User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch111

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thoughts[edit]

Hi Sandy, just wanted to take a moment and apologize for how I acted on WT:FAC today. In hindsight (which is always 20/20!) I was overreacting and doing both an overly aggressive and rather poor job of commenting. So, sorry you were the one to experience that and I really do greatly appreciate all the hard work you put in here. Until next time, best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well, so was I, which always happens when I am iPad typing, so worry not. My fault as much as anyone. (Sometimes my back hurts so much after the tree fell on me that all I can do is sit on the sofa with the iPad, where I am all thumbs.) I appreciate you stopping in ...and I thoroughly enjoyed your userpage. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 I will get over to the Captain as soon as I finish my routine watchlist stuff ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hermandad Lírica[edit]

On 3 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hermandad Lírica, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dolores Cabrera y Heredia, a Spanish Romantic poet and novelist, was a prominent member of Hermandad Lírica (Lyrical Sisterhood)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hermandad Lírica. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hermandad Lírica), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - December 2020[edit]

Issue 7—December 2020


WikiProject Medicine Newsletter


Hello. I hope this newsletter finds you well. For those struggling to focus on writing articles during these tumultuous times, you are not alone. For those stuck at home with more time and energy to dedicate to the encyclopedia, all the more power to you. There is – as always – lots to do. Here is what's happening around the project:

Newly recognized content

Intramuscular injection nom. Berchanhimez, reviewed by Bibeyjj














Nominated for review

Buruli ulcer nom. Ajpolino
Anatomical terms of location nom. Tom (LT), under review by ArnabSaha and Aircorn
Charles Bingham Penrose nom. Larry Hockett
Louise Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell
Blood culture nom. Spicy
Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia nom. Maxim Masiutin
Friedreich's ataxia nom. Akrasia25
Fish allergy nom. David notMD, under review by Bibeyjj
Kivu Ebola epidemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa
UPMC Presbyterian nom. Andrew nyr
Crown (anatomy) nom. Bibeyjj
Alzheimer's disease Notice of impending featured article review at talk.
Management of multiple sclerosis Notice of impending FAR at talk.
Major depressive disorder Notice of impending FAR at talk.

News from around the site

Discussions of interest

For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!

A WP:MED editor pulls yet another unsourced stub from the pile, thrilled by its immense potential.

Backlog of the month
This month I'm trying out a new element of the newsletter – a backlog of the month. The WikiProject Medicine template is on the talk page of 44,944 articles, of which 18,111 have some kind of maintenance tag on them, indicating problems large or small. Each month, I'll highlight some small task to get you out of your normal editing focus and chip away at the project's massive maintenance backlogs. I'll aim for tasks that can be worked on in small chunks, perhaps on days when you can't focus on big problems, or have 15 minutes to burn at your computer.

The first backlog of the month will be the 410 medicine articles that cite no sources. These tend to be lower-traffic topics. Some just need verification that the topic actually exists, along with a quick reference. Others are best redirected to more substantial pages, or even brought to AfD. Feel free to scroll through the list for topics that interest you, or just start at the top. This feature will last as long as folks are interested enough to engage with it. If you see backlogs that would be a good fit, post them here. Thanks all, and happy referencing!

Discuss this issue

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

Ajpolino (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19[edit]

SandyGeorgia, can you say what, as you suggest here, a section on the effect of the pandemic on a city should look like? I started one under Economy at Minneapolis, and also asked for best practice at WP:CITIES and WikiProject Minnesota. Silence so far. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm ... that's a tough one, because there are also effects under healthcare. I will poke about to see what I can find, or maybe a talk page stalker will have a suggestion. There is a COVID WikiProject also ... perhaps ask there if they are aware of any City/State/Country article that has figured out how to best handle it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I asked the COVID WikiProject. Somebody just removed the section and transferred it to COVID-19 pandemic in Minnesota on the grounds of WP:RECENTISM. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That actually sounds reasonable to me, although I haven't looked at the edits ... You might (in the same vein) handle Chauvin/Floyd via a See also link (RECENTISM). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page question[edit]

Hello again, and I hope you are doing well. I have a quick talk page-related question. I recently archived a peer review because I was feel a little overwhelmed, but I am not quite sure how to find out the "oldid" for that parameter of the article history template. This is the talk page in question: Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King. I am sure it is fairly obvious, but I'm not sure how to do that part. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aoba47 ... simple question, great frustration :) DrPda once wrote (meaning we once had) a script that would return from any article you were on an oldid for any date you gave. We no longer have that, and I don't know why someone hasn't written it. So, these days, the only way I know to find the oldid, if it's not given on talk, is to go through the history manually. But ... when use the subst: for closing a peer review, it does put the oldid on talk.

For example, if you look at a PR that I closed using the subst

  • When you close the PR there using the subst: it gives you the oldid: [1]
  • Then you use that to build AH: [2]

Remember, there are two steps to closing a PR ... closing the actual PR, which takes it off the PR page, and then closing it at article talk, which converts it on article talk to an oldpeerreview with an oldid.

Imagine my frustration that we used to have a bot that closed EVERY process and did all of this ... so I seriously appreciate that you are trying to learn this. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But ... when you do have to find an oldid manually:
  • You closed the PR at 22:04, December 4, 2020
  • So you go to history on the article: [3]
  • Click on the last edit BEFORE you closed the PR: this one
  • where you see that the oldid is: 992228649
If you revert your last talk edit, and then reclose the PR there using the subst: in the instructions, you should see that it returns that oldid for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response, and that is much more complicated than I expected! I think I understand it now though. I am just trying to be responsible with keeping the talk page in order whenever I do nominations like a peer review, etc. I believe GAs automatically add the oldid so I did not do anything manually for that one. Aoba47 (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe someday we'll have a fully functioning bot again, which converts every template on article talk to articlehistory. The bot operator we had was chased off by one nasty sockmaster and one nasty FAC nominator, and was a great loss. It is amazing to me that I am doing work these days that was automated more than a decade ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that there would another similar bot in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japan[edit]

When you have a moment, could you provide a talk-page update on outstanding issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I will get over to Japan and back to Halifax after I catch up on Mike's list above ... don't want to hold up his data analysis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, just saw this; just FYI the stuff I post is never urgent — I have so much data to enter there’s always something else I can be working on; plus I write and review too. So do it whenever is convenient for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do like to get them done ASAP ... and Nikki's Japan concerns are longer term. But thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue barnstar[edit]

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For helping to save Battle of Blenheim during featured article review - Dumelow (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dumelow; although I don't feel like my contributions amounted to much, I am happy to see you recognizing FAR work from others, too! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus FARC odd links[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia, on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Belarus/archive1 opened by buidhe a bunch of links about Belarusian Republican Youth Union are appearing. I assume this is a backend error, and you seem to be the person to go to about those. Probably a minor issue, but I thought best to ask. CMD (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CMD; yep, you've come to the right place. I don't recall who did the original coding, but that is a feature, not a bug. The pre-load pulls up all FACs and FARs that start with the term, intentionally IIRC, because of issues caused by name changes. Is it possible today to re-code it to be more specific? I don't know, but don't think it worth the effort ... we've learned to just overlook the extras, as sometimes pulling up everything results in one that is related to a name change. Hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks. I would never have guessed. CMD (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi! Re: "I promise I can summarize the evidence in this case in the allotted limits and diffs, as they are easily found and easily understood", go ahead and mention interactions with me if that's the only way to make your case, but if you can make a strong case without mentioning me, please do so. I do not wish to be involved in this dispute in any way or to have any interactions with Flyer22 Frozen.

(Note to anyone reading this; I am purposely not commenting one way or the other on the merits of the case. I have an opinion, but I prefer to keep it to myself and let Arbcom deal with this without my input). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guy ... I'll not expend more effort unless/until I see if the arbs will take the case. The number of admins who defend unconscionable behaviors there is precisely what gives the admin corps a bad rap (and why we find problems that fester and end up at ArbCom when admins won't correct such behaviors). I doubt the arbs will take it, so am not going to type more for now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Length of "Biblical criticism" FAC[edit]

Hi, SandyGeorgia. Jenhawk777 informs me that the FAC is becoming too long. Would it be helpful for me to move my struck comments to the Talk page? If so, that's fine by me. Indeed if you (or Jenhawk777) want to do this yourself, that's fine with me too. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off before you do any unnecessary work, Axl. There is a problem that template limits are being exceeded, which causes the entire FAC page (meaning other reviews) to be truncated. But if your review doesn't use a lot of templates, it won't necessarily be part of the problem. Problems are possibly related to line-by-line prose reviews that use a {{tq template on each post. I'll go have a look, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Axl I had a look, and best I can tell, there were only a very few templates you used (that came from you re-quoting parts of the article that used templates), but DrKay has already subst'd those out, so there is nothing in your portion of the FAC that is worthy of the work it would take to remove it or that will substantially improve the problem. Going forward, because of the extreme length of the FAC, just be aware any time you type a double bracket ( {{ ), that is using a template that will add to the problem. Some other editors have done some extensive line-by-line quoting of text, and there was lots of pinging back-and-forth, smiling templates, etc, collapsing, and so on ... all of which did use templates. I think you're good, and your brevity is a breath of fresh air (extremely lengthy commentary really should go elsewhere and be summarized back to FAC with a diff, precisely because of this template limit problem, that reared its ugly head only twice during my tenure as FAC delegate, and was quite a mystery to all of us the first time, as it caused the FAC archives to look like someone ate the end off of them because they just disappear when they hit the limit and are truncated. :) All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: might want to look at the information in this section, though, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(orange butt icon Buttinsky) I contacted CPA-5, as requested by the moderator, to pass the info along. I'm sure they will respond accordingly. I'm also sure Ovinus moving theirs must have helped as well. Ovinus is unable to finish their review but sent me the nicest message on my Talk page: "I wanted to express my sincere gratitude to you and Axl, along with the chorus of people who already have. I can only imagine how much thinking, writing, and research went into biblical criticism, from this to its current state. It's amazing... in my months here I haven't seen such an article risen like a phoenix from stubby (maybe Start-class) ashes. You say that the reviewing editors restored some faith in this place; your work has reinforced my faith too. Thank you." Ovinus (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC) [4] Isn't that a great comment? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical criticism[edit]

