User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch15

Getting Started With The Working Group

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Whatever exchanges may have taken place in the past, between the various parties, it's in the community's interest for this discussion to go forward. Thanks. zadignose 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

What do you know, I was being peer-reviewed and nobody told me... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was strange to find you there :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But on the plus side you look excellent at first glance. Well-referenced, good prose. (although since you wrote that it may not be NPOV) Yomangani^talk 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Genesis FAR

Dispite my earlier promise, here I am three days later, asking for help. The last remaining issue on the FAR is 1a, and there has been work since a relectant keep from Tony. I wouldn't ask, but Deckiller is on a break, and the article is way over time. Whenever you get time, thanks. Ceoil 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil, there are some problems in References (not Notes). Some of them are websources without last access dates. One of them is a dead link (did you try the internet archive?) I can't tell if Melody Maker is books or what? They have weblinks, but no last access date. Clarify the References section and I'm a Keep. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I verified what I could, and cut what I could not. Ceoil 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, Melody Maker is a somewhat classic music magazine not unlike Rolling Stone. Orderinchaos 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

reply

That's okay, sorry to hear that it affected you. SGGH ^speak! 07:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Spacing in cite templates

I noticed you added some spaces after the bars in the cite templates in Humpback Whale. Is it just for readability/line wrapping or is there some technical reason I missed? Yomangani^talk 14:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It was only for my ease of readability as I was trying to go through the article; these eyeglasses have an easier time when there are spaces. If you don't like them, I can remove? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's fine, I was just checking I wasn't butchering some system when I didn't leave spaces. Yomangani^talk 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid

Haven't looked, may look later, lead alone is not FA standard IMHO. Argh, I should be working… :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thorpe

I sent you an email about that. Tony1 might have prose concerns. Someone cropped the pic I acquired (see email). Take your time, I know you're busy. Quadzilla99 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey! Sorry about that, I was training for my new job in Charlotte, no internet access was available, I'm back now. I was mislead into thinking I would have internet there so i didn't bother to assign anyone to the task while I was gone, good to see things fared well anyway. Thanks! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch

Thanks for picking up on this. That will teach me to cut and paste a reference without checking the dates... Carcharoth 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A grab bag of stuff

Now that all the FA FAC pages are in some order, it would be possible to handle some of the bot operations in the FAC template itself. The template could find the next available page in sequence and create a link. The page would have /archive1 or /archive2 in the link to start with, so there would be nothing to archive. For this to work, the FAC template would probably need to be subst'ed, but otherwise it wouldn't be very different for editors. Some things might need to change in ArticleHistory if it assumes that a successful fac is at WP:FAC/articlename, but that's all behind the scenes.

If it can work seamlessly, sounds good. I'm still pulling a couple of errors a day out of the ArticleHistory template error category (people do the whackiest things), so do you think the timing is good for another change?

This would involve a synchronized change to a number of things in a short time, so it would take a bit of planning. The benefit is that older FACs would not need moving. Gimmetrow 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the rescheduling FA review? The issues brought up still seem rather minor. After dealing with this a while, I'm a little doubtful of the nominator's intent. We should not enable people to get articles defeatured on questionable motives.

I don't know what to do there — I agree with your concerns, but on the other hand, I just can't be certain the article is accurate. Not sure what to do, but I sure wish someone on the Medicine project would weigh in. I'll bug some people.

I have some concerns too, but it's interesting that nobody has really caught these, except you. The article takes a lot of info from Gettmann's site, which is fine for explaining Gettmann's position. I've found a few cases where the text on Gettmann's site seems to overstate what the science citation says. It sometimes goes beyond what I would say having read the journal article, but this is also way outside my field. Gimmetrow 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Last, so why don't you want the admin buttons? Page moves and history merge/splits come up all the time in FAC. Gimmetrow 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm not sure you want me to put that rant on my talk page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates

Thanks for your feedback - I've replied. --Dweller 08:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Another FAC question

Hi SandyGeorgia,

User:Calde has raised a "No" vote on the Taiwanese aborigines FAC. Fair enough — usually, anyhow. But User:Maowang is making a case that Calde is a sock with some POV to carry with respect to Taiwan-related issues. Account is less than a week old; very familiar with processes, etc.

What should we do??

