Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 13 August 2009

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.

If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.

I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

Template:FixBunching

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

You passed with flying colors

 ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL !! Thanks again for following me around and fixing things! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Fertilisation of Orchids – minor clarification request

Not quite sure which "sources" are referred to in your comment when restarting this FAC, "unclear if sources and image concerns have been resolved." Do you mean image sources, or the vague concern raised about sources for the article and use of primary sources? I've added a note confirming that all image sourcing concerns have now been met. The editor concerned about article sourcing didn't respond further after I'd checked and ensured that the article is properly sourced, is another statement to that effect required? Thanks for your help with this, dave souza, talk 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, will do as suggested. .dave souza, talk 22:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I cleared the sources early on in the FAC. I've put a diff on the new page. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:FAS change for PR stats

Hi Sandy, there has been a change in how the semi-automated peer reviews (SAPRs) are linked in peer reviews (now the link is to the SAPR script on the tool server allowing interested users to run SAPRs themselves if they want). This means there will no longer be an archive of SAPRs to use as the PR stat for WP:FAS. Since the stat used to be how many PRs were in the archive for that month, and will be going back to that for August and beyond, I was planning to go back and change the stats for the months using SAPRs to the PR archive stat instead. The two numbers are not identical - for one thing SAPRs are a measure of PRs opened in a month, while the archive is a measure of PRs closed in the same month. I figured it was better to be consistent for the Dec 2007 to July 2009 stats and make the switch in FAS, but wanted to check with you first. Ruhrfisch _><>° 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and made the change - well I am about to save it. Am also making a note on the FAS talk page as some of the discrepancies are odd. Ruhrfisch _><>° 03:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You know best on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New conversation about issue with the dyslexia articles

Hi, there.

I noticed that you have made changes to the dyslexia article in the not-too-distant past and would like to solicit your input.

I just started a new conversation on the Wikiproject dyslexia talk page about our attempt to provide a worldwide view in these articles. We could use as many people providing feedback as possible. Please read and respond, if you can.

Thanks!

Rosmoran (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices episode on reviewing FACs

Sandy, we at Wikivoices were thinking of doing a real-time review of an FAC candidate for an upcoming episode. The idea of the episode would be to demonstrate what all goes into a comprehensive review. We would like to have the nominator there as well. As this would result in a bunch of supports and/or opposes popping up simultaneously at the FAC page, we wanted to run this by you and Karanacs first. Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem; we'll know what is generating the additional input and will be able to take that into account. On the other hand, the fact that a real-time review is occurring may mean that it won't be a typical review, so I'm not sure what we'll learn ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of ways in which it won't be typical, but that doesn't make it useless. People can learn the kinds of questions to ask, what the criteria mean, the difficulties reviewers encounter in phrasing their suggestions, etc. Awadewit (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a great teaching opportunity - thank you for suggesting it. Just make sure, please to let us know which nomination, as I don't follow wikivoices. Karanacs (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We plan on posting a link and explanation at the FAC to make it very clear. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

New guideline on image sizes now inevitable

Hi Sandy: I presume you're aware of this. Tony (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Memchu

Now has plan, infobox removed and replaced with interior image. I think all objections are now dealt with (although the FAC page is becoming a coffee house). Perhaps you'll take a look in and promote? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Waiting on OTRS approval for lead image. Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving that one for Karanacs at any rate ... I'm too involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused. We've got an email from the photographer releasing the license, what have OTRS got to do with it? Is this something daft to do with not publishing private emails on-wiki? WMF can't be sued for copyvio anyway - it's the contributors risk. If the uploader has the ok from the photographer, or Christine has, then we're fine aren't we?--Joopercoopers (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't rely on editors to accurately report what private emails say - that's why we use OTRS. :) See, editors could basically say anything - they could even be pretending to have such an email! Shocking, isn't? Awadewit (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If there was a lawsuit the uploader would be the defendant not the wmf, so I'm still nonethewiser why that should be anything to do with OTRS. Uploaders might lie, but that's their own risk if they've done anything dubious from a copyright point of view. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lightening up

