User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Weise's law	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:54, 22 October 2008

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.

I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.
The current time is Thursday, 05:01 UTC.

Template:FixBunching

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition	Review now
Helium	Review now
Martin Keamy	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

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

MIT

Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been through a GAR (kept) and PR in the past three months in preparation for a FAC in the near future. The primary stumbling block seems to be the Research activity section which is a mass of "over-linked" (but really easter egged) blue and probably worthy of some Summary style. I've let the article sit for a few more weeks to see if anything developed from other editors after the PR and GAR, but nothing has. I know of no way to equitably slice and dice it. I would appreciate your thoughts and any suggestions you had for that section or the rest of the article. Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see quite a few issues there, and an article that is a ways from FAC-ready. Unfortunately, as I was searching around for a better University article to show you as a sample of which way you need to head, all I found was featured University articles that need to be submitted to WP:FAR. I'm afraid you've gotten a very superficial peer review there; I, too, have issues with the way that one section is written, but I see much more work needed to prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any particularly low-hanging fruit to be addressed? Madcoverboy (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba

Can you please take a look at Vithoba and comment on any problems present on the article? Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered the questions raised about RS, the commenter has replied "I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)" To prove that the source is a RS, i have included links to website articles of Columbia University and Westminster College for one and Intute recognizing the other as "Web resource for education and research". Also both articles provide their sources and have Bibliography sections. Any suggestions what can be done? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REf: "Please resolve the concerns above about reliable sources; Support declarations over sourcing concerns have little weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)"

Hi SandyGeorgia, troubling you again. How do i resolve it or determine if it is resolved?, as

There is no response of commenter on RS, neither a support nor an oppose after answering to the RS concerns, (s)he expressed.
No other editor has commented on the issue.
There are currently 2 "Support"s, one "Unqualified Support", one "No remaining image issues", 1 "Comments", All have been given after the RS comments (the other "comments"), the RS issue is the first thing on the page. All of the above have not said anything about the RS issue.

Thanks for listening. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator should demonstrate to reviewers why sources are reliable, as explained in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the disputed sources used as references by other reputable organizations/ publishers Prove it to be a RS? Namely the disputed sources are used as referenes here too Experiencing the World’s Religions, 4th Edition, publisher: Mcgraw hill or Henry Martyn Centre, Westminster College, Cambridge CB3 0AA, UK or Columbia University? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically and practically, no. Many "reliable sources" tend to include unreliable claims or speculations, and base these on unreliable sources. That is why so many reliable sources have to be directly quoted or phrased so that people know that its the opinion of the author. This is especially true with newspapers that include a lot of editorializing and less "fact". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Hi, I have added some more links about the author and method of gathering data. Can someone please check as the reviewer has left "out (RS issue) for other reviewers to decide for themselves"?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rfa

why not Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia? Nergaal (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks should be removed, not filled. Yomangani ^talk 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read a while ago about a Klan demonstration in a city square. Rock out for the First Amendment and all *cough* but when the townspeople heard of this, they thought the screaming and holding signs at the Klan had been done before and so retro. So they decided to sell lemonade at the rally and give all the funds for the lemonade to the United Negro College Fund and the Anti-Defamation League. They raised $10,000. Another town raised $28,000 doing the same thing. Instead of Sandy having to turn all these down, we should put all these to a good cause. The lurkers of SG's talk page should sign a pledge. If Sandy gets more than 25 suggestions for RfA in a year, we'll do her FA of choice. Or something. --Moni3 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's flogging a dead horse. Yomangani ^talk 18:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, that was such a cruel pun :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been subject to having to do an FAC of her choice. I ended up editing the German Women's Soccer team. I will have to boycott this particular idea of Moni3's. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did German women ever do to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking, lederhosen, and soccer. --Moni3 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women and Lederhosen go together like Dr. Pepper and trout. Эlcobbola _talk 22:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember that analogy from my SAT's. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that analogy from my childhood dinner table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"we'll do her FA of choice." Been there, done that, wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who made that my choice, huh? ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said "Or something". Get creative. --Moni3 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet you can answer this question

Is there one page that has a list of all the cool codes that can be used? I just ran across hab and hat, and I was wondering what else I don't know. I've looked around, but I find some lists with endless discussion on how to use them. I just want a simple list that gives a brief description on what it does, then move on. It seems everything is tossed everywhere. For example, I know that there are format codes to convert between kg and lbs, but it always takes me 20 clicks of the button to find it (of course, I finally said, "I'm going to bookmark this stuff"). There should be one location to find anything for experienced editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't guess what "hab" means (?) but the advanced-users index is at Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia (linked near the bottom of the main Help:Contents index) :-)

It was mainly assembled by User:John Broughton, and resulted in his writing the book Wikipedia: The Missing Manual.

