That's got awfully confusing for a moment - she posted just as I was archiving the old material - but at the top.. no problem.. move it and carry on.. oh wait.. it's there again.. oh it's a duplicate... no problem.. no wait.. there is it again... how on.. what was I doing? I *think* we got there in the end but i'm checking. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!!!
That is what I was looking for. JohnRussell ( talk) 00:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I had previously said I would try updating the FAC urgents list ( User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch37#FAC urgents) but I don't think it is working out. The scheduling and listing choices are not compatible with mine. If the list is going to mirror the bottom 7-10 articles at FAC, then a bot could help you. Alternatively, you could reduce the scope of the list to only 2-3 FACs so that you don't have to update every time you pr/ar. -- maclean 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you! | |
SandyGeorgia, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 ( talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
And a special thank you to you, Sandy, a wodnerful person whom I consider a true friend and my mentor. -- Happyme22 ( talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
File:HersheysDark.jpg | Yum... | |
Thanks for everything. I'll be seeing you around! Happyme22 ( talk) 06:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC) |
Hi there, just wanted to let you know I have addressed that userpage issue. I will be watching that account very closely. Thanks for the edit summary warning. Risker ( talk) 04:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
TS manual citation: a very good idea. I feel like discouraging the use of any citation template. Heck, it looks like more work than manual entries, and is an invitation for screw-ups that no one but our unlogged-in, long-suffering readers have to see. So, is there hope that David R might get it sorted, coordinate them, allow non-lemon citations, any time soon? Should we discourage usage? I guess we have to have a plethora of them ... hmmmph. Do we, in fact, encourage the use of these templates at FAC? Tony (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you want us to just add that stuff in before we transclude? If you give me a template or whatnot I'll try and save you the extra step. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, If we went to the other system, every FAC would be a new page and use the preload. Gimmetrow 16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's put soft flannel blankets all over the floor of FAC, with lots of cuddly stuffed animals (a few live bunnies in there with some tired kittens, too), play some Enya, serve Sleepytime Tea, set the temperature at 71 degrees and nap until October. I don't think anything else is going to get done before then.
Or we could pay a "Sacrifice editor" to oppose every single FAC on account it doesn't have enough images of naked cavorting animals to wake it up a bit. A Sineater editor. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Three errors. A massive strikeout with the bases loaded (on a huge curve). I'm in tears. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Helllllllp. Malleus has given up on the nomination for the main page and I was pipped at the post by the atlantic hurricane article but it has no points score given. Does that mean i can replace it? - and how many points do we have for Peterloo anyway as I've not nominated before. Is it two or three? Richerman ( talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't visit WP:TFAR too often and have never nominated an article there. I'd really like to see Noble gas hit the main page, though, and it's definitely an under-represented category. The date connection is 140 years to the day this August 18 that the first noble gas was discovered. Could you take a look at that? By the looks of things, William IV of the United Kingdom is next in line to be replaced? Gary King ( talk) 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You got mail. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>Role model or guinea pig? I made the comparison to 5th graders because when I taught, inevitably one would have a total lunar freakout when a pencil went missing, and everyone and their mothers were accused of being thieves, then no apologies when it was found underneath a shoe or a bookbag. I only got away with saying "Spaz" under my breath once. (Count to five don't say words count to five no words breathe). A couple months ago I laughed so hard I cried at a story a college intern told me: she was visiting a classroom when a student started to choke seriously, turning purple and all. A classmate saw him, and said, about as bored as could be and still make a sound: "Hey. He's choking." You know if the pencil was gone that kid would have been screaming from the rafters. Look at the children, just like Jean Piaget. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Flowers and chocolate in the same day ... life is good. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I asked User:DrKiernan this question but he has yet to reply, so I pose it to you as I know your interest in FAs/FARs. I have gone through the History of Limerick, now on FAR, and there seems to be quite a bit of general Irish history thrown in that overshadows or overwhelms the Limerick story, where there is one, but maybe some of the general history should be trimmed out. The Irish Famine section seems to be more about the Cromwellian and Georgian period with only 3 sentences about the famine itself; perhaps a rename is in order there. I am slowly working on finding references and will also try to expand the earlier period per DrKiernan's comments, but any other advise, especially on the above points, would be appreciated. It is so much more difficult to reference other peoples work at a later time than ones own as it is being written! BTW, any advise on the citations. I much prefer to use the templates but this has been done manually for the references (really Sources), so I have continued it for the books but used template for the inline where it is only being used once or twice and is not in the listing, otherwise I use the "Author name (year), page" format. (I post in one place to keep a discussion together, so am watching this page for a while). TIA ww2censor ( talk) 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am a member of WP:PW, and I, along with other users, have been constantly trying to get a PPV article into FA status, but every time an article is there, the reviewers will say that we need to have who wrote the storylines and who were the script writers. I am referring to you because you commented on the FAC of SummerSlam (2007). Now, script writers and who wrote storylines, is never revealed by WWE or any other reliable source. So I ask you is this necessary? Another thing is the jargon that many of our articles contain, so an example, "The feud escalated into a No disqualification match." (that would be jargon), would this be any better and clearer, "The staged rivalry escalated into a match where neither competitor could be disqualified for malicious actions."? (If possible may you reply on my talk page, but if not, I will keep this page on watch). Thanks for your help. Cheers, -- S R X 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Caesar cipher looks OK to me.
