User talk:SandyGeorgia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
To leave me a message, click here.

Contents 1 Peer review 2 B movie FAR 3 Sorry About The Hulk Hogan Nom screw up 4 {{WPBeatles}} 5 Venezuela 6 Some low-priority items 7 Ridge Route 8 Quick questions 9 About "Lament" 10 CSC FAC2 11 Citation requests 12 My Jan. comment on Firsfron's Talk—mea culpa 13 God's Son 14 Domenico Selvo peer review 15 Mayan languages 16 Citations 17 FAC rename 18 Poetry 19 Quick question 20 Featured article on medicine portal 21 Japan FAC 22 Kansas 23 History of Sheffield FAC 24 ooops 25 Re 26 Referencing uploaded pictures 27 TFA/R revamping 28 Metabolism FAC 29 Watchlist 30 Null edit 31 Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Poland (1945–1989) 32 Fix archives and ariclehistory 33 MS 34 adminship

Urgent FAR/FARCs edit History of Poland (1945–1989) Review it now ATLAS experiment Review it now Featured articles needing review of FA requirements edit Byzantine Empire - 1c, size, focus Chagas disease - 1c Galileo Galilei - YIKES ! Kansas Turnpike - 1c Ketuanan Melayu - size (81KB prose) Lesch-Nyhan syndrome - 1c Nuclear weapon - 1c, EL, See also Schizophrenia - 1c, length, focus Stuttering - list on article talk page Sylvia (ballet) - 1a, 1c, images, talk Talk page archives edit Archive1 (3 Feb - 16 Feb 2006) Archive2 (20 Feb - 23 May 2006) Archive3 (27 May - 28 July 2006) Archive4 (20 July - 29 Sept 2006) Archive5 (30 Sept - 14 Oct 2006) Archive6 (14 Oct - 27 Nov 2006) Archive7 (27 Nov - 13 Dec 2006) Archive8 (13 Dec - 31 Dec 2006) Archive9 (1 Jan - 16 Jan 2007) Archive10 (17 Jan - 30 Jan 2007) Archive11 (31 Jan - 15 Feb 2007) Archive12 (16 Feb - 15 Mar 2007)

[edit] Peer review

Due to your excellent critique of the Mozambican War of Independence I was wondering if you could take a look at this peer review of the Russian-Circassian War. Would very much appreciate your input, but I understand if you ae too busy :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] B movie FAR

How much longer is that going to stay open? I say this because I 'd like to wait and see how he addresses Marskell's concerns before commenting as he has stated he will do so. If it is closing soon I'll comment, other wise I'll wait to see how he addresses those specific issues. Maybe Monday or Tuesday. Quadzilla99 16:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry About The Hulk Hogan Nom screw up

I did some things out of order so it ended up messing with the page. Wuthai 21:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't, but I was so impressed by the article I felt that it desereves the featured status. Wuthai 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{WPBeatles}}

Hi Sandy. This message relates to an old edit, but I'll tell you about it anyway for future reference :) {{WPBeatles}} mimics/imitates the templates of other projects who share scope with us, including the assessment categories, so only our template is needed. I would have thought that apparent from the html comment in this diff showing your edit, but you must have missed it. --kingboyk 13:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingboy, I'm not really sure what the message is here? What am I missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You added a Songs template, when only WPBeatles is needed (with song=yes). No big deal, don't worry abt it! --kingboyk 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venezuela

I just finished adding my opinions on Venezuela. As far as I can see the POV issues are by omission, the article just fails to mention a lot of stuff, specially in the history, government, and economy sections. And compared to the Spanish Wikipedia article (es:Venezuela), the English one is not very comprehensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enano275 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed; the POV on the original Chavez FAC was the same—not so much error by commission as error of omission (telling only one side of the story). The article is also severely lacking in comprehensiveness, so I'm surprised anyone could consider it to be one week away from an FAC. I think it's months away, and won't make it unless we get more knowledgeable Venezuelan editors willing to work on it—which isn't likely to happen, considering the environment. It reads like it was written by someone who has never been to Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some low-priority items

There is some sort of article fork going on over at Chola Empire in relation to the FA Chola Dynasty.