Easier said than done sometimes, 'innit? :) I've said my piece and will leave the rest to the people who can actually talk to Slim without getting irked, I'm afraid that's a personal failing of mine. Great nom statement at Steve's RfA, by the way (better than Andy's, IMO, but don't tell him that.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Oppose there is a real keeper !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of WP:SANDY and WT:SANDY

I have nominated WP:SANDY and its talk page WT:SANDY for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 04:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I told you you should get a number for drunk dialing. TOnight would be perfect. Karaoke and something else. George Harrison is playing, I would totaly drunk dial your toll free number. My inane babbing would be something to keep for like...ever. This was incredibly hard to type. Thank god someone is keeping Misplaced Pages WP:SANDY free. It would be a shitbox with the WP:SANDY. Srs. --Moni3 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't feel my feet. --Moni3 (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Carve your number on my wall, and maybe you will get a call from me (if I needed someone). --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This chap approves of underrated Beatles song references, on walls or otherwise. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Did someone delete Sandy? Must've been an underaged admin. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What brought you to that conclusion? Any excuse to make a dig at several hundred people is an opportunity that cannot be missed! Majorly talk 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Remembering Jeffpw

I miss Jeff. User:SandyGeorgia/Barnstars#Dear SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I miss Jeff too. And Willow. --Moni3 (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm lost for words. A year passed while I was on stupid vacation. And to think, I barely knew Jeff. ceranthor 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

ha?

Why was Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive1 closed while Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Howie Morenz/archive2 wasn't? The first has 1 oppose and 1 support while the latter has 0 & 0 and is older! Nergaal (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Because South Park has identifiable issues you can work on, bringing it back fresh for a new look and more success, while no one has yet substantially commented on Howie Morenz. It would be nice for the nominator if a reviewer gave some idea of what improvements are needed. Please remember that FAC is not a "vote" or a tally; it's about looking at what needs to be done to determine if there is consensus that the article can be promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

But all the issues listed were solved, and only one user mentioned anything about copyediting—which is a very subjective standard. Nergaal (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

When Tony1 opposes over prose concerns, that's usually not something to be disregarded. He's just about the expert in that area. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb's right, and while you may have fixed the explicit examples Tiny1 raised, he did say it was a random sample, implying that there would be other issues that needed to be addressed through a thorough copy edit. Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Senate election

I will drop you a note as a courtesy when the specific changes and concerns you pointed out are made and addressed (need coffee). I understand your position.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I do feel that no introduction to the background section is needed. Senator Downey is mentioned in the lede, so the reader knows who he is. But if you have a suggestion, just rough language, and it looks good, for sure I will weave it in. I will sit down with my books tonight and take care of everything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've spellchecked it, and made all the changes you wanted, plus putting in more references. Please feel free to check the article at any time. I think it's in really good shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Tony withdrew his oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

autism rights movement

I saw you're an editor of the article and thought I'd ask for your and others responses to my Talk page comments.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What? Why? Wheretofore? Are we doing the right thing?