I notice a whack from the list arrived on FAR a week ago, which is good to keep it moving. Coincidence or are some of the regular nominators consulting the list? Marskell ( talk) 14:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There, I believe I am caught up on replies and striking issues. Blech. Been a busy couple of weeks here! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
i've tagged for clean-up. regarding the first link to the portal in a template campaign box: i couldn't see the mos on portal placement, i'm guessing these are just meant to be at the end of articles. kind regards Tom ( talk) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Having been to a Wikimania myself, yes, a lot of gossip gets traded around. With that said, I don't know if what he says is true or not. Raul654 ( talk) 16:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. You got your reasons I'm sure. I thought scroll boxes made an article easier to handle. The idea is in your mind now so if you like it later you can always put one in. For myself I haven't worked on the article and do not plan to, so I have nothing else to contribute. It is a nice article. Best wishes. Bye now. Dave ( talk) 01:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the nowrap help on
Forksville Covered Bridge and for asking Tony's help as well (I asked him too as I did not realize the duplication from the TOC). Yours,
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
03:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Ruhrfisch#bridge. Tony (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC) PS Now I'm unsure about the hyphens I added to arch-thingy. Tony (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Thanks again for your contributions and comments -
Forksville Covered Bridge made
featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Sandy: I'm not seeking to negotiate, but if I withdrew William and were to try again with him for September 8, would that mean that you would not oppose on the grounds of proximity to other King articles (you could of course oppose on other grounds, if you saw fit)? Sept 8 being the anniversary of his Coronation. It would also help if I knew that it would fall outside the time period for the deduction of a point. As it stands, it is exactly two months after Edward VIII, but of course that is 62 days, the longest possible two month period.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Easy. Offer a bonus point if nomination made within 20 days of requested date; second bonus point if made within ten days. That will encourage people to wait, especially with borderline articles. Make the proposal and I'll support that.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"To encourage full opportunity for discussion and a more rapid turnover of articles from the project page, bonus point(s) will be awarded as follows. 1 point if requested on the project page for the first time no earlier than 20 days before the date requested, or 2 points if requested on the project page for the first time no earlier than 10 days before the date requested.
Articles are only eligible for the bonus point(s) if they meet the above criterion, AND were listed on the template on the talk page thirty days in advance of the date requested. Articles which request one of multiple dates are not eligible for the bonus point(s), and the bonus may only be claimed for the article if the article was not requested previously on the project page within the 90 days before the request."-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
All right, I think I'm seeing it. It's a risk, it could flop, but worth a try. I'll work on writing something up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I saw the message you left on your recent copy edits of Sunderland Echo [1]. I have just contacted Epbr123 as you suggested. I expect I am to blame for introducing these errors while making the requested FAC changes. If you could give me an example, I'll have another look as well. Many thanks.-- Seahamlass 19:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
[2] Nousernamesleft ( talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses). I think I've reached the wall on my ability to explain that just because other FA's use a source, doesn't mean its reliable. Help??? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
To make you feel better... I pulled some articles on War elephant usage. How do you guilt trip me into these things??? (I'm still not touching Barbaro though...)
