User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch81

Replying

>can you do the same on half a dozen more FACs that got scanty review.

Be happy to give it a shot (I'm not comfortable with every topic and every wikiproject), in the morning, although I can't keep this pace up. We just put together the quarterly reviewing totals over at Milhist, and it's clear that we need to find a way to get more people to review, especially at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You can say that again; I like to be confident and proud of the articles I promote, but I'm promoting articles now that have sat there for weeks and have gotten little review. Not a good situation-- we need Laser brain and Karanacs back as reviewers. Reviewers are just not engaging: makes my "job" tedious and unpleasant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying! I'm trying! But finding time to review is ... hard. I do have my own projects I'd like to see finished.. FAC reveiwing could suck up all my time and I'd never get anything else done. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I know-- you're a dear :) Thanks for the lengthy review at SAQ ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ready for time suckage, I'll just wander randomly looking for grumpy comments from delegates unless you want to point me in a particular direction. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I try to contain myself, but my edit summaries are sometimes helpful when I slip :) The Urgents template is always a good place to start-- I really really appreciate your willingness to do this. I'm finding many MOS issues are going unreviewed, and sub-standard prose is getting early Supports, which causes FACs to be carried for a long time. Thanks! Another thing you might do is glance quickly at new nominations: if we can nip the ill-prepared in the bud, they are less likely to end up clogging the FAC page down the road, and I often see only one Oppose, with no other reviewer pitching in to give me an indication if it's salvageable or needs to be closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying too, but don't have a lot of time at the moment. This may not be the best place to do this, but I will say that doing a full review which takes a chunk of time, and then having to deal with a nominator who disagrees with the review, is off-putting. I think some marginal articles have been promoted recently, but also think that some reviewers don't want to oppose for a variety of reasons, which makes your job harder. That's my sense, for whatever it's worth. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You've got good sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is much truth to that, on all counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So the delegates have no choice but to promote marginal pages, which basically sucks for those who spend time bringing polished pages to FAC. I noticed one promotion last night had been listed for only a week. It would be nice for all the pages to go that quickly. Anyway, I should shut up now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We can only let 'em ride for so long-- when we're approaching six weeks and two months, no opposes-- well ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's up to reviewers to have a spine, but we wimp out on you. If the reviewer has a page nominated then I think it's very hard to oppose. That's just my opinion of course, but it makes it problematic. I actually think it's best to review without having a page in the queue. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say that? I'm quite happy to oppose anything if I don't think it's up to snuff, but I haven't really been spending much time at FAC recently. It's my view that opposing is relatively easy when there are glaring faults, and reviewers ought to be prepared to pull the trigger sooner. Supporting is much harder. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So get your arse back in there !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy with other stuff recently, plus certain recent events here on wikipedia ... well no need to go into that now. Increasingly I think that there will have to be a few changes made before my enthusiasm for the project returns, notably in the role of the administrators; I'm just not prepared to be treated like a naughty child by any spotty oik who happens to be cute enough to get through RfA. Still, enough about me, how was you skiing holiday? Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Spectacular ... I failed to update you all on my slope-side tryst with Giano. But forgetting my passport, then losing my wallet, ID, credit cards, and a boatload of cash was Less Than Grand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Already over at commons, under the initials SG ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So that's where my lost camera went ... do you 'spose they have my wallet, too? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Anything's possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Will someone tell the culprit she or he can keep the rest, but I want my $900 back? <ouch> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm a thin-skinned wimp which does not = good wikipedian. That's why I say that. I should stay away from FAC but need to get over my fear-of-FAC. And if I nominate, I think I should review. And then I wimp out. Not good. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Better Than Today/archive1

If you would have actually taken a look at the article, you would have noticed that it has gone through PR recently, but, hey, I think that FAC is starting to become a crock anyway. Cheers. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Review by one editor at PR, and closing the PR after a week, does not a solid PR make. But your opinion is noted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I don't know how to make a solid PR. It's like pulling teeth to find one reviewer. Oh well, at least the article is GA. That's "good" enough for me. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: My irritation is to the process, not you. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but I have a counter-irritation, which is that we are lacking reviewers, and becoming peer review. Please work on the issues (presenting a FAC with basic grammatical errors doesn't bode well), and good luck next time through! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A kindness I'll remember

That was extremely decent of you. Whatever the outcome, I'll remember it. The experience here is gruelling, and I have enjoyed every minute of it, and whatever the outcome, no disappointment can attach itself to the experience. Best Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just "doin' my job", but I appreciate your kindness! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me also express my appreciation for your patience and good judgment in what was a very sticky FAC and one that could have been infinitely worse without your guidance. You handled it with professionalism and aplomb. All best. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kindness :) Now that you know the process, we could really use you as a reviewer! By the way, because I was focused on remembering to add a re-promoted FA from the same batch to WP:FFA, I missed an important step in promoting, which is why Gimmebot hasn't been by yet to add your star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Broad Ripple Park Carousel/archive1