Thanks --Ling.Nut 12:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again.... Ling.Nut 13:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Rock Springs Massacre

Hi there. I was wondering if you might lend some outside eyes to Rock Springs Massacre. I have undertaken a major overhaul project since it was promoted to GA and I hope to nominate for FA soon. Right now it just needs some outside perspective and copy editing. I have sort of charted my progress on the talk page, if you want to check out what I have written/thought there. Any help would be greatly appreciated. If you don't have the time or whatever that's cool. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ivo. I'm not a good copyeditor, but I just made a couple of sample edits to show you some work needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I found a couple of unwikilinked dates in the notes and one in further reading. I didn't see any instances of month-year combos linked, month-day were, but that is appropriate as I understand the MOS. The one EDIT - two, they were a fluke, completely left over from when I started the article last Sept. as a new Wikipedian, I can't believe I never noticed those, or anyone else for that matter. (they you found must have been a fluke or oversight. The only image that was still sized was the first one, which was sized when someone moved it. Other than that, things look clean based upon your input, anything further you have time to offer would be appreciated, thanks again. IvoShandor 12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Note I just changed lead image back per read of WP:MOS on images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FSU Article Cleanup

I am currently working on the FSU article in terms of cleaning up and adding to all the references. It needs more work and some new pages added for notable faculty and the ever growing alumni list. As you appear to be an experienced editor, I could sure use help creating and formatting those new pages, if you're interested. Thanks for any consideration!Sirberus 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Whoops...here's the link to the page Florida State University. Sirberus 13:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Global warming FARC

Hi Sandy, This note is in connection to the FARC of Global warming. Despite the vote being 50/50 divided and a consensus far from being achieved, Marskell has just closed the review as keep featured status, pretty much citing his personal view on the matters as primary rationale. In my view, this is quite contrary to FARC policy, which states that [i]f, after a period of review, the deficiencies have not been addressed and there is no obvious momentum to do so, the FA status is removed. If consensus has emerged that the changes have brought the article back to standard, the review is closed. In recent times I've learned that you are some kind of expert on FAs, and you also participated in the discussion, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Best regards, Nick Mks 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Nick. Thanks for the note. As you can imagine, being one of the persons who has to close FACs and FARs can not be an easy job. It's not a "vote", and sometimes it can be a very hard call. Overall, there are two things I firmly believe: 1) there are distinct advantages to having only one or two people close FACs and FARs — any other scenario would result in a free-for-all; and 2) unless very compelling reasons are established to remove a star, the best default option is to Keep, and leave it for another day. I would never want to be the person who has to make some of these close calls, and I don't envy Marskell the task. Regardless of how he might have closed the FARC, it would have been a controversial close and he would come under fire — not an enviable position. The article was structurally sound, and attempts were made to address all the issues raised. I wasn't willing (or able, because of the 2007 Nor'easter) to do the work and research to prove the bias I believe existed in the article, so I'm willing to accept the reasoned and difficult decision Marskell had to make. I prefer to save my blood pressure and stress levels and take the "pendelum" approach to some of the bias on Wiki; that is, when more and more people start to notice how way out of whack Wiki articles and politics are with the mainstream, only then will the inherent bias change. In the meantime, I think Marskell made the only choice he could have made considering the arguments presented on the FARC. If the star on Global warming begins to bother enough people, and enough people begin to pay attention, then and only then will consensus change. Until/unless that day comes, I think Marskell is doing the job as well as it can be done. I cannot think of anyone who would try as hard to be as fair as Marskell has tried to be. I hope this helps, even if it doesn't satisfy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC) PS: two points I left off. I also don't think Marskell's close was based on his personal views; it is consistent with all of his closes. And, you have to admit — Wiki is entertaining. Someone quoted a Colorado professor as endorsing the article. Well, d'oh, LOL !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. First of all, I do not question Marskell's motives (he never joined the discussion, so he's obviously not directly involved) and I perfectly understand that he would be subject to criticism anyhow. My only point is that I believe this discussion has been closed too early. I just find it weird (and actually, yes, unacceptable) that to attain FA, you need 100% support, but to maintain it, 50% is apparently enough. Nick Mks 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on FAs; many of them pass with significant Opposes — many of them, in fact, also 50-50. It's an imperfect process, but I can't think of any other process that wouldn't be even more flawed. I completely understand your frustration. For example, Ronald Reagan will *never* become FA unless the prevailing liberal bias, with undue weight, is fully incorporated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

El Hatillo main page

Hola. I was going to make the request right away after the article got FA status, but since I have been busy I'm just going to wait until June 12, which is El Hatillo Town's anniversary. How many days in advance do you think I should make the request?--enano ^(Talk) 19:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just made the request. Can you please check the reduced summary? Gracias.--enano ^(Talk) 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tulsa, Oklahoma FA Nomination