(sorry for just jumping in!) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that isn't what I wanted, but it is definitely what I needed. What a great list!!!! Thanks. But, what I want and need is a list of wiki-code, probably templates. hab collapses a discussion thread.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's this page, which might include some of what you're looking for. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps mathoms from this closet? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathoms? hahaha. Nice thread, had been meaning to ask this myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Any solid plans to scale back from weekly? It's too much! Perhaps we could alternate with another feature ... Tony (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless other people start to chip in, we are, by default, scaled back to whenever we have something (unless we want to burden the Signpost readership with my prose every week :-) I just hope other featured content processes don't show up somewhere down the road complaining that they want a slot to contribute content, when I've been left scrambling for months :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for an accurate and sensible closing statement on the Space SF FAC. I don't particularly enjoy seeing a FAC fail (first time that's happened to me, actually), so I hope some good can come from it. I particularly wanted to thank you for saying you're glad I brought it to FAC to try to focus the debate. I appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never like pushing the archive button, Mike, but I am glad you brought it forward. I wanted to make sure the closing rationale didn't appear to close the door on short articles, as the debate is still very much alive. It's not for me to determine what the interpretation of the criteria should be when the community is divided and unclear. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI...

Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Featured article star. I have to say I'm actually surprised it was the only one. Maralia (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How'd you do that? I think Gimmetrow periodically runs a script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB list comparer; one list from articles that transclude {{featured article}}/{{featuredarticle}}, and the other list from articles linked at WP:FA. I had to clean up the latter list a bit to remove 'articles' linked in transcluded templates (like from {{Contents pages (footer box)}} at the bottom of the page), but next time I'll know what to look for. Maralia (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC withdrawl

Sandy, I'd like to withdraw Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tea & Sympathy. I have no idea when I'm going to have the time to do the rewrite that's needed, but I doubt it will be this year. Thanks. Giggy (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moni and I took care of it - please be sure to leave the {{fac}} tag on the article for Gimmebot to update. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maralia and Moni; I hope things settle quickly, Giggy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Sandy - the business certainly isn't a bad thing :) :) Giggy (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location of European Union institutions

If I'm breaking any Wikipedia or FAC rules by saying this, I'm quite genuinely open to being trout-slapped.. but I'm saying it publicly: please hold off on Location of European Union institutions for a while. See my note on its FAC; it is completely hosed image-wise, but I may not have much free time in the next two days or so. I wanna give the whole thing a very good once-over. However, I am not sure how soon I can revisit. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are preparing to review an article, or in the middle of a review, the best general advice is to leave that info on the FAC, where I can weigh it along with other FAC input wrt closing the FAC. As an example, Awadewit usually includes wording like Leaning or "look forward to supporting as soon as these are addressed", which gives me a clue that the article stands a very good chance and that she is engaged, or that she has reviewed and doesn't think the article is close and isn't engaging in copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada's FAC

		*USS Nevada* (BB-36)**
		Thank you very, very much for your constructive criticism on the FAC that the USS Nevada (BB-36) recently went through. Looking back, I see that the article's formatting was definitely not FA-quality before you came along... Cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 14:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Nevada underway off of the U.S. Atlantic coast on 17 September 1944.

