User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch50

Raw foodism

Hi, SandyGeorgia. I am trying to improve the Raw foodism article where there is some ownership, fringe viewpoint and OR going on. If this is beneath your notice, no problem! Cheers!--—CynRN ^(Talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My Wiki time is tight this month, so I may not get to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tristan Tzara

Hello. I thought I'd ask you this since you're an expert on the subject. At the Tristan Tzara article, User:DionysosProteus keeps adding an "unreferenced" tag, claiming the lead section needs references. However, reading the article will reveal that every fact mentioned in the lead is cited later on; it does have 295 footnotes, after all! I've mentioned to him that even plenty of FAs have uncited lead sections, including every single one approved this month, but to no avail. Could you please weigh in? Thank you for your consideration. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations and this summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot for helping clear that up. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes update

Hi, Sandy. Happy New Year! Do you remember this discussion about the utility of infoboxes? Apparently, the Intelligence in Wikipedia Project at the University of Washington supports the use of infoboxes to facillitate information extraction. I'm surprised that they aren't more vocal about this (I had never heard this before) as every time we remove an infobox we are limiting the ability to extract semantic knowledge from natural language text. Anyway, this is just a FYI. See this informative PDF on the subject:[1] Take care. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting and timely topic. I recently started a discussion on the talk page of Harvey Milk about the necessity of infoboxes. It seems as if the material in the infobox is being held to a higher standard of citation than information in the article. Because it is so brief, nuances of grey areas are not possible, which makes some information problematic. For instance, an editor placed a fact tag next to the line that said Milk was Jewish. It states in the article that Milk was born to Jewish parents, and his grandfather started at least one synagogue in New York, and his memorial was held at a synagogue - all cited statements. But according to this editor, a citation was needed to prove that Milk was a practicing Jew. Why? To avoid the fact tag, now the line is vacant, so NO information about Milk's religion is available in the infobox. Milk's Judaism did not appear to be a major part of his life, so sources skimmed over it. What's the standard for material being included in an infobox? Where is this clarified? --Moni3 (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If both his parents were Jewish at the time of his birth, he was Jewish unless he adopted another faith (and there we get into a Talmudic dispute I won't bore you with). I think the fact tag is a little over the kipah.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure what kipah is, I think I agree with it. --Moni3 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yarmulke, skullcap. I'm punning on "over the top".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

TFA/R template

Well, despite your predictions of chaos and long lists of FAs in the template, the template is fading away. The only three articles in there were dug up by me, one of which came out of a conversation on Raul's talk page, one is my perennial William IV article, and one is Yes Minister, which has anniversary of first episode in late February and I've dropped a note on CzechOut's talk page. We need more, even if we have no intention of nominating them. I'm busy with article writing, though I have nothing to bring to FAC yet, plus helping out here and there, but I will try to troll through the lists and find more candidates.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall those predictions, but ... why do we need more? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but if we have more people bringing articles to us, we have more participation at TFA/R and I think that is a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ah, yes, I see what you mean ... well, you know, everything goes in cycles. What goes down must come up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

History of the Han Dynasty FAC

Does your comment mean that 85k articles are borderline allowed? I was thinking of Keith Miller.YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a factor for reviewers to consider and discuss, relative to the 10,000 word max (roughly 50KB) recommended at WP:SIZE and WP:WIAFA, crit. 4: "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Crit. 2b also calls for "a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents". Keith Miller is 13,300 words (the table of contents doesn't seem overwhelming). History of the Han Dynasty is 15,300 words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sacrifice (2008)

I don't know where I go or who I go to, but I would like to withdraw the above nomination pertaining to Sacrifice (2008). I'm too busy at the moment to deal with the process. I nominated at a bad time against my better judgement.--WillC 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do, good luck next time! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to have to withdraw it but considering it would need some prose fixes and I just don't have that time anymore. Thanks again, sorry to bother you.--WillC 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Autism Speaks

Yup, it's called a "disease". I just now added a quote of the source to Talk:Autism Speaks #Baron-Cohen review. Eubulides (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw FAC