You recently posted this in a discussion on ISBN's that was posted to me in the FAC review. At least three editors have each spent days dealing with citation issues (samples only) at biblical criticism, and ALL of that fixing revealed problems with sourcing, original research, how to use sources, and source-to-text integrity. Citation cleanup often reveals deeper problems resulting from hurried nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 9:23 am, 1 December 2020, Tuesday (8 days ago) (UTC−6) It was very upsetting to read as it is untrue. No one has accused me of original research anywhere, and the only problems with source to text integrity were in my occasional failure to copy a quote exactly: in one case I left out the word "of" and in another wrote "were" for "are." In one of the long notes I had the order of the quotes wrong in one instance. Those are the kind of mistakes I made, but none of them were the kind of egregious errors you seem to claim here. Nikkimaria is amazing, she checked everything and she passed me. Your comment is very distressing, and I am wondering at its purpose. You told me you wanted this to succeed, and if that's so, this is an unusual way to go about that. I am feeling stabbed in the back. I am genuinely hurt by this.

The ISBN dashes have all been fixed now and there never was a mixture of 10s and 13s as I always use the 13 digit ones. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777, I am truly sorry you feel hurt, and do want such an important topic to succeed, but as I have said from my first post, the hurried approach was less than ideal. If you will re-read all of my commentary on the talk page of the FAC, you might see there were several times where it appeared that you weren't yet understanding how to use sources. To such an extent that we were talking past each other when you used terms like "bonafides" and I didn't know what you were referring to. And yes, I highlighted source-to-text and original research issues (search the page for terms and you will find them); this does not mean something (as you say) egregious was going on-- only that you didn't yet seem to have a full understanding of how to use sources on Wikipedia. I provided samples only, on talk, which uncovered sourcing issues; that is not meant to offend you and I am sorry it has. It doesn't make you a bad person, or mean you did something nefarious intentionally; it only means you were still learning.
A. Parrot was also attempting his second source check when he discovered source-to-text integrity problems, on talk, but you went forward with the FAC two days later. This hurried approach has, paradoxically, slowed you down. In general (and even more so for such a weighty and important topic), when you bring an article forward at FAC, it is helpful to leave behind any emotional attachment and be prepared to accept critique intended to make your article stronger and help the article gain the star.
Yes, Nikkimaria is amazing, and we all know that :) But not everything has been checked yet; if you will be more open to understanding how FAC works, and not become offended when people try to explain, we can get there faster. Right now, it appears that Biblical criticism might hold the record for the longest FAC ever, (I checked, it doesn't, but close) and its length is affecting the viewability of the entire FAC page. I hope that helps you understand, six weeks later, that this is why I said then (and still say now) that Peer review would have been a more efficient, and more effective, way to proceed when the article wasn't quite ready, with A. Parrot's source review being cut short just after he started. And why I implored you several times not to be chatty on the FAC page, as I could see we were headed towards a very long FAC. It is not typical to have a FAC this long; it is an indication that the article wasn't yet ready, and work could have proceeded faster off FAC where there is no pressure to strike, cap, mark resolved, etc. And I haven't yet even raised the question of why Google Scholar coughs up a lot of untapped sources; I hesitate to add to the length of the page.
Yes, I want Bibilical criticism to succeed, and I hope Wikipedia can continue to benefit from your scholarly knowledge, but emotive language like feeling "stabbed in the back" is not going to encourage some reviewers to want to try to help. I won't use such emotive language to describe how frustrated I feel at attempting to help and making no progress. You clearly bring a WEALTH of knowledge on the topic to Wikipedia, and people have engaged because we honor and respect that and hope to see you succeed. But please understand that FAs aim to be Wikipedia's finest work, and when you bring an article there, there will be critique-- the more strident that critique is, the stronger article you will end up with. All the best to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And then, there's posts like this:

I am writing every commenter on the FAC that someone is complaining about the length of the FAC so I am asking everyone if they have any comments that can be moved to the Talk page instead. I would deeply appreciate anything you can do to help with this issue. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You may not be understanding that this is not "complaints about the length of the FAC"; this is one FAC that is so long it is causing the entire FAC page to truncate (and could cause the same problem in the FAC archives, once the FAC closes). I'm not sure you're understanding that the length of this FAC affects the visibility of other reviews because it exceeds the limits of what Wikipedia's software can handle. Does this mean that because I was a FAC delegate (Coordinator) when this issue (template limits) was explained by a technical person, and I can now explain it to others, and do a few things to help resolve it, I am now being painted as the "someone is complaining" ? Jen, people have to be able to point things out to you (and even attempt to help) without it becoming personal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777 is there something you want to say on this page? Because to my knowledge, you are making a false claim about some editor on Mike Christie's page, and I would not want to think you meant me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted this comment: Moving all of my section to the talk page of this FAC, as the FAC is now so long and filled with templates that it is causing a problem with the entire page. (A reminder please, not to use templates on this page like smiley faces, as they cause the entire FAC page to reach template transclusion limits, that cuts off other FACs on the page and in archives.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC) to be a comment on both the length of the FAC and the smiley faces I posted on it. I do understand what you said about this impacting other reviews, therefore, I tried to cooperate with your efforts to deal with that. I removed the smiley faces, and then attempted to get others to follow your example and move what they could to the talk page. It is a complaint, a just complaint, that needs to be responded to, so I asked. I can't see how I have done anything in this instance but try and cooperate with what you did and get others to do the same. The rest is a different issue.
I don't need to reread your comments. They were on formatting, and we fixed them. There is no original research in this article, the sources are good, and the fact that there are a gazillion others out there doesn't mean a thing. All my sources are from reputable quality academic sources, found on Google scholar, and are accurately reflected in the text. Ir's true I made the mistake of thinking that when I didn't hear from A.Parrot that he was done. I wasn't in a rush, but going back over how I shouldn't have nominated is moot now. I did. We are where we are now. I'm not touchy. I haven't had any problems taking any of the criticism, complaints or corrections of BC in stride - until this from you. So, I ask that if you are going to make statements about sourcing accuracy, please come and do a spotcheck yourself, so those claims can be accurate. I will appreciate it if you find any problems with accuracy because I will want anything like that found and fixed. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DrKay had already removed the smiley transclusions by the time you saw that, and converted them to straight files. I understand this isn't something you are likely to be familiar with (most editors aren't), but please AGF when so many other people are trying to help you succeed on a weighty and worthy topic. (DrKay went through the whole FAC and removed every transcluded template he could, and the FAC still has so many templates that it is causing the whole FAC page to truncate ... those are probably coming from the numerous {{tq templates on the page, as people are doing line-by-line prose review.) If you could decelerate the pace, and be sure you understand things before acting, there may be less misunderstanding. For example, asking Ergo Sum to remove his comments on the FAC will not resolve the problems; the issue of template limits comes from transcluded templates, and he had none of those in his short post. People are willing and happy to explain things to you, if you will ask.
No, my sourcing and citation comments were not only on formatting; although I started out giving examples of citation formatting issues, that led to the discovery of sourcing issues. You seem to be making such distinctions with respect to other sourcing concerns. I am sorry I am not able to help you better understand what is involved in checking for source-to-text integrity, good uses of sources, etc. Yes, my initial work involved a spotcheck; there are multiple instances on FAC talk where I explained the problems with how you were using sources or questioned your use of sources. I suspect we may be at a place where you may not be able to hear my advice, or understand that many editors are on the side of wanting to see Biblical criticism earn the star, as I am. It is the approach to this FAC that has made your progress harder than it needed to be (and it is becoming unpleasant for me). Slow and steady wins the race. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of why it is helpful to make sure you understand issues:
  1. 22:08, 9 December 2020 To Mike: Please help if you can. Jenhawk777 [5]
  2. 22:10, 9 December 2020 From me in response: Before spreading such accusations, maybe you will finish the conversation you started on my talk page? SandyGeorgia [6]
  3. 22:35, 9 December 2020 Here on my page: I will appreciate it if you find any problems with accuracy because I will want anything like that found and fixed. Thank you. Jenhawk777 [7]
  4. 22:47, 9 December 2020 Back at Mike's: I have answered in the discussion I started on your talk page before coming here. Jenhawk777 [8]
Do you see the time-stamped order of events? You came to my talk page 25 minutes after making this claim about someone on another editor's talk page. Considering the amount of work Mike Christie and I do together (have done together for years), it is unpleasant to encounter such claims on his talk, and have to wonder if you are referring to me and if so, why you are spreading that before working it out with me. With similar to Ergo Sum and Axl-- two other editors I work with and whose pages I have watchlisted because of our work together. I can't force you to re-read the FAC talk page if you don't want to, but yes, I did spotchecks and pointed out places where you were using sources incorrectly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're mistaken. Look at the time on my first post here. It's directly above. It says 21:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC) That is 21:25 untranslated.
  • The message to Mike is stamped at * 23:08, 9 December 2020 [[9]]
  • The response to you timed at 25 minutes after my post to Mike: 22:35, 9 December 2020 Here on my page: I will appreciate it if you find any problems with accuracy because I will want anything like that found and fixed. Thank you. Jenhawk777 [10] was actually my second post to you.
As I see it, there are two issues here. You wrote a complaint at the FAC page - as I said a just complaint - that I attempted to immediately respond to and cooperate with and went and asked others to do the same. What difference could it possibly make to that, that you have worked with Mike Christie? Are you saying he will automatically be biased on your behalf? In what regard? In what way are there any sides to take? I didn't argue with you on either the length or the templates, I just cooperated the best I could.
But your other comments, the ones not on the FAC page, those are the ones that are unfair and unjustified. If you did a spotcheck, you failed to tell me at the time, and you failed to tell me where you found I was using a source incorrectly. Formatting a source incorrectly, yes, and I was genuinely grateful for your help with that. The details are my weak spot, I do know that and have since junior high. But sourcing incorrectly? No. There are no problems with the research, research is my strength, and I know that too. I stand by the quality of the work I have done here. It is professional caliber - in spite of its formatting issues - which if you read many professional journals, as I do, you will note aren't always perfect in their referencing either. Editing errors are common in fact, in spite of all the software. By themselves they don't make an article unprofessional.
From now on, I ask that you please be specific when making statements about my sourcing. Let's not deal in sweeping generalities. If there is a problem with a source, say exactly where and what type of problem, please.
I didn't mention your name anywhere I went and asked people to move stuff to the Talk page. I didn't mention your name when I went and asked Mike to come do a spotcheck. First, because I didn't want to say anything that could be construed as negative about you, while I felt I needed to tell everyone to move what they could; and two, I didn't mention your name because it is not your business who I ask for help, or why or where. I can go to anyone I see fit and ask them for a review. I should be able to do so without fear of recrimination. If that isn't in the FAC rules it should be. It was wrong of you to show up on someone else's talk page, in someone else's conversation, and embarrass me like that. It never should have happened, and the error wasn't in my asking him for help. It was inappropriate and not fitting behavior for a FAC reviewer who is one of the best WP has to offer.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand (as you have said several times) that the FAC process has caused you some stress. My advice is the same as it was at the onset, and is all contained in User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. I don't "show up on someone else's talk page" when that is a talk page I have had watchlisted for well over a decade, and when I find you speaking apparently of me on no less than three editor talkpages I have watchlisted (and misrepresenting the situation). I hope you will find that a dispassionate approach to FAC will mean more reviewers will be willing to engage your worthy work. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you suggested, I went and reread your comments. I found this:
  • For other reviewers, I have not done a comprehensive MOS check, nor have I done a source check (rather focused on formatting issues). Hopefully this work has made the article cleaner now for an examination of prose and sourcing. I will check in again later for a MOS re-review, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 3:38 pm, 13 October 2020, Tuesday (1 month, 28 days ago) (UTC−5)
  • and this OK, I started this talk section to focus on stylistic issues, so they would not derail your (very worthy) FAC, but this is getting away from style and into substance, that should be raised back at the FAC... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:10 am, 13 October 2020, Tuesday (1 month, 28 days ago) (UTC−5)
I found nothing that says you did a spotcheck for source text accuracy or that informed me of any results of such. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jen, search the page for original research. What is it that you hope to accomplish by pestering (busy) people who tried to help you? How unpleasant. Do you think this behavior will make reviewers eager to engage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one mention of OR. It interpreted the use of emphasis on one word as OR, and even though there is nothing in the MOS on emphasis that says that, [11] I removed it anyway. That's it. There are no other mentions of OR. Claiming there is OR in the article is false. Based on your own words, claiming you did a spotcheck is false. But if you don't want me to respond anymore here I won't. I'm happy to be done with this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC) [12] Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give up easily on people. And I'm not prone to throwing people off my talk page (although I will archive interruption and unhelpful distractions). Here's what the Pollyanna in me hopes you will understand. You bring a very black-and-white interpretation to other people's words, especially when you aren't that familiar with FAC. That I spot checked the sources I mentioned is one thing. That I wanted to be sure other reviewers did not consider it a full spot check (knowing that one was still needed because of the amount of issues A. Parrot found, along with mine, along with the original research, along with your misunderstanding of how to use sources ala "bonafides") is another. Try to see grey and hold more than one thought in your mind at a time.
Separately, here's what you are accomplishing with this behavior. I saw an ill-prepared FAC that warranted solid review appear at FAC, and because of our shared past, I refrained from entering the strong Oppose that I should have. I didn't because of what you had gone through with the Jytdog incident. Had I entered an Oppose, you would be further along than you are now. So ... considering your behavior, do you want people wondering if just maybe Jytdog was right? Because all you have accomplished is to make me ponder that possibility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of this equivocating, obfuscation and personal attack even deserves a response. I am done here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabji FAC[edit]