Can you do me a favor and explain to Carcharoth that "comprehensive" doesn't mean "covers all aspects of a subject and if the secondary sources don't cover an aspect, it can't be FA" please? If that's the actual case, we need to demote some of the fungus and animal species articles. And I'm going on record as NOT liking having the whole commentary on the talk page, as I don't think it's going to get me any help with this mis-understanding. I'm feeling like he wants things I can't report because my sources don't say so and thus I'll have him waste my time with replying and reworking things with no support to show for my work. Sorry, just very discouraged. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that moving comments to talk makes it less likely that other reviewers will look at them and correct misstatements-- that's true :) It's late here, I'm trying to finish my taxes, I have a full-day of appointments all day tomorrow and won't be home 'til late, but I'll look in as soon as I'm home. Hopefully someone else will clear this up before I get there. Hang in there-- sorry to see you discouraged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on Ealdgyth's talk page here. That includes a suggestion for how to make such discussions more visible to help correct misunderstandings, and I've done this on this FAC (i.e. left an update on the main page under the pointer that was originally left there to make sure other reviewers knew that there was discussion taking place on the talk page). I've also apologised for causing discouragement, which wasn't my intention at all. Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

See Mike's message below-- I will not be able to catch up on this today, and hope I will find it resolved when I'm able to catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on leaving comments on the FAC talk page

I was interested to see the section just above, since I was coming here to post a similar comment to Ealdgyth's. I saw your comment on the MIA FAC that for you the experiment was a success, and I can understand that from a delegate's point of view it works well. However, despite the fact that none of the four or five editors on whose FACs I tried it complained, I found myself uneasy about it by the end, and I don't plan to do it any more. The problem is that it splits the active FAC into two parts, and there seems no reason for that from the nominator's point of view. It's easy for the nominator to miss it, and I also found it felt strange that there was no way to judge progress by looking at the main FAC page -- there's just a statement there that there are comments on the talk page; there's no way to glance and see that, for example, there's a long list, none of which are struck, or perhaps there's a short list, most of which are struck. So you can't see progress, and as a nominator I would like those reading the FAC to be able to quickly see progress. I think having the nominator move things to talk once resolved is fine, though that's good deal more trouble than just capping them, and I don't think you'll see it done very often as a result. As a FAC reader I would prefer capping, if we have to have something, because I would rather click "unhide", have a quick look to see if whatever it is is interesting, and then hide it again. I don't want to go to the talk page because I typically use the nominations viewer and there's no easy way to see the talk page from there and return to where I was on the page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mike, I will catch up on this when I can, involved in April 15 tax agida. It seems the plan isn't working, and there is no Plan B. Carry on as you see fit :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

After reading this and the previous section, I would also prefer to leave my comments on the main FAC page, usually. The concession I'd like to make to overall WP:FAC length is, I'll do as much as I can in edit summaries in the article, and only put things on the FAC page where I want to ask a question. The nominators I'm working with are often pleasant and responsive, and I'd like other potential reviewers to be able to see that for themselves. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

