User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

If you want me to look at an article, 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.

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Anarky	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
0.999...	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

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Trivia

Good afternoon, Sandy. I know this guideline is a hornet's nest and that you tend to avoid unnecessary drama, but one of your areas of focus seems to be MOS-related improvements, so I figure I'd come to you. Is this page really deserving of official MOS guideline status? I have a hard time with practically every notion that this "guideline" espouses; I was thinking of marking its status as disputed. But first I wanted your expert opinion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a can of worms that goes beyond that one page; there is currently *no process* (as amazing as that seems) by which any guideline page gets added to {{style}}. I've been attempting to address this for several weeks, but a couple of editors/Projects have ownership issues, so no progress has been made. To address an individual guideline problem, you'll probably have to 1) join the broader discussions at WT:MOS and 2) have patience. It's a huge issue that needs to be sorted out. There are currently almost 70 pages at {{style}}, with no means of sorting out which of them enjoy consensus or by what process they got added there. One proposal on the table is that we need a MOS WikiProject to coordinate and rationalize the current mess that exists among all these guideline pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness! This is much more depressing than I feared. I'll check out WT:MOS, to be sure, and will do my best not to issue any violent rants.

As far as the specific, abhorrent Trivia guideline is concerned, the page starts out sensibly enough with "Trivia sections should be avoided." But this where I start to gag and recoil. That's part of or Manual of Style??? And no one knows whether, how or why consensus was determined? Sheesh. Thanks for the reply!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that part is particularly awful, and could probably be disputed. I suggest you raise it at WT:MOS as an example of the issue of how things get added to MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MEDMOS

Moved I have, but back to normal I am not :) At least the dust is settled, and I have web access again ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hi there Image:Simonbc crop.jpg is a cropped version with increased contrast. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unfortunate words in the original are "with his permission". That tends to mean "permission for wikipedia" and won't pass the image filtering. Without a clear statement of "cc-by" release, it's considered a fair use image of a living person. Gimmetrow 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I wish I hadn't asked Tim to do the work. :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it took me all of thirty seconds. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peyton Manning

Thank you for your help with the article. It is very much appreciated. Dlong (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

If I review one FAC or FAR a day, will that be okay? — Deckill er 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will that cost me my first-born, my right arm and a leg, or just a barnstar? :-) One a day would be wonderful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reviewed one to break the ice :) But before I go too crazy, I need to brush up on my writing and reviewing skills. — Deckill er 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brush 'em up on Randall Flagg; it's been stalled for weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP MOS proposal

Mine (and some others') is linked from WP:MILESSAY. I don't know how applicable it'll be here, though; my experience is essentially with projects that do article work, rather than projects that exist purely as an internal coordination forum. Kirill 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, as you have seen, I've started a thread on a proposed new WikiProject to coordinate Manual of Style pages. I think this might provide a mechanism to address the problem without raising concerns about centralization of authority on the main MoS page. Your comments on whether and how such a WikiProject might work would be very valuable. See WT:MoS#WikiProject Manual of Style.

I've notified a number of editors using essentially the above message, but I may have missed out many interested parties, so I'd be happy if you (and anyone reading this) fill in any blanks. Geometry guy 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic articles

Hello, Sandy. You've been very patient with me in the past over my lack of skill with MOS issues. I've given myself a good talkng to and am now a lot more careful. I am working on a series of Antarctic exploration articles, trying to improve the general standard. You know about the Ross Sea party, now FA, and the Terra Nova Expedition, now FAC. When you have a moment, I wonder if you could look at the third in line, which is Discovery Expedition? I've put it up for peer review, but it has no comments as of right now. I think it's much better MOS-wise than either of the others, but I'd welcome confirmation of this, also other comments. I'd really appreciate it Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the MOS issues as soon as I can; another person you might ask, who is very thorough about MoS issues, is Epbr123 (talk · contribs). He might get there before I can. By the way, I saw your query about PR on Yomangani's page; the person to ask is Gguy (see the post above yours here on my page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request