Hello SandyGeorgia, thank you once more for your comments in the Sorabji peer review. I have just nominated the article at FAC here and I would be grateful for any additional feedback on it that you may like to offer. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will look in Toccata quarta once I get all caught up ... please come back here and poke me if I forget! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SandyGeorgia, apologies for disturbing you (I watchlisted your talk page back when I first posted here and am amazed by the volume of commentary and work that you are involved in), but I just wanted to ask you if you would have the time to check the Sorabji FAC in the near future. Image and source reviews there are underway and it would be good to have a clearer view of the direction the FAC nomination is headed in. No need to rush, of course. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do today ... as you can see, I have been busy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! For your amusement (or not) and with reference to a recent discussion at the FAC talk page, I bring this edit of mine to your attention. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toccata quarta: Amusement is a most welcome relief :) As you can see, I have had a hard time being able to have the uninterrupted focus that I prefer to bring when I seriously review a FAC (so I've gone off and done other mindless tasks in the interim). And I'm unlikely to throw someone off my talk page, so I guess I'll just wait it out :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hi Sandy, sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could put up a review for the "Cups" FAC? It's been almost a month since the nomination got any reviews. I want to get the article to Featured Status before I retire from Wikipedia. If you cannot, I totally understand. Thanks a lot. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

on my list, will try for today, but no promises ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats![edit]

Just saw that Complete blood count is today's featured article. That's awesome. Good job! Le Panini [🥪] 01:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just a bystander/cheerleader ... the credit for that goes to Spicy, who has turned in to one awesome editor and FAC reviewer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
For all the hard work you put into Wikiproject Medicine articles for the benefit of society. Your efforts do not go unnoticed! Thank you, Spyder212 (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why, thank you so much, Spyder212; and thanks for cleaning up after me in there. Those articles are looking decent now! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up[edit]

Potential problem at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Istanbul/archive1. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RD ... I pinged Diannaa, the blocking admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charcot disease[edit]

Have you read the dab page you comsistently delink from? The text in the article mentions (without naming each of them – it is the lead section) several illnesses that can all be called Charcot disease. Then I link to the one page in this dictionary from which you can read about them.

The prohibition against linking to dab pages can't reasonably have been set up with such cases in mind. It must reasonably have been set up to avoid links that do not lead to the relevant article or articles. 151.177.57.31 (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:OVERLINK is the relevant guideline: “Disambiguation pages, such as the Elsa page, should not be linked from articles unless the link is purposeful in a hatnote. Link instead to an appropriate choice on the disambiguation page. If necessary, the new link can be piped, such as in [[Elsa (Frozen)|Elsa]], which appears as Elsa and links to the article about the fictional character. Readers should not be directed to disambiguation pages unless there is no other option but to do so.” Clearly, as I have now done (while typing slowly from an iPad), there is an option. When I an NOT typing from an ipad, I will make a broader adjustment to the body of the article (or you can) at Jean-Martin Charcot spelling it all out and explaining all of them. But a dab link (particularly in the lead of an article) should be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I amended my post before I was aware of your answer. Yes, you could always mention each illness separately. I thought the opposite of you: that much is too much for the lead and belongs to the body of the article. But well, I can have it your way too. 151.177.57.31 (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can work on this later today, one solution could be a section within his article that the lead links to ... ie an internal link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP 151, I am now on a real computer. My apologies for the brevity. A very large tree fell on me some years ago, and tried to kill me, but I recovered from the subarachnoid hemorrhage and was left with back injuries, such that I try to get as much done as I can from the sofa with an iPad, which makes for many typos and brief posts that sound rude.

Have a look now at what I did at Jean-Martin Charcot and see if that does the trick ... as it turns out, we already had a section in that article that we could link to from the lead, accomplishing the same thing the dab link would accomplish, and it's OK to use a dab link in a hatnote. I hope this addresses what you wanted to do.