Will try to catch up on that one when I'm home.

Placebo uncovered some drama over at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. Do you want to classify this as re-promoted? (As long as there is a FAR removal event, it will be so classified by the template.)

Strange stuff; yes, for consistency, it does look like we should add it to the repromoted FFA list.

Raul promoted 6 articles in the last set. I processed them only about 4 hours later, and 3 of the 6 ArticleHistories had already been updated. While two of those were OK, the other forgot to update the project assessments. Perhaps we need some clearer instructions that people can just leave the talk page for the bot?

What do you think about adding a line about the bot directly to the fac template? That should assure that both failed and promoted will take notice, and wait for the bot.

Facfailed and FACfailed are used about 1000 times. The difficulty will be the GA templates lacking dates or oldids. Gimmetrow 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can begin to trudge through those when I get back, if that's the way we want to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at a few, beginning with What Links Here from template facfailed; yes, some of them are very old and finding the GA was time consuming, as edit summaries weren't used. Would it make more sense to work back through the archives, beginning with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2006? I left a few that are ready on the articlehistory work page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me think about this. I wouldn't spend any more time on this, if I were you. Gimmetrow 13:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that working through the articles linked to the template will be unnecessarily time consuming, but if you want to start back through the archives, closing, tagging and archiving the FACs, I'll help look up the GAs. Also, we can think about adding to the fac template: When the FAC director promotes or archives the nomination, the article talk page will be updated by a bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The fac template is a good place to note this. Gimmetrow 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I usually check all FAC nom talk pages and prep for GimmeBot; there are at least 30 now that I haven't been able to check since I've been traveling (add GA oldid, make sure old noms are archived, make sure templates are in place including peer review, etc.) I may be able to do some catching up over the weekend; not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2006 simply will not load from my dialup connection, so I can't correct the FairTax archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandy - I took care of the archive. Missed that one. :-) Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Morphh. I'm out of time for the day, but I just can't load large files, and it was bothering me to leave the job half done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridge Route

Can you please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ridge Route about the coordinates template? Thank you. --NE2 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick questions

You're more familiar with WP:DASH than I am, but I read through it and think I understand it. I see where the em dash and en dash links are on the edit box. Basically you use em dashes when displaying records such 30—3 and seasons such as 1985—86, correct? When do you use the en dash? I want to make sure I understand the policy correctly before I go through and start converting all of my articles. Quadzilla99 13:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you just use the en dashes when hyphenating words right? Quadzilla99 13:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there: no, backwards. Em dash is used for punctuation (The em dash is used in much the same way as a colon or set of parentheses—it can show an abrupt change in thought or be used where a period is too strong and a comma too weak); en dash separates numbers and ranges of numbers or dates (1931–1932); hyphen is used to join words (dash-like character). We also had a discussion on the talk page of either WP:FAC or WP:WIAFA (at the top of the page) about what to do about article names; have a look in both of those places (I'm on a slow connection). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Found it: [1]. The conclusion there was that you should continue to use the regular keyboard hyphen in article titles—even though that goes against the MOS—because accessibility issues in article names trump Manual of Style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I got it. Thanks. I'm working on an article, where I implemented the changes. Could you check and make sure I did it right? Incidentally I'm getting ready to nominate that article for FA and have requested a peer review on it, maybe you could also look it over. If you can't that's fine, maybe you could just make usre I did the dashes right. Quadzilla99 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't be able to PR while I'm traveling and on slow connections with limited time. I looked at the article; there are still some hyphens which should be en-dashes, on scores and on date ranges (for example, in the infobox and in section headings). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About "Lament"

