User talk:SandyGeorgia

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
Roswell incident	Review it now
La Isla Bonita	Review it now

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

If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.

To leave me a message, click here.

Template:FixBunching

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Protection of Main Page article

Do you have any thoughts on whether or not the current Main Page article wife selling ought to be semi-protected? Has consensus changed about this? See here and here. Paul August ☎ 20:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do. As someone who's had to spend the entire main page day when one of the articles i"ve worked on is on the main page, I'm all in favor of semi-protection. Most of the time, IP edits are just vandalism at that point. If they do see something that needs fixing, it can be brought up on the main page. Certainly, it's easy to tell when school lets out in the US, as the IP vandalism ratchets up on the main page article. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection, which has been cited in related discussions today, is only a guideline. If people think that vandalism is too high and risks degrading the article, as some clearly did, they are allowed to use initiative. Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always amazed me that the examples of wikipedia's "best work" almost always contain the word "penis", even if only for a few minutes. Does that really make sense? Wouldn't new editors be more likely to contribute if they saw that the work of others wasn't vandalised? Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well at lead the English WP's "best work" only contains the word "penis" for a few minutes. The German WP, on the other hand... Colin°^Talk 16:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline against MP protection is just one of a set of WP guidelines that seem to have the effect of facilitating destruction and vandalism. Many RC patrollers routinely go through four vandal warnings, so some vandals don't jump IPs until they get that 4th warning. At least four bits of vandalism and reverts before WP:AIV knows about it. "Anyone can edit" - even IPs who have vandalized in the last few minutes? If the "system" facilities or encourages certain behaviour, then that behaviour isn't likely to change until the system is changed. Gimmetrow 22:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi Sandy, hope your spring is going well! I've set my mind to attempting to bring David A. Johnston to FA in time for the 30th anniversary of his death (and the eruption). It will need a lot of work in a very short time and will therefore require skill greater than mine. I've already pinged Awickert; do you have any other suggestions for copyeditors, technical specialists, etc.? I've never really done a "speedy" FAC before, but I would really, really like to do this in memory of the 60 or so people, including Johnston, who died in St. Helen's catastrophic eruption. Thanks, ceranthor 23:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mav might be willing/able to help on that page-- ping him in! Always glad to see Awickert on board, and Ceranthor, your editing has certainly matured over the years-- you make me proud :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe I've been a part of Wikipedia for a little over three years now. Thank you very much; that means a lot to me. I will be sure to ping Mav! ceranthor 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you! :)

I saw you post to the 3r/edit warring page. You'd think they'd make it easier wouldn't you! :) The reporting a sock puppet page is just as bad to me. Keep up the good work Sandy. We don't have contact but I do see you around quite a bit plus have been given you as a reference for certain things to ask about in the past from another editor WLU who has great respect for you and I for the both of you. I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to hear from you and WLU, even if I'm less active-- gosh, I hate that page-- can they make it any harder to report an obvious 3RR to get them blocked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I liked it better before they added all these different boards to go to. Before, if I remember correctly, you could go to AN/I or AN and say what was happening with difs and boom, it was taken care of. Seems a lot simplier to me. :) Have you ever tried to report a sock? It's just as bad. Thanks for your kind words, you have no idea how much it's appreciated. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thou

You might wanna take a look here. I'm snipping out some material that I don't think belongs, and I think that Johnbod is being unnecessarily snippy about his wholesale reversions. Look at the rant he unloaded at the FAR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Dropping by to say hello... you seem as busy as ever on here - I'd like to know where you find the time. Though I haven't really edited in awhile, I've still been on Wikipedia and keeping an eye on things. Seems like there's a lot of new faces around, and some of the old ones are still around. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Until I saw your post on Ceoil's page, I didn't realize you were around again! Good to see you! Less and less new faces, more and more editors giving up and leaving, but ... on the upside ... now some of those old faces are friendlier than they were in earlier days :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope those old faces are friendlier, though judging by your work to your sandbox in terms of building a case so to speak, it seems discontent is still rife on Wikipedia. Surprised you haven't been driven away yet... 23:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Closing the Nobel Prize FA Page

Hello! I recently nominated Nobel Prize for FA but during the review I noticed it will need a peer review. So I am asking if you could close the nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nobel Prize/archive2) for me? Thanks, Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, hope to see you back at FAC soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spring gardening

I have been busy in my garden too. These are for you.