I have had enough of your personal attacks, and I am asking you once again, and this time as part of dispute resolution, to stop. I don't do this to you, though I'd certainly have reason to, and so I'm similarly asking that you refrain from doing it to me. It has been going on, on and off, for well over a year, always involving the same people, and the behavior during the Zeraeaph case was the final straw for me. Please either stop the barbed, disrepectful comments, or be aware that I will take this further. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's right, Sandy; you were way out of line to suggest alternate wording on a Manual of Style guideline and, later, to point out one editor's inclination to edit war on policy pages. SlimVirgin has never been anything less than perfectly polite[1] and rational[2] when addressing you and, well, pretty much everybody else. I think all of us should take our civility queues from her. If you can't show SlimVirgin the respect that an editor of her stature is due, kindly "stay out of her way." Slim, if she ever acts up again, let me know, and we'll march her straight to ARBCOM or, at least, to WP:WQA.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! We can march her anywhere we like, but there's still no prison that she can't escape. Marskell (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you're continuing with this:

"I'm also concerned that SV's change to this guideline arose out of a content dispute she was having at Keith Mann;[3] it's a concern if someone edit wars to alter policy and guideline pages to gain an edge in a content dispute." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was Threeafterthree going around removing links from multiple articles, citing that guideline. He was even removing links that he thought ought to be in articles, though they weren't and likely never would be. If you look at the LAYOUT talk page, you'll see the discussion -- not just Keith Mann, but multiple articles going back many months. But you'll also see that the current discussion about changing the guideline was started quite independently by several other users some time later.

Look, you and I are going to end up at the ArbCom over this. I am asking you again to keep your bad-faith assumptions to yourself, stop making personal comments about me, and stop looking for excuses to get another dig in. There comes a point, Sandy, where it will become clear to everyone that it's gratuitous and unjustified. I'm not Zeraeph. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Slim. I don't do this terribly often, but I'm going to (temporarily) drop the obligatory Fat Man insolence and speak to you relatively plainly. As someone with 134,000 edits to my 4,000, you should be familiar with the cliché, "comment on the edits not the editor." Did Sandy insult your mother? Did she wish cancer upon your children? Did she speculate as to your mental health or your intelligence or your blood pressure or any other aspect of your person that is not directly evidenced online? Or did she suggest that your edits are frequently inappropriate?

My dear, you do you edit war on policy pages; it's a ugly habit, I suppose, but we've all got them. Gurch makes odd jokes and leaves meaningless votes on RfA pages, but he writes beautiful, ingenious scripts and delightful graphics and makes Wikipedia a fun place to be. My wikifriend (and yours) David Shankbone tends toward aggressive self-promotion, but he takes irreplaceable photos and captivating interviews and donates them generously to the project at his own expense. Jeffrey O. Gustafson treats people brusquesly and refuses to have a user page or a talk archive, but he can spot and delete an inappropriately uploaded image of a professional wrestler faster than Marcus Bagwell can issue a Buff Blockbuster. The Fat Man, for his part, is the author of far too many mean-spirited talk page rants but will write you a sweet email or talk page message if you're feeling blue. There's nothing wrong with pointing out these or any other flaws in a user's edits.

Listen to what people are saying. It's just possible--even probable--that you're wrong here. Though you may not recognize it, it would be a monumentally silly idea to approach ArbCom with this SandyGeorgia nonsense. If the worst of Sandy's "personal attacks" and "assumptions of bad faith" are exemplified in the quotes you've provided above, you are in for a very, very disappointing Arbitration experience. The Fat Man heartily recommends that you stop threatening nice people--especially if the rather extreme actions with which you're threatening them are only going to leave you unhappy, bewildered and unsatisfied.

