A dispute has arisen on the talk page (and unfortunately a bit in the history page) on the article on Hugo Chavez, related to two thoroughly sourced quotes I added to the "Criticism" section of the article from two editorials from the Argentine daily Ambito Financiero (www.ambitoweb.com) - An editor very zealously deleted and reverted and, on the history page, made some very political statements that were politburo'ey in nature. I was trying to improve the article -- it has, as I've seen on the talk page over why its FA status went in and out, been plagued with problems of imbalance in the past. I was trying to improve it.
Anyway - if you're at all interested, I'd appreciate your opinion back there. Thanks. NYDCSP 07:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I realize you're away, so I have FAR on my watchlist now, and will be messaging all involved parties until your return. No reply necessary. Jeffpw 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, I just wanted to thank you for the valuable feedback you provided on the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article. After reviewing your comments and those of other reviewers, I have updated the article. If you have a moment to take another look, any additional thoughts would be much appreciated! Thanks again Cimm [talk] 02:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Sandy! I thought I would let you know that I have just nominated the
Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article as a
Featured Article candidate. The feedback and encouragement from you and the other reviewers is what motivated the nomination. Thank you again for all your support!
Cimm
[talk]
23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, several copyeditors took passes on the article, so it should be fine now. — Deckill e r 03:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you please see Talk:Threshing-board#References on translated articles? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sandy. I've taken care of most of the citations you requested for Dalek, and commented out the one that I couldn't substantiate. I'm also going to ask for some copyediting help on the article. When you get back from your wikibreak, could you drop by Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dalek and let us know what you think? Thanks. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
On 24 December 2006, I put up the UW-Madison article for Featured Article. It failed miserably, due in part to the fact that I had almost no idea what the criteria were for FA. I have now made considerable revisions. You had originally opposed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Wisconsin-Madison/archive1. Would you please consider looking over the article over again, and tell me how you would vote this time if it were put up for FA again? University of Wisconsin-Madison Thanks! – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI. Thanks for your guidance! -- HailFire 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's my idea of how slippery a slope can be! No offense taken, and I have been very happy being able to participate at FAR while you were away. I will continue there even though you've returned, since there is a backlog, and more reviewers can only help. You were missed, Sandy. Jeffpw 15:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I just looked at this article, Oakland Cemetery, that you left an FA notice about in the WP:CAL talkpage. Isn't the Oakland Cemetery in Georgia? It would a stretch for the California to cover it. Cheers, Ronbo76 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
As you set out for
Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the
marvelous journey |
Hi Sandy, good to have you back. I have no problems with you copyediting, I will check the history anyway just in case I disagree with any of your edits. Regarding your list, you can go ahead with your first two concerns, let me reply the rest:
Anyway, I'd like to do a very extensive copyedit, if you agree. Then I'd suggest a new peer review before going to FAC, in case others who are unfamiliar with El Hatillo see things we don't see.
Hey. I reviewed your copyedit and all looks fine, thanks again. I described who Escalona was and I reworded the sentence about Guipuzcoana. It's hard to explain what the company and the scandal were without getting off the main topic, so the description is very brief but I will create an article about it. The temperature, crime and unemployment are still pending. About the vegetation sentence, here is the original text:
Las formaciones vegetales están constituidas por una masa arbólea que ocupa la mayor parte de la superficie y que conforman bosques densos, con árboles grandes, en los alredores y a lo largo de los cursos de agua permanentes e intermitentes, con una ocupación cercana al 30%. Dichas formaciones también están constituidas por formaciones arbustivas que ocupan aproximadamente un 9%, similar al porcentaje de las zonas con vegetación herbácea. Todas ellas están subordinadas a los cursos de agua. (...)
My interpretation from the text is that the vegetation is concentrated around water bodies, with 30% being big trees and dense forests, 9% shrubs and ~9% herbs. I restructured the sentence so it's more clear, feel free to do further edits if you feel they are needed.
I did a bit of research on Transparencia Venezuela. The data in the news article can also be accessed here. Honestly, I think the organization looks serious, they have been doing studies about municipality's corruption for 3 years and they are related to Transparency International. Keep in mind that the study was about 69 municipalities, but Venezuela has over 300, so although the study makes El Hatillo look pretty bad, any of the other 250 municipalities can have a worse corruption index than El Hatillo. Let me know what you think.
I nominated El Hatillo for peer review, you can follow it here. Saludos.-- enano ( Talk) 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, and welcome back (at least partially anyway :)! Quick question: what's this I hear about a new FA template? I've seen it on Talk:DNA and Talk:Immune system, and was wondering if it could be applied to Mary I of England; the templates currently on its Talk page are pretty confusing. Hope you enjoyed your trip. Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
More here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hiya, Sandy, hope you enjoyed your trip and are all well and refreshed. When you find the time, can you give me a critical review of this article I'm trying to work towards FAC? Thanks for your time, and any input you may have. LuciferMorgan 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What's with the ++ replacing == in the Notes heading? Pesky vandals! Welcome back. Yomangani talk 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Several months ago, you kindly joined in the editing of the article on Christopher Gillberg. At the time, you mentioned how it was difficult for you to evaluate things, because most of the source documents were in Swedish.