Greetings. I have fixed the problems you stated on the FA nomination for the Tulsa article, I hope. However, I would have to strongly disagree with your opinion of the lead - it meets Wikipedia guidelines and provides a summary of the city's history, economy, culture, and architecture. Please look at other city featured articles, such as Boston, Detroit, Seattle, San Francisco, and San Jose, and you will see that Tulsa's lead is very similar to all of them an includes the same information as they do. Remember: this is an encylapedic article, it isnt supposed to be litterature - its informational. However, because of your concern, I did change the lead somewhat and tried to make it better, and I would appreciate if you could tell me which version you liked better. If these changes I have done do not meet with your standards, please tell me what I can do so that you might consider changing your stance on the article's Featured nomination. Thank you Okiefromokla•talk 06:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just completed numerous sample edits to show work still needed, and struck on the FAC items completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a lot better to see examples of what needs to be done. We'll get to work on them and let you know, of course feel free to help if you want to, otherwise I'll contact you when these edits are fnished. Okiefromokla•talk 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: What did you mean by the article needing more "secondary sources" as opposed to "primary sources"? Is this a big concern? Granted, I might have not entered the citations correctly but I myself added about 90 of those citations and they are obviously from reliable sources.Okiefromokla•talk 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my comment; it was someone else's. But, what it means is that you're using a lot of information directly from the source itself, rather than reporting or writing that is independent. See WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me jumping in on your talk page, Sandy. I'm the one who left the comment about secondary sources. Here's an example: the lead states "It is considered the cultural and arts center of Oklahoma", and the reference given is on cityoftulsa.org. They might be a little biased, don't you think? Sources like this that are written by or very close to the subject are primary sources. It's much better to find a secondary source to cite this. I hope that helps answer your question. You might also want to read Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources for more on the subject.

While I'm here, I wanted to say thanks to you, Sandy, for helping out with the ref work. Pagrashtak 00:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in Pagrashtak — good example ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Actually, since I asked sandy about it weve already been talking about it on Tulsa's talk page and I copy and pasted the difference between primary and secondary sources onto there. Yes, good example.Okiefromokla•talk 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is something I found. The article talks about tulsa's culture and arts scenes and the improvment those scenes are undergoing, and at the end of the article, it comes out and says these things have and will continue to strengthen tulsa's status as the art and cultural center of oklahoma. (granted, it was published in the Tulsa World, but that isn't affiliated with the city at all) [1] Let me know what you think and if it should be used as a citation.Okiefromokla•talk 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading the PDF correctly, TulsaWorld is only hosting copies of news articles; you should go directly to the news sources and cite them (the TulsaWorld PDF is probably a copyright violation, and the news sources are reliable secondary sources). Keep up the good work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. However, the Tulsa World isn't just hosting copies of news articles. This PDF is actually a picture of the E4 page of the business section, whereas the only article I would be citing is at the top of the page. Is that what you mean? In which case, do you agree with using this version that I just found: [2] ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Okiefromokla (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC). Okiefromokla•talk 17:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tough call — the author of the article (as the owner of a downtown hotel) has an obvious bias and reason for promoting Tulsa. Not sure he could be considered an independent and unbiased source for that kind of info. See what others say ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I will. No one has replied yet. However, give me a chance to defend this article. In my opinion, the article shows no bias in it of itself - it is merely pointing out positive business trends in the city. The fact that this man manages a hotel in Tulsa is in itself not enough reason to discount the article. The story simply evaluates the meaning of real factual events in Tulsa, thereby being a textbook example of a secondary source. The disclaimer from the Tulsa World says: "The column should focus on a business trend; outlook for the city, state or industry; or discuss a topic of interest in a particular area of expertise. Articles should not promote the writer's business or be overtly political." Thereby, this article is merely discussing and evaluating business trends. As the World's disclaimer demands, the author is acting as an expert on local business trends, being a prominent Tulsa businessman himself. The fact that this article was published in the Tulsa World shows that the purpose of the article is not to talk to out-of-towners in an attempt to promote the city, but rather, to display expert evaluation on Tulsa business trends, which is the point of these columns as described by the World's disclaimer.Okiefromokla•talk 18:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little less enthusiastic about this one, but I also found this [3]. Under the "Arts and Culture" section the first sentence is what I would be citing. Let me know what you think, as I'll eventually need your approval to get it to featured status anyway. (P.S: the technicality issues with the citations also seem to be coming to an end. I think we're getting close to being done with the specific citation issues you brought up - your thoughts?)Okiefromokla•talk 23:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MSH

Sandy I read that and I'm not sure how the Hockey fighting article doesn't satisfy it. Could you explain it to me. Note: I'm not saying this because I don't believe you but because I want to learn. Aaron Bowen 12:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Aaron. "Fighting" is repeated in the section headings many times. Headings could be, for example, History and Criticism - words from the article title need not be repeated. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Just asking because I tried to give it a thorough review and hoped I didn't miss anything. Aaron Bowen 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Herne Bay, Kent