Sandy--and other editors you dislike--are not going to part like the Red Sea and flee in terror from all the pages you like to edit. I've learned that it takes all kinds in this world, and especially on Wikipedia. People who irritate you are going to edit the pages you find interesting, and they're going to speak up if you make an inappropriate edit. It happens to me all the time. Sometimes they go away. Sometimes they come back. But, somehow, somewhere, I find the fortitude to deal with it all. Perhaps you can too.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"you were way out of line ... to point out one editor's inclination to edit war on policy pages" - I'm sorry, I just want to be doubly sure you said that. Under what possible rationale is a user out of line to, as you said, "point out an ... inclination to edit war"? "the respect that an editor of her stature is due" - again, just to be sure, some editors are more equal than others? And finally, "let me know, and we'll march her straight to ARBCOM" - you may wish to consider the POV that you are not actually some kind of "enforcer" on WP. Achromatic (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the Fat Man was merely using hyperbole and humor in response to the obviously ridiculous accusations and threats aimed at Sandy. --MPerel 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, I might have forgotten to filter for sarcasm in my original ... Achromatic (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken some time to ponder whether I should respond to a charge of "personal attack" when there has been none.[4] I'm not sure any response is warranted, but I do have some advice. Slim, my first suggestion is that the practice of backing your accusations with diffs would be helpful; I realize that you most likely believe the things you type to be true when you type them, but your interpretation is often at variance with the diff-supported facts.[5] I can't reply to something that hasn't happened, so if you think a personal attack has occurred, in the future, you might supply diffs. My second suggestion is that your respect and credibility would be enhanced if you would refrain from personalizing disputes and discussions about edits; you often show a tendency to turn differences into personal matters or attacks.[6] [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Sticking closely to Wiki policies on assuming good faith, talk page guidelines and no personal attacks will help avoid these kinds of discussions in the future.[14][15][16][17] The respect you seek could also be earned by refraining from writing demeaning commentary to or about some of Wiki's finest editors and featured article writers—particularly editors with well deserved reputations for working collaboratively with others on controversial topics like evolution.[18] [19][20][21] On the matter of the meatpuppetry charges raised by Schmucky on ANI, I believe Marskell has already given sound advice to help you and Crum375 avoid these situations in the future,[22] so I won't repeat. And finally, on the Zeraeph matter: I highly suggest, if not demand, that you stop dragging old issues into current matters. It is not in Wiki's best interest for you to continue to drag up such a troubling episode. You made a mistake (we all do), it's history, it's water under the bridge, and although you may not have any empathy for how dearly this costed A Kiwi (talk · contribs) in real life, I did and do care about what she went through for years, being unfairly accused as a stalker and then having to go through that again. [23] A Kiwi is the reason I was willing to put myself on unfair footing with Z to avoid an ArbCom; had you not given Zeraeph false hope that her editing practices were acceptable and had you supported reasonable sanctions, the ArbCom (and Zeraeph's inevitable ban) might have been avoided.[24] Please have some empathy for the real life implications of on-Wiki actions. You were the first to personalize the issues in this matter, by again bringing unfounded accusations and incorrect allegations about the Zeraeph matter into the current issue:[25] please stop. In my view, it was your actions that led to Zeraeph's ban and to extreme stress for A Kiwi: I wanted to handle the matter by putting a block structure in place. I strongly request that you refrain from continuing to bring up old history; let bygones be bygones. I am specifically asking you to have some empathy and concern for A Kiwi and refrain as much as possible from any future discussion of Zeraeph on Wiki. The community and ArbCom have spoken on the matter: please let go. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's Theatre

Thanks for the advice, Sandy. I’ll drop those folks a line. By the way, do tell me if you feel I’m being too harsh/strict/etc. It’s certainly not my intent to cause discord or friction, so I’ll lay off, if needed. As they say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” :) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch

Hi Sandy, it didn't look like you had had time to put together a Dispatch yet (although maybe I just didn't see it), so I threw one together very quickly. It's not linked at the Signpost yet because I didn't know if this is what you intended (or if you'd actually written one already). Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I left discussion at WT:FAC, but please ping Marskell asap, since he's in a different time zone, and may have already done something on PR. So glad you jumped in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer's Disease