I was just reading the discussion here, and I was wondering: if you have these worries why don't you bring the issue in the talk page of WP:FAC. The essence of "consensus", and the way it is interpreted by Raul in WP:FAC is an issue that I've thought about many many many times! And this does not mean that he is necessarily wrong, but there are indeed some grey areas. Maybe the way some terms and procedures are interpreted and made should be discussed in WP:FAC. And I'm one of the first who says that the goal of WP:FAC is not to have more and more FAs but the proper FAS promoted the right time, because this is the only way to safeguard quality in Wikipedia. You know, if these issues are not discussed, I'm afraid that the final outcome will be a bitter and unfortute conflict between WP:FAC and WP:FAR. Cheers!--Yannismarou 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have, several times. The issue of "fan support" relative to actionable objections has always concerned me. Some articles go through no matter how many actionable objections because of support from "fans" or WikiProject members. It's pointless to Object on some article topics, as they go through even with prose or structural problems (for example, this was a problem months ago on the prose in Indian articles, but after Tony began to highlight the problem, they strengthened their copyediting before coming to FAC). I've seen very capable writers support articles with glaring prose problems [2] (question being, was the article really reviewed?), or cases where articles were headed for promotion in spite of numerous problems because of Project support [3]—both examples since corrected. When Tony isn't around, less people are examining the prose. It doesn't strike me that Raul is troubled by this issue, and my "reward" for discussing this problem is coming under fire from people who misconstrue the message. Sometimes, Tony is the only editor lodging prose objections, and I'm the only editor lodging "everything else" objections. If "fans" Support, regardless of actionable objections, Raul more often promotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSC FAC2

You posted an objection at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans due to fair use. The back and forth is over with fair use. I hope you would reconsider. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation requests

You made a few requests for citations at Richard O'Connor not long ago. Could you be a bit more precise as to why you chose those specific statements? Preferably at Talk:Richard O'Connor.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Jan. comment on Firsfron's Talk—mea culpa

I've given this some more thought since I saw that you brought it up in your recent colloquy with Firsfron. Given that it (a) was posted on a third party's Talk page, (b) which you had never contributed to (as far as I could see), (c) never mentions you by name, but only by the letter "S", and (d) doesn't even link to the page under discussion (the DuMont FAC), it was clearly intended neither to make you feel bad nor to publicly malign your actions or general reputation. Nonetheless, it does constitute a personal attack and a very harshly stated one. I am sorry for writing it and for uploading it to a publicly accessible page where you or anyone else who might understand what it was about could read it. I am attempting evolution (if we might allow for that possibility) and it's the sort of thing I hope I would never find myself writing at this point—or, at least, would have the sense to delete before posting. Apologetically, Dan.—DCGeist 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God's Son

Thanks for the heads up Sandy. I hope the guy who nominated the article can support my writing better than I can.Noahdabomb3 01:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domenico Selvo peer review

Hey, SandyGeorgia. I'm just letting you know that I've finished this article that you helped me with and I've submitted it for peer review here. If you have any extra time and are interested in helping out, I would very much appreciate any input you have to improve this article that, though I would like to call it mine ;-), is ultimately Wikipedia's to improve beyond what I have done. To help guide the peer reviewers, I've posted a list of concerns I have with the article at this point. Helping on any one of these or suggesting anything on top of that would be a great help! Thanks a lot, JHMM13 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayan languages

Hi we have been doing extensive work over at Mayan languages: the article has been thoroughly copyedited, reformatted and referenced. I hope you will have a second look at it and that it will causre you to reconsider your stance in ita FA-nomination.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Hi, SG! I've been told to ask you about citations and citation templates. Can you explain to me why people (like yourself, apparently) don't use them? I'm confused, since I thought they were provided specifically to format citations correctly. Thanks!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(Let me answer while Sandy's away travelling – hope you don't mind) Have a look at Archive 12 "Cite templates". If you think the templates don't format correctly then it would be good to make some suggestions on the template talk page. BTW: there is no requirement for or against templates for FA. How you format the wikisource is up-to-you. IMO it is a shame MediaWiki doesn't have formal citation meta data. That way, Wikipedia could appear on the "This article is cited by" on PubMed or a online newspaper. That would be cool. Colin°^Talk 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean we don't?!? That *really* surprises me! Where is this archive you mentioned? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin - quick moment from a slow dialup - it's here, SatyrTN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So from that discussion, I gather there are three basic problems you've mentioned:

1. They terribly chunk up the size of the article, and slow down access time, while providing the same info that can be input manually.
2. Bugs — and by this I mean punctuation (like the antioxidant example you gave) and the foreign language icons.
3. Lack of consistency across templates — specifically parameters.

Number one I can totally understand. The time it takes the server to access the template would add to load time. Someone mentioned cacheing, but I don't know if that happens/works correctly or what.

The other two issues, though, are programming issues. They should be brought to the attention of someone who knows how to fix templates (and I don't quite count myself as one of those, though I have some knowledge and am a programmer).

And on the other side of the coin are the people that have no knowledge of what a properly formatted citation looks like. From my perspective, for instance, I'd rather tell the template "here's the author and here's the title - you figure out what it's supposed to look like".

And since you're traveling, I'm not really looking for a response, but if you run in to any of the programming issues, feel free to let me know and I'll see if I can help. Safe travels and thanks for the input on this discussion! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For people who don't know how to correctly format citations, the advantages of the template outweigh the disadvantages, IMO. For those who do know how to format, they have a choice of using the templates or doing it manually. I haven't had time to take on the bigger issues of getting template programming errors addressed, as I've been traveling so much this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC rename

See the current FAC on Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). We need to rename this (see comments within the FAC). Is it okay to do so during the FAC? I think so, but want to make sure. When we do this, we want to be sure to move the history and talk too.Rlevse 11:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It can be done while at FAC, but it's important to move all the pieces correctly, fix talk page templates and archives, and rename the nom correctly. I'm traveling and on a slow dialup with limited access; Gimmetrow would know how to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Rlevse 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not going to bother to lodge an oppose on an article that obviously isn't ready yet, because the regular editors should know this article is nowhere near FA-worthy. As but one small example, can someone explain why Scout Motto isn't wiki linked ? If regular scouting editors allow this article to be promoted in this shape, I'm surprised.  :-) Sue Rangell also nominated Sonoma County, California for FAC, about here. If regular scouting editors want respect for their articles, I suggest they clean up this article, or oppose the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• fixed the links. if you have additional issues, please be specific, I can't read your mind, what is obvious to you may not be obvious to us.Rlevse 01:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry

I've been really impressed with Sam's patience and willingness to do the boring stuff. What do you think of the article now? Marskell 09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I know there's still work on refs for Poetry(urls and page numbers in particular), and any comments for improvement are always welcome (I spend much of my life dealing with legal citation formats, which I can do in my sleep; the academic formats are thus a bit of a foreign language, and often counter-intuitive to me). While I'll leave the MOS comments to you guys, if in the future you need substantive comment on literary topics, particularly relating to poetry, or historical topics, especially in the areas of the Middle East, US political history, or women in history), please feel free to ask, and if I can I will comment. As you know, I found it frustrating not to get input on the substantive discussion in the article, and I'd prefer not to see others have the same issue.A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam - I replied on Marskell's page to keep the conversation in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

Hey Sandy. May I respectfully pilfer your Barnstar section design? No need to reply now, just think about it when you're back. Hope you're enjoying the trip, Fvasconcellos 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Help yourself - I took it from Kirill ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article on medicine portal

Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I replied on the talk page. NCurse _work 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japan FAC