Sandy, it's been pointed out to me that I shouldn't have two FA candidate articles at one time, something of which I was not aware (but have done in the past). I would like to withdraw, for the time being, the FAC for SS Kroonland. Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your FACs are usually well prepared and don't require a lot of reviewer time: unless there are significant issues raised in your first FAC, it shouldn't be necessary to withdraw the second. (I haven't checked them). The problems occur when there are multiple, lesser prepared FACs that require a lot from reviewers (images, sources, copyedit, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Bellhalla, since you're an experienced FA writer, it would help the FAC backlog if you could review some as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a topic area I'm familiar with, but I'm sure Fvasconcellos (who follows my page) will see the note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

James Whale FAC

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_Whale Wouldn't it make more sense to close the one that hasn't been substantively commented on rather than the one that's had some measure of review? Otto4711 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Switched, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

State Route 74 (New York – Vermont) FAC

Just curious. What's holding up the promotion of this? Its at 2 supports and 0 opposes, and is also "dead" in some terms. Its reached 26 nights since I nominated it, and I am just wondering what's wrong. Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 01:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't promote on two supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

History of NHL

You recently failed this FAC, yet I do not see any unresolved objections. Can you please explain further your decision to fail this FAC? Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The FAC had been running for more than two weeks without gaining any support. Bringing it back in a few weeks, with all previous issues sorted, should be enough to succeed next time. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please weigh in?

Could you please weigh in at :Do posts about editor behavior and motivation belong to the FARC Commentary?? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No thank you; the entire FAR has been unpleasant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What happens on these sorts of FARs? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I missed the query, YM, and have just now seen it. Joelito and Marskell have to make tough decisions (but neither of them are likely to be swayed by nationalist rhetoric or personality disputes, so it behooves editors to stay on track and stick closely to discussing WP:WIAFA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Idlewild Park

Hey Sandy, just wanted to ask a favor whenever you get a chance. Could you take a look at Idlewild Park and maybe drop some notes at my talk page on what would need attention for an FA push? Thanks a lot, Grsz¹¹ 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to get to it over the next few days: if I forget, pls ping me again. (Have you checked with Ruhrfisch and Finetooth?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. It's not a problem at all, as Finetooth has done a review. Thanks a lot, Grsz¹¹ 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Electron FAC

Greetings,

Please close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electron as I do not have time at present to address all of the concerns. I'll work on them over the next few months and go through the process again, if I'm still interested. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've withdrawn this for you. Please leave the {{fac}} template on the article talk page, so the next bot run will properly archive the FAC and update articlehistory. Hope the next FAC goes more smoothly. Maralia (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia (hope to see you back soon, RJH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Japanese Grand Prix

Hello, Sandy. I'm vaguely wondering what's going to happen at this FAC, now the only outstanding opposer (Ling.Nut) has gone on a week-long Wikibreak. He's done a reasonable amount of copyediting to the article, and did some more just before he left a message about the Wikibreak on my talk page. Apterygial 23:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors going on break with unstruck opposes at FAC is not uncommon; I will look at the strength of the oppose in relation to other subsequent commentary, and discount the Oppose if warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabs: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Guardian Legend

Would TGL need to point to its dab page, or would the dab page need to be moved to TGL (WP:RM needed), while TGL (Technical Group Laboratory) would need to move to Technical Group Laboratory? (In either case, the dab link on top of The Guardian Legend is not necessary, correct?) MuZemike 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the dab may be fine as is, but I'm no expert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Cricket