Pinging you. Also, you suggested someone else who might help out, but I can't find where you told me his name? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look later today; still getting through my watchlist. The best medical content reviewer I know is Colin (talk · contribs), the epidemiology expert is Eubulides (talk · contribs) and another person who reviews medical articles is Casliber (talk · contribs). Did you initiate a peer review where you can invite all of these editors, and notice the peer review at WP:MED? That's the best way to assure a smooth FAC; get complaints/issues out in the open pre-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was Colin that you had mentioned before. I do not think it's appropriate to peer review it right now. I think it needs some cleanup first. It appears that there have been 4 major editors (myself included) over the past few months, and someone like you can help merge the writing styles. IMHO, it's got some work, but I prefer your help on the front end rather than at the FAC stage, because your editing sets a standard for future edits. However, I know you're like one of the busiest people around here, so if you can't, I understand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can help on MoS, citation and MEDMOS issues, but I'm not good at cleaning up prose or content issues; really , a PR is never premature, and is a good way to get everyone involved early on. I'll look in later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villa history

I was away at Pompey for the weekend. With regards to the archiving of "my FAC", no problem!! I could see the way it was going even if I disagreed with most points, and had dealt with the majority of the comments. If I were in your shoes, I would have done the same thing. I have now asked for status updates from the reviewers and will try to find an outside reviewer. I will see where to go from there. Thanks and warm regards. Woody (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We crossed in cyberspace once again. Yes I think guidelines should be codified somewhere. There was some discussion on WP:FOOTY a while ago if my memory serves me correctly. I will try and root it out now. Woody (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last one that I can find was this discussion. (I have updated the user talk archive links). The summary of that discussion: the MoS needs fixing. Do you think it would be worth it to open a discussion somewhere? Where would be the best place? Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A citation

Is this a suitable source for a citation on a mobile phone? website -- Snowman (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on that page indicating it meets the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS: I can't decipher any indication of ownership or authorship on that site. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Articles

If you look way back at 2004, they were. THE KC (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, my bad. I meant well, but I can be stupid sometimes. Forgive me. THE KC (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

:)

B 110 _{communicate (that means talk)} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello. B 110 _{communicate (that means talk)} 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use

Which two are giving you problems. I have a bit of time and will take a look if you want. Woody (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a question at Wii Sports and a problem at Her Majesty's Theatre. I'm pretty sure HMT can't stand as is, but I'm less clear at Wii Sports. I'm also not sure if I should hold up promotion over these, since I really don't speak Fair Use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wii image should go and have noted that on the FAC. The phantom image is not used in the article at the moment, whilst discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Fair use review. It has been replaced with another one which is better in my opinion. I would say that the Phantom should not be held because of the image, the discussion is going on in the right place and the article is stable. The Wii one though is different, I would wait for the issue to be resolved. (My opinions of course, but absolutely defer). Woody (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Woody; that's exactly what I needed to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in - causing trouble, am I? I still have reservations about the new image; I don't recall the article mentioning those actors, so the NFCC implications seem even greater. I think that, as in the Wii article, temporary removal while the issue is sorted out would be in everyone's best interest. Just my two cents. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not causing trouble at all; we've long needed someone to check images, and I'm glad someone is doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Not causing trouble, just being thorough, FACs need that. The actors are mentioned in the first sentence of the section that the image is in. It adds significantly to the article as it illustrates the actors in a decorated role, the longest run in the history of the theatre. It is a scene from the musical that illustrates what it would have looked like. Anyway, this is not the place, WP:FUR is. Woody (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, image has now been removed from the Wii Sports article. Woody (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your revert

On WP:Featured articles, you reverted my edit. Why did you do that? So it's a little more precise, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, is it? — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 21:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because User:Raul654, who is the featured article director, has reverted similar changes in the past; I don't believe he wants the unnecessary precision (I don't care for it either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam/COI list

Thanks, I asked Beetstra to be whitelisted. Eubulides (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Just reviewed a Good Article. The sheer number of steps involved in tagging this and that has been enough to put me off repeating it. They do insist on complexity there. I hope for your sake the FAC procedures are more streamlined, or automated, than that! –Outriggr § 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GimmeBot is my best friend :-) And now you know why I always resist "more process". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost mention

Thanks for the link Sandy. I am very flattered that Karanacs wrote about me that way, and I'm thrilled that my contributions are being recognized and my name is getting out further into the Wiki community. Thanks for all your help to me as well. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was Raul's idea, but we all thought you deserved special mention :-) You've really done a fine job, and reading your articles makes one proud. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Dickinson FAC