&nbsp

Dank has been asking around about scripts to hard-code '&nbsp;' into date strings per WP:MOSNUM because it seems you may have started insisting that dates in FACs be so formatted. I am a great adherent to greater consistency that MOSNUM encourages, but as the bulk of my semi-automated work involves Style matters, I'm naturally concerned at this development at this stage. Whilst I am aware that once dates are correctly formatted for a FAC, they are unlikely to ever need changing in the future. Nevertheless, I feel that there is a culture where the uninitiated often copy practices they see such without fully understanding them, thus such a demand would set back efforts to align dates because it could potentially create unquantifiable mass of dates that will not and can never be touched by scripts such as mine and Lightmouse's, written to ensure MOSNUM compliance. Of course, I can easily make a small tweak to my script to insert the '&nbsp;' you wish to see. My script already inserts the '&nbsp;' into date strings only in very limited circumstances, such as within titles and quotations – these must never be converted. But I am very reluctant to see this going any further for the reason I gave above. The underlying problem is that I don't know how to balance the protection of 'unchangeable strings' with the requirement to align without availing myself of the '&nbsp;'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never insisted that dates use NBSPs, and somewhere long ago in MOS talk archives, you will find a discussion where it was decided they were not necessary or helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. You cannot know how relieved I am to hear that from you. Nevertheless, I would just remark that these requirements, which have not been around since just yesterday, seem to be what is causing the recent flurry of activity. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• You might investigate when the date NBSP was added and by whom-- the last time I was involved in a MOS discussion on NBSP was years ago, and they weren't required then, and I don't enforce date NBSPs at FAC. In fact, I think they're an unnecessary PITA. I'm sorry I can't be more help-- a bit sucked under here IRL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for reaffirming your stance. I will look into how that paragraph got into MOS --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I need to check this page more often ... Wikipedia_talk:Mosnum#Damn nbsp's was actually what I said. Other than the kind of reservations I expressed in the recent related thread at WT:FAC, I don't take a position on nbsp's in dates myself. Ohconfucius gave me a script to help with the other nbsp's ... thanks for that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• The date discussion is surely just a subset of a more general nbsp issue, which is that individual lines of text ought not end in a number separated from its units on the following line, which I'm certain I have seen you complaining about Sandy. In other words 2
  April, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep up with the whole discussion (or even look into it), and I won't have time for several more days ... yes, I do watch for general NBSP issues, but never on dates, where I think the fact that something is a date is usually clear, and NBSPs on them unnecessarily clutter the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't make much sense. It's no more obvious that the "unit" following the initial number of a date is April, as in my example, than it is that the unit following a number which is obviously from its context meant to be a distance is in kilometres. That the nbsp may clutter up the text for an editor simply once again demonstrates the very real need for a proper wysiwyg editor. Other software I use regularly has no difficulty in providing a proper editor, so it's difficult to understand why the wiki software lags so far behind. Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Over my head alert on the wiki software problems ... glad there are other brains on board ... but context usually makes the dates understandable on the very rare instances that they're chopped. Since it doesn't make sense to you, I'll try to explain better. When I'm reading through some article on a topic I'm perhaps not familiar with, loaded up with terms I don't know, my "brain farts" when it hits a hanging number separated from an acronym, for example, and I stall for a minute, in, "wait, what was that", and have to go back and re-read. But from the context of a sentence, your brain usually is prepared by the text for a date to follow, so my brain doesn't "fart" on those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• But I can easily produce examples where there is no such context. For instance, what follows this: "The king's review of 10 ..."? December? Warships? Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• If it's a date, why wouldn't it be *on* 10 instead of *of*? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• OK, here's a real-life example (from the lead of Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway): "it was built [to] connect Manchester with the nearest deep water port at the Port of Liverpool, 35…" – of whose residents had paid for it? miles away? years after it was proposed? hours travel away? – iridescent 18:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• The context would determine whether "on" or "of" was the more appropriate. If the overall context was the review itself then one would very likely say "on", as in "The king's review on 10 December was conducted in a sullen silence". But if the topic was the effect of the review then "of" would be more likely: "The king's review of 10 December resulted in several ships being decommissioned". Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that the fat lady singing?

I wonder if the whiners might go 0-162. As I attempt to remain civil about the current skill level of your favorite baseball team, I shall keep in mind that you still own a red leather cocktail dress. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The red leather dress is gone, but I own *lots* of others ... you should know The Fat Lady won't sing for many more months-- I may have a new team by then, anyway ! But it won't be the Marlins ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah ha, so you might become a Free Agent Fan. I'm considering that in college basketball after my Orange choked again. I almost considered Ohio State, but they choked too. Yes, I've been hearing about these dresses for years. I'm wondering if it's a myth. :P OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop wondering ... Other Wikipedia editors, with better choices than yours in baseball teams, did get Christmas card pics from me :) Maybe your taste in baseball teams will improve by next Christmas!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're bribing me. Well, I have no honor, so I'm open to switching my support.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Me, bribe? Never ... gentle persuasion ... followed by "don't mess with us, we are ruthless people!" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL....bribing is much more fun. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Brittany Murphy: There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article

I believe that your post at [[1]] refers to a post which I have made.

The site in question is an open forum and no assumption should be made about any opinions that it's users may have regarding persons mentioned in the related article. It is not a fan page and I can attest from much previous experience that a range of opinions are represented there. The post is not addressed to those who hold any particular view as your title suggests and I respectfully ask you to acknowledge this.

The post was intended to invite comment on issues already discussed on the talk page rather than editing. If Wikipedia's professed neutrality is to have credibility it's deliberations must be transparent and accountable to the broader internet community. This is especially important in view of it's articles' prominence in Google rankings.

I would add that an attempt to summon existing Wikipedians with large watchlists and a reputation for, and obvious pride in, rigourous challenge of new edits could equally be viewed as an attempt to distort opinion relative to the broader consensus.