This clause, "determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage.", requires me to declare a removal and to state that the article cannot be fixed based on severe problems during the first state, otherwise, the review can be closed. If you do not like that, please remove the clause. Otherwise, the Wikipedia rules on consensus require me to make it absolutely clear that I believe it needs to progress through the ultimate steps. Ottava Rima ( talk) 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This is with respect to image of Adi Shankara on the FAC nomination page of Anekantavada. i have received the following response from user:MBisanz. - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Anishshah19&diff=226942520&oldid=226682293 . He suggested your name to resolve the issue.
What do you suggest? Can we keep the image or try to replace it?-- Anish ( talk) 06:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
...or in this case, email... Risker ( talk) 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Look here at the top - notice "class" and "importance". Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(copied over from my talk page:) OK, I'm on this now. Well done with the Harvnbs! Heh. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That Witwer & Lecavalier 2008 citation was indeed duplicate, so this revert seems to be an error to me. Eubulides ( talk) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. The merger took place on June 8, 2006—a day that will live in infamy...
Should the Dispatch mention the first edit from Larry Sanger? Where was the info at before that? I don't even know how to investigate such ancient history. Marskell ( talk) 17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was anything else I needed to go over regarding Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Airlines Flight 93? I asked yesterday on the review page, but no one responded. I wasn't too sure the status of the NBSP and date formatting issue. Could you please reply on that page? Thanks. -- Veggy ( talk) 12:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You know, I really have nothing productive to say to you right now. However, the thought of copy-editing Everglades once more makes me want to sob like a tiny, tiny child. So... I am not being disciplined and spending my time wisely. I am leaving a useless message on your talk page. I wish I had been the person to do this, but I am not, alas. That kind of senseless random editing is what is called for after an elongated period of concentrated efforts. For as much content as I have added, I am not allowed to lower the quality of other articles. There is no balance. What a crime. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's obviously rough and meagre, but could you let me know whether this seems to be going in the right direction? I'd like some preliminary feedback so I don't go too far down the wrong path (if I should indeed be taking a different approach, that is). Danke im Voraus. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have left a response on the review for Jackson, regarding numbers. — Realist2 ( Speak) 01:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a 24-hour break would help? Realist2, please don't edit Wiki to the point of frustration :-) Besides being bad for your health, it can prevent you from seeing the forest for the trees. I'm in no hurry to close the FAC, so some time off might be good to ease the tension. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) ah, I see ... you might have gone too far with that (I thought I saw others, but could be wrong). I don't think it's within the same sentence, I think it's within a list (I could be wrong). BUT !! Don't worry about that silliness. Focus on the text, addressing issues raised about content and prose, and when the article is close, you can ask User:Epbr123 to run through and fix little things like that. It's not the kind of thing you need to lose sleep over :-) You can ask Epbr to review and fix it later. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I found a biographer that discusses Tourette syndrome. I placed the beginning of my notes for it here. The work was edited and aided by various doctors, in case you were curious. There is still more information about the "tics" before the section I start quoting, but I focused on the TS section first. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw that you were busy on Ima Hogg so I added Harvnb templates. I checked them all and they all worked for me. You can double check them if you want. I hope that helps. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick note - this does not apply to inline citations, unless there is a competing template. Now, there was no inline citation tool used, which would also be a strike against FA, and FA review would force it back to this point. So why not cut to the inevitable? Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, this is contentious and requires consensus first before adding it. I am notifying you instead of reverting it myself. Three columns have been preferred by a lot of people, and the community should be involved before a guideline publicly discourages such. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like this to stop. It started over what now looks to be a misunderstanding on guidelines at Ima Hogg, and I Do Not Want to trouble Karanacs over Ima Hogg considering the real life issues she has mentioned on her talk page. Ima Hogg has always enjoyed stability, its current referencing is perfectly fine and MoS compliant, and I'd not appreciate having an unnecessary and trivial issue there over citation formatting at this particular point in Karanacs' life. I mean it; when your father is ill, nothing else matters. This doesn't. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll try to do better jimfbleak ( talk) 16:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
After receiving some strong objections, I have very temporarily withdrawn this article from the FAC list. It will be put back on shortly as I have just spent a fair amount of time fixing up the references and further edits are yet to be made. It will be added again shortly. Sorry for any inconvenience! Domiy ( talk) 08:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm off on my wikibreak. I think Bradman ought to now be on the main request page, but what this means is me being responsible for another deserving (if less deserving, perhaps) article that's been sitting there for a while dropping off and perhaps being ignored.