Sandy, I dealt with the blue reference and the one to wikipedia. So that just leaves formatting. Can you be more specific in the references that need changing, maybe even correct some of them? I know you're on holiday - maybe if you've got some time when you're back if the FAC isn't completed by then? John Smith's 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a few free hours tonight, but I won't be able to work on them for at least another week. Here is an example: Japan - City Population - Cities, Towns & Provinces - Statistics & Map. Retrieved on February 1, 2007. Who is the publisher, what is the date? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. I have gone through as many citations as I can see need a publisher reference. If you could point out any more corrections/additions that need to be made, I would be very greatful. Please respond on my talk page. John Smith's 00:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kansas

Could you explain a bit more what the problem is with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kansas Turnpike ? I'm sure I can deal with the facs next promotion cycle. Featured topics is a bit complex though, since they are including the original promotion in the fomerFT template even though it may or may not be in ArticleHistory. Gimmetrow 01:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw at least four (maybe more?) references that are actually links to Wikipedia - since publishers aren't indicated, you have to hover over them or click on them to realize that. Then you have sources such as this one (close to the end) that have no publisher info at all. I-70 west at exit 224, August 9, 2003 Here's another one - it's a Usenet Post - not a reliabel source: Ben Prusia, New East Topeka, KS Turnpike Exits Open Today SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, that's all I can get done for a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Sheffield FAC

Hi Sandy, thanks for your comments on the History of Sheffield FAC. I think that I have addressed all the citation concerns that you mentioned. Thanks again, —JeremyA (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ooops

Ooops! I left incomplete messages in the relevant talk pages for FAR of Tamil language. Thanks for being vigilant and leaving complete messages. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - the hardest part is finding where to leave the messages. When the links are there, I can easily add the message. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

I understand what you say Sandy. Probably it was my expression not accurate in the discussion you have in mind. I apologize for that, but I reaaly tried to say what you said in my talk page! Not in the best way proably! Best!--Yannismarou 13:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing uploaded pictures

See my edit here. Raul654 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Carrying on the discussion here. Just trying to explore the issue. Some things can be explained far better by a picture than words, so clarifying how to cite an image is probably a good idea. Gimmetrow 22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TFA/R revamping

Please revisit proposal 2 at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/amendment proposal TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metabolism FAC

Hi Sandy, did you have any other comments? Some feedback from non-expert readers would be most welcome. TimVickers 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist

Of course, I'm happy to reciprocate on Tourettism. I thought I had most of them in my list, but apparently not that one. Colin°^Talk 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Null edit

I just add or remove a space after a full stop. I think that works. Marskell 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Null edit. If you use WP:POPUPS, then it is a menu option. Colin°^Talk 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Poland (1945–1989)

Please feel free to add request for citations in the article, currently it has no outsanding requests (note it was also shortened by about 20kb).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix archives and ariclehistory

Note to myself, to fix, wrong in archives: Pulaski Skyway and Norse Mythology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MS

My apologies. I'm on a cruise control with FAR because of another issue that's driving my bonkers; not that that's a good excuse. As atonement, I'll help with any issues if you want to list them. I'm not agreeing with some of your requests, though. "Microsoft rose to dominate the home computer operating system market with MS-DOS in the mid-1980s"—I actually think this doesn't need a source and I don't like the double and triple sourcing in general. Marskell 14:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes:

• The first blog (ref 6) is published by a professional journalist through a reliable newspaper site; policy acceptable, IMO, but the way it's presented needs to be tweaked. (done)
• Ref 7 can probably be edited out of the article completely.
• Can MS be used to describe MS? On judgements of quality, obviously no. On general data (release dates, stock price etc.) I think it's fine. Marskell 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note, isn't the picture of Gates from '77 hilarious?

[edit] adminship

It looks like you have at least some need for adminship. Have you ever considered running? I've seen your name around at FAC and related areas, and it seems like you'd be perfectly trustworthy with the admin tools. So I'm just dropping to note to say you should run! RFA is a bit ugly sometimes but once you get it over with, adminship isn't a really big deal and all responsible editors should have access to the admin tools if they're willing, it just makes things run more smoothly. Anyway I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested, or you can always self-nom. I suspect a lot of people would be glad to see your name there. --W.marsh 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)