I've now helped to translate the main documents. And what I believe to be an accurate version of the story has been written. I thought that you might be interested in it: http://www.informath.org/apprise/a6400.htm
(After all the dishonest sophistry on the part of some of the other editors and the lack of a mechanism to deal with that, I gave up trying to work on Wikipedia.)
—Daphne A
What would we do without you. Marskell 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes. And it took a grand total of 16 hours for the vandalism to start over. Mouse over, actions, revert... Fvasconcellos 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, Thanks for all your help on the Emerson article! You helped me get it to GA status...now I have to aim for Featured Article status! -- Mike Searson 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Sandy,
If you ever get a free minute here on Wikipedia, I would be most honored if you wrote a critique of my contributions at my Editor Review, found here.
Thanks in advance, S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean to be impolite to that user and I apologized. I just found some of his/her remarks unconsiderate, but I guess that's just my POV, although two other editors were quick to offer their moral support, for which I was grateful. I apologized to him/her, please don't judge me in account of one unfortunate remark and categorise me as an impolite nominator.
Anyway, the article is almost there, the issues raised might be a little time consuming, but they are easily fixed. Fortunately, there is no deadline. I'm sorry you thought I'd said all questions had been addressed: I only meant the specific comment under which I had signed. I'll try to address everything asap. Cheers Raystorm 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks for supporting the article. :-) Listen, Explorer has supported it too, but has left a comment while doing so that, sincerely, I most definitely do not agree with. As I don't want to make the same mistake as before, and inadvertedly cause another heated exchange now that the article is well on its way, would it be too much to ask for you to take a look at the FAC page and, I don't know, give your opinion on my behaviour or something to counter his comment and provide a balance for it, according to your experience with me? He/she claims I've avoided his/her suggestions 'tooth-and-nail' while 'bending backwards' for others, but I did do what he asked for, such as rearranging the article structure, providing references for every single statement he put a tag on, fixing the lead and getting extra copyeditors. I find his/her comments unfair (and frankly, hurtful). I did my best to address all comments to the best of my capacity asap, I even apologized to him/her. Should I flog myself until I bleed for daring to discuss his previous objection? Sigh. Sorry for the rant. I'd appreciate any advice. Simply ignoring it seems unfair to me, but that's just my opinion I guess. Cheers Raystorm 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea you had a specific interest in radio. But what else could have attracted you to Mutual? I'll be sure to keep you in the loop from now on. Do you have a specific interest in cinema? That's my specialty. If you do, I'll certainly post you when I next nominate a film article. And I've already got a feeling about your feeling for TV. When RKO General goes up, you'll be the first to know.
As you're the spokesperson for so many FA reviewers, I want to ask you something and I want you to be honest with me. You think I need to lose some weight?— DCGeist 09:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's me again. Tired of me yet? FWIW I've cleaned up the references on Mozilla Firefox if someone would like to have another look (hint, hint ;) I realize there's more wrong with the article than that, but still... Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches featured article. It seems to me to have relatively little content related to the actual contents of the book. I was wondering whether that might in a way perhaps disqualify it as a featured article. I acknowledge my own lack of knowledge of the subject, and it could be that there actually isn't much more content to the original book. However, I would like a more qualified opinion, which I believe your own would be. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I came across the early Tourette papers when digging around for Timeline of tuberous sclerosis. I wish I could draw on a whole book of material to make a history of TSC, but there's only one current medical textbook (Curatolo 2003) and one older classic text (Gomez 1999, which I've ordered but not read). A 10-page History chapter is tiny compared with Kushner's 320 pages! I'm also hampered by restricted access to online journals.
I am interested in medical history (but no expert). In addition to researching TSC, I'm currently halfway through reading Temkin's classic "The Falling Sickness: A History of Epilepsy". I'm sure there's a Wikipedia article in that.
I had a look at "A Cursing Brain" on Amazon and could read an excerpt. It looks quite readable and cheap from Amazon's Marketplace sellers. I don't think I could tackle the TS history article myself, but let me know if you want another pair of eyes. I wouldn't mind buying the book if that was useful.
Your TS footnotes claim that "Advances in Neurology: Volume 35. Gilles de la Tourette syndrome" has a translation of Tourette's paper. Is it complete or abridged? How does it compare with my awful French translation?