By the way, if you register an account, communication with you will be much easier, and you actually have better anonymity with a registered account, as we don't see your IP then. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your accident. We all have our reasons, either we don't know them and can't judge or we know them and might know better than to judge…
I overlooked the "Eponyms" section, that seems a good solution. Thanks for your work! I still can't see why rule should prevail over common sense in the case of a dab used in the same way, though. But I feel no need to discuss that here and now.
I know about registration, but it could get me more involved than I have time or energy for. Sorry if it makes communication harder, though I can't see how in this case. Best regards, 151.177.57.31 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that not all dab pages have such a clear connection as this case, so it doesn't work to link to dab pages in most cases, where the reader might not be able to figure out which article is intended. Good to hear from you-- glad you like the solution! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I'm totally with you there! Only if the dab page solves an inconvenience (e.g. by listing things pertaining to one and the same thing or person like here), not it it creates one. I thought my original post was clear on that point, but perhaps it wasn't. Best regards, 151.177.57.31 (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020[edit]

Apologies for the confusion, I was off the night shift and half out of it when I posted the messages. To clarify, I looked at each article with the FAC toolbox links and according to the toolboxes - and only the toolboxes - that articles are still technically FA-class. One or two of the links show as dead, which I'm sure I can fix with ease, but the bulk of the citations and the information present in the articles are still green and accurate , all the more so since with battleships the information doesn't change due to deployments (they're all retired). The actual article text though needs a read through by the GOCE or others to check for SP&G issues and as you pointed out there are minutia issues (like image sand witching) that are factors too. All in all, from a strictly technical perspective, the articles are still FA worthy, but they do need a spit a polish. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: thanks for the update; I was just really unsure what your posts meant, and wanted to make sure you know that we aim for brevity at that page, lest it spiral out of control. I am willing to help correct the image sandwiching on your articles ... but there are so many (not really helpful, perhaps decorative) that have been chunked in to those, that it may be helpful for you to first go through and delete those which aren't really adding anything. If you do that, I will then work on fixing the layout to avoid MOS:SANDWICH. Also, if you tag the deadlinks, others may come along and repair them.
So, the way to approach WP:URFA/2020 is to just add one of the following:
  1. Satisfactory, one of my own noms and your sig (when we end up with signed "Satisfactory" declarations, we move it to the section no longer needing review)
  2. Satisfactory, one of my own, with notes (add a diff to the notes on talk)
  3. Notes (with the diff), no sig needed, since the sig is in the diff and you aren't declaring it Satisfactory

With 1, you are saying it is up to snuff, and others will look in and add notes if needed. With 2, you are saying it is good enough, but leaving a record of the notes. With 3, you are not yet ready to say it is up to snuff and leaving a record why. Scroll down the WP:URFA/2020 page to see samples. Let me know if I can help you with images ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed one dead link in the article for Illinois, the dead links reported in the Iowa-class battleship article are all actually working save but for one: https://www.maritime.org/doc/destroyer/fiveinch/index.htm. When I attempted to open this link, I got a warning in firefox that the website was unsafe. do you and @Peacemaker67: get this error as well? If so then it'll need to be replaced with something less alerting. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get the warning too. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the site is supposed to have schematics or something, at least according to a cached version I found online this morning. Not sure why exactly it’s saying the site is dangerous, but if it’s just schematics for a 5”/38 caliber gun mount it can’t be too hard to replace. I’m beat, but I’ll look into this again tomorrow morning and see what I can do with it. 2600:1011:B126:A7D2:E8A9:AFCE:E9BF:FB62 (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Things that suck about FAs...[edit]

...is that they need periodic updates. I've settled into a habit to do a mass update of my reviewed articles once per year in December and well it's now December. Got the first 20 or so knocked out, the next will come over the following weeks. How did other FA regulars deal with the problem? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how others do it, but will speak to medicine. Most didn't, which is why most medical FAs aren't. Eubulides (now gone) used to update autism, Asperger syndrome and Daylight savings time pretty much every day. He seemed to get new reviews in as soon as they were published. My system is that I check PubMed about once a month, and if anything important changes, I print the journal report and wait until I have several accumulated on my desk (my nag pile) before I sit down to do an update. Right now, I have three Tourette syndrome reviews sitting here which have minor things I can add, but more importantly, I will use them to keep the sources recent. On dementia with Lewy bodies, because it hasn't yet run TFA, I put new things in right away. I am curious to know how the biology editors keep their articles updated, with respect to distribution numbers, etc. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movie World FAC[edit]

Hi Sandy, just wondering if there is any more forthcoming on the FAC for Warner Bros. Movie World? Not urgent per se, as I'm sitting on three supports, however Gog the Mild and I are wondering as you indicated you may return. Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Osteoporosis and dairy[edit]

JenOttawa asked me to eyeball what is going on at the Osteoporosis article. I will not be editing the article directly (old COI, I was with the National Dairy Council research dept. in the late 80s when NDC was funding a lot of this research). I will weigh in on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... I will catch up there later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A peace offering[edit]

When I said I admired you and appreciated your work I meant every word. I'm sorry that I got offended, and most of all, I'm sorry that I said so. I should have walked right past it. You have a right to have opinions without being harassed for them even if we disagree. Please forgive me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers![reply]

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

@Jenhawk777: and the same peace offering from me to you :) If you are open to it, I will post some ideas at Talk:Biblical criticism that I hope will make things easier on you, and help assure a bronze star in short order -- you're almost there ! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sandy, thank you very much. I am glad to think we can put this behind us.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Always :) I promised Gog a couple of FAC reviews that I need to get after next, but will later put some of my ideas for you at article talk. Only ideas ... which you can discuss with other active collaborators, and feel free to reject if you wish. I think they'll help you get there faster, and feel better about the whole darn thing :) All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to your ideas which I feel sure will be good. There are two reviewers left, and they are slow but worth the wait. Axl started back when you did but he is getting toward the end now. His comments and questions have all been intelligent. Hopefully this will wrap up soon - as long as no one else shows up and starts over again! At this point, many of the changes being asked for are changing 'happy' to 'glad' or changing something another editor asked for back again to the way I had it in the first place. So much of this is just personal style - putting an introductory clause in the middle of a sentence instead of at the start - but as long as it doesn't affect accuracy, I cooperate. I have had to spend some time explaining why some of the changes requested could not be made. Noone seems to have taken umbrage though since I could show what the source said.
May I ask a question? I was told by another editor here that when I reference a scholar that does not have a wiki page to link to, that finding a link about them with their qualifications that can be used instead is a viable option, especially in long articles, so I don't have to say "the historian..." or whatever they are in the content of the article itself. I couldn't find anything about it anywhere in MOS, so I assumed it was one of those things people just did informally. But you called it a misuse of sources, and I wondered what your thinking on this is. Perhaps an explanation will help me see your point. They are gone from BC now, but I would like to know whether this is a viable option or not for future articles. Thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This requires some explanation, and different possibilities. As I recall, one of the examples I labeled as an incorrect use of sources was the course syllabus that was citing (I can't remember, a number of something ... number of scrolls discovered? ... along with the absence of an "as of" date?) A featured article wouldn't typically cite something to an undergraduate course syllabus, and in that case, particularly when the data was very old and it would be possible to find the underlying, higher quality source for that data.
So what you were citing there was a separate issue from whether the author (professor if I recall?) qualifies as a WP:SPS. Their course syllabus is a self-published source, so if you want to use them to cite text, you have to be able to justify that they meet SPS, that is: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
A separate question is whether your substantiation of an author as an SPS needs to go in the article. Not necessarily. If you are questioned about the reliability of a source at FAC, you can provide supporting data of their "work previously published by reliable, independent publications" on article talk or at the FAC (this comes up all the time with video game articles, for example).
I did this sort of thing once (but have since been able to replace the information with other, better sources). Look way back here to 2006 to see that I explained why I included a self-published blog from Roger Freeman, and justified that he is a published expert on TS, so his blog could be used for the limited purpose I was using it for. And see that I used him as a source at citation no. 38.
If another editor has a technique for how to work that kind of information into a citation, I'm interested in seeing it in practice. But it's not necessary: you just have to be able to justify Self-published scholars, and you can place that on article talk, in response at a FAC, or in a sub-page, eg Talk:Bibilical criticism/Self-published sources, and then if you're ever questioned, you can just provide that page. (Which will save space to avoid the dreaded lengthy FAC issue :) I think part of the issue with how you were earlier using sources was that it wasn't clear in some cases if you were citing the self-published information, or including the citation only to explain who the author was. And we were misunderstanding each other when I inquired. Probably the best thing to do is to explore on article talk a concrete example of where you might need to do this, as I did years ago with Roger Freeman.
And then, there's another possibility. If a scholar meets notability, but just doesn't yet have an article, you should/an WP:REDlink them, and go fill that in as you have time. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: are you able to provide here for Jenhawk777 that page that you and I put together eons ago to justify an SPS on the Gilbert and Sullivan articles? That might be helpful ... I don't know where to find that page. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a misunderstanding created by the fact BC was first done over two years ago. The article you refer to was a journal article when I used it two years ago. Since that time, it become inaccessible because he created a course out of it, and took it off line to be used solely in his class. I didn't know that, of course, until you asked me about numbers of texts being updated - a good question btw - and I went to check, couldn't access it, found out why, and found another source instead. I never saw a syllabus or used anything that could be considered self-published. I used a journal article that later became inaccessible.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically asking about the info on the scholars themselves. Something like their university website page that says who they are and what they've written, etc. The kind of thing that would be included on a WP page on them if they had one. You called that a misuse of sources - I thought - and I wondered why.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I understand what you're asking now ... if I misunderstand, keep trying. We can't use a self-published page to justify a self-published source. Most university webpages are written by the very person we are trying to establish as an independent, published expert. They are not "independent", and they are sometimes full of irrelevant puffery. We need links to the actual independent reliable sources that have published them. Ssilvers will likely pop in here shortly with an example we put together years ago. He needed to extensively use a self-published source, known as THE expert on Gilbert & Sullivan, but I opposed using his own website until Ssilvers presented his "bonafides" (as you call them :) separately ... meaning, a list of the independent reliable sources that discussed that self-published author. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That perfectly explains it. I thought University pages were published by the University, and were therefore reviewed by the university, I did not know they qualified as self-published. Thank you, that makes perfect sense now! I knew you must have a good reason for what you said, I just didn't know what that reason was. Thank goodness you had me take them all out! Oh my! I will go back and explain to the editor who first told me this was an option that it isn't and why. This will ripple outward, improving WP thanx to you! There are a lot of people who do this! Yikes! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose each university has its own policy, but yes ... this can be a problem .. similar to obituaries, often written by the family. I am done with one FAC review, so getting closer to working on BC ... but one thing for you to think, about, Jen ... is that you will be MUCH more likely to garner reviews when you re-launch BC if you show your face around other FACs more often ... you could review something not within your area (we always need that), or if you feel uncertain, you can wade in to WP:FAR. The experience will help you enormously in the long run. Give a try to Buruli ulcer, for example ... a non-medical person should be able to digest all but the most technical parts. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. I think this is what Sandy is looking for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yep, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC timing[edit]