Clean up listing

Well here it is. Brace yourself, it's not pleasant. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I already had my moment of depression this morning when I first saw it (although I note that I identified Cornell University as desperately in need of FAR just a few days ago, see Talk:Cornell University, so at least we're not entirely asleep at the wheel). I posted the list to WT:FAR. Thanks a lot (not :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never trusting the fat lady again

Seventh inning, Bosox down 7-0, I turned off the TV. I goofed around a bit, made myself a fruit smoothie, watched ER (just to laugh at all the mistakes, which is better than MastCell, who watches House to get ideas on how to edit medical articles), and got some gas in my Motorcycle. I returned to my computer to write some pithy and quite cruel comments to you about the Bosox. But I thought to myself, "self, just so you don't feel like a complete twit, check mlb.com, just in case." Damn fat lady. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I turned down my ticket to the game, because if I go to the ballpark, the Red Sox are guaranteed to lose. Why should I pay to jinx them? And the boys considering leaving after the 7th, but then decided to stay because they are so well acquainted with The Fat Lady. I guess they picked the right game to attend. Life as usual with The Fat Lady. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substing FAR

Hi Sandy. I've responded here. D.M.N. (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

Fantastic work! I owe you a drink and candy of your choice when you're done.--Tznkai (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I'm putting in a couple of hours a day, and barely making a dent. There's so much to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help out this weekend, but I'm also doing a big push at changing some of the writing (which is in my opinion, pretty bad) Just wanted to make sure you got due notice for cutting your way through the molasses that is that article, and doing the hard work with references.--Tznkai (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoS and citation cleanup has always provided a good measure of stability, IMO: if it's impossible to get the article clean and maintain it that way, the article may not be stable. And sometimes long-time editors on a particular page don't realize how sloppy their article has gotten until others take a look. I'm not touching the writing, by the way: only the trivials. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not touching it until I can clean up the messy code inside of the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that stuff there? You're right: it's awful. Is it to intimidate newbies? :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been suggestions and near admissions of that, yes. --Tznkai (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well, I'm only able to do citation cleanup because I'm using the edit references script, which pulls out only the text between ref tags. I'm not even attempting to verify citations, because that HTML code makes the article unbearable. If the goal is to make it impossible to find and edit the actual text, it's working even for non-newbies :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll poke at the regulars with a stick and see what I can get done.--Tznkai (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right

Three supports really is too few to promote any type of featured content. I've offered to self-nominate for delisting any of my featured sound credits that got promoted on a questionable majority. With regard to your query for dispatch content, I believe Shoemaker already wrote a couple of FS pages? If you remind me which ones and give a deadline (at least 2 weeks please due to prior commitments) I'll see what I can do. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony wrote a Dispatch on Sounds in May: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-26/Dispatches (I'm not aware of anything Shoemaker has written, did I miss something?). Maybe an update would help generate interest. Put something together, and we'll run it: we're running out of topics. Pls weigh in at WT:FCDW if you're interested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clips of tics

Hey, just wanted to let you know, I changed one of the links in {{Clips of tics}}; the original link went to the news article there, but the embedded video didn't work anymore (it would play an ad but then stop without playing the actual video). The new link has a prominent link in it to get back to the original article; is there anything else you would like me to do to make the article more easily available, or is it more important to link directly to the video, as it does now? —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you've gotten it all fixed ? The idea is to demonstrate tics, as I was asked to do that in the peer review. Although you can't fix the yoyo who called TS a "disease" :-) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politizer, if you think of it (and in case I forget), maybe you can help me stay on top of developments with the Brad Cohen December Hallmark Hall of Fame show ?? I'm looking forward to it, but there's not much news yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out for a bit

Sandy - I'll be away from Rick Bot for about a week, so won't be adding the bot-assisted new entries to WP:FA2008. I may add some manually (or you could) and the bot should update WP:WBFAN automatically (the bot should run once a day at its usual time). Just an FYI so you know what's going on. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rick (I think the star trackers can survive for a week :-); have a great week! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Schizophrenia#I_like_the_image_but....