Cheers, Colin° Talk 22:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
A short thanks for your notification on the Northern Ireland Project's talk page regarding the article Battle of the Somme. I'm going to add it to the Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board too. -- Mal 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi :) I'm working on a future FAC for Hamersley, Western Australia and have completed the lead section with references which are appropriately linked in the relevant sections of the article - however, it looks a bit messy as a result. How would you suggest proceeding? Orderinchaos78 08:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am following now, thanks. Yomangani talk 17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:Beatles needs to be asked to implement the "small" option on their banner; and it should also be added to {{ reqimageother}}. Once that's done, the templates should be more-or-less neatly collapsible. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised by this critisisme; this article must rank as one of the best referenced articles on Wikipedia. Because of the high data quality, the article was proposed to be featured. In order to prepare the graphics I spent several days reviewing books and data on the websites stated at the bottom of the article. References are carefully listed in the text and graphics are simple and crisp to facilitate the understanding of a difficult subject. All numbers is presented in SI units to enable the reader to grasp and verify the data. If you check the references listed you will find at least two and often three sources for each number. Lastly the formating page you refered to starts with saying that formating is secondary to creating good articles. I am happy to fix stuff if you can make tangible suggestions and I would be estatic if you could actually edit the World energy resources and consumption article to improve it further. Frank van Mierlo 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Should jeffpw tag facfails? I would say no, the bot can do that. (However, he could if he wants, as the bot is already programmed to check if someone has updated the page before the bot.) As for formerFA/currentGA, bringing that up at User talk:Dr pda since it has an effect on the categories the AH template includes. Gimmetrow 03:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear SandyGeorgia,
Thank you very much for your help in editing the footnotes of the Harvest article.
If you have any other suggestions for improving the article, please let me know.
Thanks,
Jamie L. 04:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I thank you, kind editor. Onwards and upwards.... andreasegde 07:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You're the only person I'm going to contact regarding renominating the military brat article (and only then because you will undoubtably see it on the FAC as that is your haunting ground.) But I would love your feedback on the article... actually, there is one other person I will contact specifically because he asked me to contact him (Mike H)... but I regret contacting people during the CfD and don't want a repeat so it'll be up to them to notice it. Balloonman 09:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Just replied! – Outriggr § 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thought I'd reply here rather than dragging the FARC page too off-topic. Thanks for your words about wanting to see those other articles improved. User:LuciferMorgan and I have discussed this a bit on our talk pages, and I'm going to try and work on Our Friends in the North — my personal favourite thing I've helped write a Featured Article for — this week and message him when I've had a go at it. Should I drop you a note when I've done so too, so you can look it over? Angmering 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Severa, Ferrylodge ( talk · contribs) is hard at work on the article - can you have a look and provide further input about progress and your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roe v. Wade? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have time or energy to review the Roe FAR now. But per Ferrylodge, please see Talk:Abortion, Talk:Stillbirth, Talk:Fetus, and Talk:Late-term abortion. A lot of other editors have found Ferrylodge's pattern of editing to be problematic. My main concern for the article was NPOV and a lot of this user's edits seem to have been ideologically-motivated. - Severa ( !!!) 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am the main writer of a GA called Wood Badge. I'd like to get it to FA but before that would appreciate the input of fine copyeditors such as yourself. I'd truly appreciate it. Rlevse 12:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sandy,
Thank you for your advice with regard to changing talk page section headings and editing statements made by other editors (which, in the case of the following statement that you reverted, is my own made under a former nickname). Pardon my editing of that talk page paragraph, which I came across again after quite some time and in which I found a factual inaccuracy. I have this habit of being very meticulous, and it is this that led me to make the above edits. Will remember from now on not to change section headings, especially (as you've pointed out that it could cause confusion when others want to refer to that particular section). Appreciate you taking the time to advise. Regards, AppleJuggler 14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. And thanks for all your work during the FAR process — I've learned a lot, and whatever the outcome I think the article has been improved. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Raystorm has cleared up your objections, would you like to take another look? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's odd to put in a comment about the Hugo Chavez photo (which I still disagree with is removal) - I didn't continue to force the issue, and it's not there. But the issues are unrelated and I by far have shown to put photos (95% of my additions) that add value to pages. It came across as spiteful, and I don't even remember you. -- DavidShankBone 18:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. There were a series of papier-mache caricatures of Kirschner, Balechet, Morales, and Chavez. I tried to put a photo on each page...and was shot down on each page...lol. There was no mal intent. I often go on photography expeditions specifically for Wikipedia, as a hobby. The photos of the South American leaders I thought were good additions, and came from the same show in which I put photos of stiltwalkers, clowns, jugglers, bearded lady and Jennifer Miller. I stopped debating the issue because I figured, "Well, win some, lose some." -- DavidShankBone 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy. I see that it was Francesco himself that nominated it, which is one way to get the article back to its previous status at least. However, I think that the additional comments raised by KSchutte are valid, and would require a much more extensive revision of the article than just a revert to the un-mucked up version that was promoted. I don't have a ton of time to get into this right now, but I will try to set aside a little time. I will also add my two cents over there. Edhubbard 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll begin with the easy one first. :) Autonomous Communities are capped in Spanish, so I don't know a reason to uncap them in English. About civil unions being the same as civil marriage....Well, they're not. Maybe you've heard the term pareja de hecho? Civil unions generally grant certain level of legal coverage, but they're not the same as a civil marriage, in terms of adoption or inheritance, for example. As they are not too major (i.e, they don't require rewording the Constitution), every Autonomous Community is free to regulate them as they see fit, always within certain limits. Now, civil marriage is different, it involves a lot more things (more rights), and as such only the state can authorise such an important reform of the Constitution. As far as I know, Catholic marriage isn't legally valid in Spain now, you gotta marry civilly for it to count (exceptions might be made for people who only married by the church, I don't know, in 1920 or something like that, if they wanna receive a widow pension I heard). And likewise, the church only recognises Catholic marriages, not civil ones, for they believe the only true marriage comes from them (which is also related to the Spanish church hierarchy being so angry about the word marriage being used in a union they believe devaluates or weakens the term). This law doesn't change that situation, it simply adds another form of civil marriage (with more rights than a mere civil union), legally recognised by the state and ignored (or contested) by the church. I hope that cleared things up a bit. :) If you have more questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers! Raystorm 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I checked too the Spanish article for background info, but it was horribly unreferenced.