I wanted to note that, since you are a sports fan, individual years of individual players' careers are now notable enough to warrant full inclusion into Wikipedia. I believe this is true because of this, this, this, etc. Note: it would be impossible for me to have a page devoted to a single year of the life of Milton, Johnson, or anyone else, even though there are hundreds of times more references out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, if you feel so strongly that the articles do not meet notability guidelines then nominate them for deletion yourself. Or, better yet, respond directly to the creator of the articles, rather than an uninvolved party. Or, better yet, write an article on a year of the life of Milton. I for one would love to read it and feel that it would be a net positive for the encyclopedia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it impossible Ottava Rima? If you have lots of information that would overgrow or put undue weightage on a certain facet of some aspect of some article, feel free to fork. I don't have any problem with it. It's no different to having subarticles for assassinations/ early lifes/ etc of lots of highly studied people. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Or election campaigns of some people, which are typiclly 1-2 years long. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, I was heavily challenged on having a page devoted to the -early life- of major authors, which encompass multiple decades. Milton's early life has over a thousand works devoted to it, Johnson's has a comparable amount, and William Wordsworth's has more than all of the cricket players listed combined and then some. Sandy was around when people tried to delete Johnson's early life. I hate the double standard given to athletes. The literature community on Wikipedia comes under criticism if we have articles on individual poems that are published in thousands of editions and have been anthologized for centuries, but sports and television groups are able to get away with some of the lowest standards. It's a sad bias. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree, do feel free to notify me for reinforcements if necessary. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I tend not to go that route. I prefer whining. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, we have Annus mirabilis and Annus horibilis already....LeadSongDog (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have enough articles on these insects????? Oh, wait a minute, you're talking about a sport that takes 3 days to complete, rules that can't be understood by common individuals, and lacks a team of the notability of my Florida Marlins.  :) I couldn't resist OR. Just couldn't resist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

5 days. No worthwhile sport would allow its games to complete in 3 days. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair: baseball games can take 3 days to complete and contain rules which can't be understood by common individuals. The Florida Marlins just lack notability, period, and should be merged into Things which should outrage any right-thinking baseball fan, under #Expansion draft, right below #Designated hitter rule. I'm just saying is all. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Utero

Ah, I understand now. Sorry for misunderstanding and making you apologise ;-) (Responding here so we the FAC doesn't go further off topic). --JD554 (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologizing for apologizing ... :) I guess there can never be too many apologies ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite a FA, but

Hey Sandy, I thought you might find this interesting.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz Ping

Link - I have a question about the .gif image. Thanks, Ceran^→//forge 21:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied there (thx for the link :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Meshuggah thanks

Thank you for promoting Meshuggah! Circumstantially it is my birthday today and even Obama's inauguration is today. Nice unexpected gifts :) Thanks for helping me with all that stuff! Cheers!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you had a very Happy Birthday. And many more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In Utero

I never would have pegged you as the sort to be familiar with the tracklistings of Nirvana albums. Just saying . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

tehehe ... sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not really :) See Tourette syndrome; I've had to deal with that dab being lower case forever :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What music do you listen to, if any at all? Inquiring minds (that is, me and Ceoil) would like to know. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Salsa, merengue, Juan Luis Guerra and 440, Dan Fogelberg, James Taylor, EmmyLou Harris, opera (Ceoil already figured that one out :), and almost anything musical theatre (except Gilbert & Sullivan, can't stand 'em), and lately I've taken a liking to Leigh Nash and Tara MacLean. Oh, and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Given my job involves listening to loads of music, I'm pretty good at recommening stuff to people, but I'm ashamed to say I don't have any in-depth knowledge of your favorites, so the closest I can give is a list of some great 60/70s British folk artists. In lieu of that, I'll just suggest to you a mutual favorite of mine and Ceoil's. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfect :) Can't miss with Placido Domingo. Ok, some Fogelberg (Netherlands) classics: [2] [3] [4]; Leigh Nash is easy to find, too personal to put 'em here :) ; Juan Luis Guerra [5] [6] Thanks for the song, Wesley; it's nice to have some music at the end of a rough day. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

-Ponders- May I suggest some Robert Wyatt? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Wesley; I clicked around on some of his other songs, and I do like his music, but his lyrics aren't particularly subtle, are they? (For example, Juan Luis Guerra can't be translated-- the English language just doesn't go the places he goes-- but I like the subtle and nuanced lyrics as much as the music ... unlike some Opera, where the music alone ... ). So, why are Ceoil and you trying to figure out my music? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not actively trying ma'am, but we are here to learn, aren't we? By the way, that Robert Wyatt song I linked you to was written for him by Elvis Costello. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