I'm uncomfortable about it and because I'm short of time, I'm struggling to work out why and express myself properly. (Who is it that said "I've sent you a long letter because I didn't have time to write a short one?) Anyway, I'll be gone for a week and I trust you and Raul implicitly to make sure that the right things are done. Just not sure if I trust the process we're developing.
Closest I can come to expressing my emotions is that it has an uncomfortable taint of bullying, but that's a loaded worded and it carries with it elements I certainly don't mean.
Gnash, I'm not doing a good job of this. Let's touch base in early August.
Cheers, me old mucker. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
What's up? Giggy referred me to you. I'm looking to expand my contributions to the 'pedia. I'm pretty nice at copy editing, I write advertisements that appear in newspapers as a 2nd job, and have been doing so for a few years. Anyway, I asked Giggy, and he said you're the person to talk to regarding copy editing at FAC. Stop by my talk page if you get a chance. Beam 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
New topic of sorts, regarding The Supremes review. Although I nominated it for a review I am of the opinion it should be left on hold to give Ceoil time to finish it. Our music related FA articles already lack diversity as it is, it would be very unfortunate to lose this soul/R&B group. When the MJ review is over I intend to help Ceoil if he want's it. I'm going to the shops over the next week and might purchase some books. — Realist2 ( Speak) 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether you're able to respond, right at the bottom of User_talk:Tony1#Ima_Hogg. Tony (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
In other news, Tim Starling added something which addresses the problem with move-archiving and redirects in general. So, it's not a problem on my end if you want to keep using WP:GO. But given Duke's stats, an average 60 hits per day, do you want to keep up with WP:GO? Gimmetrow 21:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for you forbearance with nuthatch, and giving the time for it to be improved. I know what Shyamal felt like with ant now! I appreciate the help given by bird project members and the reviewers in fixing this, although I had to take a few deep breathes before replying to the very late claim that it wasn't comprehensive. The good news is that the next one is a single species; the bad news is that there is a next one. Cheers, jimfbleak ( talk) 05:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the edit conflict. The result looks OK though. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 20:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Its actually part of the MediaWiki system, sorta like User:Pending deletion script and User:MediaWiki default used to be, so you'd need to bug Tim Starling ( talk · contribs) about it or file a bugzilla report. MBisanz talk 05:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. SandyGeorgia. Well I apprecaite that you moved unresolved issues to the Talk Page. But I don't think it's of any use. That's beacuse look at
Nichalp's comments on
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore. (I would not consider the first three to be reliable. The Penn University source is the work of a student as determined by the tilde in the url. World Gazetter on the other hand has been used as a source by wikipedia including several featured articles such as Mumbai.)
He says it's the work of a student, when it has been proved in the FAC that David Ludden is a professor at Penn who specializes in comparative world and South Asian history. (
Davis Ludden's Homepage). So I think you even need to move the related discussion to the Talk page. Or just allow me to do it. Because, without the discussion, the step is of no use. Thankyou,
Kensplanet
Talk
E-mail
Contributions
06:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Im tring to seduce The Fat Man as best I know how, but JayHenry and our mutual friend are making it difficult!! Help; for friday night sake? ( Ceoil sláinte 12:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear SandyGeorgia
I find it hard to understand your comment: "Remove original research, pls dicuss on talk how to incorporate, but opinion and original research has no place on Wiki" re my recent edit to add more depth to the entry on "Deep brain stimulation" and specifically the citation of a Nature study on thalamic stimulation in one patient in a minimal conscious state.
Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortenKringelbach ( talk • contribs) 22:41, July 27, 2008
One in a million :-) — Realist2 ( Speak) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to your reply to me at Gimmetrow's talk page, I was only expressing regret that the page was being consigned to history. Gimmetrow said "will anyone notice" in his edit summary, and I was merely saying that I would - that's all. I wasn't criticising anyone for the ending of the page, or anything of that nature. Just wanted to say that, as your reply seemed as though you were a bit annoyed by what I said. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, my oppose still stood. The article does not use summary style effectively and still needs grammar cleanup. WesleyDodds ( talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Basically, adding __STATICREDIRECT__ to a page will cause User:Redirect fixer to ignore that page (I added this to its userpage). Where it would normally make an edit to that page, it won't. This means that __STATICREDIRECT__ needs to be added to some redirects (Gimmetrow will know which ones and will probably do it), and nothing else needs to be changed.