Regarding your points:
Cheers and thanks for your suggestions! Raystorm 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: The Consejo de Estado is the General Council of Judiciary power, so we _did_ introduce their report in the article. :) Raystorm 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about the templates. It certainly has sparked interest at the LGBT project. :-) Btw, I've followed your suggestions at the FAC page. Thanks for hunting down those refs! Cheers Raystorm 11:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem, FACs are waiting on reviews and DYK is backlogged anyway (Churning out?!? They aren't cheeses). Although...I'm not sure what's going on...are you moving all the missing and old FACs and FAR/Cs to the new names? I'll get on it in a while - got to go out for few hours. Yomangani talk 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What's an RPB? I'll do what's ever needed now. Marskell 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any formal attempt at standardization (and I don't think one is really necessary, since most of the commonly-used infoboxes are quite adequately maintained by the associated WikiProjects); but, at least according to Wikipedia:Infobox templates, the term "infobox" only applies to summary tables, not to navigational templates.
(It should be pointed out that, strictly speaking, there's neither a requirement to have an infobox in all articles, nor anything forbidding a navigational template being placed in the top corner if there isn't an infobox there.) Kirill Lokshin 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you make the article a candidate to be featured again? Frank van Mierlo 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you submit it for Featured Article Review. The lead is too short? I am male so I don't feel like submiting for review. :) -- Parker007 09:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing. Mocko13 14:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, all the cites were already there, just in a sorry state. I quickly checked each one individually to weed out any gross inaccuracies (one down, BTW) and make sure no links had gone dead, but there you go. Thanks anyway for your confidence in my citation skills :) Also, what's with the {{ confusing}} in "Trademark and logo issues"? Fvasconcellos 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The article says "and possibly obsessive-compulsive disorder" which does not seem concrete enough to categorize him among people with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Doczilla 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. This kind of stuff happens because the dump is a database query which does not discriminate between references and plain external links etc. Thus, I am not able to exclude external links inside references because Wikipedia does not have such field in the database. The idea of the external link dump is to give Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam a list of articles with many external links so that people can check each of them and verify whether they are articles with spam or correctly used (as the articles you pointed out). Ideally, you would edit the table and add a check or something to demonstrate you have reviewed the article and found it as a correctly sourced article instead of being abused by spammers and fans, however we are too few to do a full run, and instead concentrate on the ones that have
Note that links to Wikipedia itself (this is pretty common inside some templates that use full links instead of wikilinks) are also considered external links for the database, so templates like {{ birthyr}} give every article in which it appears over 20 external links. This is clear in the top articles, where most of the external links in fact come from the {{ coor d}} template.
As a side note, in the specif case of Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, I would argue that you have 11 external links to the same site, when common sense would dictate having one to the main site and letting the user browse the site from there. But since it is just an outsider's point of view, I won't say anything ;-) -- ReyBrujo 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I am considering FAC2 on Campbell's Soup Cans. Before I do so I was hoping to get an informal opinion from people who previously objected on fair use grounds. I have revised all image pages and captions and would like your opinion on my fair image usage before renominating my article. Please respond at my talk page. TonyTheTiger 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll do my best. Give me a few days ok? I already have previous commitments with other editors that I had to postpone due to the FAC. I gave the article a cursory view, it seems quite complete. Just one thing -saw a red link. Maybe you could get the author to lose it or create a stub for it? I don't think I've ever seen a FA with red links. See ya Raystorm 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen on the talk page (and unfortunately a bit in the history page) on the article on Hugo Chavez, related to two thoroughly sourced quotes I added to the "Criticism" section of the article from two editorials from the Argentine daily Ambito Financiero (www.ambitoweb.com) - An editor very zealously deleted and reverted and, on the history page, made some very political statements that were politburo'ey in nature. I was trying to improve the article -- it has, as I've seen on the talk page over why its FA status went in and out, been plagued with problems of imbalance in the past. I was trying to improve it.