This is a cheek, I know, but if you have a minute could you take a fresh look at the Emily Dickinson FAC please? It has ten supports mostly from credible editors (exclude Maria and me, we're only there as ballast), a couple of comments which can be independently assessed as addressed, and no opposes. I'll entirely understand if you tell me to get lost :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have Roger's page watchlisted so saw it anyway. About this, what a shame, just about to head to the bookies! ;) In all seriousness, take as much time as is needed, I had the same issue with the Cunningham FAC a while back. I always sort of expect about a week anyway! Woody (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Cunningham had ten days; better not wait that long to comment :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely understand. I wasn't sure whether you were currently basing things on volume or time. I must add, by the way, that you've dramatically improved FAC, for which I have nothing but admiration. Avoid burn-out: you're needed :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roger. I'm basing things on a *lot* of different factors, and actually, still finding my way. I'll continue to archive on the same timeline Raul used, but do want to slow down the promotion timing a wee bit, to the extent I'm able to do that without seeing the backlog grow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended to review Milton Friedman FAC (for MOS issues)

Hi, I nominated Milton Friedman for a FAC and you were recommended as a notable article reviewer, specifically for MOS issues. If you have a chance, could you take a look at the article and make any comments at the FAC page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Milton Friedman? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, I see, my mistake :) Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's Theatre

Hello, Sandy. Kb and I have now done all that we know how to do on the references. Please take a new look. If you have any further style/formatting changes that you want me to make, please let me know, and I will take a crack at it. Thanks, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They look much better now. The support, though, is still thin. You have one weak support, and you and the nominator are both significant contributors (see the instructions at WP:FAC, you actually should identify yourself as a significant contributor support per article stats). Karanacs and Tony are both on the fence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added an identification of myself as a significant contributor. User:Ealdgyth and User:Epbr123 have now also supported. Do Karanacs and/or Tony have any other comments? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; I'll look at it on tomorrow's runthrough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

The key to success at WP and the processes therein is participation. Ideally, we’d have a flood of “overturn failure” comments, but the process stagnates when only the involved parties chime in. GAR is a troubled process, to be sure; one of the reasons I moved from GA to FA. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I just observed was quite alarming; if that's at all typical, I'd advise editors to forego that process. One person shouldn't impose standards that aren't standards even at FAC, and aren't policy based. Those editors have worked their tails off on that article, and to have that obstacle put up when they were ready for FAC a month ago saddens me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistency amongst GA reviews is indeed stunning. The reviewer in this case is a good editor with meaningful insights to contribute, he just didn’t keep what he’d like to see and what policy/criteria require separated this time around. As I said, participation would cure some problems in these cases. I have other issues with the process. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always had issues with GA; I just didn't realize it was that capricious. I know they pass a lot of junk, but I'd never seen an excellent article fail. So, that's why most experienced FA writers forego GA, and why I resist all attempts to add more "process" to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, one guy failed Ian Thorpe, which simultaneously was passing FA, saying that the article was too detailed and boring and not looking at anything else. I guess if I have more confidence in my prose, I would just jump straight into FACs, but since GACs don't take seem to take anything out of me in terms of effort, except waiting a while, then I'll be ok. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’d imagine you get sick of “this passed GA so it’s ready for FA” comments. The process does have merit, but I worry it’s becoming more and more about decorating user pages with little green icons; thoroughness be damned. C’est la vie. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, that was my rant for the day. Now I'm worried the article needs to be put back together before it comes to FAC. (I unwatched so it won't make me crazy.) ElCobbola, I hope you've checked the images, and I hope it didn't get WP:OVERLINKed. Ah, Yes, BInguyen, now I remember the Ian Thorpe story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I initially had concerns about three FU images when it came to GAR. The rationales, however, are uncommonly detailed, so I think I buy that they do provide significant understanding. If it were to come to FAC, the most I would do, if anything, is suggest that removal of one might really cement FU compliance (frankly, though, I very much doubt I would even do that). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]