At least, that's what I make of it. Hopefully this clears things up. :-) — Giggy 07:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
That FA one of the hardest things I've done, and I have a kid! But it was fun too, and the article definitely improved as a result of the process. Thank you for all the help, especially the otherwise thankless job of re-formatting all the refs! Maury ( talk) 12:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, as a delegate to the FL director, can you do a quick review of SummerSlam (2003), I plan on nominating it for FAC. This is a wrestling article, and as you know in the past these haven't passed because of sourcing issues and jargon. This article is written in a more enhanced way with a reception, no jargon, and reliable sources. Thank You. You may give your response on my talk page.-- S R X 15:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, SandyGeorgia,
I would like to request your opinion and advices regarding this recent GAN. It was failed, in part due to confusion about the reviewer's asking for a second opinion. See my protest and the archived GAN. I am wondering if this article merits being taken to GAR for community review/assessment? JGHowes talk - 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Having not read the GA reviews too carefully, it looks like the remaining point of contention was whether or not the prose was so purple as to be imprecise, POV, OR, etc. GAR, I think, is really meant to handle situations when a reviewer was way off base (not following the criteria, etc.) or when an existing GA needs to be re-evaluated (akin to FAR). So, if you think the reviewer was indeed off base, GAR is a valid route to take. If you think the reviewer's remaining issues have some merit, however, I think it would be more appropriate to work to fix things up and renominate at GAN. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we went through all the things in your edit summaries. That isn't to say that some inconsistencies don't remain, but we didn't spot them, anyway. Punctuation style got edited a bit back and forth and I tried to get it consistent with the logical style, but that style isn't intuitive with me. qp10qp ( talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Qp and Slp together on an FA for NYB :-)) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a little note to say I was thinking of you (fondly, of course), and that I am managing. Going to bed in a few minutes, as I have to be up early for work. Hope you're doing well and are happy. Jeffpw ( talk) 20:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
How do you always notice these things five seconds after I do them? As it so happens, that's not an Italian interwiki—it's Lithuanian. That's a lowercase l
(ell), not an uppercase I
(eye). I wouldn't have noticed either, except I copied and pasted.
Pagra
shtak
16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, Now that all the concerns have been put to rest as per your advise, I hope a decision will be taken soon on its nomination.-- Anish ( talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury and Template:Infobox Saint and Template:Infobox Archbishop of York. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ann Arbor, Michigan will need to be reviewed again starting in about two weeks. Its currently slated for Today's featured page August 5. The article has gotten WEAK. I just left a review on the talk page hopefully someone will pick it up and fix the page. .:davumaya:. 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've started and must finish soon. Leaving in 15 hours' time. Should be able to pop in from time to time over the next week. Blizzard at the moment, so the net will come in handy Friday. All that money just to sit inside! I trust you can handle the mechanical stuff at the right time. Tony (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on Hurricane Vince (2005) and it is more-or-less finished. All relevent information has been included and the article comes to just over 15 KB. I have never seen a Featured Article so small, and am wondering whether Vince would be laughed at. Is there a hard floor on the size of a Featured Article? Plasticup T/ C 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey SandyGeorgia, I currently have the article The Great American Bash (2005) up for Peer review. I come to you in hopes of you reviewing the article, as I'm aiming to get this article prepared for Featured Article status. I would really appreciate if you would take some time and review this article to the best of your abilities. Cheers, -- iMatthew T. C. 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the reference 20 in this article, "Odol, Autobahne and a non-smoking Führer: Reflections on the innocence of public health, had some problem, the doi created another link in the refernece section. I have fixed the link, compare [3]. If you think my edit had any problem, feel free to revert it. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your tip on using citenews. In fact, my problem was that I coudn't see the publisher name; it was there but I coudn't see it because I got lost in the long quote. JRSP ( talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Gack! Are you in charge of this? This isn't ready, and the merging of Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is not at all a good idea. I don't know who Xenus is, and I just got a message on my talk page after it had been nominated for Featured Topic. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm back; by the way, whenever you see something goofy like this, be sure to check for backlinks. You often find an awards-center-type or admin-coaching drive behind the nom. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You are better versed in this detail than I am. You might want to chime in. Or not. -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A retraction would be nice. [6]-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw you reverted my slide right of the image at Samuel Johnson. I understand the "staggered" image issue. However, with the last image (a simple text block) being so much further up the page, wouldn't the fact that the image interrupts the flow of the blockquote override the minor concern with left/right staggering? S. Dean Jameson 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That's got awfully confusing for a moment - she posted just as I was archiving the old material - but at the top.. no problem.. move it and carry on.. oh wait.. it's there again.. oh it's a duplicate... no problem.. no wait.. there is it again... how on.. what was I doing? I *think* we got there in the end but i'm checking. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!!!