They are probably figuring out what to play at your Administratorial Inauguration. "...we ask you to help us work for that day when Sandy can be handy, when Georgia can be a scourger (painful isn't it?)...etc. etc." (Note to whoever is counting this year: don't count this one, nobody wants to FAC that horse). Yomangani^talk 20:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Poor horse :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much noble struggling and outpouring of public affection for an encyclopedia article I'm afraid. Maybe in 10 years time. Yomangani^talk 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Better than Laika (who had to wait 50 years :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to face that since the restaurant or nightclub or whatever got added. I was thinking of rearranging it to move the stuff down from the top into a section called "Laika's existence outside a poorly constructed list of trivial pop culture references" to save people time in scrolling down before they add that their friend once saw a film in which one of the characters said something that sounded like it might have been "Laika" or maybe "Like her". Yomangani^talk 02:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my. I wasn't watching. I just checked a diff back to Outriggr's last edit: very sad. I see now why you don't want to FA the horse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish I hadn't seen that; a fine article deconstructed. Why don't we all restore it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Georgia . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, was wondering how long it would take Dodds to bring up REM ;). Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The real question is how long (how long) will it take Ceoil to bring up U2. Everyone knows Bono's birthday is a national holiday where he's from. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dodds, you know me better than that by now. U2? A few grand songs and dreadful haircuts in the 1980s, the pope, G8, live aid, big houses in Dublin. If I want to listen to IRL bands it would have to be BellX1. Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Bush

Drive-by nom, but I didn't want to remove because I thought you said you had people for that? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx, David. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gunnhild Mother of Kings

This article came up to me a short while ago when it was listed on the front page. It is not near FA class. The entire article presents legendary material as factual or potentially factual and ignores most historical intricacies. Its historical incompetence is well-illustrated by note 16. It really shouldn't be up there. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A look at article's FAC seems to show three supports and two opposes, so it's a bit surprising that Raul promoted it. The "strong object" from Carabinieri at the end of the FAC echoes Deacon's comments. Deacon, have you considered taking the article to featured article review, to be improved or defeatured? Mike Christie (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done this now, though I hope no-one thinks this commits me to in any way contributing to the rewriting of the article. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping

You've got mail regarding some thoughts on stylish black cocktail dresses. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's your idea of a stylish black cocktail dress, my work is cut out for me; it's almost as bad as those Diane Lane numbers you posted a few weeks ago: too much skin showing, nothing left to the imagination, too many shiny fabrics. RED, Orange, RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Backlog

Hey, Sandy. I was considering nominating Hurricane Nate (2005) at FAC, but given the recent backlog, should I hold off a while? Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Even better would be to figure how to drum up some more reviewers :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm usually pretty busy, but if I could do one or two reviews per day, would that be of any help? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly would; my tour through FAC yesterday was most discouraging ... nominators' good faith efforts languishing, and I'm loathe to close them without review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I have been busy with Phagocyte, it's been hard to find the time to review. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be up and running more efficiently soon. I'll try to get to all the FAC urgents tonight and then just start on the list. --Laser brain (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably be back next week, provided nasty cold allows my brain to think again. I attempted an FAC review this morning and then had to close the page when the words started swimming ;) Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Image reviews take so long - I had no idea! I miss reviewing articles. :( I've done so few recently. Ah well. Awadewit (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a great reviewer, and Woodes Rogers has me a bit distracted right now, with Rudolf Wolters undergoing a lot of prep work though it may or may not make it to FAC, but I'll keep an eye on Saxbe fix and see if I can't manage a full review or two this wekeend.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would start reviewing again, but we all know what kind of fallout results from that. :) By the way: Blatant canvass. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell what that's about (too busy to focus): I support Malleus for Admin. In fact, I told him long ago I'd nom if he showed he could put past issues behind him, and he has. Besides, he's funny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus wanted to lighten to RfA talk page's mood by complaining about never becoming an admin and people started taking it seriously. I jumped in and started a mock RfA for him. But (-but-) if it gets to 100 supports I'll list it on Jimbo's talk page asking for him to be promoted. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Today's FA