Hi SandyGeorgia. This is about a worry that Steve was cajoled into accepting your RfA co-nomination—a step he apparently hadn't previously envisaged. I don't want to stir things up on the RfA page but I really want to understand the assumptions you're bringing to this situation. What makes you propose Admin candidates? Why Steve? Will this take him/her somewhere useful? Won't it detract from his superb contributions to articles? Isn't this a poisoned chalice? Why can't we find a better way to recognise the quality of his contributions than to nominate him for a mop that you yourself don't choose to hold? - Pointillist (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get that reasoning at all. --Moni3 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of editors who produced good content, became admins, and made sure that admin duties didn't get in the way of writing articles. There's Moni, YellowMonkey, JulianColton, and Casliber to name just a few. Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Why can't we find a better way to recognise the quality of his contributions than to nominate him for a mop..." Adminship is not a reward for good contributions. BTW, I'd like to add Nev1 to the above list :) Majorly talk 23:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It clearly is a reward, just that not everyone agrees which contributions are worthy of being rewarded. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be a reward for something, but not necessarily writing excellent articles. --Moni3 (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Rlevse, Raul, and Nichalp are all bureaucrats who contributed to featured articles (excuse me if I missed any, this is off the top of my head!) YellowMonkey, Roger Davies, Casliber, et cetera, are/were also on ArbCom during FA contributions. ceranthor 23:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Also Dweller and The Rambling Man (the latter of whom was a former crat who resigned in arguably good standing). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Flattery will get you everywhere Majorly, but I don't use the tools that often anyway. While the tools may not be a reward, fear that it may get in the way of article work shouldn't be a reason not to go to RfA. If you can handle putting the effort in to develop articles properly, you should be mature enough to realise when articles are suffering at the expense of doing admin duties. Nev1 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist, as the editor who asked Steve (this time), I can assure you he wasn't cajoled. I asked once, and several editors chimed in with some good-natured comments that indicate he has been asked in the past. That's usually a sign that the editor is in good standing with many people. We need more admins that are pleasant, hard-working, and thoughtful. Does it really even matter if they don't have a master plan for using the tools? It's worth it if he can once defuse a difficult situation or perform a routine task when asked. I'm afraid I don't understand your concern. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult and of course if Steve wants to be an admin s/he get my vote. Nevertheless I am concerned that Editorial contributions at Steve's level are more valuable than what admins do and that Steve him/herself never asked for this role. Despite the posting by User:Laser_brain (Andy I always hate it when a user's signature is not the same as their user name) I still worry that this role was somehow being forced on Steve by Sandy Georgia. I feel this partly because when User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back wasn't selected for ArbCom I encouraged him/her to build an academic life outside Misplaced Pages, while SandyGeorgia encouraged him/her to stay. I'm also concerned—this is not fully formed—that there's a non-neutral desire for more admins because otherwise the "anyone can edit" model will fail. If there's any truth in that I'd want to reduce the number of admins in order to re-align communal assumptions about anonymous editing. My bottom line is that whenever someone nominates Leonardo da Vinci for cleaning up the Medici drains someone should question their motives! - Pointillist (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I take your meaning now. Well, I'm confident that Steve's access to the admin tools won't turn him away from his excellent content work. Otherwise, I would never ask him and risk damaging the project. Some admins love to do it full-time and they are needed to clear out backlogs and such, but I don't see Steve as that brand. As for my sig, I do apologize. I decided to make my real name known and didn't feel like going through the name change rigmarole. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably best if Steve responds at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Steve#Neutral now. - Pointillist (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oof, looks like I chose the wrong day for an early night! (Yes, midnight is early—I have a three-year-old after all.) I'll take another look through this and comment on the RfA page a bit later. All the best, Steve  07:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, hope you're well. I've kept to out-of-the-way areas for most of the day, as I wanted to make sure it didn't look as if I considered the RfA pass anything more than some very useful tools given to a trusted editor. Dunno if I succeeded at that, but screw it, I didn't want to go through today without saying thanks to you and Andy for putting that trust in me; I'll make sure it isn't misplaced. All the best, Steve  21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I know it won't be misplaced, and the thanks go to you for being willing to go through it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mindsite

Thanks for the heads-up. I found (via Google search) and fixed other references to mindsite, at Major depressive disorder (fix) and Polysubstance dependence (fix). I don't know of any other references. In Autism I dodged that bullet long ago by citing the CDC, which helpfully has a copy of that particular criteria set online. Wish they'd do the same for other diagnoses. Eubulides (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation requested