Hi. The issues you raised in the Herne Bay, Kent FAC have now been fixed and I'd be grateful if you could re-assess the article when you have time. Thanks. Epbr123 13:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just made a series of sample edits to show work still needed; pls ping me when done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think everything has now been fixed. Epbr123 16:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

re:It's over

Yeah; I was just taking down my wikibreak tags. It's been one helluva week. I had half a math course to finish, three exams, and my road test/first week driving alone. Busy week, but it's been resolved. :) — Deckiller 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed you removed my template. Formatting got messed up because there's so many that need feedback? — Deckiller 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles by year, and WBFAN

Hi - Just FYI, I'm now running a daily bot that updates FA/FFA status (and mainpage appearance dates) for the lists like Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2003, as well as FA/FFA status at WP:WBFAN. If you notice any issues please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FARs removed

So what are we doing with these? Archiving? It's likely to come back in three weeks.

And on the other question, nobody has put forward a nomination. Gimmetrow 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on Sébastiani for FAC

Hi. Though I will repeat that I do not find your approach to this issue fair or constructive, I am ready to look again into your criticism, if you would please list it in its entirety and assess the article as a whole.

For example, you mention there are several problems, as far as I can see, yet you point out just two, only one of which relies on a fact - my failure to specify accessdates (though I do not see this as a problem). You have additionally said that publishers are not indicated, and yet they are - even the links you describe as "unformatted" do actually mention the publishers (lest for two cases where the publisher is wikisource), and them being "completely blue" only means that they do not comply with a particular taste, not that they are incomplete. I do not think that a certain format is mandatory, and, lest for dates, they appear to be complete (and are not in any real way different from the current FA).

I dislike using accessdates because they seem rather pointless to me (I know what the reason given for them, but I consider it contrived). But, if they are that important, I guess I could add them. But will that be all? Because your comments have so far: indicated a problem that was not actually a problem (and which I fixed anyway); indicated the current problem; promised to give me other tasks after reading the text. Additionally, you seem to indicate that you have not read it because the links do not respect format, which made you question whether they were reliable - you did not reply to my observation that the publishers were indicated in links, and, if your only present objection is about the accessdates, I fail to see how it would reflect upon reliability.

With or without that, I am open (as I have said) to any comment, but please make them clear all at once, and please make them be about more than personal tastes. Dahn 01:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't invest time in 1a until I know everything else is in place; specifically, that the article is well sourced, and based on reliable sources. Once the structural aspects of an article are in place, then I look at the prose (but usually, someone else does that first). That's how I review articles; if I spent a lot of time reading an article first, and then found it wasn't based on reliable sources, I would have not invested my time wisely. When the article is sourced according to WP:MOS (not another article which may or may not be up to snuff), I'll be glad to have a look. I glanced at the article again today, and found the prose very rough going. The excess citations are still over the top. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see what you bring up the "reliable sources" issue. First of all, there is no logical link between accessdates and reliability. Secondly, there is nothing preventing you from clicking the links and checking them out, and there is nothing in format that would make those sources more reliable when they are not. You do not seem to have any objection to the sources I used, and, even if you do, you do not indicate what you base your suspicions on. When you said that articles did not have their publishers mentioned, I pointed out that they did.

I still do not know what guideline of the norms, anywhere in MoS, I have broken and where. Even if my sources were unreliable (and you do not say that they are, you just say that they may, and you did not give concrete examples).

So, for us to move on and start discussing what in the prose is not up to standards (again, with concrete examples, not "some"), you have to tell me what objections you have about the sources and which sources. Because, again, if there is something wrong with sources, me or you formatting them according to another system is not going to address the issue you continue to imply. If there is nothing wrong with sources, and if this is just a format problem, can we please move on? Or, if there is, can you tell me what it is, where it is, and why it is? Thank you in advance.

As for citations being "over the top", I can only repeat "please make comments about more than personal tastes".