Anyway - if you're at all interested, I'd appreciate your opinion back there. Thanks. NYDCSP 07:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I realize you're away, so I have FAR on my watchlist now, and will be messaging all involved parties until your return. No reply necessary. Jeffpw 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, I just wanted to thank you for the valuable feedback you provided on the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article. After reviewing your comments and those of other reviewers, I have updated the article. If you have a moment to take another look, any additional thoughts would be much appreciated! Thanks again Cimm [talk] 02:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Sandy! I thought I would let you know that I have just nominated the
Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article as a
Featured Article candidate. The feedback and encouragement from you and the other reviewers is what motivated the nomination. Thank you again for all your support!
Cimm
[talk]
23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, several copyeditors took passes on the article, so it should be fine now. — Deckill e r 03:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you please see Talk:Threshing-board#References on translated articles? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sandy. I've taken care of most of the citations you requested for Dalek, and commented out the one that I couldn't substantiate. I'm also going to ask for some copyediting help on the article. When you get back from your wikibreak, could you drop by Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dalek and let us know what you think? Thanks. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
On 24 December 2006, I put up the UW-Madison article for Featured Article. It failed miserably, due in part to the fact that I had almost no idea what the criteria were for FA. I have now made considerable revisions. You had originally opposed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Wisconsin-Madison/archive1. Would you please consider looking over the article over again, and tell me how you would vote this time if it were put up for FA again? University of Wisconsin-Madison Thanks! – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI. Thanks for your guidance! -- HailFire 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's my idea of how slippery a slope can be! No offense taken, and I have been very happy being able to participate at FAR while you were away. I will continue there even though you've returned, since there is a backlog, and more reviewers can only help. You were missed, Sandy. Jeffpw 15:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I just looked at this article, Oakland Cemetery, that you left an FA notice about in the WP:CAL talkpage. Isn't the Oakland Cemetery in Georgia? It would a stretch for the California to cover it. Cheers, Ronbo76 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
As you set out for
Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the
marvelous journey |
Hi Sandy, good to have you back. I have no problems with you copyediting, I will check the history anyway just in case I disagree with any of your edits. Regarding your list, you can go ahead with your first two concerns, let me reply the rest:
Anyway, I'd like to do a very extensive copyedit, if you agree. Then I'd suggest a new peer review before going to FAC, in case others who are unfamiliar with El Hatillo see things we don't see.
Hey. I reviewed your copyedit and all looks fine, thanks again. I described who Escalona was and I reworded the sentence about Guipuzcoana. It's hard to explain what the company and the scandal were without getting off the main topic, so the description is very brief but I will create an article about it. The temperature, crime and unemployment are still pending. About the vegetation sentence, here is the original text:
Las formaciones vegetales están constituidas por una masa arbólea que ocupa la mayor parte de la superficie y que conforman bosques densos, con árboles grandes, en los alredores y a lo largo de los cursos de agua permanentes e intermitentes, con una ocupación cercana al 30%. Dichas formaciones también están constituidas por formaciones arbustivas que ocupan aproximadamente un 9%, similar al porcentaje de las zonas con vegetación herbácea. Todas ellas están subordinadas a los cursos de agua. (...)
My interpretation from the text is that the vegetation is concentrated around water bodies, with 30% being big trees and dense forests, 9% shrubs and ~9% herbs. I restructured the sentence so it's more clear, feel free to do further edits if you feel they are needed.
I did a bit of research on Transparencia Venezuela. The data in the news article can also be accessed here. Honestly, I think the organization looks serious, they have been doing studies about municipality's corruption for 3 years and they are related to Transparency International. Keep in mind that the study was about 69 municipalities, but Venezuela has over 300, so although the study makes El Hatillo look pretty bad, any of the other 250 municipalities can have a worse corruption index than El Hatillo. Let me know what you think.
I nominated El Hatillo for peer review, you can follow it here. Saludos.-- enano ( Talk) 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, and welcome back (at least partially anyway :)! Quick question: what's this I hear about a new FA template? I've seen it on Talk:DNA and Talk:Immune system, and was wondering if it could be applied to Mary I of England; the templates currently on its Talk page are pretty confusing. Hope you enjoyed your trip. Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
More here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hiya, Sandy, hope you enjoyed your trip and are all well and refreshed. When you find the time, can you give me a critical review of this article I'm trying to work towards FAC? Thanks for your time, and any input you may have. LuciferMorgan 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What's with the ++ replacing == in the Notes heading? Pesky vandals! Welcome back. Yomangani talk 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Several months ago, you kindly joined in the editing of the article on Christopher Gillberg. At the time, you mentioned how it was difficult for you to evaluate things, because most of the source documents were in Swedish.