Hi. Can you give me your explanation for why you closed this FAC? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My take: After nearly three weeks, there was an oppose over the name, which spawned a long discussion, a near-oppose from Tony over the writing, and no consensus to promote. I imagine Sandy would say something like "reviewers are put off by long FAC pages. Please resolve the issues brought up by the reviewers at the previous FAC before starting a new one." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, can you explain to me please. It'd be appreciated. Thank you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is one oppose for the name and a follow up that is also in agreement. This would instant fail the page on the grounds of instability until consensus can be determined on the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Deacon. As others have explained (correctly), the FAC had been up more than two weeks with no support, concerns about the prose, and a long discussion about the name that may have deterred other reviewers from engaging. A fresh start, after reviewing prose with Tony, is often the fastest route to featured status when a FAC becomes bogged down at the bottom of the page with no support. I encourage you not to view this as a "failed" FAC, rather a chance for a fresh start and success. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. My primary concern is whether or not it is worth my while putting any more work into it at all. The naming issue is one for WP:RM, and I'm not going to agree to take a stance on that matter contrary to my belief just to get a star (and regard attempts to force me to do so as border line blackmail). That matter is a community issue, and I should be free to argue the case. So, as Xandar (and perhaps others) may just as likely oppose again on that ground, there is no point doing any more work if such opposes are going to count. It is therefore necessary to hear your stance on this matter. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a community issue, and isn't the reason I closed it ... I closed it because of a lack of support, and Tony's ce concerns. Other issues, such as that one, depend on consensus (one oppose on an issue such as that doesn't determine outcome). Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul absent for the next two weeks?

At the start of the month, Raul scheduled 17 days of TFA. Normally he doesn't do it very far in advance, I saw often only 3-4 days in advance in recent times. Do you know if he will be away until then? Did he announce it anywhere? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any means/precedent of the citizens appointing a delegate? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I left my pitchfork and torch at the office and I haven't heard any justification for storming the Bastille anyway. What's the problem?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Moot point now that Raul's back, but I believe the Pressing Need was due to Raul's having scheduled a TFA later this week for an event with an anniversary about to come up, and the need to remove it from the TFA queue. – iridescent 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking about this - Sandy, could you remember to drop Samuel Johnson's early life off at the TFA area for his birthday? 300th and all. It would be nice to coincide with various world events on it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Which date will be celebrated? The 7th or the 18th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

18th it appears. I would go with his hometown birthday celebration above the others. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, isn't this a case of a gazillion points, so it can only be added two weeks before? I'm not sure I'll remember this on Sept. 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

20 days beyond the last scheduled date. Which will happen, at the latest, on August 30. Six points. I don't think there are more points there. Samuel Johnson may or may not be basic subject matter, but his early life isn't. Point deductions, can't evaluate that yet, because we're not into that time period yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

With at least 4 points I feel confident it will make it through - there are probably enough votes as I doubt people would want a page devoted to a childhood on a 300th birthday (as opposed to a later page on a 300th anniversary of a death) to not go up. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it to the template. A three point deduction is possible, if there's a similar article within fifteen days, but it doesn't seem to happen very much. I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Ottava is asking me to remember something several weeks away, I may lose sleep over it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to remind you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. I was getting a bit stressed out, so I took a few days away from Misplaced Pages - went to Nambe Falls, started reading A great book, did some cooking, etc. I didn't announce it because I didn't expect it to go on for a week. I intended to resume editing last night, but Misplaced Pages was having weird technical issues that prevented me from editing. Anyway, I'll resume my regular editing later today or tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent book, but isn't it funny how many times the Carpathian mountains come up? Awadewit (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC

There's clearly no consensus for the current version though. Perhaps a straw poll? SlimVirgin 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd wait a bit for more opinion to gel ... I don't think a straw poll would yield anything conclusive yet. I also don't see the need for any change: FAs represent our best work, conform to guidelines (WP:ALT is one), and I'm not going to hold up an otherwise worthy FAC over MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not only whether an article would actually be held back over an MoS issue. It's the perception that it might be, and the requirement that FA writers feel that they have to add yet one more style issue. I think the situation has become quite demoralizing. Certainly I feel demoralized, and I can't imagine I'm alone in feeling that. SlimVirgin 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering what's occurring at FAR, I'm sympathetic to the demoralization issue, but I don't think this discussion has run its course yet, and it doesn't seem to be an issue that bothers many people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind...