Oh, I should add this. I have one FA already, I which I have used the same format, with one notable exception: instead of making one note-one citation, I used one note-several citations, which meant that it had nowhere more than one citation. The moment it was proposed for FA, someone actually took the time to change the format, and, because several notes each had a number of citations, it went from one to as much as four. Nobody cared either way that this was "harming the text" when it passed through FAC. I didn't care either, but I gathered that both solutions work just as well. Now, let me remind you that, originally, this was your only stated reason for dismissing the entire article. Hope you agree that I am at right to consider the particular issue of citations closed. Dahn 01:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

About MOS and other articles, allow me to point out that, no matter what WP:CITE says about the references, it allows embedded links to function as references (do imbedded links have accessdates? do they show publishers? do they seem "more reliable" than other bluelinks that actually mention the publisher?). Furthermore, you will note that WP:MOS states clearly that the link can be completely blue (by stating that mentions "can" be made outside of bluelinks in references, not that they should be). Moreover, any format is optional as long as the required data about the link is provided: "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline"; "Web pages referenced in an article can be linked to directly by enclosing the URL in square brackets"; "Full citations typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. Page numbers are essential whenever possible. The name of the publisher and its city is optional" etc. As far as I can see, per the guideline, the only thing missing in my citations is the accessdate. So, I will ask clearly: do you have any other objection, or will you change/withdraw your vote after I add the dates? Dahn 02:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:WIAFA regarding citations. When your article is cited, I'll continue reviewing it. If you want me to register further comments sooner, I can tell you that based on what I've seen, I will switch to a strong object because of the prose problems and the extremely severe overcitation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is cited, SandyGeorgia, and, per what I have proven, it is cited within the bounds of WP:CITE, which is the guideline invoked by WP:WIAFA. The guideline asks for all statements to be cited, and they are; in fact, in the very next breath you accuse me of over-citing. Leaving aside what I have pointed out above, I will state again that nothing in "over-citation" is condemned anywhere (and certainly not in WP:CITE).

I had asked you to tell me what those "problems of prose" are, and to back up your claim. You are going to have to provide me with such examples, so I can rephrase if necessary. Although one would have to wonder why you are the only one to have seen them.

So, again: specifically what is it you want me to do to the article, and specifically what guidelines have I broken and where in the article have I broken them? Aside from adding dates to external references, you bring in nothing concrete so far, and I have a hard time figuring out what you are talking about.

I ask you one final time to talk to address my points in your following reply. Otherwise, I'm going to have to assume you are holding the article at ransom until it looks the way you want it to, and not until the way it looks good enough to pass an FA. I do not address invented problems and I do not consider myself accountable in front of what another editor thinks is wrong (as opposed to wikipedia saying it is wrong). If this should be the case, I will file for mediation. Dahn 03:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added the dates and whatever details you pretended where needed. Now, do you wish to indicate actual and specific problems you see in the text, or should we go to mediation? Dahn 05:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

One last thing before you answer (if you ever decide to, and I recommend you do). Your summary of "problems" with the text indicated as one of them (you never seem to mention more than one "problem" at a time) the following citation: "^ a b (German) The Favorite, at The Marteau Encyclopedia of the Early Modern Period". There was an issue of punctuation at the end of the phrase, so I thought you were indicating the problem was that it had no accessdate. Ok, let's say that is cleared. But now it dawns on me, after all that misapplied referencing of rules, that you decided to object to it without either the portion of text it was referring to or the link content. Were you to do so, you would have found out that The Favorite is the title of a film, and that the link is a short summary of it (basically showing cast, crew, and essential dates); even though it is in German, the title is in English, because it is the title of the film; it has no author (arguably because it is information of the most basic nature). That is honestly the only circumstance where I can picture you making suggestions like the ones you made - the situation were you simply misunderstood the title, and did not check to see whether you were right in your assumption. If that is the case, I'm rather disappointed that people can edit with their eyes closed and criticize at the same time... If not, pray tell: what is it? Dahn 08:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mendip Hils FAC

Hi, Thanks for your comments & edits on Mendip Hills, I've done some more work on the footnotes following your lead but some of them do not have dates of publication. Grateful for any further advice. — Rod ^talk 09:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A headsup

Hi. One anon 85.210.251.239 produced this diff, signing your name, just so you know. Murgh ^disc. 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kate Bush FAC

All links to Gaffa.org have now been removed. Epbr123 15:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding link so I can get there: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kate Bush. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(now former) FAC for S.H.E

I'm going to be as civil as I can about this, but please understand my frustrations (with, of course, improper use of boldface.)

The blogs are licensed by the company.

I will give you a copy of the company newsletter that says "hey guess what we started countdowns on this site!" They are not just "fan blogs" because, as a fact, fans did not make such a blog (refer to "company newsletter"). But I'm sure you didn't bother looking asking to see if the blogs were official; you just looked at the links and probably said "I can't read this, so I'll assume this is a fan blog." If you had asked, I would have gladly shown you the site, and asked a Chinese-literate Wikipedian to verify the contents of the newsletter. But no, you just went and said "nope, fan site."

Also, your comment about citation format. If you happen to be reading the same guideline/policy as I am:

'Therefore, if you already use a particular citation style, especially the preferred style by scholars in a field related to the article you are editing, please use the citation style of your choice.