That is what I was looking for. JohnRussell ( talk) 00:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I had previously said I would try updating the FAC urgents list ( User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch37#FAC urgents) but I don't think it is working out. The scheduling and listing choices are not compatible with mine. If the list is going to mirror the bottom 7-10 articles at FAC, then a bot could help you. Alternatively, you could reduce the scope of the list to only 2-3 FACs so that you don't have to update every time you pr/ar. -- maclean 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you! | |
SandyGeorgia, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 ( talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
And a special thank you to you, Sandy, a wodnerful person whom I consider a true friend and my mentor. -- Happyme22 ( talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
File:HersheysDark.jpg | Yum... | |
Thanks for everything. I'll be seeing you around! Happyme22 ( talk) 06:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC) |
Hi there, just wanted to let you know I have addressed that userpage issue. I will be watching that account very closely. Thanks for the edit summary warning. Risker ( talk) 04:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
TS manual citation: a very good idea. I feel like discouraging the use of any citation template. Heck, it looks like more work than manual entries, and is an invitation for screw-ups that no one but our unlogged-in, long-suffering readers have to see. So, is there hope that David R might get it sorted, coordinate them, allow non-lemon citations, any time soon? Should we discourage usage? I guess we have to have a plethora of them ... hmmmph. Do we, in fact, encourage the use of these templates at FAC? Tony (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you want us to just add that stuff in before we transclude? If you give me a template or whatnot I'll try and save you the extra step. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, If we went to the other system, every FAC would be a new page and use the preload. Gimmetrow 16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's put soft flannel blankets all over the floor of FAC, with lots of cuddly stuffed animals (a few live bunnies in there with some tired kittens, too), play some Enya, serve Sleepytime Tea, set the temperature at 71 degrees and nap until October. I don't think anything else is going to get done before then.
Or we could pay a "Sacrifice editor" to oppose every single FAC on account it doesn't have enough images of naked cavorting animals to wake it up a bit. A Sineater editor. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Three errors. A massive strikeout with the bases loaded (on a huge curve). I'm in tears. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Helllllllp. Malleus has given up on the nomination for the main page and I was pipped at the post by the atlantic hurricane article but it has no points score given. Does that mean i can replace it? - and how many points do we have for Peterloo anyway as I've not nominated before. Is it two or three? Richerman ( talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't visit WP:TFAR too often and have never nominated an article there. I'd really like to see Noble gas hit the main page, though, and it's definitely an under-represented category. The date connection is 140 years to the day this August 18 that the first noble gas was discovered. Could you take a look at that? By the looks of things, William IV of the United Kingdom is next in line to be replaced? Gary King ( talk) 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You got mail. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>Role model or guinea pig? I made the comparison to 5th graders because when I taught, inevitably one would have a total lunar freakout when a pencil went missing, and everyone and their mothers were accused of being thieves, then no apologies when it was found underneath a shoe or a bookbag. I only got away with saying "Spaz" under my breath once. (Count to five don't say words count to five no words breathe). A couple months ago I laughed so hard I cried at a story a college intern told me: she was visiting a classroom when a student started to choke seriously, turning purple and all. A classmate saw him, and said, about as bored as could be and still make a sound: "Hey. He's choking." You know if the pencil was gone that kid would have been screaming from the rafters. Look at the children, just like Jean Piaget. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Flowers and chocolate in the same day ... life is good. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I asked User:DrKiernan this question but he has yet to reply, so I pose it to you as I know your interest in FAs/FARs. I have gone through the History of Limerick, now on FAR, and there seems to be quite a bit of general Irish history thrown in that overshadows or overwhelms the Limerick story, where there is one, but maybe some of the general history should be trimmed out. The Irish Famine section seems to be more about the Cromwellian and Georgian period with only 3 sentences about the famine itself; perhaps a rename is in order there. I am slowly working on finding references and will also try to expand the earlier period per DrKiernan's comments, but any other advise, especially on the above points, would be appreciated. It is so much more difficult to reference other peoples work at a later time than ones own as it is being written! BTW, any advise on the citations. I much prefer to use the templates but this has been done manually for the references (really Sources), so I have continued it for the books but used template for