I've now helped to translate the main documents. And what I believe to be an accurate version of the story has been written. I thought that you might be interested in it: http://www.informath.org/apprise/a6400.htm
(After all the dishonest sophistry on the part of some of the other editors and the lack of a mechanism to deal with that, I gave up trying to work on Wikipedia.)
—Daphne A
What would we do without you. Marskell 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes. And it took a grand total of 16 hours for the vandalism to start over. Mouse over, actions, revert... Fvasconcellos 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, Thanks for all your help on the Emerson article! You helped me get it to GA status...now I have to aim for Featured Article status! -- Mike Searson 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Sandy,
If you ever get a free minute here on Wikipedia, I would be most honored if you wrote a critique of my contributions at my Editor Review, found here.
Thanks in advance, S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean to be impolite to that user and I apologized. I just found some of his/her remarks unconsiderate, but I guess that's just my POV, although two other editors were quick to offer their moral support, for which I was grateful. I apologized to him/her, please don't judge me in account of one unfortunate remark and categorise me as an impolite nominator.
Anyway, the article is almost there, the issues raised might be a little time consuming, but they are easily fixed. Fortunately, there is no deadline. I'm sorry you thought I'd said all questions had been addressed: I only meant the specific comment under which I had signed. I'll try to address everything asap. Cheers Raystorm 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks for supporting the article. :-) Listen, Explorer has supported it too, but has left a comment while doing so that, sincerely, I most definitely do not agree with. As I don't want to make the same mistake as before, and inadvertedly cause another heated exchange now that the article is well on its way, would it be too much to ask for you to take a look at the FAC page and, I don't know, give your opinion on my behaviour or something to counter his comment and provide a balance for it, according to your experience with me? He/she claims I've avoided his/her suggestions 'tooth-and-nail' while 'bending backwards' for others, but I did do what he asked for, such as rearranging the article structure, providing references for every single statement he put a tag on, fixing the lead and getting extra copyeditors. I find his/her comments unfair (and frankly, hurtful). I did my best to address all comments to the best of my capacity asap, I even apologized to him/her. Should I flog myself until I bleed for daring to discuss his previous objection? Sigh. Sorry for the rant. I'd appreciate any advice. Simply ignoring it seems unfair to me, but that's just my opinion I guess. Cheers Raystorm 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea you had a specific interest in radio. But what else could have attracted you to Mutual? I'll be sure to keep you in the loop from now on. Do you have a specific interest in cinema? That's my specialty. If you do, I'll certainly post you when I next nominate a film article. And I've already got a feeling about your feeling for TV. When RKO General goes up, you'll be the first to know.
As you're the spokesperson for so many FA reviewers, I want to ask you something and I want you to be honest with me. You think I need to lose some weight?— DCGeist 09:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's me again. Tired of me yet? FWIW I've cleaned up the references on Mozilla Firefox if someone would like to have another look (hint, hint ;) I realize there's more wrong with the article than that, but still... Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches featured article. It seems to me to have relatively little content related to the actual contents of the book. I was wondering whether that might in a way perhaps disqualify it as a featured article. I acknowledge my own lack of knowledge of the subject, and it could be that there actually isn't much more content to the original book. However, I would like a more qualified opinion, which I believe your own would be. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I came across the early Tourette papers when digging around for Timeline of tuberous sclerosis. I wish I could draw on a whole book of material to make a history of TSC, but there's only one current medical textbook (Curatolo 2003) and one older classic text (Gomez 1999, which I've ordered but not read). A 10-page History chapter is tiny compared with Kushner's 320 pages! I'm also hampered by restricted access to online journals.
I am interested in medical history (but no expert). In addition to researching TSC, I'm currently halfway through reading Temkin's classic "The Falling Sickness: A History of Epilepsy". I'm sure there's a Wikipedia article in that.
I had a look at "A Cursing Brain" on Amazon and could read an excerpt. It looks quite readable and cheap from Amazon's Marketplace sellers. I don't think I could tackle the TS history article myself, but let me know if you want another pair of eyes. I wouldn't mind buying the book if that was useful.
Your TS footnotes claim that "Advances in Neurology: Volume 35. Gilles de la Tourette syndrome" has a translation of Tourette's paper. Is it complete or abridged? How does it compare with my awful French translation?