I have a problem with the bolding of today's featured article. For example, today, the bot looked at the page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 24, 2009, and makes an educated guess to find the name of today's article (basically, it searches for a link in bold, that is, something that looks like '''[[...]]'''), and it usually works ok. The problem is that today's FA is refered to as a template: '''{{SS|Ohioan|1914|6}}''', making it very difficult for the bot to know what to bold (it would have to expand the template, which would be a lot of work for not much). Only way to solve this is to use only direct (or piped) links to refer to the FA every day. Let me know if you have any other thoughts on this. Schutz (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask Raul to have a look, since he sets up the TFAs. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried substituting it, but that didn't work so well. I suggest that the bot always go for the "More" link - that will always be a direct link to the daily FA. Raul654 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Look for links in bold, possibly with quotation marks inside the bolding, and either piped or not piped. That will catch the "more" link. I've run scripts through all the TFA subpages so I know this works historically, except for the day there was no TFA. The regex for this isn't too complicated. Gimmetrow 02:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Another FAC to be withdrawn...

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/WALL-E --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, David; I'll look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A WikiCup 2009 member; I suppose we'll have many of those, and fan support has to be watched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect we'll see too much of it (at least not from the good chaps who are already contributing boatloads); but I'll pop a note over at the 'Cup talk page just as a reminder to more... "eager" entrants. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Remind them that they should also disclose WikiCup participation if they come to FAC, so I can account for supports from the rest of their group :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe opposes :) Maralia (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, can you negate any opposes from anyone who ever had anything to do with me also. That would help..... wait, that would probably remove any of the responses. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, left your cheery paraphrased words. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my; someone's gonna scream :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• bats eyes innocently* Who? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ursula Franklin

I'm disappointed that the featured article candidate Ursula Franklin has been archived especially since there was so little opposition expressed and since I tried my best to correct every opposing point. I had a much happier experience with my two other FAC candidates Harold Innis and Angus Lewis Macdonald. Very disappointing in this case, but as they say, them's the breaks. Bwark (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we might need to start asking nominators to review more articles, to help lower the backlog and get things moving again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe under nomination procedures we could ask that in order to reduce the backlog (and bring more attention to their own FAC) nominators are encouraged to review another FAC? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As the main opposition at that FAC, I'm also kind of disappointed. Though the article wasn't ready yet, and needed pretty significant prose work, I don't think you had to archive it so early. Nevertheless, as I think about it, I'm agreeing with your idea more and more. Anyway, I support David's idea, as a requirement. Ceran^→//forge 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, forcing people to review won't work. Some people aren't good at reviewing, etc. Gary King (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, "significant prose work" means it doesn't belong at FAC. It should be removed and brought up to par. FAC is not the place to bring articles up to FA standard; they need to be there or almost there already. --Laser brain (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I missed this while at FAC. As may be expected from Bwark's background, history, and experience both on- and off-wiki, the article is very well-written and worthy of being a Featured Article. I believe that Ceran's concerns were all addressed, as all of the bulleted points at FAC were answered soon after they were posted there. The article however did not attract other reviews, which led to archiving. I believe Bwark should renominate it. Kablammo (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded on Bwark's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Hi Sandy. Would you like to give your opinion on article Pope John Paul II, which is now in Pier Review? If so, please see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pope John Paul II/archive2 Many Thanks -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Pier review"? Is that when the shoes of the fisherman stand on the dock as the fleet goes by?LeadSongDog (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Marek, my apologies, but it is unlikely that I will find time for article work until after mid-February. You might consider asking Savidan (talk · contribs) or Ioannes Pragensis (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, no problem. I shall contact a few others. :-) Marek.69 ^talk 01:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant ‘Peer’ Marek.69 ^talk 02:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sultan Iskandar of Johor