I took the liberty to update your stats (I added one that you missed). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We crossed in the mail ... I was just thanking you. Busy day, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WT:FAR

Left a q about how long a FAR save takes YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ugh ... I've got to stop weighing in over there and go read FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Autism Every Day

I'm trying to build on the comments made before by Objectivity... Lots of revisions before, editing out highly contentious judgments and interpretations and reviews. I recently edited out an editors additions; he put the back and then added more of the same quality; 3rd paragraph of article. Could you look at my comments and the past comments. Seems the editors interpretations are poor...very tangential, not directly related to what he's trying to interpret, etc. 2nd and 3rd sentences. Also, he gives ISBN numbers that don't link to anything. Source cited should be verifiable? With text electronically accessible? Re the general criticism he gives, seems like a review kind if thing ... so I could find good reviews to add along as well. I thought the article as it was was good and factual. If people want reviews of the movie, then why not search for reviews elsewhere, rather than at an encyclopedia. Eg movie review sites, discussion boards, etc.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Newman

Hi SandyGeorgia,
I asked User:Eubulides if we could work together on the Bobby Newman article I created yesterday; but he is taking time off and I know it takes more then a few people to get things done.
I was wondering if you could help in the mean time; Bobby Newman, PhD, is a behavioral analyst, author, and physiologist known worldwide for his work. He works with children on the Autism spectrum through the process of ABA.
Thanx!
ATC 15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Signpost

Thanks for the heads up. I deleted the talk page so it can be discussed.--ragesoss (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Otto Zobel

You closed the FAC on Otto Julius Zobel but I am a bit in the dark why it failed. I am not making an argument that was a wrong decision, I would just like to get some understanding, because it is not clear from the discussion, at least to me. I believe all the points raised in the discussion were addressed in the article during the course of the FAC (except for what I think was an ill-informed comment on the copyright status of some of the images). Is it possible to get some sort of review? SpinningSpark 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, your talk page needs a disclaimer! SpinningSpark, the candidacy was archived because the article had received no supports (or opposes, btw) for all of its time at FAC. This is generally an indication that there are unresolved issues, were there any issues remaining at the FAC? ceranthor 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when I answer the same question every time I archive, we probably need something standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Something like, If your article was archived, and the FAC had no !votes, chances are that it had been on the FAC list for too long and needed some work. The FAC delegates look over the articles in detail before archiving or promoting them. ceranthor 19:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So I would understand from those comments that when an editor makes a criticism which is addressed and then the criticism struck out, this is not taken as an implied support. But what about the user who opened with;

• Comments from Materialscientist. General impression is positive (that is support), but...

and later struck out the comments following "but" when they were addressed. Can you explain why you have not counted that as a support? Sorry for making you re-answer the same question yet again, but this is my first attempt at FAC, so I need to know. SpinningSpark 19:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you post a link to the FAC, I'll have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Otto Julius Zobel/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

FACs are not usually promoted on one support. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DaBomb! That FAC had been running for three weeks and was at the bottom of the page, without garnering consensus for support. Also, it had been listed on the Urgents template for quite a while. You might consult with all of the reviewers who weighed in, get as much feedback as you can over the next few weeks, and then bring it back for a fresh look. Often articles that get stalled at FAC will do fine the next time through. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. If I understand this correctly the situation is this; there is no specific issue with the article that has caused it to fail, but rather, there were insufficient editors willing to positively support it. I will take up your suggestion and try and get some feedback. SpinningSpark 20:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that is correct. ceranthor 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreviewed featured articles

Was there a discussion over this change? I don't recall one, but am wary of reverting. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but with everything else going on at FAR, I'm not sure it's worth rocking the boat. At your discretion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it be. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh

Regardless of what everyone thinks, I honestly do not enjoy having to do this kind of thing. All it does is breed hurt feelings and alienates the person putting up such from others. I would rather someone else do this instead. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm ... who would "someone else" be? That is exactly why I query when I see so much support and no check on sourcing. I'm concerned that so many reviewers are leaving all of the sourcing work to Ealdgyth, and not checking for exactly the sorts of things you identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've raised concerns with pages over this sort of thing with over 20 people so far (across various processes) and there is way too much backlash for me to really continue. You should have seen the amount that I cleaned out of DYK over a few months. It wouldn't be a problem if more people did the reviewing so it wouldn't seem like just one person who is a jerk and out to ruin someone's day. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Facts are facts: if people think others are jerks, it could be in the presentation. This kind of reviewing is necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My thought is that people think there are image and sourcing geeks out there who will magically do those reviews, which they fear to do anyway because they don't want to and don't understand image policy anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is tremendous retribution for even posting a suggestion on an article talk page. Facts are unpopular around here. —mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it could be in the presentation. I've not had that experience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are limiting it just to FAC, of course, your experience could be affected by your status.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

MY "status" for most of my time at FAC was a reviewer, just like Ottava. Granted, each time I've waded into GAN I have seen similar issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, then, it is about presentation. Working well with the nominators, who have invested oodles of time in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're really getting flack, Ottava, you can just leave the video game ones for me... I think unfortunately the contradiction of sources is just a slow buildup of accumulated misinformation; random people add what they know, not what's reflected in the source, and unless everything is quickly reverted it's hard to root out. I wouldn't say it's any way a pop culture issue, but it's certainly endemic... at least with GA sweeps I can let rip and delist and nobody complains. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Flack, schmack ... we should highlight this as the kind of reviewing that more should be doing. Makes me want to be a FAC reviewer again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

re: "Makes me want to be a FAC reviewer again !": Just do it, then. Seriously. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I did one recently (well, not recently ... maybe a few months back) as a sample ... but I had to recognize that it's hard on nominators when the FAC delegate picks over their article as an example. But when we're seeing multiple supports without source checks, that raises eyebrows, since WP:V is a pillar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ug I hate those colons. Anyhow, FAC always needs skilled reviewers. As you should know. People will get used to the idea of you reviewing. If someone complains, then never review that person again... you know the drill. Work until someone becomes a pain, then ignore that person. Lather, rinse, repeat. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it's accurate to say "without source checks", because the "source check" is simply a judgement on the reliability of the sources, not that any of them actually say what it's claimed that they say. So I would, for instance, look very carefully at claims that seemed to me to be counterintuitive, but I would never stand up and say "Yep, sources OK". And in my opinion neither should anyone else. I think this move towards demanding single-purpose source, image, alt text, God know what else reviews, is a step in the wrong direction. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Terminology. When I say source check, I mean a random check of sourcing, exactly as Ottava did and as I used to do ... reviewers have come to rely on Ealdgyth's check on reliability as a source check, rather than doing the work done by Ottava. Ealdgyth's work is one step only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I have checked every single link on articles I check, for content as well as whether it works, but it makes me very unpopular at FAC/FAR. Sigh. —mattisse (Talk) 11:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect I'm repeating myself for the third time: "As I said, it could be in the presentation". Checking sources is not what makes one "unpopular" at FAC or FAR, and while spreading of such memes may be welcome on other pages, they are not helpful on my talk page. If diligent and conscientous reviews made one unpopular, Awadewit, Karanacs, and many others would be unpopular. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as one who has written a bit, there is a temptation (which, mind you, I guard against in myself) to contextualize, to explain, under the cover of a reference. I call it "sloppy writing".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I just caught another with only two reviews and at the bottom. I have a feeling this will be a long day. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a Wiki: things cycle. When reviewers start to realize what they've not been doing (note the recent example on Persondata, which used to be checked at every FAC), the recent and alarming trend to ignore source checking will reverse itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the lack of thorough sourcing reviews is caused by a lack of time on the part of reviewers. A while back, I talked about wanting to do some plagarism spot-checks, but have never been able to get around to it. It takes so much time to review an entire article for writing glitches that it's easy for other important factors to get overlooked. Maybe this helps explain the increase in reviewer specialization. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)