I'd like your opinion here. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

Hi, it's Limetolime. Listen, I have cleaned up the page and I would REALLY appreciate if you could take a look at it. Thanks! Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 19:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hernan (2008) FAC

Although Yellow Evan, the nominator, has been temporarily blocked, can you allow this article to remain an FAC? I'm only asking this because I've withdrawn my opposition to the article due to some support and also because he wasn't the main contributer to the article. His last major role in the article was on September 14, 2008 (save the first two paragraphs of the storm history). [1] Since then, I've completely redone the article and now have finished updating it per the Tropical Cyclone Report. I'd be grateful if you could allow it to be up for FA again. Regardless, thanks for hearing me out. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a problem, I really feel like putting this article back up on the list. Please read the reviews for it so far, then determine whether or not to keep it off the list until Evan's return. Review page Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I forgot to reply sooner, Cyclone; long night. There's still the issue of reliance on one source, and the FAC won't have a very good chance when even you said just recently that it wasn't ready for FAC yet. Taking some time to diversify the sources might be a better idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we all have those nights :)

I've looked for some other ones to use, but with a storm that remains out to sea, there are hardly any other sources that don't just say the same thing. Unless, having sources that say the same thing is better than having one source explain it all. I've added two refs to Fox news as of now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is up

See Talk:Chocolate Hills. I left a message at User talk:Lenticel; don't know if it will help. Mike Christie (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. I will look tomorrow. After the other matter tonight, I've had enough bad news and drama for one day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Hadn't seen that; that sort of thing is why I keep pages like AN and ANI off my watchlist. Poor Ceoil. I hope at least one of these messes gets sorted out; a week in which we lose Yannismarou, Ceoil and Malleus is a pretty lousy week. Mike Christie (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Crappy week. Hopefully things will sort out while I'm on the road. (And yes, I know I have one thing hanging over my head on Robert, I'll get to it tomorrow night at the hotel. Spent the day getting ready.) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely. Awful. Week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That fat lady again

Well, it appears that the fat lady was given a a new song sheet. This is CRAZY!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really should know better than to jinx me talk page like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A jinx is a fringe theory which cannot be verified by reliable sources. Please review the truth before flinging about accusations towards other editors.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion of legitimate fringe off of my talk page; there are admins who block on sight at the mere scent. (I suspect they are all secretly Yankee fans.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA template(s)

Sandy, is it possible to have the date autoformatting removed from the template that says "This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 22, 2007." I see that the promotion date is also autoformatted. Let me know if I'm able to do it—I can't make out the names of the individual templates. This is non-urgent, of course. Tony (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the promotion date is also autoformatted"; are you referring to the diff of the promoted version of the article linked to the promotion date? I can probably work on the issue of delinking the mainpage or DYK dates displayed in the articlehistory template, but I think it will take me about five or six hours of coding time and locating the right people to help ... maybe in exchange, you can review a few FACs? (You be quiet, Gimmetrow :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement for Rollback

Hello, Sandy. I was wondering if I could i have your endorsement for the Rollback privilege. If you take a look at my contribs, you'll see I've been trying to pack a punch in vandalism. Would you help me make a harder and faster punch? Knippschild (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin; I can't pass out Rollback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It's late at night, so I misread things. I thought you were. :) Take care :D Knippschild (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

50kb readable prose size limit

Hey Sandy, Mike Christie was unaware of this one and asked me where it arose, I couldn't help him and thought you'd know...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's at WP:SIZE (has been there as long as I've been around, is intended to be a rough gauge of average reader attention span, which is supposedly around 10,000 words). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a joke here right? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I did see the irony when I posted the questions. A grin is a legitimate response. Mike Christie (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My attention wanes after three sentences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This not for an "FA"

Hi Sandy, I bet the title above caught your atention (smile). I just finished a new article titled Puerto Rican scientists and inventors. I'm not doing the FA or FL thing for now, but some one commented that it should be an FLC. I would like for you to look at it whenever you can (Take your time, no rush). Tell me what you think. Gracias, Tony the Marine (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try, Tony ... you're number three on my to-do list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Windle

Hi Sandy, is Blofeld's objection actionable? I find it a bit vague if he doesn't say what he wants that he feels to be missing. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 03:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you know the answer as well as I do :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lockdown (2008)

May I ask why Lockdown was not promoted when two seconds before it was close I had just addressed the opposes and asked what there is I could do to change them. I'm just wondering since it doesn't make alot of sense to me that I was trying to address comments and it was closed.--WillC 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FAC/ar; GimmeBot often goes through hours after I actually close a FAC (note the timestamp of when I closed). The article had been running a long time without gaining Support, and would probably have a better shot if you worked with the reviewers who commented and brought it back in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm planning on doing that after a few copyedits and reviews from people outside of the pro wrestling project. I was wondering since it was odd that I had left comments, then left my room, came back and saw it was closed. It didn't make much sense to me that it was closed that soon.--WillC 04:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for the info.--WillC 04:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking in the main page article