Finally, as a newbie I don't understand what would in any case be the advantage of recruiting people known to share one's own views in terms of getting edits approved. (W090584 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

The reverted edits were to a non-reliable source, and it most definitely amounts to what is considered recruiting on Wikipedia. Other than adding the template, I'm not following the matter; it happened to pop on my watchlist. If you want to add text on that matter, it should be based on reliable sources; see WP:EL and WP:RS. By the way, I think this is the diff you intended to reference above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The reverted edits were to a non-reliable source, and it most definitely amounts to what is considered recruiting on Wikipedia. - I didn't mention edits. I'm referring to the fact that you posted on this page under the title "There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article". I'm disputing the words "of specific viewpoints". I also wasn't talking about editing, only participation in this discussion. [2]

To repeat my question, what would be the point of recruiting "editors of specific viewpoints" anyway? I'm going to ask you a very direct question and expect a yes or no answer - does or does not Wikipedia accept new editors? There seems to be a hostility to any discussion let alone editing which frankly makes a mockery of any claim by Wikipedia to neutrality and impartiality and the phrase "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". See [3]

While we are on the subject of transparency, what policies govern archiving of Wikipedia discussions on other sites? (W090584 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

This is my only edit; it's a standard talk page template for situations like this, clearly explained and well justified in the diff from KWW you list above, which is where I first became aware of it. Please take this conversation elsewhere; I added the recruiting template to article talk because there had been recruiting, and have no further interest in the matter. Kww is right, by the way; you have pointed out above that there was also recruiting on another site, so the template is well justified and I advise you to drop the matter lest you end up blocked for disruptive or POV editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The link on IMDb [4] is well out of order per WP:CANVAS. The puzzle here is why this has suddenly become such a big issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The puzzle is why it's on my talk page when all I did was add the {{Recruiting}} template to the talk page after I saw clear recuiting. If the OP thinks there was no recruiting, he can deal with that on article talk or at WP:ANI, where his/her view is not likely to prevail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The puzzle is why it's on my talk page when all I did was add the {{Recruiting}} template to the talk page after I saw clear recuiting - Being a newbie, I don't where I am supposed to put it. Very well, I will repeat my questions elsewhere (W090584 (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

Still only April

Ummm.... how about those Red Sox? MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

go talk to OM ... I'm having a bad enough day :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

God hates people who kick others when they're down, MastCell. Normally I'd be upset about an 0-5 start, but at least my other team started off 2-0. I think I'll just pop over to MLB.com and see how they've been doing the last few days.... Oh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

BoSox Yankees this weekend. Since I hate the Yankees more than I do sauteed shrooms, I become a temporary Sox fan. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

you should all know that it's poor form to rub folks' noses in bad baseball until *after* taxes are filed on the 15th ... gimme a break! And The Fat Lady doesn't even begin warming up 'til September. AND ... I'm going to choose my new team based on which team best fills the Mike Lowell, Billy Mueller gap, so put in your votes now for the hottest hard-working all-round performing humble guy in baseball. Hint: won't be a Yankee or a Marlin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Include the choking slime in that group of "won't support." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Filed early this year. :) Given the talent the Sox have, I'm sure they'll start tearing it up by the end of the month, so I thought I'd better comment now. Floquenbeam, your comment reminds me of a T-shirt I once purchased for someone as a gift. It reads: "Jesus hates the Yankees". MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Cough. 0-6 Cough cough. I believe you're hearing the sounds of the fat lady warming up her voice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Saw the highlights from that one... ouch. Smart baserunning vs. dumb baserunning. I do love a good squeeze play, though. MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I was driving to a meeting, so I was listening on my XM radio (all MLB all the time). I couldn't wait to find a WiFi connection to troll Sandy's page. That sounds awfully pathetic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that I'm missing all the fun ... instead, I'm crashing cars that aren't mine, trying to do taxes, and dealing with various and sundry unpleasantries instead of keeping up with baseball. I'm not sure I know what players are on the Red Sox this year, but about mid-summer, I'm going to catch up on The Things That Really Matter in Life and come seeking my revenge on you !!! And I'm soooo disappointed ... you were supposed to distract me with a discussion of the hottest and humblest new talents in baseball to replace Lowell and Mueller ... you've let me down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong people. But since you asked, you could consider Cliff Lee. He's an incredible pitcher to watch, in particular his command of the strike zone. Last year, he walked 18 batters in 212 innings (and 2 of those walks were intentional) [5]. He kills the Yankees, and he passed up a fat wad of cash from them, apparently because their fans are jerks ([6]). He's low-key, humble, hard-working, plays the game the way it's meant to be played, etc. I can't speak to his physical attractiveness, but it might be worth a thought. MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