Hello again. I was thinking about putting up a new FAC in the near future, but I remember reading somewhere that activity is generally slow around this time of the month due to the holidays and other factors. For that reason, would you recommend waiting until next month to put up anything new, or am I just over-thinking things? The FAC list is already quite long so I would not want to take any attention away from active FACs that are still in need of reviews and attention. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not worry about timing ... because of COVID, all bets are off this year as to how people are spending their holiday time. Do it when the time is right for you! And the Coords have been extremely forgiving with time, knowing how people’s lives and time are so affected by the COVID disruption. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very quick response. And that is true. COVID has certainly made everything incredibly weird this year so it is important to take that into account. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Grady[edit]

Hey, regarding this edit [13], let me just say thanks. I saw the birth date missing from the article, then quickly found the date in several places, and just threw it in there. Then I saw your edit reverting it in the past. So I did a bit more searching, hoping to find something RS, but yeah, while there were at least four "sources", they all came back to wikis of one sort or another. So I came back to revert myself, only to find that you had beaten me to it. :-) Unschool 14:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No prob ... because she is "in the news" so to speak, there have been a lot of editors adding a number of unreliable sources that are circulating ... I haven't had time to check everything, but there could be more in there that is not reliable (that has snuck in since someone added an infobox without consensus-- which is where unreliable content usually sneaks in ... ) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between websites and articles for accessdates?[edit]

What is the difference between websites and articles for accessdates? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 4thfile ... sorry I have not had time to revisit the article. The important distinction is easy to remember. If something exists only in an internet format, that means it can be changed, and that means we need an accessdate. If something is cited to an article that is published in hard print, that hard copy won't change, so an access date isn't needed. So in that case, if you are citing an internet link to a PMC, that is a courtesy link to benefit our readers to a publication that actually exists in hard print, and so doesn't need an accessdate. In that case (similar to books), you are actually citing the hard copy, which happens to be reflected in the PubMed link to the hard copy. Hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have I removed the right accessdates?[edit]

Have I removed the right accessdates on Hemothorax? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@4thfile4thrank: these are websites (not hard print) so should have accessdates:

  • "Hemothorax: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia". medlineplus.gov.
  • "Penetrating Chest Trauma". EMS World.
  • "Hemothorax". Merck Manuals Consumer Version.
  • "Aortic rupture, chest x-ray: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia Image". medlineplus.gov.
  • "Hemothorax". Merck Manuals Professional Edition. (although these are books, I believe you are citing the website, or do you actually have the book ? If you do, they need a page number) But Merck Manual in any case should be replaced as a sources-- it is not a high enough quality source for a Featured article.

These are actually book (with a courtesy link to a page preview only), so while they do not need an accessdate, they do need a page number.

  • Research, Equine (2005-07-01). Horseman's Veterinary Encyclopedia, Revised and Updated. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7627-9451-5.
  • Jones, David; Nelson, Anna; Ma, O. John (2016), Tintinalli, Judith E.; Stapczynski, J. Stephan; Ma, O. John; Yealy, Donald M. (eds.), "Pulmonary Trauma", Tintinalli’s Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide (8th ed.), McGraw-Hill Education, retrieved 2019-02-08

These are published at PubMed, so do not need an accessdate:

  • Seligson, Marc T.; Marx, William H. (2019), "Aortic Rupture", StatPearls, StatPearls Publishing, PMID 29083613, retrieved 2019-03-10 (but that is not considered a high enough quality source for a Featured article)
  • Hooper, Nicholas; Armstrong, Tyler J. (2019), "Shock, Hemorrhagic", StatPearls, StatPearls Publishing, PMID 29262047, retrieved 2019-04-08 (ditto)

Here, you have correctly included an accessdate, but the citation is incorrect and incomplete:

  • "Eurorad.org". Eurorad – Brought to you by the ESR. Retrieved 2020-11-12.

Hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American logistics in the Northern France campaign[edit]

Yeah, I missed the red flag there. One thing to keep in mind with MILHIST A-Class is that MILHIST is a very broad subject matter. For instance, my high school history classes never hit WWII at all, really, and I haven't read much about WWII, so I know little about that conflict. Between knowing little about WWII and what little I have read about it putting me into the Eisenhower was wrong camp a little, I just didn't see that as a red flag. FWIW, that article content has essentially been through ACR twice, as it was originally a single super long article that was split after an ACR. Sorry for missing that, MILHIST is just too broad to be an expert in more than a couple of areas. Hog Farm Bacon 20:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis not a criticism aimed at any one person ... I'll weigh in more later on; for now, I want to respect Gog's desire to have a conversation about the matter without me firing (I do have a tendency towards verbosity :) Merry Christmas! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

It looks like Beaver isn't passing this time either. I appear to have improved in in regards to prose and comprehensiveness but Nikkimaria has not removed their oppose, demanding that I explain why I chose certain mentions of beavers in culture. I never had to deal with this in my previous FAs. I base what things I should mention on my own judgement and if people think I should add or remove something they should be upfront. Could you help me for next time? LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can relate what guidance I would use for medical content vis-a-vis similar concerns. Generally what gets included is what is mentioned in broad-based recent overviews of the topic. It doesn't really work to say you use "your own judgment"; you need to find a way to base what you include on the preponderance of sources. What is in the best, highest quality sources you use ... that should serve you well, and I believe that is what Nikki is getting at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say the same thing: If you selectively mention something (e.g some pop-culture preferences but not others) you need to be able to justify it with something source-based. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't exactly her objection. I was curious enough, driving by and seeing this, to take a look, and whatever has happened regarding "prose and comprehensiveness", the grudging, dismissive, issue-dodging tone in responses that I remember being evident when I reviewed Wolf seems to have got a good deal worse. If you don't want people to comment frankly, don't go for FAC. Then you need to respond to them politely, even if they aren't experts. The mere length of your responses comes across as rude (maybe this is a cultural thing, if you actually live in a log cabin in the woods & rarely utter more than five words at a time, which is rather how you come over). Hope this helps. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that Johnbod has mentioned this, I will, too. LittleJerry, way back in 2012 (the year I resigned as delegate), I was concerned about your dismissive tone in response to reviews. Seeing how many FAs you had promoted while I was absent from FAC, I guessed that you had changed your approach and that your nominations had become better prepared with experience. Seeing how ill prepared Beaver was, and how unresponsive and dismissive some of your answers to reviewers are, gives me great pause about the quality of the FAs that were promoted between 2012 and 2019. Experienced nominators should be presenting well prepared FACs, not introducing new errors during FACs, and taking every comment that a reviewer carves out time to type seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you must know. I am on the autism spectrum and the majority of my FAs have been collaborations since then. When doing FAs. LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know, LittleJerry; I will factor that into consideration, but you should also be aware that a reviewer's time is gold, and when you have the attention of a reviewer, you have to be aware of doing everything you can to understand and address their concerns. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrard FAC[edit]

Hi, I didn't realise you had trouble with pings! I response to your question, no, I haven't sought clearance from anyone else. Is bringing the article to GA status not enough? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the question ... will go look as soon as I have time ... a link would help :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steven Gerrard/archive1. Here's the link. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REDMAN 2019, thank, I had a look (had forgotten). The reasons behind Template:FAC-instructions saying:

Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it.

are twofold: sometimes, editors who have significantly contributed may not agree that the article is ready for FAC, and if you didn't write a lot of the article, the concern is whether you have access to all the sources used in writing it.

Because I pinged the other contributors almost now a couple of weeks ago, we can guess they don't have an objection to the nomination. So the only thing that you need to respond to there is whether you have access to the sources used and are able to address any issues and answer any questions about the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own the books in refs 1 and 5, but apart from that I have access to all the sources. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you should just make a statement to that fact on the FAC page, under my inquiry ... at this stage, it is unlikely that the other editors have any objection (and their contributions aren't that great at any rate). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Begotten[edit]

Hello SandyGeorgia, I have been thinking how you were saying about the adding of Begotten's sequel Din of Celestial Birds made the table of contents messy. I had an idea for that and I wanted to run it by you. The main reason for that film's merger with Begotten was because there was not enough sources to ensure that it was its own article. I was thinking instead of having that section be the title of the film, the section should simply be titled "Sequel".--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays[edit]

Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Johnbod; this is lovely (and a reminder I need to get moving so I can send something before Valentine's Day this year :) May you have a blessed Christmas, and a safe New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slow as Christmas!![edit]

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings[edit]

Icy penitentes on Llano de Chajnantor, in a suspiciously well-lit landscape for a star-covered sky
Unfortunately this has already faded from view and won't return for 6,700 years, it would have made a good Christmas star
Happy holidays! And a good approximation of a winter-y landscape that I would like Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2021 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natalis soli invicto![edit]

Natalis soli invicto!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays[edit]

Season's Greetings
Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. Best Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Sandy, you have an out-of-date email address for me. You can email me via my user page and I will update you. Graham Beards (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings[edit]

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to:
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and - especially -
that the New Year 2021 will be an improvement upon the old of 2020.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 15:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC))

Question[edit]