Hello - I have some questions for you regarding this linking issue - I believe that "Japan," "Pearl Harbor" and "World War II" must be linked. It is relevant as per WP:OVERLINK, because it was the context and cause of the college's wartime role and must be made clear. Also, I don't get why "U.S.," the country, in the first sentence should not be linked - it is as important as linking Maryland. You are describing where the college is, so surely the nation deserves a link. Your implementation of the policy may just be too strict for its own good. Thank you, Shiva (Viṣṇu) (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:OVERLINK, "Items that would be familiar to most readers of the article, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, historical events, religions, languages, and common professions." The United States and Japan are major geograpic locations that most readers know of and therefore don't need to be linked. In addition, the reader can easily navigate to the U.S. article through the Maryland article. As for World War II and Pearl Harbor, I am undecided on the importance of the linking those terms. However, Sandy is a very experienced editor, and I would trust her judgement. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did quite well there, Dabomb ! Everyone knows what World War II and Japan are, and those articles contain no context for the BCC article, as examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for responding. I will follow your advice, although I must admit it doesn't make complete sense to me as why a link in the cited cases are a bad idea; I consider it user-friendly. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-10-13/Dispatches

Hi Sandy, I just wanted to say thanks for the excellent report you wrote for the Signpost. The detail and statistics is really useful and interesting. cheers --pfctdayelise (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you ... it's very nice to get a kind word and thanks, I really appreciate it and am glad it was helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

I'm done with my unexpected stint as groom and plan to stay at the hotel in the morning for a bit and catch up on FAC stuff. I'm utterly exhausted tonight, but wanted to let you know things were in control. Our trainer's filly went Top Ten, which was great! And we connected with a trainer to do our saddleseat filly, which is good. But tomorrow isn't anything important so I'm going to stay at the hotel and veg for a while. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news ! I hope you get breakfast in bed, and a relaxing day. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move of article at FAC

Hi Sandy, I have been asked to move Rhinemaidens (Wagner) to Rhinemaidens by User:Brianboulton. I am fine making the move, but since the article is at FAC, I wanted to check with you first. Is this OK? SHoudl the FAC also be moved or what? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine ... do your bit, and I'll clean up anything you might miss, if you do ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is, move the article, move the FAC, rename the FAC at WP:FAC and fix the article title in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will leave a note here when I am done so you can clean up my inevitable mistakes ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And fix the tools in the FAC ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is moved and I believe all the FAC tools are fixed too. I must admit I had to ask for assistance with the move. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And check for red links on the talk page so GimmeBot wont' be foiled: [2]

And fix the article name in the FAC: [3]

Now you know why I have to watch these buggers: the worst is that, when they're done wrong, I can't fix them or move them back without calling in an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, I do need more sleep. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACCESS question

Hi Sandy, you always seem to be railing about WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems in articles, here's a question: Are collapsible tables allowed in prose? Here is the article in question: List of awards and nominations received by S.H.E. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign. No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid dissociation constant