Dear Sandy, Ive just expanded the above article significantly--about 45kb long. Skimming through the FA criteria, preliminary impression suggests that this could possibly be a Featured Article in the future. As a sole contributor, I still do receive scattered assistance in terms of typo errors during the course of my contributions. Citations wise, what I used was mainstream books--all of them can be traced via Google books, online versions of local newspapers or government websites pertaining to the subject--wherever relevant. Currently, I have nominated it for a "Good Article" status plus a Peer Review, but I have no inputs as yet. Yup, if its possible I would certainly aim for one. As the assistant director for the FA volunteer department I would sincerely appreciate if you might give a preliminary insight into the article--any prime flaws or those sort of things? Your inputs are greatly appreciated. Thank you! Mr Tan (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time for an indepth look, but at a quick glance, I see a lot of MoS cleanup and citation work needed. Many of the citations are incompletely or incorrectly formatted. Also, it should not be listed at both peer review and GAN at the same time; I suggest you withdrawn the GAN, follow the suggestions at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 for locating volunteers who might contribute to the peer review, and then resubmit later to GAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's OK to be at peer review and GAN at the same time, although that may raise some stability issues of course. I agree with your general points about MoS and citations though, and the article is in very sore need of attention from a good copyeditor or two. I'm dubious that it's even of GA quality to be frank, never mind FA. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tq, but for my part, as I glanced thruWikipedia:Citing sources I realised that I did not stick sufficiently to the styles--especially in the pt of books. I sincerely won't mind anyone willing to help out, but what my greatest fear is that, in the process of copyediting or reformatting, informattion might be accidentally deleted from the passage and render the article incosistent. Good article wise, given my screen-thrus the nominatied articles I thought I could give it a shot, given that I cited every fact in accordance to the guidelines--reliability wise. But anyway, I sincerely admit that while I really need help, my fear lies in the possibility in information--cited ones being removed by accident, which do happens and cannopt be easily detected in such a big article like this.

PS: Some older books do not have an ISBN code, from what I got at Google books.

If possible, perhaps a automated bot which can realign my article styling to wikipedia guidelines may help? But I do not know which bots may help on this part. But yup, I really neeed help to achieve this goal. Thanks anyway.:) Mr Tan (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Standardised the format for easier navigation in Notes to books, but more may need to be done I admit. Mr Tan (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North American River Otter

User has withdrawn, it's one of the AP Biology project. Ceran^→//forge 01:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

References make me want to...

...tear my eyes out?

I have tried and tried and tried and tried to get the Harvard ref. format to work on the article Banker horse. Some of them work and link down from the notes to citations section, and some don't. A little bird told me that you did the ref formatting for the Intro to Evol. article. Any chance you could help?

I have been working on it here. References Harrison and Dohner work, but not Quinn or Hendricks...

Thanks --Yohmom (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yohmom, if I might answer on behalf of Sandy. I've had a look at your referencing problem, and worked out what's going wrong. There are two parts to getting the link from the notes to the citations to work. The {{Harv}} template generates a link constructed from the author's name and the year (it actually looks something like #CITEREFQuinn1955), and {{cite book}} also generates such a link, so that by clicking on the first you end up at the second. But since these two templates are independent, it is possible that they might generate links with different names, if they aren't given the same parameters. In this case when you click on the Harv link, it doesn't do anything, which is what is happening for you.

Quinn is a particularly nasty case. It turns out that {{Harv|Quinn|1955|p=187}} is sensitive to spaces after the author's name, so {{Harv|Quinn|1955|p=187}} is different from {Harv|Quinn |1955|p=187}}. Normally extras spaces shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it seems to here. When I removed the space the Quinn link worked.

The case with Hendricks & Dent is related to how the templates construct their links. In order for the links to match up correctly, you need to use the multi-author form of {{Harv}}, i.e. {{Harvnb|Hendricks|Dent|1995|p=63}}, rather than {{Harvnb|Hendricks & Dent|1995|p=63}}. At the other end you also need to use the |last2= |first2= parameters for {{cite book}}, rather than |coauthors=.