MC, I don't care what he *looks* like, especially if he kills the Yankees, but ... bzzzzt ... he was drafted by Marlins. Disqualified. And he turned up his nose at the Marlins and plays for the Phillies ... I'll watch him.(Has that guy up above gone away yet?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I bet if the BoSox were 6-0, you'd be talking crap to us. So.....meh! 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Halo FAC

Any reason for closing it? You know "FACclosed" is not a reason and that you don't even give a damn reviewing articles and see that I've resolved their issues. For future use much more specific reason for close a FAC than "Closed". Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Linky. Dana boomer (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Dana .. it seems that big purple message one encounters when editing my talk page needs to be bigger SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tbhotch, the FAC had two opposes indicating that 1) serious copyediting was needed throughout (samples only), and 2) sourcing issues were raised. In such cases, you will probably have better luck at FAC the next time through if you engage an independent copyeditor and be sure your sources are in order before re-approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Chain Saw FAC

Hi Sandy. I don't think I can deal with the FAC anymore, (plus it's been 3 months) and in anycase, I'll be going on vacation soon. The previous version (before it was revamped) of the current FAC looked similar to the last FAC, and it's starting to look the same way. I don't want to continue with the FAC anymore.--Tærkast (Communicate) 09:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you certain? When Steve-- a competent and knowledgeable film editor-- says it's almost over the line, I'm inclined to think it's getting close. DGG DCGeist is often able to resolve issues quickly, and he hasn't entered an Oppose-- would you prefer to take more time, before you leave for vacation, to try to work with them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to do some changes now and tomorrow, but I'm worried about the time during the holiday, i.e. will it be archived, pass, or whatever. It's been nearly 3 months, as I said.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it open for now and I've watchlisted-- post there if you change your mind, please? By the way, it's been two months, not three :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, I've said I'll try and do what I can in these couple of days.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright I've done what I can. Sometime tomorrow, I'm off to sunny South Africa, so I don't know what'll happen to the FAC. I hope people will take care of it.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I knew this was going to happen. Things didn't turn out well. This article seems to be allergic to FA status. Not sure I'll bother with it anymore. --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil/archive1

Per Lecen's request on my talk page (3rd sentence from the end) and Astynax's reply, the two nominators of this FAC would like to withdraw it at this time. I support their decision; it was getting heated, and attempts to negotiate were getting nowhere. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe Laser brain will go through today, so would you mind pointing him to this discussion? I've generally recused from Lecen's nominations because we've edited together on Venezuelan articles. Personally, having written many Spanish-language BLPSs, I don't understand why we're having this agida over name translations, so better to leave that to Laser anyway. I don't really see the reason for translating names unless they are very widely known by their English-language equivalents, and I believe this has come up on several of Lecen's nominations before. His nominations are getting less and less engagement from reviewers because they often turn difficult, and I feel badly leaving them to Laser, but that's the situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be an opportunity for Laser to leave brief notes for both parties regarding the issue in dispute, about which I lack the interest and the self-destructive impulse to educate myself. Lecen seems minded to jump off a cliff without bothering to check cross-traffic below, and that would not be a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both ... I'm barely keeping up today, busy, peeking in as I'm able, but if anyone referred to King Juan Carlos of Spain as John Charles, I would find that highly unusual. He's known as Juan Carlos, and translating his name would be silly-- that's the only example that comes to mind, but my mind is cluttered right now. I've been wrong before, but I just don't get it-- maybe because I speak Spanish and don't see why we would refer to them in English, could be me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any hard and fast convention, and I agree that Brazilian monarchs are usually referred to by their Portuguese names, but there are certainly Spanish names which are commonly anglicised—think "Ferdinand and Isabella" and not "Fernando y Isabel" (and of course their protege Christopher Columbus, not Cristóbal Colón) for instance. – iridescent 19:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It'll be tomorrow, but I will be going through the list soon and I will look into this. If they made an official withdrawal request, there are a few people that can deal with that. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Logarithm FAC

Hi, I feel the FAC of Logarithm (nominated by myself) has gotten relatively few feedback so far. Both in terms of numbers (3 supports (one "with limitations"), one oppose) and, I believe, in terms of depth of the criticism. Since the general response is rather supportive, I want to make sure that the FAC will not fail due to lack of reviewers. But I'm not sure whether this is a) a problem at all (something you judge in the end) and b) in line with WP:CANVAS if I would solicit more input of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Mathematics and possibly individual experienced editors. Thanks for any advice, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Math, physics, medical and some other science topics usually need to run longer since few reviewers feel competent to engage them ... you can always post requests for feedback to WikiProjects, as long as you avoid canvassing or asking for support-- just ask for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Winter Palace

Hi. Isn't 450px and 300px set images against our MOS guidelines?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please talk to Tony1 (talk · contribs) on MOS issues-- I don't have time today to keep up. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Per [[MOS:IMAGES]: An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of WAU FAC