Note how this isn't my emphasis. Wikipedia boldfaced this long before I stumbled upon the thing. I'm using MLA. You use APA. But WP says "use the citation style of your choice." As long as it stays consistent, I'm sure it won't be the Eighth Deadly Sin. For the 7-8 years I've been using this style, that is how I cite articles. Now that my frustration is over, if FAC didn't get much response other than two opposes and one support, I can't honestly expect Peer Review to fare better. Or to get anything at all. - Pandacomics 15:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons

Any comments on this one?

If you have a review of your own in mind, now would be a good time as the page has been slow since the beginning of the month. Marskell 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota

SG-- sorry to "step on your lines" -- let me know when you're done. Thanks for your help on this, the articles was substantially finished last year and needed a fresh set of eyes. Kablammo 20:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It looks like the loss of the line break caused the glitch. I'll wait until you're done now. Kablammo 20:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Permit me to thank you again for your detail work and edits on this article. We have worked very hard on it and your assistance was invaluable. Kablammo 01:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747

Hi SandyGeorgia,

I saw your comments on the talk page for the nomination and made the necessary changes to which you have pointed out. The "Snow Ball" thing is because I found this article, may be few weeks ago, and decided to add to it with others (but mostly me :-) as much as I could, because I could not find anywhere a summary article about this sensitive subject, including among UN Security Council's own documents, believe it or not... This is my modest contribution to world peace! ;-)

Secondly, I would like to know if you could take a few minutes of your precious time to make any further correction that you deem necessary, especially for the english and "prose" part. As I see from your "shiny things" on your homepage, you must be very good at it. I saw the phrase you have mentionned in your comment was in the last section of the article. I don't know if it means that all the rest was OK? :-)

Many thanks in advance.

69.116.234.208 04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack Coggins

Could you please have another look at Jack Coggins. I have tried to comply with WP:DASH and WP:MSH throughout the article. I have created a new section as per WP:MSH called 'Further reading' and moved all the external links to that section. Does this satisfy all the requirements? Dave 06:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher FAC

How is the Honors section now? Buc 09:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Following the links... what's this supposed to mean? NikoSilver 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Weird — I think rad is slang for cool ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I left a polite message on his/her talk to check with an admin because of the conflicting namespaces. NikoSilver 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good — interesting, though, s/he has been around a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

S/he's definitely a good faith editor. I wouldn't scare them off over such a tiny detail. Probably too mild for anyone to notice, or comment (am I a dick?) NikoSilver 14:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

William Goebel

Thank you for your helpful copyedits to William Goebel. As you suggested, I have gone back and improved some trouble spots myself. As you may or may not be aware, this article is a current featured article candidate. Would you consider supporting this nomination? If so, please add your vote and comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Goebel. Acdixon 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest

Thanks for your edits to this article, Sandy. I'm at work now (and hence busy), but will endeavour to go through the rest of the citation templates tonight, as per your suggestion. I'm delighted that Raul decided to have it on the main page :) EuroSong ^talk 16:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Sandy's on the case

Or so it appears. I probably should have come straight to you, the master of reliable sources. BTW, the director restarted the Casino Royale FAC (based on your issue with them removing your comments), just in case you wanted to re-review the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL — I check all the FAC noms to prep for GimmeBot :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. But still, you really attempted to dissect Casino Royalte (which I think it could use your opinion again, but completely understand if you stay away from it), and I liked that, I'd appreciate the same critique of you have the time to spare.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll run through all the FACs when I can; don't want to bite off more than I can chew :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Understandable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your last comments re: Jack Coggins

Please see Wikipedia:Convenience links. The links to JackCoggins.info are merely convenience links; the citations are the newspapers and magazines, which can be found, if necessary, in various morgues, microfilm libraries, and perhaps the Library of Congress. It is a common to confuse a citation and a convenience link. However, the ciatations in the article are just as valid without the url's (does the Brittanica bring photocopies of everything it cites?) but this way, it is now more convenient for you to check out the data. Thanks. -- Avi 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Allright, the problem is, since you didn't use cite news or journal, that wasn't clear. Shall I go back and adjust all the ciations accordingly, or can you do that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene

Gah, I go away for a couple of days and you drop the gauntlet. Just one note: that goes against our goal of having every article featured! :) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Poliomyelitis

Poliomyelitis is currently on peer review here. I made a suggestion about splitting the article, to produce a medical article per WP:MEDMOS and a history article that can tell a story in whatever manner works best. Initially, it looked like this might be difficult, but the two main editors have had a go and early results are promising. Links to the test pages, and the discussion of them can be found at User talk:MarcoTolo#Welcome back Marco!.