Graham Colm (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, you are such a dear, and always cheer me at the most appropriate times. The flowers are lovely and I really appreciate them. Thank you so much and Happy spring !!!

But, where oh where has our Eubulides gone, and how will we get by without him?

Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me honestly

Do you think that I'm a mysoginist, or that I treat women or feminism topics unfairly? I've laboured under the delusion that I've had at least as productive relationships with female editors as male, and I'd be mortified if anyone accused me of being sexist here on wikipedia; there's no sex barrier to my scorn for stupidity, or admiration for cleverness.

Here's the deal. If you publicly state that I'm not a woman hater, then I promise to write an article on husband selling– one day. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some people didn't read the article and have no sense of humor. Wife selling let the wife out of a lousy marriage! Who's gonna complain about that? Don't write an article about husband selling-- Just Do It! I'll even let you keep half the profit, if you can make one! To the best of my knowledge, you are not a woman hater ... but then, I saw what you wrote long ago on WR about your wife ... I could be biased :) And I'm not the best person to ask ... I like having doors opened for me, chairs pulled out for me, and someone to help me with my coat ... in spite of my ball-busting career days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, as I can attest from my study of 18th-century humor, people don't really agree on what is humorous and certainly, what is humorous doesn't remain constant over time. Perhaps some of us are arguing for a change in what is considered funny in relation to women. Here are a couple of examples of 18th-century jokes that most 21st-century readers no longer consider funny.

Ex 1: A Woman prosecuted a Gentleman for a Rape; upon the Trial the judge ask'd her, if she made any Resistance? I cry'd out, an't please your Lordship, said the Woman. Ay, said on e of the Witnesses, but that was nine Months after.

Ex 2: One Easter Monday, an arch Rogue meeting a blind Woman who was crying Puddings and Pies, taking her by the Arm said Coome along with me Dame, I am going to Moorfields, where this Holliday-time, you may Chance to meet with good Custom. Thank'e kindly, Sir, says she. Whereupon he conducted her to Cripplegate Church, and placed her in the middle Isle. Now, says he, you are in Moorfields: which she believing to be true, immediately cried out, Hot Puddings and Pies! Hot Puddings and Pies! come their all Hot! &c which caused the whole Congregation to burst out in a loud Laughter, and the Clerk came and told her she was in a Church: You are a lying son of a Whore, says she. Which so enraged the Clerk, that he dragged her out of the Church: she cursing and damning him all the while, nor would she believe him 'till she heard the Organs play.

If 21st-century readers don't laugh at these jokes, does that mean they don't have a sense of humor? I don't think so. I think it just helps to illustrate how humor is rarely intrinsic and constantly changing. Awadewit (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see it differently-- there are two different issues: the way we try to dupe readers with our April Fools blurb (which was extremely successful this year, since many missed the point-- that it wasn't a hoax), vs. the actual article. I think those who missed the dupe didn't read the article. I don't see an issue of a joke at the expense of women, rather a joke at the expense of ignorant readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its implied by the tone of the article and the TFA blurb that the idea is farcial to modern eyes. Awadewit is correct though, nothing dates as fast as houmor. Even comics seen as edgy in the 90s are dated now; eg Bill hicks, Steve Coogan; shifting cultural refernece points and the fact that they were diluted through weaker imitations. Ceoil (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Two thoughts:

Meh. If people talk bad about you, screw 'em. It's a key motto in my life.
But discretion is the better part of valor, no sense borrowing trouble, insert similar platitude. I personally wouldn't do a similar article again if I had been accused of misogyny etc. because of that one, simply because I wouldn't want people's malicious imaginations to begin to believe they see a trend (once is an incident, twice is coincidence, thrice is conspiracy, etc.) • Ling.Nut 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got absolutely no intention of doing a similar article again, there are far too many witch trials and early computers to get through. I just thought it was an interesting bit of almost forgotten history. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good...yes... I probably should dig up that witch execution anecdote I told you about while back and put it on a relevant pge... • Ling.Nut 14:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Nation