I have become disatified with the coverage of the land fighting in the Battle of Wau and would like to withdraw the nomination it at this time for some more work. Can you advise me on what the procedure is for this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh. The scarce resource at FAC is reviewers' time; once they've done their thing, they don't look forward to having to do it all over again with a different version. Feel free to email me if there's something I'm not understanding here, but what harm would be done by a promotion? - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

None really. I just wanted to add some more material. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, your call of course. - Dank (push to talk) 00:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've processed the withdrawal. Sandy, if this withdrawal goes the way of the last feel free to yell at me about it, and I'll try to fix it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria ... I am Too Tired To Type and appreciate it ... Hawkeye, hope to see you back soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to nominate

My current solo nomination seems to be all over but the shouting. I'd like to nominate Peace dollar, which has been patiently waiting its turn.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick scan only, looks good, go ahead and nom another. (Add this diff giving permission for the benefit of newcomers and naysayers :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure which you scanned, but I think both have come out well. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

confused, scanned the FAC you linked above ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant I wasn't sure if you scanned the Macdonald FAC or the Peace dollar article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

State of prose on SS Edmund Fitzgerald article

(FAC at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald/archive2)

Your review of the prose was, of course, very relevant. Was it your general impression that it just needs a few more fixes, or that it needs a more substantial rework? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I only looked far enough to see that Nikkimaria's concerns were justified-- when you've found an independent person to massage the text, you might ping Nikkimaria for a new look before re-nominating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI we did that (User_talk:Nikkimaria#Prose at SS Edmund Fitzgerald article) and Nikkimaria was kind enough to provide additional feedback and suggestions. We made a checklist of the feedback and edited and reviewed the article accordingly. (Talk:SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald#Checklist for specific feedback items by Nikkimaria). Unless there is further feedback, we plan to resubmit soon. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing

We'd like to put a column in our monthly Milhist newsletter encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Shorten reviews ... if they have a lot of nit-picks, put them on the article talk page. FAC is for determining if an article meets WIAFA, not where articles should be substantially rewritten in a peer review. FAC should be Oppose with short examples, Support with explanation of extent of review, or brief commentary of things that may need attention.
2. State exactly what their background and involvement is with the article.
3. Be aware that ill-conceived commentary can be offensive to nominators-- if you're unsure of something, say so. Keep it brief so you don't doom the FAC with lengthy debate.
4. Review anything you can ... if you can't review enough to enter a support, state exactly what you have reviewed ... that could be images, sources, we particularly need some plagiarism, close paraphrasing spot checks, MOS, prose ... anything.
5. We particularly need reviewers not familiar with a topic to review them for jargon, readability, context ... if you don't know a topic, feel free to review it for readabilty, but try to avoid entering stupid commentary on subjects you may not be familiar with ... just say, reads well, or jargon thick.
6. Scan the entire page to see where your input might be most helpful. If there's a FAC dragging at the bottom of the page, see if it's mired in debate or just lacking review. If it's lacking review, anything you can add may help. If it's mired in debate, enter an opinion only if you have a well informed opinion ... hot air doesn't help the delegates. If you see a FAC that has a lot of support after six days that may be maturing to promotion, scan it for anything that might need attention prior to promotion-- MOS, prose, anything-- even if you don't enter a support or oppose, enter a comment telling the delegates what you've looked at, because if nobuddy looks at everything, the overworked delegates end up with more work in their lap. It's MOST helpful for all FAC regulars to sit down and read the entire page periodically to see the view from this vantage point :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Rushed, that's quick, off the top of my head,

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks, I'll link this. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of those points in particular might be good to emphasize, mainly those about not needing to do the whole thing. That's a main reason I don't touch FA reviews very often; most are easily 30kb+ of prose, and I don't feel right only reviewing part and stopping (i'm a guy who has to read an article all at once). I'm sure others have that same irk, so if they know it's entirely fine to just touch on what they know/what they can read/what they got through with their time then it could help bring in more readers/reviewers. Every little bit helps. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I've put all the responses together here; feel free to add or subtract. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing needed

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anaheim_Ducks/archive2 has two "withdraws" and two other opposes in only a few hours. (In a meta-comment, can non-delegates deal with these sorts of withdrawals?). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless a nominator specifically requests withdrawal, it's best if delegates handle it so we can take the heat if the nominator puts up a fuss :) I'm starting through shortly and will get as far as I can tonight ... thanks, Nikkimaria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Okay, sorry, and thank you for the warn --MatheusLPereira (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Toxic (song)/archive1