I've made these changes to your sandbox so the links should now work. You can see what I changed here. I've also taken the liberty of changing {{Harv}} to {{Harvnb}} (nb=no brackets) to get rid of the brackets which aren't necessary since the reference is not part of a sentence. If you have any more questions about this feel free to ask me. (P.S. you might also want to consider removing the unused parameters from your cite templates to make it easier to edit, i.e. the things like | url = | doi = | id = |)Dr pda (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing that, doc ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FCDW/AprilFools

It looks good to me. Raul654 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Move.. finally.

In theory, the movers are arriving tomorrow to start packing. The internet here at the old house goes off Wed morning when they switch it over (supposedly) to the new house. We should be sleeping at the new house Wed night. Movers will still be packing/moving for most of the week, so stuff will be a bit sporadic. If I don't appear after Wed morning, know that the ISP has screwed me over. (grins). Just a heads up so you are aware. Hopefully things will be back to normal by the weekend. Oh, yeah, the kiddo is in the spelling bee Thursday night.. which just adds to the fun and joy! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck (and with the spelling bee, too :-) ... I hope the ISP works out and we see you soon ! (I love my movers ... and I know them all too well ... too many moves!) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Something strange with FAR page

There is something wacky about the code on the WP:FAR page; there is a "References" section in the TOC but nothing happens when you click on it. Could you take a look at it? I think it has something to do with that hidden template on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Władysław Sikorski, but I don't know how to fix it. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I will try to get in as many FAC reviews as possible later in the week. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Thanks for letting me know. And thanks for the excellent reviews! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible to archive

Hi Sandy. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spokane, Washington is a relatively new nomination with a lot of text already. I don't think there is any chance that my objection will be struck in the time allotted to the FAC, and when I suggested withdrawal the nominator responded: I know this won't pass...I still think that the process should be finished, even if it is gauranteed to fail. I wasn't sure if you waited a few days before looking closely at the new ones, so I wanted to bring it to your attention in case it warrants early archival, considering the backlog. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm got that one watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PR backlog

Hi Sandy, the backlog at peer review is actually a bit better in the past few weeks - fewer articles on it and they have to wait fewer days on average. I took a week off from reviewing recently (as I was burnt out) and Finetooth and Brianboulton stepped up and have been doing (even) more reviews - I am back reviewing now too. While there has been an official backlog list since March 2008, articles aren't listed on it until they have been at WP:PR four days without a substantive review. Depending on how many articles are on the backlog (as high as 28 and very rarely down to zero) and how many reviewers are active, the wait for a review can be up to 12 or even 13 days. Lately it has been a week or less. Dr pda has been doing some stats and says the average backlog for PR was 11 articles last year.

The article where the comment was made had two reviewers weigh in, and was never on the backlog list. Juliancolton reviewed it the day it was listed and I reviewed it four days later (I'd been asked to) - see Wikipedia:Peer review/1970 Tonghai earthquake/archive1. Julian and I both pointed out areas that needed work before FAC. I try to give a more detailed review if an article is headed to FAC or if I am the only reviewer. I haven't finished counting yet, but I am guessing I did at least 500 peer reviews in 2008, maybe closer to 600 - see this.

I will try and do a few more FACs. I tend to weigh in on articles that already looked very solid in PR, but will try a few more if I am able. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We appreciate all your work, of course! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Terms

Wikipedia:FCDW/OtherLanguageWikis goes slowly and is definitely going to need some copyediting and such down the road, but it's coming along. One question however is I was wondering how you wanted the other wikis (and ours) to be referred to. Right now it's a mishmash of "X-language wiki" "X project" and "en.wp" when I couldn't think of better things to call us. Is there some technically correct terms I should be using here? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent FAC nomination

Hi Sandy (and talk page watchers), Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy appears to be a nomination by an editor who is not a significant contributor to the article. A message was left on the talk page a couple of days ago suggesting the possibility of taking the article to FAC, but had no response. Does this count as notifying significant contributors? If it's OK, the FAC page needs the nominator line and the tools added. Dr pda (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 382

I am wondering how you view opposes over the notability of the subject, as has taken place at the above FAC? It is difficult to know how the FAC is going or steps can be taken to remedy the issues (if possible). Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 01:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Johnson on the mainpage?