Hi Sandy. I noticed on the discussion page for Alien Nation's FAC, you put in a comment wanting to know who made the fixes/comments. That was me. I'm sorry if I forgot to sign my name. Do you have any other questions? Theatrickal (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just noticed that on my run through ... please remember to separate and sign your comments, so I know who's doing what on the FAC without going back through the diffs ... thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok! No problem. Yeah, that was me responding to those queries. I had forgotten to put my signature. But I will do so in the future. Thanks. Theatrickal (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

I have to say I was expecting, at the best, another week of battling with this. Where the Hell has Moni3 gone? She should be here to take a bow. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't rely on primary sources ... but I suspect y'all can find a way to work that out, with statements like Primary source says x, but secondary source says y. Good luck with that :) Where the hell has Moni gone? I miss Moni like hell ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by FAC?

Not transcluded to WP:FAC, but a pure drive-by which is even admitted in the actual nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cathay Pacific/archive2, also it appears that archive 1 was also a drive-by but it is not in the article history. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign journals

Sandy, it has been my practice at FAC when referencing a foreign language source to give its original title plus a language indicator. I have recently been asked to include a translation of the title (see ref 6, Kirkconnell et al. in Zapata Rail), something I've never done before, and has never been queried. Is there actually a policy on this? I don't mind doing it, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary, and it's rarely requested or done, but WP:NONENG does say "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors ... ", so there is a basis for the request. If someone asks for it, it doesn't hurt to supply it, but it shouldn't be considered essential. In this particular case, I find it kind of strange, since the translation is so simple and uncontroversial, but I could be biased because I speak Spanish ... it's the Japanese ones that get me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Spanish, and even I could translate the title. A good point about less accessible languages though. Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject NINES and 18th Connect

I thought you would be interested in this. Like all things academic, it will move slowly. Awadewit (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks!

Please, stop your personal attacks! Nothing good can come of this behaviour. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to rephrase and clarify what it is you want SandyGeorgia to stop doing; there is not a personal attack to be found in that diff. Perhaps "please don't respond every time someone personally attacks you" is what you meant? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Sandy was responding to a post that specifically characterizing Sandy's behavior negatively, I don't see how calling the previous post a "smear" is a personal attack. Karanacs (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Antique Rose is but she could benefit from a big dose of clue; I have long said that Nancy should be blocked the next time she makes unfounded charges about Karanacs or me, and continues her failure to AGF or understand adminship or FAC delegacy, but there you have it-- no warning for her to knock it off! Hence, the problem on CC ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, now I understand the calls for Sunray to remove himself from participation on CC issues. 19:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in seeing Nancy's response to Sunray. If she refuses to agree to stop making false accusations, then I'm prepared to either open another RfC or take it to AN/I. I'm very, very tired of that nonsense. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more interested now in seeing Sunray's response to me :) I don't expect a change in heart from Nancy, but I do expect those trying to mediate the dispute to get her to stop doing this. I don't think another RFC is needed, though; this one already pretty clearly calls for Nancy to take a break from the article-- whether any admins will have the guts to enforce that is a different question. When those who are supposed to be helping solve the problems are actually furthering them, Wiki is in a world of hurt! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bully! :) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takes one to know one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood this "personal attack" nonsense, and I doubt I ever will. When did "attack" become a synonym for "comment"? And why are flattering personal comments not equally deprecated? Welcome to the saccharine world of wikipedia, where you're only allowed to say nice things about the idiots around you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That explains why Malleus has never said a nice word about anyone, he is afraid he'll be blocked!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we have a personal exemption: one editor can continue lobbing unfounded charges, smearing other editors, but when someone tells her to that behavior needs to stop for the article to advance, it's an "attack"! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have an RFC and you've made your case.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an enormous case of IDidntHearThat, even with a clearcut RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, before starting work on Ashford v. Thornton (possible future FAC). I saw no easy answers.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt simply once again underlines the discrepancy between what administrators get away with and what others are hauled over the coals and blocked for. Is it not a "personal attack" to claim that I have never said a nice word about anyone? It may be true that I've never said a nice word about Wehwalt, but that's only because Wehwalt is an out of control loon who ought to be desysoped. Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm after bigger game, Malleus and have no time to stop for rabbits.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I keep making the same point – although it unfortunately flies directly against the core impetus of Wikipedia history: the only way around this toxic environment is to exclude some editors from editing. Pick the most unacceptable four from both pro-RCC and anti-RCC... or... whatever you want to name the "factions"... there's that word... and freaking ask them not to edit. Pick six or eight people who represent either both sides or (preferably, but perhaps unrealistically) neither side at all, but who are constructive and civil (and who are skilled enough to tackle a topic so complex) and appoint them as a sort of Trustees Committee. Let them edit. Then... and only then... can progress be made without all the hatin'. But I am a fool, because this painfully obvious solution will never happen. So... what will happen? two possible outcomes:

