User talk:Graham Beards

one of my diagrams

Picture of the day

I have just listed this diagram as Picture of the day for 18th January. I don't want to mislead our readers, so please could you check the blurb, which is based on various related articles, for errors and amend or extend as you think fit. Incidentally, the file description mentions avian flu, but the diagram just mentions flu in general. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth, the diagram is accurate (and excellent) but the blurb needs a little tweaking.Graham Beards (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Graham, Many thanks for your assistance, advice and words of support at FAC recently, all of which were very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. You are missed at FAC. Cassianto^Talk 17:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Graham Beards (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom

I saw your peer review request and was fascinated to see that you had personal knowledge of the tragedy. When I was looking for sources I remember seeing some speculation that Janet Parker was exposed to the virus because she had entered the lab to deliver holiday photos that she had developed for the staff as a sideline. I think it was no more than gossip so couldn’t go in the article but I’m curious if you thought there was anything in it. (Btw, happy to help, if I can, if you want to take it to FAC or GA). DeCausa (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think she might have gone into the lab thinking the "no entry" sign did not apply to her, or she could have been shown around the lab by a member of staff who liked to "impress". (I suspect the latter). Anyhow, she often offered to sell photographic film on the cheap around holiday times. She offered me some the previous year. I am not alone in thinking "she went to the virus". Thanks for the offer to help. I hope to take it to FA. I have found GA reviews wanting. I'll keep you posted. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks. Best wishes. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised you knew Parker. I visited Birmingham virology dept in 1989 and they were still reeling from the events. I used to work in a group that worked with vaccinia; the labs where the virus was used and stored were always locked and the key was not kept where people could get at it. There again, I do wonder about transmission from things like door/fridge handles and tea-room chairs. I hope you get some useful comments out of peer review, it would be great to see this featured. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources (or ones from over 100 years ago) and those who live in glass houses

I'll let you guess who nominated Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) at FAC in 2009. Despite the recent clamouring for "no sources older than 100 years", it seems that it's fine to overlook that rule for the Mysore and Coorg article which has a stack of primary sources on which it relies for much of the article. I'm not going to do anything related to FA for an awfully long time, but if I wasn't convinced that I would be accused of pointy behaviour, Mysore and Coorg would be dropped into FAR at the drop of a hat. Badly written, 3 or 4 passages without citations, multiple breaches of the MoS (both galleries and "see map 1" style instructions, both of which are advised against) huge amounts of overlinking, a source list in which many of the works are not used (which does suggest it is not a full review of the available literature) and some rather garbled English. And people think it's acceptable to oppose on their own petty whims over a dislike of one source? I have to agree with Sandy Georgia that having deficient articles like Mysore and Coorg cheapens the whole FA pool as a whole. I wouldn't advise anyone else to try and file an FAR either – the way this place seems to be operating at the moment some jokers can get away with absolutely anything, no matter how toxic the effect. Thanks for all your assistance recently – it's a shame it's all had to come to this, and I doubt I'll be the last person to become frustrated at the intransigence of toxic reviewers. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Staying out of the specifics of the dispute between you and F&f, I'd like to address the FAR components of your post. With an active FAR, running any FA through for a checkup is less likely to be viewed as pointy and more likely to result in valid review. With a moribund FAR, where nominations there are uncommon, then running an article through is more likely to look pointy, particularly since there are so few people participating there, which lessens the chances of FAR saves. FA is meaningless without an active FAR. That's all :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said Graham, some jokers can get away with absolutely anything, even non-compliant FAs. - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy and Gavin, I am so sorry to see the decline of my beloved WP:FAC. When I was a coordinator (for four years) there were, on average sixty active candidates at any one time in the list; now there only around thirty if that. There hasn't been a successful science candidate for ages – or even a failed one that I can recall. All the editors capable of writing an FA at WP:MED have moved on and there hasn't been a medical FA for five or six years or thereabouts. As a result the medicine-related FAs are not maintained. We can count the number of mathematics FAs on one hand. The amount of FAs that no-longer meet the criteria is embarrassing. I have been looking after some including my own nominations (i.e. Bacteria, Prions, DNA) but there is a limit to my time and enthusiasm. Which is rock-bottom following recent events.

In the light of all this for a FAC about a very minor quirky event in English history to be battered to death by a maverick reviewer because of the use of an old source in the article is an absolute disgrace. Given the dearth of sources, why haven't the reviewers and subsequent commentators suggested a work-around?

The coords are justifying their absence during the FAC by telling each other that they are not "parents", which is most demeaning and patronising to participants. When I was a coordinator I checked every FAC every day to ensure fair play. In Sandy's tenure she gave me the impression she checked every ten minutes!

Without our talented writers there would be no FAs. And yes, before you shout out, without our reviewers there would be no FAs. But when you take on a review your take on responsibilities. To stick to the FA criteria is important. But it's equally important in my view to show respect to the nominators, most of whom spend hours and days and weeks on the articles. Fowler did neither.

This morning I deleted every FAC-related page from my Watchlist. I have better things to do with my time than participate in a process that is terminally ill. Graham Beards (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)