Hey, Sandy would you think "Cups" is ready for FA? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ultimate Boss: one of my most fundamental concerns and beliefs at and about FAC, that I tried to enforce quite seriously when I was the FAC delegate, is that without the selfless and thankless effort of those who engage to review the work of others, we don't have any Featured articles. Basically, to my mind, reviewers are more important than articles, and more important than nominators, because FAC will not survive and has no meaning if reviewers are chased off or discouraged from reviewing. I hope you understand that I won't be weighing in on that FAC until I am certain you understand the importance of accepting reviewer critique, addressing it without taking offense and without lashing out at them. Without them, no article will ever get a star. I appreciate that you recently apologized at WT:FAC, but I hope you will take my perspective into account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting your input[edit]

Hi Sandy, hope you're enjoying the holidays. I'm wondering if I might once again call upon your experience for a FAC I nominated, William Feiner. There's been an oppose registered by an experienced editor, whose opinion I value, and as I noted on the nom, it's an oppose that I absolutely do not understand. I worry whether this might be because of some blindspot of mine. I've found your input has always added clarity and level-headedness to a FAC discussion, and wonder if you might contribute that once again. Ergo Sum 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek, Ergo Sum, I am so far behind, and I promised Gog two reviews today ... you are on my list ! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sandy. This particular FAC exchange has been terribly frustrating to me. I certainly appreciate it. Ergo Sum 01:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just glanced, and I need to think about it. You asked if you might have a blind-spot. Like Ceoil, I don't object to short articles ... but that said, on a few of them, it does seem that there is so little to be said about these fellows that I, too, begin to wonder if they are not beginning to take on a promotional feel. I began to wonder after I saw one of the TFA Coords complain about them in that vein somewhere along the line... can't recall which of them said it where, but something about a concern that we were promoting Georgetown on the main page. You are running that risk with these very short articles on people about whom there doesn't seem to be much to be said. That said, I haven't looked at the specifics of this article, and need to think more on this ... also, do remember, that the Coords can either accept or reject an Oppose of that nature depending on what other reviewers say, and Ceoil is a big-boy, so it won't be any skin off his back which way it goes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not trying to go for promotion, just comprehensiveness. My goal has been to try to get the entire list of presidents to FA status (a lofty goal, I know). My logic is that by being president of a major university, one is by definition notable, so might as well take each article to the highest quality. Just how some people spend most of their time trying to get a whole series of earthquakes to FA, I've been trying to work on the Georgetown presidents list. But anyway, if you're in the mood for a review, I'd appreciate it. And if you're open to specifically addressing Ceoil's point, I'd welcome that because I genuinely don't understand how their logic follows. Maybe if two people can disagree with me, that'll open my eyes. Ergo Sum 02:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing something similar with old science fiction magazines, but I've set myself a word count limit of 1,000 words for FA; below that I take the articles to GAN but not FAC. There's never been a consensus at FAC that there's a lower word-limit, but there are plenty of reviewers that don't like to see very short articles, and debates about them periodically break out on WT:FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. I like a lot of short articles, especially on alt and pop songs, and really like Mike's approach to SF articles, which scrupulously avoid the temptation to pad out, have a word count floor on FAC nomination, and should serve as some sort of model. Also, have looked for a re-start with Ergo here. Ceoil (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page clutter discussion[edit]

Hello SandyGeorgia, you may have already seen this (in which case I apologize for the redundancy), but I thought you may find the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 34#Thinking about a radical reduction of talk page banners of interest. All best, Toccata quarta (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly wait to read that ... but I had best finish my other work first, lest something in that discussion gets my knickers in a twist :) Thanks for letting me know, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quelccaya[edit]

Thanks for helping me making Quelccaya Ice Cap FAC-ready (where it has now arrived). In case you are interested, the next item I am pursuing is Huaynaputina (talk post). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it ... slowly but surely, I will get there, appreciate the tslk page reminder, since I lose track of pings, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Mays[edit]

Thanks for your comments on the Willie Mays peer review! I'm not aware of any baseball players who have a separate article on their careers, so I opted not to create one. However, I did manage to trim the article to about 8,500 words anyway! Additionally, I took out most of the howevers and alsos. I just nominated it for featured article status, so feel free to comment! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will look when I find time, good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find a falsifiable statement about changes in opposes[edit]

Sandy, I've not had much time today to look at the data, but I've been thinking about it, and I'm having trouble coming up with a way to look at the data that would prove or disprove your suggestion. As I understand your comment at FAC, you're saying that there once were more promotions with outstanding opposes, and this is hiding a decline in opposing because if those had been archived it would increase the % of opposes showing in the archive column in the table I posted, for those older years. The problem I'm having is how to distinguish between (a) opposes were more frequent because more FACs were submitted for weak articles and hence there was more to oppose, and (b) opposes were more frequent because people are less willing to oppose articles that would once have quickly drawn opposes. This depends on the actual quality of the articles, and there's nothing in the FAC archives that lets us determine quality. I did think about looking for people whose support correlates strongly with promotion -- that is, which reviewer is most likely to agree with the final outcome of each FAC? -- but that has other problems. I also tried a scattergram showing articles promoted each year vs. % support/(support + oppose) and I saw some indications of looser standards in 2006 and 2007, but not so much afterwards. If you can think of a better way to ask the question, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will ponder this over the day, Mike (meaning after caffeine and getting through other work). Maybe I can come up with something, but I suspect I may not ... my concern has long been that the things that one knows about what has happened to FAC cannot be proven or disproven with data, as a) there are too many conflating factors, and b) demonstrating issues requires pointing to specific FACs or nominators or reviewers, which is a trap I'm not about to walk in to. Let me ponder this ... but my main point of the post at FAC is that you've got to set aside 2006 and 2007 for any meaningful analysis, as the "anything goes" then is so unrelated to anything current. Wikipedia really was a very different place then, and FAC was looking for "I like it" to some extent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mainpage frustration[edit]