Do you see what we have now? Expect it to continue ad infinitum.
Someone blows their stack and gets either topic-banned, or banned outright. That will change the dynamics, but will not solve the systemic problem.

That's all. • Ling.Nut 05:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good in theory. Two problems: if the strongest partisans can find supporters to do their work for them, it will not be effective. If some of the partisans are "vested contributors", the contest will not be equal.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all of this is just chit-chat and a pleasant distraction, because it will never happen. But actually, I was considering something that could be set up to handle cases like this... not just for RCC, but permanently. With a more-or-less (loosely) permanent crew to handle such cases, then putting ringers or vested contributors in the Trustees would be difficult. • Ling.Nut 15:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by FAC

Hi Sandy. Horses in World War I has been drive-by nominated by an editor who has, to my knowledge, never edited the article. The FAC page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horses in World War I/archive1. I have been a main editor on this article, and while it is close to FA quality at the moment, it is not all the way there, still needing a bit of research and final copyediting. I do not have the time to finish the research and polishing work right now, so I request that you remove the nomination. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: List of editors the nominator isn't on it. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parks and Recreation (season 1)

Hey Sandy. Over at the Parks and Recreation (season 1) FAC, you had made a comment that the prose might still not be quite ready. I wanted to bring the page back to your attention because DocKino, a user noted for his copy editing prowess, gave the article a top-to-bottom, thorough copy edit, to the point that another user who had voiced some prose concerns has now changed his vote to support. I was hoping you could take a quick look and see if he has addressed your concerns as well. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 12:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have an admirer at the BBC

Tickle Cock Bridge and Sandy Balls were two of the answers on Have I Got News for You today, which seems beyond coincidence. Someone, post a jokey double-entendre here and see if it makes it in next week. I note that Tongue of Gangsta is still a redlink (yes, it is a real place, near Nether Button and Mid Ho). – iridescent 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not answering 'til you tell me, "What was the question?" And then I'm waiting for Malleus to make a funny, since Moni (on whom we can most count to take this to town) is MIA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little bit of guidance needed