I wonder if you are interested in joining the discussion (and/or peer review). I ask because "Headings not per WP:MEDMOS" is a common complaint of yours and it would be good to test them on an article where the editors are still prepared to experiment (rather than be defensive on FAC/FAR). It may well be that the suggested headings need tweaking for infectious diseases. The other reason I ask is that you have experience in breaking a big medical topic into summary style. Polio is a big topic that already covers many articles. I'm not inviting you to back me up. I'd much prefer you disagreed with me if that is best. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been split. Poliomyelitis is moving towards MEDMOS and History of poliomyelitis has been created. Discussions that were on user talk pages have been copied to Talk:History of poliomyelitis, though any further discussions on the Poliomyelitis article will probably go to its own talk page. Your opinions are still welcome, if you have time. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe

I'll try to work on it tomorrow and add some info on race relations and some expansion of the lead. Those are the main weaknesses that I see remaining that I myself can address. I'd still like to get someone to copyedit it, I asked Deckiller and Awaidewit for help on that regard to no luck. Quadzilla99 12:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did some more work on it and changed to neutral. I also asked Tony and DCGeist to copy-edit it. Quadzilla99 07:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions/comments let me know. Quadzilla99 15:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm on a *miserable* slow dialup from a hotel, so won't be able to get to it soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I used one source for the section on racism that I'm looking to replace, it's kind of borderline. I changed to weak keep, but if I can replace that source in the next day or two the article should be okay then I would think. The prose isn't great but I don't think it's bad enough alone to warrant removal personally. Quadzilla99 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the source. I had to re-write the section a little, should okay now. Quadzilla99 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:New Girl in Town

Sandy, would you please try to explain the requirements of WP:LEAD at the Talk:New Girl in Town? I seem not to be getting through. -- Ssilvers 13:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you mean by "please add specifics"? Do you mean what information was deleted from this article, or what other articles have suffered deletion? Or something else? -- Ssilvers 15:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Other articles that have suffered same, diffs of edits where content was labeled as added when actually was deleted, examples of current articles that are "all lead, no content", etcetera. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In which page should this info go? -- Ssilvers 15:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk section I started in New Girl in Town; I linked that page to several Requests for Comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. BTW, his userpage is a virtual list of articles that are all lead and no sections with content. -- Ssilvers 15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It's OK if he starts a lot of stubs; the concern is the ongoing damage to existing articles via the refusal to respect existing guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the list I have posted is a good one. -- Ssilvers 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good GOSH - something needs to be done. No wonder I can never find the info I need on musicals from Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tulsa

Hey Sandy, sorry to bother you, I know I already sent you a message about it, but could you take another look at the Tulsa article and let me know about the citation situation? They seem ok now, but I've been wrong before, obviously. I'm looking forward to getting the kinks worked out of the article soon so we can get it to featured status and we can earn your support. Thanks.Okiefromokla•talk 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the help in fixing the citations! It is appreciated, and I'll go through and make sure none of the "formats" and "publisher" entrys in the citations are capitalized Okiefromokla•talk 00:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, Shen Kuo article

Hey Sandy, I haven't chatted with you since your input on the Song Dynasty article, I think. I've been recently putting a lot of work into the article on Shen Kuo (1031-1095), that Einstein of medieval Chinese science. It passed Good Article status, but it failed as a Featured Article Candidate because of some minor copyedit issues and an argument over quotes (which was resolved after it was dropped from the FAC list). I was wondering, if you had the time, to review the article and correct any awkward sentences that might be left (because Lord knows I don't see any left, but one wiki member persists that there is). Thanks.--PericlesofAthens 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

YIKES

Yeah. I didn't want the person who wrote that article to think we were insulting him or her :) — Deckiller 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tay-Sachs disease

Why do you consider the Tay-Sachs disease article to be B-Class, not A-class? --Metzenberg 23:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I responded on Talk:Tay-Sachs disease. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the article with a fine tooth comb. Please identify any facts that you think should be cited. However, I think there is such a thing as excessive footnoting, and that may now be the case. A degree of synthesis of information that is commonly known is required. Some of that information is simply the shared knowledge base, and putting a footnote on every sentence is going too far. The basic facts are available online in the evidence-based medicine databases and the Israeli DNA sequence database. --Metzenberg 09:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

One more comment about Tay-Sachs disease. Its importance rating should be high because it is a research and public health model. The disease itself is rare, but the fact that it has been so intensively studied makes it important. The combination of inexpensive screening methods and a cooperative at-risk population that embraced the cause of genetic screening made it the model for all such diseases. Before 1970, nobody understood how much polymorphism there would be. It was with Tay-Sachs that the implications of polymorphism for the development of genetic testing procedures became a subject of public health discussions.