Hi Sandy, I'm wondering you insight on an issue, partly because of the initiative you took with the MacArthur photo messup (if I recall correctly) and partly because of the respect I have for your input. And I would welcome any input from Iridescent, whose talk page comments on the nature of Wikipedia makes me think they may also have some insight here. I think the easiest way to explain my frustration is to link this from the Admin noticeboard (there's also a small thread from the 25th of December on the Main page talk which I'm not sure how to link). You are both of course welcome to comment on the Admin noticeboard, but as I'm messaging here it may make more sense to comment here. The day has passed, so the issue no longer as pertinent, but I'm left in a rather awkward state. I'm just confused; I always had this impression that errors reported on the mainpage were dealt with super quickly, I posted as soon as I saw the issue (which was right at the beginning of the day) and am just disappointed in the absence of action taken. I feel strongly that I'm the right here, and part of me is blaming the Western bias of Wikipedia (which is understandable to some extent, considering this is the English Wikipedia). While I don't mean to pull that issue into this if it truly doesn't apply, that's how I initially felt. I don't know, am I overreacting here? I really can't tell. Best - Aza24 (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aza24, thanks for the inquiry ... although I am afraid my response will let you down. If you're overreacting, then I hate to ponder what that says about my reaction whenever I visit the mainpage. Just looking at the mainpage usually sends me into a ranting state with steam coming out of my ears, so I avoid it as much as possible. The outrage of the day at DYK (they seem to aim for BLP and V-breaching outrages for sensationalism), and the NOTNEWS/RECENTISM damage to articles from being in ITN, and the increasing lack of relevance or diversity of TFA articles, and the randomness of unfit articles at OTD ... arrrrgh. As to ERRORS, I long ago learned ... best avoided unless glaringly simple and easily addressed. The politics of the mainpage are just too frustrating for me to want to engage. Lately, because I am so frustrated that a full decade ago we had one bot that kept talk page templates in order-- something that we can't manage today-- I have committed to checking the talk page of every TFA for cleanup, and I've been going through every OTD with the goal of cleaning up the messes the OTD bot leaves on article talk for FAs, but I have to shade my eyes from seeing all the issues as I click through those articles. I wish I could give you better advice and encouragement, but after 15 years in here, all I can say is that the mainpage makes me see red. The pictures are often pretty, though :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS, here's your discussion from the 25th: [14] From trying to clean up the OTD messes on talk pages, what I have observed is that OTD seems to be a collection of whatever anyone submits to get an article on the mainpage. If there is any overarching criteria, I can't decipher it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ERRORS has been so thoroughly hijacked by a small group who treat it as their collective personal blog, that it no longer really serves much purpose in terms of its theoretical purpose in fixing errors and is now primarily a pulpit for a handful of people to vent about why their personal views of both notability and English grammar are the One True Path. (It's actually better now than it used to be, now the most obnoxious of the group has finally been ejected.) The person you want to talk to is The Rambling Man, who tried to drag it back to some semblance of its stated purpose and was hauled over the coals for upsetting the clique that runs it. Over the last few years I've personally come to agree with a radical proposal the now-departed Guy Macon made some time ago, of making the main page basically a Google-style searchbar with TFA, ITN, OTD, DYK and all the rest of the alphabet soup replaced with links to each of those items for people who are actually interested, rather than actually showing them on the main page. In the early days showcasing quality content, current events, and new articles made sense ("Look! Wikipedia articles can be high quality and aren't all messy stubs! Wikipedia differs from print encyclopedias as our model allows us to be up-to-date when facts change! Wikipedia is constantly growing!"), but nowadays the readers all know what Wikipedia is and mostly just want to get to whatever topic they're looking for.
One can empirically demonstrate that readers don't give a shit about the content on the main page. The Main Page averages about 6.5 million views per day; of the first 10 TFAs this month, they averaged 30,000-ish pageviews on the day. Even with the lockdown boost that's benefited Wikipedia in general, the link that's in the most visible slot on the page, always accompanied with a blurb explicitly written to try to attract the reader's attention and usually accompanied with an image explicitly chosen to be interesting, rarely gets a click-through rate of one reader in 200. And that's TFA, the most prominent part of the page; reader interest in DYK is so non-existent that we have a special page commemorating those DYKs that managed to get one reader in 650 to click the link. As editors we spend a lot of time and energy worrying about what gets to appear on the main page, but all the evidence is that our readers couldn't care less if we just replaced the whole thing with a gallery of cat photos. (This isn't a case of sour grapes or jealousy on my part; I'm the most frequently-listed solo nominator at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed*, and despite my near-non-existent activity at DYK I'm responsible for two of the entries at All-time DYK page view leaders. I can demonstrably show that I understand what is likely to engage somebody casually browsing Wikipedia, and thus am qualified to say that the Main Page in its current form isn't it.) ‑ Iridescent 16:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Malleus is listed more often than me, but mainly as a co-nominator/co-author, whereas for all my appearances I'm the one who wrote the hook.
Thanks for the ping Iridescent. Just one thing to note here relating to OTD, it is certainly not (in my experience) "a collection of whatever anyone submits to get an article on the mainpage", more it is the downselection of a handful of blurbs made by Howcheng in accordance with the guidance set out at WP:Selected anniversaries. There is no requirement on the articles to be featured or even good, but just to not suffer terribly from major issues. TFP is another such example, but probably the worst of the lot, where we feature a pretty picture but almost invariably highlight a tragically poor article. At the very least we managed to get some semblance of encyclopedic approach there when we tried to insist that at least the TFP blurb was verifiable in the article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TRM; that's a lot to read, but at least I know where to look now. From the few talk pages I viewed, I am wondering if anyone participates there except Howcheng. So, theoretically, for Aza24 to understand how the blurb of concern came to be, they would need to look at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/December 25. Which brings us back to my "indecipherable"; I can find no content there related to the blurb in question. Where else does one look or what am I doing wrong? That level of decentralization is odd to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you edit the page you will see a whole bunch of blurbs, some eligible, some ineligible (usually with the reasoning for ineligibility) and some selected for display. I think the original point was reasonably well answered, that the Jinnah's Birthday article was borderline stub and not really good enough, while the Muhammad Ali Jinnah article is featured, albeit mentioning the observance in brief. It could be that the birthday article was unknown to Howcheng (it was only created in August 2020). To the general point, Howcheng pretty much unilaterally selects the blurbs each day and a couple of us informally commit to subsequently fact-check them. I think it's fair to say I average around three error reports per day on OTD (which usually has 1/2 observances, 5 blurbs and 3 births/deaths per day). The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no discussion of that addition on the talk page, but for Aza24, it was added to that OTD page ten years ago. (I guess there really is no OTD process per se-- just select anniversaries decentralized across 365 pages ?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK the OTD entries can be added unilaterally. That's how I put 1669 eruption of Mount Etna on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 11. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had gathered that impression, but wasn't certain (that's what I meant above with "a collection of whatever anyone submits"). It's been on the back of my mind as there is a highly POV article that has run several times on OTD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sure you can add them to the eligible section but it’s down to Howcheng to select which ones appear. At the moment they’re selected around 40 hours ahead of main page appearance, so enough time usually to catch major issues. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I am going way off topic here, but how does having one person select all of the content for one rather large area (five or six items daily on the main page?) jive with dismissing the director of the Featured article process, who held NO such power, merely overseeing a community-wide process? Before today, other than working to clean up the clutter created by OTD entries on article talk pages, I had no idea how OTD worked (it was all a mystery), but it seems like you are saying that about one-sixth of the mainpage is chosen, every day, by one editor only. Considering the amount of damage that was done to the FA process by firing the one person where the buck stopped on accountability, and who kept the three processes working together (FAC, FAR, TFA), this is a very odd thing to be just realizing about the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think there’s any link between TFA and OTD but yes the process currently depends on one (at best two) people to select the main page items and one or two to check them. I’m sure Howcheng wouldn’t object to help or sharing it around. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have occasoinally dabbled in OTD just for something different...especially when I came to realise that some more notable or interesting anniversaries are not listed because of the poor state of the linked article. Am happy that someone is interested in it anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for this; it seems that many of my general feelings about the mainpage are shared with others. While I do think sometimes we hold it to a Platonic ideal that never existed – considering how different Wikipedia is now than in the earlier days (at least from what I gather, I wasn't around then) – I don't think this is any reason to cease or lessen criticism. Iridescent's point about "everyone" knowing what Wikipedia is now is a valid point, that certainly explains the essence of the mainpage. Even right now (unless I'm missing something) I'm pretty sure Nana Akufo-Addo's reelection has been there for more than a week (maybe longer, my vacation right now is all blurring together), which has stood out to me as particularly random. I recently joined as a delegate at WP:FTC and I was considering making an effort to resume Wikipedia:Featured topics/Main Page appearances, but now I wonder if it's even worth it. For FT (and I'd probably include GTs) I often feel they don't get much recognition, though the comments above make me unsure if this would even help. We have so few in comparison to FLs/FPs/FACs that I'd probably design it for once every 2–4 weeks, but I don't know... Aza24 (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On I'm pretty sure Nana Akufo-Addo's reelection has been there for more than a week, it's to be expected that at the moment the ITN stories will hang around longer than usual. Items only drop off when there's something else to take their place (a necessary consequence of the page's design, since otherwise it leaves a big white space opposite the TFA). Normally it's not an issue, but owing to the unique circumstances of 2020 there are fewer elections, sporting events and wars going on than usual, and elections, sports & war usually act as ITN's flush mechanism to keep things moving. (Although there's always a lot in the news on any given day, it's surprising how little actually meets even the minimal standards that exist at WP:ITNC; most news coverage relates either to parochial issues that are of no interest to the wider world, or to celebriy gossip that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.) At the time of writing, there hasn't even been a nomination of a potential ITN story for the past four days other than recent deaths, which appear separately.) ‑ Iridescent 04:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm pretty much the self-appointed "head" of OTD, but that's only because I'm the only person who's committed to doing this on a daily basis. A few people chip in here and there, but I do about 90% of the editing on the OTD pages. —howcheng {chat} 04:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent this is probably a good-a-place as any to put this: that was sure a big hit. How depressing, after a dozen editors got after it, and the TFA was rescheduled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's respectable enough by the standards of a December TFA. Pageviews in late December are always artifically low; the schools and universities are closed, people (in non-lockdown areas anyway) are often not at home, and the "check out today's TFA!" social media posts the WMF puts out get buried among assorted well-wishes so potential readers don't see them. ‑ Iridescent 18:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Iri ... that makes me feel a little less inflated. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of mine, Red-capped robin, only got 2k views on Dec 25, 2011....hehehehe Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Poor little birdie; that makes me sad, Cas. I shall have to go read it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall which one of my articles got the most page reads, but Salar del Hombre Muerto and Waw an Namus are candidates based on one-day reads and African humid period, 1257 Samalas eruption and Cumbre Vieja tsunami hazard get the most regular page views. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With a name like Salar del Hombre Muerte no wonder it gets pageviews ... people want to know who he was and how he died! Happy New Year, Jo-Jo, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2[edit]

So I've been around WP:WBFAN and She Has a Name is listed there as a Featured Article (Neelix's). I can't find that promotion, maybe there's an error in the archives? RetiredDuke (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

checking now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:2012 tour of She Has a Name has to be dealt with, working on it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Wikipedia:Featured article review/2012 tour of She Has a Name/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2015, and then the article was merged to She Has a Name.[15] But there is no listing at WP:FFA, and WBFAN needs fixing. I think we need both @DrKay and Rick Block: to help sort this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:FFA (and WBFAN) need to point at She Has a Name#2012 tour. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on the bot a bit lately and also noticed this - and SandyGeorgia is correct about the history. WBFAN will fix itself if the byyear nom file is fixed, although having the FFA entry be She Has a Name#2012 tour will be problematic. Can we have the FFA entry and the entry in WP:FA2013 be 2012 tour of She Has a Name (this is a redirect to She Has a Name#2012 tour)? This will be easier to handle for the WBFAN bot, and seems to reflect reality as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rick ... Happy New Year! Let's ask @DrKay and Nikkimaria: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think that makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox13[edit]

Saw your note and have copied that text here; that has no history so we can just move it when ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me finish a bit on the other one first. I won't get caught up on everything by today ... too much to do, and have a few FACs, FARs and PRs that also need my attn, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks
Thanks for your note re: edits to the Alzheimer page. It is indeed a bit of a mess, and I may not have the patience to dive into it to the depth that it needs. I did recently update the page on senile plaques. It is by no means perfect, but I think a bit more informative. Tulemo (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year!
Hello SandyGeorgia:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

New FAC contributor[edit]

Hi there, Sandy. First thing's first: I'm still pretty new to editing. I only started back at the beginning of September. I've managed to get a few GAs under my belt, but the FA process has been described to me as both harrowing, daunting, intimidating, brutal, etc etc etc. I've spent a lot of time over the past week looking at successful and archived candidates. I hope you don't mind if I post a few questions here, because they are (I think) very minor, and I don't want to trouble the Project's Talk with them.

I also want to offer an apology. You might remember my name from being among those (slowly) trying to restore Wii (I say restore, though I'm not sure that's the word). I pinged you in that thread without having seen the message at the top of your Talk page, which I've just now seen. I'm really sorry about that—I didn't know. In future I'll remember to come here instead of summoning you.