Sandy, I'm most of the way through a FAC review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid dissociation constant. I expect to be supporting once I've completed the review; I may hold off to see what clarifications can be done on the areas I've highlit, but the article is, as far as I can tell, well-written and almost as clear as it can be expected to be. I am a bit concerned that the nominator is on vacation and though he is making an effort to respond, may be limited in his responses to some degree till he's back home. So this is a request for a little lenience on the timescale. We don't have many highly technical articles, and this hasn't been much reviewed so far. (It's certainly stretching my scientific abilities to their limit, and beyond; I can see why people aren't jumping in.) I think articles like this are rare enough we should let them run a bit long, especially when there's a temporary hitch in the nominator's ability to respond. Just a suggestion; I know you keep an eye on this sort of thing anyway, but I thought I'd mention it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to address the significant MoS and layout issues; I've been tempted to close it several times because there is so much work to be done, and it's just a mystery to me why no reviewer has yet to point out some of the simpler issues. I'm on record as saying that no FAC has ever failed on MoS, but the layout issues here are pushing that limit. The entire last section is listy, broken up with incorrect use of the {{main}} template, when the section could be written as prose with those terms linked within the text. Templates go at the top of sections, per WP:LAYOUT, and are only used when Summary style is employed, not to include definitional links; that entire section needs reworking and conversion to linked prose. I was going to close it tonight, because so much work is still needed and the chem guys don't seem to be helping, but saw you are putting a lot of effort in to it. I agree that technical articles often need and warrant extra time, because so few reviewers will engage and some are scared off, but basic layout and prose issues can be addressed by any reviewer, and it's a mystery to me why none have engaged. If you think you can get it there within a reasonable amount of time, we can let it run longer, but it looks like an awful lot needs to be done at a time that reviewers are complaining that FACs are running too long. Is there not a good reason that the nominator can work on it outside of FAC when s/he is not on vacation and can respond more quickly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And has anyone mentioned yet that the book sources don't have page numbers? How is the nom going to work on all that while on vacation? Have you seen adequate progress? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to focus strongly on layout issues because I'm not particularly expert on them, though I point them out when I notice them. I do look at citations but haven't got that far yet; I will be doing the last two prose sections tomorrow. If nobody takes the hint from this section and does a layout review, I'll try to address that too; I agree that it's a shame to fail something for layout when it is usually an easy thing to fix. One question: I went looking for guidelines on the use of {{main}} just now and couldn't find anything outside the simple statement that it isn't to be used at the top of the article. Where can I find more? Mike Christie (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That info is at WP:LAYOUT (or at least it was last time I checked ... so many cooks in the broth there that things often go missing). Basically, that entire section needs reworking. MAIN is only used for Summary style, and only used at the top of a section heading when *this* article is a summary of another article. I suspect that simple wikilinks are intended in most of that section, which can be converted to prose paragraphs. Then there's the See also (see LAYOUT again, why are those links at the bottom? If those articles are needed for this article to be comprehensive, this article should discuss those items in the text). And there are still WP:ACCESS issues (image layout, images go *within* sections not above them, etc.). Maybe I need to start reviewing again. I would have laid all of this out on the first day, and hopefully the nom would have completed all the work by now. I understand that some reviewers are scared off by technical topics, but these are issues that anyone can put on a FAC. This FAC has been up since the 9th and no one has given this info to the nom. No wonder FACs are running so long. Oh, and what about the incorrectly templated info in the lead? See WP:ACCESS. That navigational info belongs in a template, which has to be put in the order specificed at WP:ACCESS; there are two different navigational templates, not incorporated correctly. And WHY aren't the Chem guys giving this nom guidance on this? Why aren't they helping (I have dug in a gazillion times to help them at FAR)? Nominators need reviewers: reviewers need nominators. If nominators get no feedback, they can't improve their articles, and FACs run too long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed my pass, and I did comment on the layout of that last section. I am not clear on the WP:ACCESS issue, though. I see the discussion there of navigation templates, but I don't see the requirement for it to be in a template. The "correct structure" doesn't list nav templates, though the list below mentions them, but doesn't say where they should go; and in fact says they can be moved around if there's an infobox (which there isn't, here). Should they go before the introductory text, for accessibility reasons? And is the template just to simplify the text for editors working on the article, or actually an accessibility requirement? Mike Christie (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Sandy, in hopes of encouraging more reviewers at FLC, I've been considering a "reviewer of the month" sort of thing. However, I remember that at one point you compiled a list of top reviewers at FAC but haven't done it recently. Is there a reason for this? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the reason? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The goals were to 1) reward and encourage good reviewing, 2) discourage drive-by fan support or less valuable declarations and reviewing, and 3) build comraderie at FAC. It took two solid days of work to build the spreadsheet each month (Maralia did it once; perhaps she'll comment) so that it could truly be a quantitative measure, not just opinion. There were several months where I was putting out fires on other issues or traveling: that was exhausting, and I didn't have the energy to build the spreadsheet. If I had, it would have continued to show the same, month in and month out. Good reviewers take pride in their work and do it by nature, with or without a reward; reviewers who don't take pride in their work won't change based on a reward program, but the idea of a reward might encourage more scanty reviews by those who seek awards for the wrong reasons. So, rather than do two days of very tedious work every month, I could have just passed out the rewards to those who did most of the work, month in and month out as shown by the spreadsheets, the same ones every month, which wasn't achieving anything other than claims of a FAC "clique". How successful were my rewards? 1) The good reviewers already know who they are, and pride in their work is its own reward: they do what they do because of internal motivation, not a reward. 2) The negative reviewer score names stayed the same month after month on the spreadsheet, so the idea of a reward didn't deter drive by and fan support, and may have attracted star-seeking reviewers. 3) Whether I built any comraderie at FAC is for others to decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There just wasn't any apparent return on investment for FAC-wide statistics/rewards. The painstakingly-compiled statistics overwhelmingly confirmed what we already knew; the long-term good reviewers keep on truckin' largely regardless of awards, and the less-effective reviewers seem at best unswayed to improve, and at worst encouraged to fluff their numbers. I still see value in identifying and rewarding good reviewers, especially good new reviewers, but meticulously compiling statistics doesn't seem to be a necessary factor in the equation. Maralia (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question of how successful I was at building comraderie was answered in the last hour.