One of the biggest problems in maintaining a page like this one is that well-meaning people who don't know what they are talking about are constantly making little insertions that are in fact wrong. Here is an example:

• revision by an anonymous editor

This guy doesn't understand that not only is it not a Sphingolipid disease like Tay-Sachs, but it's not even inherited in the same way. It's probably somebody who thought he was helping out.

We really need people like you to constantly check these little additions, especially when they come from an anonymous editor. The vast majority of additions from anonymous editors are vandalism, and the ones that aren't tend to be well-intentioned mistakes like this one. I hope that the presence of lots of footnotes, perhaps too many, will discourage this kind of addition to the article. I would like to see articles become partially locked so that only regular editors (say 1000 edits or more) could change them once they reach a high level of completion. --Metzenberg 09:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Responded on talk, added half dozen fact tags, bumped importance to high. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC) PS — you should see the vandalism Tourette syndrome gets (a number of other editors help me watch it); if you want more eyes watching the article, you can post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for help and further input on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tay-Sachs is ready for another read-through. The Cambridge Journal of Biosocial Science website has been down, so I've been unable to get to the table of contents to get the publication date for that one article. As I said on the Talk page, it's a lousy article, but it has had so much attention in mainstream publications that if it were eliminated from the page, people would constantly be adding it back in, and they would be accusing those who deleted it of trying to "squelch" it. Gregory Cochran is a crackpot theorist with many crackpot followers. --Metzenberg 09:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

thx!

Oh, I plain forgot about dealing with that misplaced review. Thanks, Sandy. I like your non-admin notice at the top; I want it! Tony 03:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

35 mm film See Alsos

I don't think pruning those is helpful -- there are a lot of film articles and often 35 mm film is a starting point on a hunt for information, and it is nice to not have to dig through the somewhat dense text if you know you're looking for an article on an aspect/detail that is linked from there. So I'd rather the See Alsos stay...Thanks. jhawkinson 03:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Race

Hi Sandy I noticed your input on the Race featured article review Wikipedia:Featured article review/Race some months back regarding the article size. I would welcome any comments from you at Talk:Race#Request_for_comment as the issue has arisen again. Thanks.Muntuwandi 04:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Williams

This can go from the list. The last section ought to be cited, but for the purposes of the list it's OK. Cheers, Marskell 10:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, but I didn't get through the first section before I found an uncited affair, so I have concerns. This source says he "fell in love with ... "; falling in love and having an affair are two different things. I didn't continue reading, although I did fix the dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gilberto Silva

Hi, just a quick line to say 'thanks' for your work on the Gilberto Silva article today. Great job! :-) -GilbertoSilvaFan 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tay-Sachs disease & archive.org

Sandy, I'm sure I asked this before wrt Tourette, but why do you use archive.org for some web links (I know your reasons for TSA)? For example, the links to WhoNamedIt? on Tay-Sachs disease. Surely, if we have a "accessed on" date then we can use the archive if required? The archive versions don't handle curly quotes or other non-ASCII characters (you get a square box or ?, depending on your browser). For example, Désiré-Magloire Bourneville is unreadable. The formatting is inferior in general. They won't benefit from any corrections made in future. They also lack the Amazon adverts to related books that are presumably a source of income for Mr Enersen. Finally, should such citations include the author: Ole Daniel Enersen? Colin°^Talk 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC) ~~

On the TSA, it's a specific issue; they change their URLs every couple of months, so it's impossible to keep up with their links. IRRITATING, don't know why they do it. On Tay-Sachs, when I went to whonamedit.com, what was returned by their alphabetical search engine was a web archive — don't know why. I'm on a slow dialup — are you able to find the whonamedit.com info in a non-archived version? Yes, they probably should include author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange. I can only think that you accidentally started off with an archive-whonamedit rather than the real McCoy. So, you'd be happy if the URLs were replaced with direct ones? Colin°^Talk 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can figure out what's up at whonamedit.com, it's all the same to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Ah, you know what? It could be that I started at the archive, because I may have started from the TS page ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OU FAC

Thanks for adding the tag to the article. My computer locked up mid-nomination so I wasn't able to add that. Thanks again.↔NMajdan•talk 14:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob, I check the talk page of all new FAC noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

many reasons

Hi,

It's been a while since I've looked at the WP:V WP:ATTR thing, and have no time to do so.. but last night it occurred to me that a central prob is that "challenged or likely to be challenged" and "direct quote" are the only reasons/rationales given for providing cites. This makes all other cites look like decoration, & provides ammo for those who believe they are. Ling.Nut 10:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)