DVT to peer review! I hope to help out with the FAC prep -- I took my first trip through FAC just a few months ago with Buruli ulcer -- I'll just need a week or two to carve out some time. On another note, I'm completely enchanted by trumpet vines, and used to put quite a bit of thought into what I should plant to attract the hummingbirds. But then last year, we bought a string of outdoor lights with colored plastic covers, and those stupid lights attracted more hummingbirds than any flower I've ever planted. So while they're glorious little creatures, maybe not the brightest most discriminating little guys. All that to say, if your trumpet vines don't bloom (god forbid), I'll send you the link to the plastic lights. I think we got them at Target. Happy spring indeed! Ajpolino (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Random talk page watcher) - Good luck with the pecan trees, Biosthmors. My parents have a bunch and those things lose limbs like crazy. My main advice on trees - don't plant hedgeapple trees in your yard. Big pain to clean up after. Think large annual crops of sticky green fruit the size of a softball. Hog Farm _Talk 04:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Ajpolino on getting Buruli ulcer up to FA status! And thanks for the tip about the plastic lights, haha. We do keep some feeders up as well, but in an ideal world the garden would always be blooming with something that could feed them. If I had to pick just one flower, Salvia guaranitica has been a good one for hummingbirds, but it does require moist soil in my experience. Thanks Hog Farm on the tip regarding hedgeapple. I'll avoid those! Biosthmors (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for William Lyon Mackenzie

Hi Sandy, you asked to be notified when independent reviewers had gone through William Lyon Mackenzie. Two editors have supported its FAC; instead of a ping, I'm posting this message here. I hope you will comment on the FAC here. Thanks! (SG's talk page lurkers are also invited to comment on the FAC.) Z1720 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On it tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-feedback on FA reviews

I've been trying to get back into more active FAC review mode and began with these two about two topics that interest me. Is there something that needs to be improved on these reviews? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Kilda

I have left a longer explanation of the changes I made last week at the FAR page but otherwise not done anything new or added any further comment. Any suggestions as to what else could/should be done welcome. Ben Mac Dui 15:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page help

Hello again. Apologies for this random message. I would greatly appreciate help with the "Endless Night" (The Lion King song) talk page. The page was recently moved since another article about a different "Endless Night" song was recently created, but this caused an issue with the archived peer review. I am not entirely sure how I can fix this. And if possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could merge the peer review with the talk page header. Apologies again for this request. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, I can't get to it right this moment, but will do ... the peer review should not have needed any adjustments, but will look as soon as I have a free moment. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Paxson PR

Wikipedia:Peer review/Marjorie Paxson/archive1 — just FYI that you said you intended to comment on the PR and it's still open. I'm sure valeree would appreciate any input! (t · c) buidhe 21:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Buidhe; I keep saying things will settle down in real life and I will return to my normal level of activity, but that hasn't happened yet. I am hoping I can start catching up tomorrow, and the reminder here is very helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Mays

Just wanted to let you know that I nominated Willie Mays for FAC status again! Per your recommendation from last time, I had the article copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors, so hopefully the prose is better now! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

Thank you, and all involved who will hopefully watch, for bringing Menstrual cycle to excellent quality, per revamping! Today, I decorated with blue, flowers and more, - feel free to share. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shoom

Hi Sandy, You planning to make any further comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1, or can we go through it with an eye to closing? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - June 2021

Issue 12—June 2021

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

No newsletter last month means a double issue this month. Enjoy:

**Newly recognized content**
Menstrual cycle saved at FAR thanks to the efforts of Graham Beards and others. Tetrasomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by JackFromReedsburg XYYY syndrome nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by MeegsC CT scan nom. Iflaq, reviewed by Bibeyjj Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Lee Vilenski Diaphragmatic rupture nom. Aeschylus, reviewed by Bibeyjj Pentasomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Bibeyjj Shellfish allergy nom. David notMD, reviewed by CommanderWaterford Sophie Jamal nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Premeditated Chaos Mihran Kassabian nom. Larry Hockett, reviewed by Amitchell125 Northwestern Memorial Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by Sammi Brie

**Nominated for review**
Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, under review by Epicgenius Hepatic hydrothorax nom. Aeschylus Tetrasomy X and Deep vein thrombosis are both listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute. Upcoming FARs: Alzheimer's disease, Major depressive disorder, Acute myeloid leukemia, Autism. Contribute to discussions at their talk pages.

News from around the site

The Medicine collaboration of the month is back with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Please head to its talk page to coordinate improvements.

Discussions of interest

The redesign of the {{Authority control}} template continues. Contribute here.
Please consider looking over edit-protected medicine pages to consider whether some could have protection levels safely lowered.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 10 reviews between January and March 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/May 2021}} Thanks, [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1021828448 -->
+== Congratulations from the Military History Project ==
+{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
+|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[Image:CRM.png|75px]]
+|rowspan="2" |
+|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | &ensp;'''''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#Service_awards|Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)]]'''''&ensp;
+|-
+|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 10 reviews between January and March 2021. {{user0|Peacemaker67}} via [[User:MilHistBot|MilHistBot]] ([[User talk:MilHistBot|talk]]) 23:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC) <p><small>Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{tlx|WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space</small></p>
+|}
+<p></p>