There are a few psychology articles I'd like to do some work on, but I'm a little confused by the primary/secondary sourcing issue. Cognitive dissonance, for instance, which uses Festinger's papers. Can you summarise the policy on sourcing in words of one syllable, or point me towards what I ought to read before making a fool of myself? Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only after you display your budding sense of humor by answering Iri above :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching it now, I'll let you know. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the "odd man out" round. They showed pictures of Tickle Cock Bridge, a sausage roll, a Marathon chocolate bar, and the English Channel. The answer was that they'd all had their names changed, except for the English Channel. "Sandy Balls" came up as another site that maybe ought to consider a name change. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, Iri asked for a jokey double-entendre about the two of them appearing on the same show-- you don't really want me to give my views on Sandy Balls and Tickle Cock Bridge in public, do you? Do I need to put my funny hat on? WHERE is Moni when she is needed? Surprise me, Malleus! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I can say is that Sandy Balls were never reported under Tickle Cock Bridge. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the places I could go with that ! Well, I shall just have to struggle on without Moni. OK, here's the deal on psych articles-- they're a mess across the board, because psych editors seem to prefer to rely on what they know (or think they know), or what they see in primary studies, rather than seeking out secondary source high quality reviews, to avoid recentism and undue weight issues. They tend to want to add everything and the kitchen sink in to the articles, particularly primary studies that haven't been replicated or examined by secondary sources. The key is to rely on high quality secondary reviews, as those help avoid recentism, unreplicated primary studies (often based on small samples or poor controls), and keep due weight issues correct. Finding secondary review articles at PubMed is explained at WP:MEDRS-- you can see the extent of the problem in many psych articles, which have extreme lists of sources, because individual editors roll in every primary study in PubMed, rather than writing articles around high quality secondary peer reviews as explained in MEDRS. Is that what you need to know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus transport in the Republic of Ireland is looking more tempting by the minute, amirite? – iridescent 00:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. It's a different way of thinking about writing psychology articles than I'm used to, but I guess it makes sense for an encyclopedia. Secondary sources, not primary. Got it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie, I misspoke-- how to locate secondary reviews is not in MEDRS-- it was explained by Eubulides and TimVickers at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. Yes, it is a different way of writing psych/medical articles, particularly if you know a topic and know what needs to be said (as I did with TS), but one that if you adopt rigorously, will help keep out recentism, cruft, hobby horses, quackery, unreplicated primary studies with small sample sizes or poor controls that haven't been examined by independent reviews, and undue weight to everything and kitchen sink that other editors tend to want to add to psych articles because they read it in the lay press (alto to be avoided!). Secondary reviews give us due weight and discuss the primary studies that enjoy professional consensus, putting them in context. When I first wrote TS, I used primary studies-- because I knew all of the literature and the secondary reviews thoroughly, and I knew which primary studies were widely cited, high quality, and enjoyed professional consensus, and I also knew the drawbacks of each primary source, having read the full text of the journal reports. I could write TS from primary studies, I thought (back then, before MEDRS was written). Once Colin and Eubulides wrote MEDRS, I had to go back and replace all of those primary studies with secondary sources that mentioned them-- wasn't hard to do, since I knew the literature well and had cited primary studies that were mentioned in secondary reviews and had used the studies that enjoyed medical consensus-- but you rarely find that in psych articles. Instead, we find a whole lot of undue weight and recentism, because they weren't built to begin with around high quality secondary reviews that reflect professional consensus. Some of the most troubled psych articles (and some of those are FAs) have hundreds of sources, because they rely on primary studies, and have real problems of recentism and due weight and the use of unexamined primary studies. The articles that Eubulides worked on were scrupulously built from secondary reviews of the highest quality, so when newbie editors with a hobby horse try to add some recent primary study, it was easily dealt with, and "his" articles are clean. Almost everything in the psych realm needs cleanup-- Fainites might be an editor you want to work with-- I'm not aware of many other psych editors who understand how to write these articles correctly, as Eubulides and Colin do. By the way, I once discussed this with G guy, but didn't have time to follow up during the GA sweeps-- most of the medical/psych GAs should not be GA, because they overrely on primary sources, have undue weight and recentism issues, and are lacking the most recent high quality reviews. Something should be done about this at GA-- I started a sandbox somewhere but never found time to help out there. It would be good if GA reviewers were aware of MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your guidance. All of the psychology articles I was interested in are choc-a-bloc with primary sources, so I think I'll give them a miss. You know how much I hate any unpleasantness. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal National College for the Blind/archive1

I notice the FAC review seems to have been closed as not having been promoted. Just wondering if you've seen this discussion which appears to have given the sources the go-ahead. Thanks Paul Largo (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination had already been up for three weeks, without gaining consensus for promotion-- it's best to get everything in order before bringing it back for a fresh look, as reviewers are unlikely to engage a three-week old nomination when sourcing concerns were expressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15-day rule ruling

An issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive2 regarding my eligibility as a nominator given a recent FAC fail. Is it possible to get a consideration of this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TTT, it's important for you to read and understand the FAC rule put in place for just such a situation. Reviewers are worn down by nominators who treat FAC as peer review, bringing article after article to FAC that requires extensive work, and then putting up another nom as soon as the previous one is archived, then bringing back the former nom as soon as that one is archived. FAC is not peer review, and nominators that bring articles that consistently bog down FAC with lengthy reviews-- while giving little back in terms of reviewing other articles-- is precisely what contributes to the backlog. Perhaps you could take advantage of the 15 days to either address the issues in your previous nom, or help out with some much needed reviews of other articles at FAC. Reviewers are stretched, and constantly working to get articles up to snuff for experienced editors who should know the FA standards demoralizes them, wears them down, they get no reward for the work, and it backlogs FAC. FYI, here is the RFC which added this new "rule"; you might want to review Ealdgyth's data to see if any of the FACs mentioned in her data were yours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TTT, I'm confused - are you saying you want to renominate an article that you admitted you did not have time to properly research? You said you didn't have time to read the published books - if you don't have time to do the work, don't nominate the article. Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts

Scripts seem to broken right now. There was an update to mediawiki that might have something to do with it. Gimmetrow 22:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be only affecting a select few (see here). Feel special! Steve ^T • C 22:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to some pywiki scripts. I don't really have time to fix them. I hope the system now is reasonable to do by hand. Gimmetrow 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme, are you saying this is a temporary situation, or that you can't fix the script and we should close all FACs and FARs manually henceforth? I'm pretty sure Dana and YM follow my talk, so they should begin to add the {{FARClosed}} template when closing FARs now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be an easy fix, so yes, you should close them manually. Gimmetrow 12:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, thanks Gimme-- I'll leave a message at WT:FAC to see who can help out. Will you still be archiving WP:GO on Sat nights? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to general relativity

I'd be grateful for your thoughts and comments on TFA/R on whether the article is presently up to FA standards and should be run as TFA, for which it has been requested. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been happy with any of our math/physics FAs, so in general terms, I don't even need to look at the prose ... but I do see it's largely uncited. I was a physics undergrad who switched to math because the department chair was sexist, so those articles should be a walk in the park for me, but they all suffer from convoluted prose, yet reviewers who don't know math/physics seem afraid to take them on, while reviewers who do know math/physics don't seem to recognize the prose problems, since the material is familiar to them. People with grad degrees in the fields either don't see the problem, or disagree that the articles should be accessible to someone with an undergrad level of knowledge, should be written for an encyclopedic general audience, and aren't able to hone in on the problems during review, in the way that a scientific editor with good prose (eg TimVickers) can, while my prose is often too poor to explain the problems I cleary see-- the flow in those articles should be natural to me, with an undergrad level, and they never are-- I shouldn't have to stop and think about what a General or Introduction article is trying to say-- they don't flow as an encyclopedic article or undergrad textbook should. On the other hand, I disagree that articles shouldn't be run on the mainpage just because they have problems-- sometimes running them on the mainpage is just the right thing to get editors to engage and fix them up, and in this case, might precipitate either improvements or a FAR. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Then I'll leave it for the community's wisdom, so to speak. Although I did slice its claim to basic subject matter points. It may be about basic matter, in a manner of speaking, but very few junior highs send sixth graders to do reports on general relativity.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree-- and also agree that if TFA/R "voters" think it's bad enough that it shouldn't appear on the mainpage, they'll speak up (and then maybe do something about it)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully many will read beyond the blurb. But it has happened the people have gotten upset about the state of the article and voted it off. We'll see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an argument made once somewhere (can't recall where or when) that General or Introduction articles don't need to be cited because they are just a summary of general knowledge that anyone with a general background in those areas would know. I haven't checked the citation level in the article, but I suspect more citation is probably needed regardless-- if I were entering a declaration on that TFA/R, I'd probably take a closer look and Oppose, but you've convinced me that we shouldn't be entering declarations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Especially since I opined on its points, I would rather not do so myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]