Cheers, Colin° Talk 22:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
A short thanks for your notification on the Northern Ireland Project's talk page regarding the article Battle of the Somme. I'm going to add it to the Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board too. -- Mal 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi :) I'm working on a future FAC for Hamersley, Western Australia and have completed the lead section with references which are appropriately linked in the relevant sections of the article - however, it looks a bit messy as a result. How would you suggest proceeding? Orderinchaos78 08:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am following now, thanks. Yomangani talk 17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:Beatles needs to be asked to implement the "small" option on their banner; and it should also be added to {{ reqimageother}}. Once that's done, the templates should be more-or-less neatly collapsible. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised by this critisisme; this article must rank as one of the best referenced articles on Wikipedia. Because of the high data quality, the article was proposed to be featured. In order to prepare the graphics I spent several days reviewing books and data on the websites stated at the bottom of the article. References are carefully listed in the text and graphics are simple and crisp to facilitate the understanding of a difficult subject. All numbers is presented in SI units to enable the reader to grasp and verify the data. If you check the references listed you will find at least two and often three sources for each number. Lastly the formating page you refered to starts with saying that formating is secondary to creating good articles. I am happy to fix stuff if you can make tangible suggestions and I would be estatic if you could actually edit the World energy resources and consumption article to improve it further. Frank van Mierlo 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Should jeffpw tag facfails? I would say no, the bot can do that. (However, he could if he wants, as the bot is already programmed to check if someone has updated the page before the bot.) As for formerFA/currentGA, bringing that up at User talk:Dr pda since it has an effect on the categories the AH template includes. Gimmetrow 03:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear SandyGeorgia,
Thank you very much for your help in editing the footnotes of the Harvest article.
If you have any other suggestions for improving the article, please let me know.
Thanks,
Jamie L. 04:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I thank you, kind editor. Onwards and upwards.... andreasegde 07:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You're the only person I'm going to contact regarding renominating the military brat article (and only then because you will undoubtably see it on the FAC as that is your haunting ground.) But I would love your feedback on the article... actually, there is one other person I will contact specifically because he asked me to contact him (Mike H)... but I regret contacting people during the CfD and don't want a repeat so it'll be up to them to notice it. Balloonman 09:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Just replied! – Outriggr § 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thought I'd reply here rather than dragging the FARC page too off-topic. Thanks for your words about wanting to see those other articles improved. User:LuciferMorgan and I have discussed this a bit on our talk pages, and I'm going to try and work on Our Friends in the North — my personal favourite thing I've helped write a Featured Article for — this week and message him when I've had a go at it. Should I drop you a note when I've done so too, so you can look it over? Angmering 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Severa, Ferrylodge ( talk · contribs) is hard at work on the article - can you have a look and provide further input about progress and your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roe v. Wade? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have time or energy to review the Roe FAR now. But per Ferrylodge, please see Talk:Abortion, Talk:Stillbirth, Talk:Fetus, and Talk:Late-term abortion. A lot of other editors have found Ferrylodge's pattern of editing to be problematic. My main concern for the article was NPOV and a lot of this user's edits seem to have been ideologically-motivated. - Severa ( !!!) 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am the main writer of a GA called Wood Badge. I'd like to get it to FA but before that would appreciate the input of fine copyeditors such as yourself. I'd truly appreciate it. Rlevse 12:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sandy,
Thank you for your advice with regard to changing talk page section headings and editing statements made by other editors (which, in the case of the following statement that you reverted, is my own made under a former nickname). Pardon my editing of that talk page paragraph, which I came across again after quite some time and in which I found a factual inaccuracy. I have this habit of being very meticulous, and it is this that led me to make the above edits. Will remember from now on not to change section headings, especially (as you've pointed out that it could cause confusion when others want to refer to that particular section). Appreciate you taking the time to advise. Regards, AppleJuggler 14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. And thanks for all your work during the FAR process — I've learned a lot, and whatever the outcome I think the article has been improved. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Raystorm has cleared up your objections, would you like to take another look? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's odd to put in a comment about the Hugo Chavez photo (which I still disagree with is removal) - I didn't continue to force the issue, and it's not there. But the issues are unrelated and I by far have shown to put photos (95% of my additions) that add value to pages. It came across as spiteful, and I don't even remember you. -- DavidShankBone 18:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. There were a series of papier-mache caricatures of Kirschner, Balechet, Morales, and Chavez. I tried to put a photo on each page...and was shot down on each page...lol. There was no mal intent. I often go on photography expeditions specifically for Wikipedia, as a hobby. The photos of the South American leaders I thought were good additions, and came from the same show in which I put photos of stiltwalkers, clowns, jugglers, bearded lady and Jennifer Miller. I stopped debating the issue because I figured, "Well, win some, lose some." -- DavidShankBone 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy. I see that it was Francesco himself that nominated it, which is one way to get the article back to its previous status at least. However, I think that the additional comments raised by KSchutte are valid, and would require a much more extensive revision of the article than just a revert to the un-mucked up version that was promoted. I don't have a ton of time to get into this right now, but I will try to set aside a little time. I will also add my two cents over there. Edhubbard 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll begin with the easy one first. :) Autonomous Communities are capped in Spanish, so I don't know a reason to uncap them in English. About civil unions being the same as civil marriage....Well, they're not. Maybe you've heard the term pareja de hecho? Civil unions generally grant certain level of legal coverage, but they're not the same as a civil marriage, in terms of adoption or inheritance, for example. As they are not too major (i.e, they don't require rewording the Constitution), every Autonomous Community is free to regulate them as they see fit, always within certain limits. Now, civil marriage is different, it involves a lot more things (more rights), and as such only the state can authorise such an important reform of the Constitution. As far as I know, Catholic marriage isn't legally valid in Spain now, you gotta marry civilly for it to count (exceptions might be made for people who only married by the church, I don't know, in 1920 or something like that, if they wanna receive a widow pension I heard). And likewise, the church only recognises Catholic marriages, not civil ones, for they believe the only true marriage comes from them (which is also related to the Spanish church hierarchy being so angry about the word marriage being used in a union they believe devaluates or weakens the term). This law doesn't change that situation, it simply adds another form of civil marriage (with more rights than a mere civil union), legally recognised by the state and ignored (or contested) by the church. I hope that cleared things up a bit. :) If you have more questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers! Raystorm 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I checked too the Spanish article for background info, but it was horribly unreferenced.