Johnson will be on the mainpage on the 31st? His anniversary is just coming up. Why is this not delayed? There are going to be hundreds of celebrations, major events, etc, on 18 September 2009 for his 300th, and I was really hoping that Wikipedia would be able to show that it had a featured article to commemorate and prove that we are a great source.

Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You would have to ask Raul ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But, Ottava, this still gives you 8 months to bring one of the related articles up to FAC ;) Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Like his "early life" page? I just have to expand on it in terms of his literature. It would work with a birth related time I guess. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But Raul is scary when you talk to him directly. So, I figured posting it here would give me a chance to flee before he found out. Plus, you were involved in it and I wanted to emotionally bond with you. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OR, where on *earth* did you get the idea one could "emotionally bond" with people you meet on the internet ? (Raul is not scary at all ... just think of him in Giano terms.) If it *really* troubles you, mention it to Raul ... sometimes he forgets. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha. The bonding thing was a joke regardless. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a proposal to put King William IV (one of the "dregs of their dull race"[7]) on the 31st, but it was withdrawn. We've gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. Kablammo (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

YOU try being King at the time of the most significant reform to the British system since Magna Carta and see how far you get. Ridiculous, huh.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Jones (missionary)

[8] an exhorter is a person employed by the Methodist Church to speak at ceremonies & whatnot. The sentence is saying that Jones got an official church position (as an employee, I guess) on March 1st, and that the position he got was that of an exhorter (like a job title). If the sentence is unclear, I suppose I should re-arrange it. Grammar and clarity are not always something I have in spades. Thanks for looking it over, though. WilyD 21:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So, the current spaced endashes are correct; there was no intended hyphenation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't be hyphenated. Dashed I think is correct, but I'm not very confident. WilyD 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

MOS question re: Olympic Games FAC

First off thank you for your MOS review, I knew the article needed someone with extensive knowledge of the MOS to look it over. I've made oodles of fixes per your recommendations. One question I had was regarding capitalization. Throughout the article I capitalize Games in reference to the Olympic Games (e.g. The Games of 1936 were held in Berlin). Is that legit or no? Second I note that you wanted the headings reformatted, should I decapitalize Games in the headings as well? Thanks!! H1nkles (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe Olympic Games is upper case (as a proper noun). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Forgot about that "rule". — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the nominations

Does it really have to be one at a time? I have both of them ready at this point, and there's nothing else I can do with them...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes; FAC is backlogged, and we need to stick to one at a time until the backlog is reduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for IAR FAC nom

Note: For transparency this message was also left on the talk page of Raul654 (talk · contribs)

In the interest of time, I am asking for special permission to file the FAC for USS Connecticut (BB-18) immediately on IAR grounds. I believe this will be the best method of allowing the article to reach FA status because it will provide editors at FAC the usual three to four week window to review the article, and unlike other articles there are three people who intend to through there all into the article to address all applicable points of objection during the FAC. Since I am aware of the ever increasing standards at FAC, I wanted to get your permission before giving anyone involved in this effort the green light to file. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking. You don't have another nomination active, and a FAC for that article wasn't recently archived, so what is the IAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, found your post now at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#The centennial..., so I guess you're asking about nominating an article that is still undergoing major work. That's a risky approach, but the risk is yours :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

Hello, many months ago I made a very small contribution to the Samuel Johnson piece, so I put it on my watchlist. Over time I noticed the way you shepherded the article and massaged it into shape. Congratulations to you on its featured status. Much deserved! Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but the credit goes to Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) and Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, hats off to them then!MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Sandy, even random people easily recognized that you were the main force behind it. Come on, its about time you give yourself credit! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)