the inline where it is only being used once or twice and is not in the listing, otherwise I use the "Author name (year), page" format. (I post in one place to keep a discussion together, so am watching this page for a while). TIA ww2censor ( talk) 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am a member of WP:PW, and I, along with other users, have been constantly trying to get a PPV article into FA status, but every time an article is there, the reviewers will say that we need to have who wrote the storylines and who were the script writers. I am referring to you because you commented on the FAC of SummerSlam (2007). Now, script writers and who wrote storylines, is never revealed by WWE or any other reliable source. So I ask you is this necessary? Another thing is the jargon that many of our articles contain, so an example, "The feud escalated into a No disqualification match." (that would be jargon), would this be any better and clearer, "The staged rivalry escalated into a match where neither competitor could be disqualified for malicious actions."? (If possible may you reply on my talk page, but if not, I will keep this page on watch). Thanks for your help. Cheers, -- S R X 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Caesar cipher looks OK to me.
I notice a whack from the list arrived on FAR a week ago, which is good to keep it moving. Coincidence or are some of the regular nominators consulting the list? Marskell ( talk) 14:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There, I believe I am caught up on replies and striking issues. Blech. Been a busy couple of weeks here! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
i've tagged for clean-up. regarding the first link to the portal in a template campaign box: i couldn't see the mos on portal placement, i'm guessing these are just meant to be at the end of articles. kind regards Tom ( talk) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Having been to a Wikimania myself, yes, a lot of gossip gets traded around. With that said, I don't know if what he says is true or not. Raul654 ( talk) 16:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. You got your reasons I'm sure. I thought scroll boxes made an article easier to handle. The idea is in your mind now so if you like it later you can always put one in. For myself I haven't worked on the article and do not plan to, so I have nothing else to contribute. It is a nice article. Best wishes. Bye now. Dave ( talk) 01:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the nowrap help on
Forksville Covered Bridge and for asking Tony's help as well (I asked him too as I did not realize the duplication from the TOC). Yours,
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
03:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Ruhrfisch#bridge. Tony (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC) PS Now I'm unsure about the hyphens I added to arch-thingy. Tony (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Thanks again for your contributions and comments -
Forksville Covered Bridge made
featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Sandy: I'm not seeking to negotiate, but if I withdrew William and were to try again with him for September 8, would that mean that you would not oppose on the grounds of proximity to other King articles (you could of course oppose on other grounds, if you saw fit)? Sept 8 being the anniversary of his Coronation. It would also help if I knew that it would fall outside the time period for the deduction of a point. As it stands, it is exactly two months after Edward VIII, but of course that is 62 days, the longest possible two month period.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Easy. Offer a bonus point if nomination made within 20 days of requested date; second bonus point if made within ten days. That will encourage people to wait, especially with borderline articles. Make the proposal and I'll support that.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"To encourage full opportunity for discussion and a more rapid turnover of articles from the project page, bonus point(s) will be awarded as follows. 1 point if requested on the project page for the first time no earlier than 20 days before the date requested, or 2 points if requested on the project page for the first time no earlier than 10 days before the date requested.
Articles are only eligible for the bonus point(s) if they meet the above criterion, AND were listed on the template on the talk page thirty days in advance of the date requested. Articles which request one of multiple dates are not eligible for the bonus point(s), and the bonus may only be claimed for the article if the article was not requested previously on the project page within the 90 days before the request."-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
All right, I think I'm seeing it. It's a risk, it could flop, but worth a try. I'll work on writing something up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I saw the message you left on your recent copy edits of Sunderland Echo [1]. I have just contacted Epbr123 as you suggested. I expect I am to blame for introducing these errors while making the requested FAC changes. If you could give me an example, I'll have another look as well. Many thanks.-- Seahamlass 19:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
[2] Nousernamesleft ( talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses). I think I've reached the wall on my ability to explain that just because other FA's use a source, doesn't mean its reliable. Help??? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
To make you feel better... I pulled some articles on War elephant usage. How do you guilt trip me into these things??? (I'm still not touching Barbaro though...)