Hey, about the Toxic FAC... The article is under-prepared, and the FAC template was deleted off the talk page of the article. I would like to withdraw it. Can you please tell if the nomination should be archived or deleted? - Sauloviegas (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Trade dollar

Hi Sandy. I don't mean to involve you in this, but I wondered if you could please give me your opinion on something. In the FAC for Trade dollar (United States coin), Giants2008 recommended replacing the hyphen in "Bland-Allison Act" with an endash. Now, our article on the Act uses the endash, but I have to question whether or not that is correct. After my shameful misunderstanding of the endash/hyphen issue, I have been reading the grammar rules for these punctuation marks, and from what I've seen, this is probably not correct. Anyway, thanks in advance for your time in considering this.-RHM22 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I can field this. There's been a running battle at WP:TITLE that had the potential to overrule the WP:DASH guideline, but it seems to have been settled recently, and in a way that doesn't IMO contradict DASH. DASH does require an en-dash in Bland-Allison (note that you don't need to use the en-dash on talk pages). I don't take a position myself, but the theory is that it's okay to deviate from standard usage when you're talking about "cosmetic" things, and DASH implies that en-dashes are in this category of things that we can handle as we please. The two justifications for DASH that are the most persuasive to me are: 1. almost no readers notice or care, so we might as well have a rule at least for purposes of FAC that's easy to understand and implement, and 2. style guides such as Chicago have quite complex dash rules that aren't likely to fly on Wikipedia, so we have to make up our own. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So, that is to say that the endash should be used for the BA act, or doesn't it matter? If it should be used, I'll issue an apology to Giants and fix the article accordingly.-RHM22 (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize for not knowing the MOS, no one knows the MOS :) Yes, certainly at the FAC level, Bland–Allison needs an en-dash. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I'll fix it now.-RHM22 (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Deep brain stimulation

[7] Never heard of it before. What is it, a position for geeks? Cool, we will have our day at last. Ceoil 10:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Peace dollar FAC

Hi, I'd welcome your intervention in the Peace dollar FAC]which I think is about to disintegrate. I do not think there is any validity to Tony's request. While I do not feel I am the best person to judge TonyTheTiger's good faith or lack thereof, it strikes me that such a change would be ill-advised, since putting, especially in the lede such an irrelevancy would not help the article, which seems most likely to be the reason for same--I can either swallow hard and insert it (and I'd bet a Mercury dime it would not be the last such request) or risk his oppose and the consequences. I do not think such an outcome would benefit FAC over the long term, to put it mildly, as I would be unlikely to take it lying down.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony just made an additional demand. Someone owes me a dime, though if odds were given, a half cent would do.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Weeds (TV series)

Could you add your opinions here? Thanx, I'd appreciate your input. ATC ^{. Talk} 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the fort for me

Hey Sandy - starting this weekend, I'm going to be away for a couple weeks. (Getting married and going on a honeymoon). Keep an eye on the fort for me. If anything unexpected comes up, I trust that you can take care of it. Raul654 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

FAC question

Sandy, I was involved in Dragon Quest's first FAC attempt. It is now at three and I stopped working on the article with Jinnai after the first nomination failed. Would I still be allowed to support or oppose the nomination? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes-- Just state your involvement (exactly as you have above) along with your declaration of support or oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Commas and and, long sentences

Hi

Sorry to bother you with this, if you wish to pass it onto another FAC reviewer please feel free to do so.

I am getting a fair amount of negative feedback over commas and the use of and in my copyedits. I have not been copyediting GAC and FAC for very long (as a GOCE member working on the requests pages) and am getting a little perturbed that I may be going against the way GA and FA reviewers expect an article to be punctuated. As a result I thought I would ask someone more involved with FAC and GAC applications and reviews - I thought it best to pick on a delegate that I have experience of and trust, in this case you!

Example: "In the first place this, and the second this."
My c/e: "In the first place this, in the second this" or "In the first place this and in the second this."

Example "In 1902, this happened."
My c/e: "In 1902 this happened."

I am also getting grief from editors who are applying speech punctuation to written text. Very short sentences split up by commas and many commas inserted because some editors feel they are required by FA reviewers.

Is there anywhere - other than MOS, GOCE or the editing exercises - that tackles the usage of commas; for example an essay or list of punctuation style that FAC reviewers use?

How many words can be in a sentence before an FA reviewer expects punctuation?