I'm not running GimmeBot, so reviewers and nominators will have to sort talk pages and FAC closings now as was done in the past (see User:SandyGeorgia/FA work). Raul and I move the files to archive; the rest is up to the community now.

Maralia, if you have any new ideas of how to approach awarding reviewers without all the work, perhaps an audience can found at WT:FAC.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, Gimmetrow has just been blocked and had his unblock request declined. He says he won't be around for a few days. Is this what you refer to about Gimmebot? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

Sandy, in the past when I have attempted to help you I have only succeeded in making your job more difficult. You have placed this message on the FAC page "Extensive interrupted commentary; please add the — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] — continues after insertion below template, by locating the diffs and adding the timedate stamp and sig to the interrupted oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)" and I don't know what you are talking about. I want to help you but I am afraid of repeating a common theme in our working relationship. Could you please just do it once as an example for me to follow, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding this time? I'm sorry I am not a more intelligent person on these types of issues. NancyHeise ^talk 10:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look, and it's so jumbled now that I don't think even adding the {{interrupted}} templates will be optimal. I will take a look tomorrow; perhaps I can just pull out the original oppose posts to the talk page, and then ask the opposers to revisit and strike there anything that has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. I added interrupted to all the unsigned (interrupted commentary), and pulled out all the original posts to the talk page for easier sorting. The idea is, if you had to sit down and read through all 250 KB, can you tell who wrote what? When sigs get detached from the original commentary, you have to scroll back and forth to see who's writing, who's responding, who's saying what. And it becomes very hard for Opposers to strike, which is the ultimate goal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing a list

I was wondering what the standards of sourcing were for a list. I'm trying to get List of spherical astronomical bodies in the Solar System to FL status but I'm not sure what is required as far as sourcing. If the list were to be fully sourced, then between 200 and 400 citations would be required, plus the inline citations would completely overwhelm the text. I'm not sure what to do. Serendi ^podous 10:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a reference covers everything in a table, it's fine to just have a general reference at the bottom. You can also have multiple general references if everything isn't covered in one reference. The reference section would then be divided into general and specific (for in-lines); read some recently promoted FLs to see how this is done. If different citations are needed for each aspect of each planet, in-lines would still be needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Giants (I don't really get involved at Lists, but any list article I have personally done has every line cited, as in People speculated to have been autistic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment therapy

I'd just finished removing the last cite from the lead - with great misgivings I should add - when I looked again at the review page and saw your comment! Serves me right for not having both windows open at once. Anyway I can easily put the "hard data" ones back in. Fainites ^barley 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I shouldn't get in the way of a GA review; that never ends well, so I've unwatched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Thanks for your help. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you :) I am hoping to go for FAC later so all comments gratefully recieved. Fainites ^barley 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now look [4]. Fainites ^barley 20:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of Dana; again, I apologize for jumping in to the middle of a GA review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