Regarding your points:
Cheers and thanks for your suggestions! Raystorm 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: The Consejo de Estado is the General Council of Judiciary power, so we _did_ introduce their report in the article. :) Raystorm 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about the templates. It certainly has sparked interest at the LGBT project. :-) Btw, I've followed your suggestions at the FAC page. Thanks for hunting down those refs! Cheers Raystorm 11:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem, FACs are waiting on reviews and DYK is backlogged anyway (Churning out?!? They aren't cheeses). Although...I'm not sure what's going on...are you moving all the missing and old FACs and FAR/Cs to the new names? I'll get on it in a while - got to go out for few hours. Yomangani talk 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What's an RPB? I'll do what's ever needed now. Marskell 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any formal attempt at standardization (and I don't think one is really necessary, since most of the commonly-used infoboxes are quite adequately maintained by the associated WikiProjects); but, at least according to Wikipedia:Infobox templates, the term "infobox" only applies to summary tables, not to navigational templates.
(It should be pointed out that, strictly speaking, there's neither a requirement to have an infobox in all articles, nor anything forbidding a navigational template being placed in the top corner if there isn't an infobox there.) Kirill Lokshin 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you make the article a candidate to be featured again? Frank van Mierlo 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you submit it for Featured Article Review. The lead is too short? I am male so I don't feel like submiting for review. :) -- Parker007 09:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing. Mocko13 14:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, all the cites were already there, just in a sorry state. I quickly checked each one individually to weed out any gross inaccuracies (one down, BTW) and make sure no links had gone dead, but there you go. Thanks anyway for your confidence in my citation skills :) Also, what's with the {{ confusing}} in "Trademark and logo issues"? Fvasconcellos 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The article says "and possibly obsessive-compulsive disorder" which does not seem concrete enough to categorize him among people with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Doczilla 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. This kind of stuff happens because the dump is a database query which does not discriminate between references and plain external links etc. Thus, I am not able to exclude external links inside references because Wikipedia does not have such field in the database. The idea of the external link dump is to give Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam a list of articles with many external links so that people can check each of them and verify whether they are articles with spam or correctly used (as the articles you pointed out). Ideally, you would edit the table and add a check or something to demonstrate you have reviewed the article and found it as a correctly sourced article instead of being abused by spammers and fans, however we are too few to do a full run, and instead concentrate on the ones that have
Note that links to Wikipedia itself (this is pretty common inside some templates that use full links instead of wikilinks) are also considered external links for the database, so templates like {{ birthyr}} give every article in which it appears over 20 external links. This is clear in the top articles, where most of the external links in fact come from the {{ coor d}} template.
As a side note, in the specif case of Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, I would argue that you have 11 external links to the same site, when common sense would dictate having one to the main site and letting the user browse the site from there. But since it is just an outsider's point of view, I won't say anything ;-) -- ReyBrujo 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I am considering FAC2 on Campbell's Soup Cans. Before I do so I was hoping to get an informal opinion from people who previously objected on fair use grounds. I have revised all image pages and captions and would like your opinion on my fair image usage before renominating my article. Please respond at my talk page. TonyTheTiger 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll do my best. Give me a few days ok? I already have previous commitments with other editors that I had to postpone due to the FAC. I gave the article a cursory view, it seems quite complete. Just one thing -saw a red link. Maybe you could get the author to lose it or create a stub for it? I don't think I've ever seen a FA with red links. See ya Raystorm 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)