To be honest I think that editors are often incapable of assuming that readers can handle sentences over ten words without commas and put them in when they see such a long sentence. (like this one lol)

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Butting in ... your first c/e is a comma splice. For the second, I'd have to see the context; you can often get the job done with fewer words. "In 1902 this happened.": Both ways are usually fine. When it's fine like it is, I generally leave it alone, because there will usually be lots of things I won't leave alone, and the fewer things I change, the easier it is to sell the writer on the changes. The top 3 style guides (measured by usage) in AmEng are AP Stylebook, NYTM and Chicago. All of them have guidance on commas; Chicago has 37 subsections IIRC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dank's right about your first example Chaosdruid it's a deprecated comma splice. I don't see anything wrong with "In the first place this and in the second this" though, and I think it's slightly to be preferred over the original. So far as the second is concerned I prefer your version, without the comma, but lots of Americans seem to love commas and sprinkle them over the text like confetti. My general approach is to leave such commas in articles I know to have been written by American editors or on American topics and to remove them otherwise. The thing to look for always though is consistency. What you don't want to see is "In 1982, this happened" in one part of the text and "In 1984 that happened" in another. But neither version is "wrong", of course. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What he said. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You need the coordinating conjunction in the first instance to avoid the comma splice. Regarding the commas after prepositional phrases, the rules are to use a comma if the prepositional phrase is four words or longer. I think in America students are taught to use a comma after a prepositional phrase, regardless. This all from a person who seems to be comma dyslexic when it comes to my own writing, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can still hear the words of my English teacher when talking about commas ringing in my ears: "If in doubt, leave it out". Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus is right. People tend to think they need commas in front of 'and' , but the rule is only to comma out 'and' when and it is acting in a list or acting as a coordinating conjunction. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugger! I had almost completely edited the article when I posted here, MF is right of course, I shoul d perhaps have left more of them in. In my defence I have only recently taken the courage to copyedit FACs and GACs, I will try and read some of the past sucessful candidates to better gain an understanding of what is and is not considered normal in such artiucles.

The one I was working on was Rosendale Village, New York - If anyone has the time to look over my edits I am more than happy to receive criticism, positive or negative! Thanks for all your comments and advice on this, it has helped me a lot :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Language Timothy! :-) Copyediting is difficult Chaosdruid, and it's about more than just moving a few commas around. You've got to try and retain the voice of the writer, even if you wouldn't have written it that way yourself. My criticism of the GOCE is that they have a very limited view of what copyediting in the wikipedia context involves, which is a lot more (IMO) than just fixing grammar and spelling; that's just for starters. It's really about making an article engaging and accessible, and with that perspective who cares whether it uses "In 1971, this happened" or "In 1971 this happened"? That's just small beer. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

What OTRS volunteers do you recommend? The ones I usually go to seem all on wikibreak, inactive, or resigned in disgrace, and I'm hoping to coordinate permission on this image, on which an email's been sent in.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

None? The ones I've encountered seem to specialise in incompetence, dashed with a lace of stupidity. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't so hard. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention laziness. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Where's Moonriddengirl? She helped me in a tight spot on TFA once. --Moni3 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Moonriddengirl is almost always around and is fantastic. Also David Fuchs, as you have discovered. Stifle, JzG, and Georgewilliamherbert are all fairly active to the best of my memory. And I'm always able to assist, though unfortunately as Malleus correctly states, I am both incompetent and lazy :) NW (Talk) 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not choosy. But thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you still on board with this?

[8] Shall I keep looking through, or have you lost interest? Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Busy days IRL-- I intend to catch up as soon as I can, but perhaps not until tomorrow night. Since you're on it, I wasn't worried :) I appreciate it, and don't mean to be neglectful, but I'll be more settled after next Monday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I just had more questions than answers. As an aside, my psychiatric bible is Szaz's Myth of Mental Illness, so I probably won't be much help with the content. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Me neither-- I don't have all of the sources, and I'm not as up on Schizophrenia as some other disorders; I may end up pinging Doc James to look at those, but I want to find time to do what I can first, since he's overworked. But so am I :) I've got about ten things I need to catch up on-- not when I'm tired after a busy day, with more to come. I do appreciate all you've done already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't quite finished with this yet, but I'm getting there. I was diverted by Margaret Thatcher's GAR, which is done now, so I should be able to get through the rest of it over the weekend. Enjoy your break. Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Hi Sandy (and TPW) - Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia/archive3 has had no substantive discussion on the review page for two months. Do you think that you could stop by and leave any comments you may have? Also, I'm assuming that most of the people that are interested in that discussion watch your page and will notice this post, but if there is anyone else you think should be notified, can you please ping them? I know that work has been ongoing on the article, but it would be nice to get things wrapped up with the review. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Crap. Just noticed this fell through the cracks-- I'll try to get over there tomorrow, struggling with limited reviews at FAC this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

FAR ping

Hi Sandy - Just a ping to see if you are still interested in checking on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia/archive3. Also, Tuberculosis is up for FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tuberculosis/archive1, if you're interested. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)