You've got mail. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm considering a week off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to inform you that your request for vacation has been declined. Please return to your regular work duties. :) Just kidding - if anyone deserves a wikibreak, it's you. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so much invested ... so many fine articles ... so many good editors harassed and giving up ... so many power trips. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take a well-deserved break, you can let me know if there are specific issues or articles which have required your oversight, and I can try to pick up some of the slack... MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I know Gimmetrow was talking about retiring the bot back in July or August, but do you expect him to bring it back online when his block expires or is this it? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. It's a thankless job, he was very much taken for granted, few editors understand how far up the creek we are without him. We shall just have to wait and see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état

I have withdrawn this. Apparently now I can't even translate articles - I'm beginning to wonder if it's ever worth the effort bringing this to FAC. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EotW: translation is hard. It's harder than writing an article of your own, I'd say. Again, I think you should be proud of what you've done with this article (and others like it). You've made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. But I don't think you're in a position to bring them to FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of archiving it shortly. Maralia (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maralia. For the record, it takes 15 minutes to process just one FAC without GimmeBot.[5] Average six to eight FACs per day = a couple of hours. FARs take more work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to shave a few minutes off the per-FAC time—I managed 17 FACs in 3 hours when I stood in for Gimmebot briefly last year, which would average out to about an hour for 6–8. Of course that's just for processing FACs, I believe Gimmebot also ~~does~~ did featured lists, as well as maintaining the number of GAs, building articlehistory's, updating all the 'what links here' references after the FAC archive moves, archiving WP:GO and probably some more stuff too. This is all very tedious work, and sometimes took an hour or so per day for Gimmebot to do it all. I quail at the thought of having to do this manually, not once but every day! Dr pda (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm doing a lot more than quailing. And a FARC takes about three times as long as a FAC. And when there is an accumulation of talk page templates, there's even more to do than the simple case Maralia did today. And he was doing much more than lists; he was doing all of GA, PR and almost all featured content processes. Quietly, and well. Oh, you've barely scratched the surface. There are hours of daily manual work here. Which simply won't get done. Pre-GimmeBot, all Raul had to do was move a transcluded file to the featured log or the archive, and the rest of the bookkeeping was up to the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're crazy!

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		You do so much to keep FAC going, including going to some serious lengths to make sure that conversations are understandable, various points are clear and so forth. Your work does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. Thank you for all the hard, and often tedious, work you put into the project. Vassyana (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forget why, but many (if not all) templates seem to hate "external" links (it breaks them). Regardless, I wanted to point out for the record the kind of work you do in this regard and what specific actions spurred me to slap a barnstar on your talk page. It is exactly the kind of work that helps keep the FA process moving and I seriously doubt you are thanked often enough for that kind of tedious housekeeping.[6][7][8] Be well, Vassyana (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 318: / Line 318: @@
 :::: Oh, I'm doing a lot more than quailing.  And a FARC takes about three times as long as a FAC.  And when there is an accumulation of talk page templates, there's even more to do than the simple case Maralia did today.  And he was doing much more than lists; he was doing all of GA, PR and almost all featured content processes.  Quietly, and well.  Oh, you've barely scratched the surface.  There are hours of daily manual work here.  Which simply won't get done.  Pre-GimmeBot, all Raul had to do was move a transcluded file to the featured log or the archive, and the rest of the bookkeeping was up to the community.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
+== You're crazy! ==
+{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
+|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Working_Man's_Barnstar.png|100px]]
+|rowspan="2" |
+|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Working {{#switch: n
+  |w=Woman's
+  |n=Wikipedian's
+  |#default=Man's
+}} Barnstar'''
+|-
+|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | You do so much to keep FAC going, including going to some serious lengths to make sure that conversations are understandable, various points are clear and so forth. Your work does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. Thank you for all the hard, and often tedious, work you put into the project. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
+|}
+I forget why, but many (if not all) templates seem to hate "external" links (it breaks them). Regardless, I wanted to point out for the record the kind of work you do in this regard and what specific actions spurred me to slap a barnstar on your talk page. It is exactly the kind of work that helps keep the FA process moving and I seriously doubt you are thanked often enough for that kind of tedious housekeeping.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FRoman_Catholic_Church&diff=246883069&oldid=246868373][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVassyana&diff=246875014&oldid=246589842][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FRoman_Catholic_Church&diff=246879461&oldid=246691495] Be well, [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)