I'll TRY to keep these brief:

  1. My current project is League of Legends. (My main area is not video games; it’s literature. I picked League because the article was in really bad spot given how popular the game is.) I see on this archived nomination that you asked the nominator if they'd reached out to the user who originally created the article to ask if they wanted to be co-noms. Should I be doing this? Obviously no editor 'owns' an article, but I've been responsible for over 50% of the current article's content now. If I were to reach out to someone, it would probably have to be the next in terms of authorship, right?
  2. I've been reviewing other FACs for experience, but I can't help but feeling that I'm messing it up. In particular, one I left earlier today is haunting me a bit. I can't tell if I'm being too severe, or too soft, or if I'm going to upset people (this particular editor, I learned after posting, is quite young). Do you have any advice?

Wishing you the best, Sandy. Your extensive history with the project (along with several of your peers!) have been really helpful to me trying to work my way towards this harrowing, daunting, intimidating, brutal process. :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: You have a lot on your plate, and I've already received a lot of really great feedback on my PR, so this isn't a request for feedback. Don't want it coming across like one! ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there; yes, I do remember you from Wii, and because it's outside of my area of expertise, I had planned only to catch up there and re-review once all of you got further along. The work now is at a stage where the topic experts need to do their thing, before generalists like me can review. Your effort to save a bronze star is most appreciated, and sets you apart as Not One Of Those Editors Who Only Care About Getting Their Own Content Featured, while never pitching in to help others. FAC these days seems to be heavily populated by such types.
On the pings, no need to apologize. My arthritis is bothering me much less lately for some reason, and one of the other main reasons that I prefer posts on my talk page is that they give me a way to keep track of what responses I still owe others, while I lose track of pings.
You should not believe that FAC is intimidating :) Perhaps my essay at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content will help assure you. I wrote it with a focus on medical editors, but you can apply what I say to any area. I am so happy to hear we have a literature editor on board, and will be pestering you in the future, as we have lost many of the old-timers in that area. You might be able to offer Eddie891 some feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/O Captain! My Captain!/archive1.
To your questions about League of Legends ... you are by far the main editor there, so there is no reason you would be required to reach out to others before a FAC nomination, unless you know of someone who is as involved as you and may have access to some sources you don't have. That might apply to Prisencolin, but since you have written most of the content, that concern isn't really applicable. The reasons behind Template:FAC-instructions saying:

Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it.

are twofold: sometimes, editors who have significantly contributed may not agree that the article is ready for FAC, and if you didn't write a lot of the article, the concern is whether you have access to all the sources used in writing it.
On the review that you posted that is haunting you, there is nothing wrong with it, and the tone for an oppose if perfectly appropriate. That said, there is considerable touchiness around that particular nomination (which is on its fourth round), and some have indicated that the nominator is perhaps immature and not handling critique well. If you get an unpleasant reaction to the review, please don't think it's you.
League of Legends is listed at the FAC peer review sidebar, and I have every good intention of getting to all of those ... soon ... <sigh> ... which if today is any judge, will not happen! So if I am not over there within a week, please do pester me. It's not for lack of interest, but a sudden lack of time that has kept me from getting to it and others. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the answers, Sandy. Especially about the last one—it was weighing on me a bit. I reached out to another WPVG editor with FA experience earlier today to ask if it was better to review with an oppose or not review at all, and they encouraged me to review. So I did. I undertake a lot of GA reviews, and I tend to be quite thorough, so they end up eating a lot of my time. I prioritise topics which just take a long time to get a review, especially if I have some experience—like with Classical literature.
I've tagged Eddie's FAC—he's actually the reviewer for my GA of The Turn of the Screw right now, and I didn't know he had an active one, or I'd have weighed in there today instead of "Cups". I'll do my review tomorrow!
Wii is a tricky one. I've... "acquired"... a few books on the topic, and integrated some of the material in, but it’s tough to know how to structure things in an article like that. A lot of the prose in the earlier sections is rather clean, which is (surprisingly) a problem. It means it’s difficult to adapt and update with new references without completing ruining the structure of the work. Besides that, my interest in Nintendo is essentially nil, so I've been prioritising other things. Regardless, we're chipping away at it. Le Panini is assisting too, and he's got a really good track record of writing excellent, cleanly structured Reception sections. I'm hopeful it can be salvaged within 2-3 weeks.
I've just finished reading your essay, and it is the second best piece of writing on FA content I've seen! I'm sorry, of course, but there's only one definitive guide. The section (in your essay) about raising standards was quite an illuminating and engaging story. Thanks for writing it; I enjoyed reading it.
RE: League—there's no rush. I have some big changes to make to Reception (I'm waiting some input re: reviews from 2009, which are... tricky to find) and Esports... so, if they still look to you then as they do now, feel absolutely free to direct your time elsewhere. As I said, I've had a lot of great feedback so far. If you do have time, though, there's a few questions I've left for other reviewers that I haven't got any response about. They're marked with the Working tag. If any jump out at you as eminently answerable, that would be really appreciated.
Again, thanks again for answering. Wishing you all the best in 2021! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy you have discovered that Bastard Guide Yoman is Da Man! He is the Original Not In It For Himself FA writer, who withdrew his name from WP:WBFAN, as he felt that page had the priorities wrong ... or something to that effect :) All the best to you as well, and may 2021 ... not suck so bad as 2020 has :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, SandyGeorgia![edit]

Happy New Year!

SandyGeorgia,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Get 1-upped, ArnabSaha![edit]

SandyGeorgia,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Le Panini [🥪] 23:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

FAC coordinator table[edit]

FYI: User:Mike Christie/Sandbox12. I know there are other elements of the timeline to capture but this is one of the main ones. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get to this for several days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amador Valley High School[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia, thank you so much for taking the time to review Amador Valley High School as part of your Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 list. I've responded to all of the comments you left on the talk page (Talk:Amador Valley High School), and in turn have learned a lot about custom scripts, Wikipedia:MOS, my use of redundant words, and more. I've tried to apply what I've learned to the whole article and not just only fix what you pointed out. Thanks for your help - pinging you here on your talk page as you requested. Deltawk (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Deltawk ... I will get over there to re-review as soon as I am able, but I am fairly certain it will be quite a few days before I have any free time. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sobol draft review[edit]

Hi Sandy, I am responding to a note you left in my talk related to this draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ken_Sobol Your note said I should not create an article about someone I am related to because of a risk of conflict of interest. I do understand that general idea but the article I created about my father includes a lot of references to pages on Wikipedia (created by others) in which work he has done is discussed, as well as to external references. I'm an experienced journalist myself and wrote the article with as much objectivity as I could manage as opposed to just being a relative stating opinions. Apart from the personal connection did you find anything else in the article objectionable?

I'm wondering if there is really no way for me to create a page about his work, which has been enjoyed by millions of people on TV over many years, and has been recognized with an Emmy and other professional acknowledgements? There is not likely to be anyone else who will do it except me and yet I think his body of work is certainly substantial enough to merit a page. Thanks. Just trying to find a way forward. Soboltalk (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)John Sobol[reply]

Hi, Sobaltalk I am sorry for the confusion, but the message I left on your talk was about this edit, not the draft. I have not reviewed that draft, and don’t typically work in that area. I would be happy to look over the draft for you, but it will be several days before I have time to get to it, if you don’t mind waiting. I have a long list of things ahead of your request that I need to look at, and am typing this brief response from my iPad so you will know it is on my list, if you can perhaps wait up to a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, sure happy to wait for you to have a look. Happy new year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soboltalk (talk • contribs) 16:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soboltalk I should be able to help out there (now that I've had a moment to glance at the page). As you can see by reviewing this talk page (where everything above your post contains things I have promised other editors), it may take me a few days to get there, but I will add my comments at Draft talk:Ken Sobol when I do.
Meanwhile, please have a look at Ian McKeith, a stub I created about a considerably important researcher in Lewy body dementias. Notice that every sentence is ctied, and you can verify every piece of text by clicking on those sources. Your draft is uncited; it will never make it to an article in mainspace if you don't have independent, third-party (not connected to the subject) sources. On statements that are cited, sources do not verify the claims. (Sample: In the 1980s and 1990s Sobol and his wife Julie Macfie would write many feature articles together for Canadian Geographic Magazine[3]. The source says no such thing.) Also, please take note that citations go after the punctuation. ... together for Canadian Geographic Magazine.[3]
If you can work on some of this before I get there, I will meet you at Draft talk:Ken Sobol. For now, you can start adding any questions there, and I will catch up with you as soon as I am able. A couple of other bios I wrote that may help guide you are at Donald J. Cohen and James F. Leckman. It's OK to source some basic things to their own publications (things like birthdates), but generally, you need to be using sources that are independent of the subject. And you will need to remove a lot of content that are just things that you know, but which may not be citeable to independent third parties.
Independently, and for my own curiosity, was your father really diagnosed with Lewy body dementia, which is an umbrella term for two different conditions? That is, did he have dementia with Lewy bodies or Parkinson's disease dementia? It intrigues me to know why so many publications use the terms incorrectly. Is this sorted in the book? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. He definitely had dementia with Lewy Bodies, as his cognitive impairments appeared and increased well before his physical parkinsonism. However, I don't think 13 years ago when he was diagnosed that these distinctions were made by clinicians, or at least they weren't framed the same way, with Lewy Body dementia being understood at that tine as quite distinct (though somewhat similar) to Parkinsonian dementia. That is my impression anyway though I am not a doctor but that is how it was explained to us at the time and written about in the literature. There was very little info about it 10-15 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soboltalk (talk • contribs) 17:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that clarification. The list of notables at Lewy body dementia has that lack of clarity, as most laysources call it LBD, without distinguishing whether it is DLB or PDD. By the way, remember to sign your talk entries by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch111&oldid=1145985353"