This clause, "determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage.", requires me to declare a removal and to state that the article cannot be fixed based on severe problems during the first state, otherwise, the review can be closed. If you do not like that, please remove the clause. Otherwise, the Wikipedia rules on consensus require me to make it absolutely clear that I believe it needs to progress through the ultimate steps. Ottava Rima ( talk) 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This is with respect to image of Adi Shankara on the FAC nomination page of Anekantavada. i have received the following response from user:MBisanz. - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Anishshah19&diff=226942520&oldid=226682293 . He suggested your name to resolve the issue.
What do you suggest? Can we keep the image or try to replace it?-- Anish ( talk) 06:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
...or in this case, email... Risker ( talk) 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Look here at the top - notice "class" and "importance". Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(copied over from my talk page:) OK, I'm on this now. Well done with the Harvnbs! Heh. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That Witwer & Lecavalier 2008 citation was indeed duplicate, so this revert seems to be an error to me. Eubulides ( talk) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. The merger took place on June 8, 2006—a day that will live in infamy...
Should the Dispatch mention the first edit from Larry Sanger? Where was the info at before that? I don't even know how to investigate such ancient history. Marskell ( talk) 17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was anything else I needed to go over regarding Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Airlines Flight 93? I asked yesterday on the review page, but no one responded. I wasn't too sure the status of the NBSP and date formatting issue. Could you please reply on that page? Thanks. -- Veggy ( talk) 12:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You know, I really have nothing productive to say to you right now. However, the thought of copy-editing Everglades once more makes me want to sob like a tiny, tiny child. So... I am not being disciplined and spending my time wisely. I am leaving a useless message on your talk page. I wish I had been the person to do this, but I am not, alas. That kind of senseless random editing is what is called for after an elongated period of concentrated efforts. For as much content as I have added, I am not allowed to lower the quality of other articles. There is no balance. What a crime. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's obviously rough and meagre, but could you let me know whether this seems to be going in the right direction? I'd like some preliminary feedback so I don't go too far down the wrong path (if I should indeed be taking a different approach, that is). Danke im Voraus. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have left a response on the review for Jackson, regarding numbers. — Realist2 ( Speak) 01:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a 24-hour break would help? Realist2, please don't edit Wiki to the point of frustration :-) Besides being bad for your health, it can prevent you from seeing the forest for the trees. I'm in no hurry to close the FAC, so some time off might be good to ease the tension. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) ah, I see ... you might have gone too far with that (I thought I saw others, but could be wrong). I don't think it's within the same sentence, I think it's within a list (I could be wrong). BUT !! Don't worry about that silliness. Focus on the text, addressing issues raised about content and prose, and when the article is close, you can ask User:Epbr123 to run through and fix little things like that. It's not the kind of thing you need to lose sleep over :-) You can ask Epbr to review and fix it later. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I found a biographer that discusses Tourette syndrome. I placed the beginning of my notes for it here. The work was edited and aided by various doctors, in case you were curious. There is still more information about the "tics" before the section I start quoting, but I focused on the TS section first. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw that you were busy on Ima Hogg so I added Harvnb templates. I checked them all and they all worked for me. You can double check them if you want. I hope that helps. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick note - this does not apply to inline citations, unless there is a competing template. Now, there was no inline citation tool used, which would also be a strike against FA, and FA review would force it back to this point. So why not cut to the inevitable? Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, this is contentious and requires consensus first before adding it. I am notifying you instead of reverting it myself. Three columns have been preferred by a lot of people, and the community should be involved before a guideline publicly discourages such. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like this to stop. It started over what now looks to be a misunderstanding on guidelines at Ima Hogg, and I Do Not Want to trouble Karanacs over Ima Hogg considering the real life issues she has mentioned on her talk page. Ima Hogg has always enjoyed stability, its current referencing is perfectly fine and MoS compliant, and I'd not appreciate having an unnecessary and trivial issue there over citation formatting at this particular point in Karanacs' life. I mean it; when your father is ill, nothing else matters. This doesn't. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll try to do better jimfbleak ( talk) 16:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
After receiving some strong objections, I have very temporarily withdrawn this article from the FAC list. It will be put back on shortly as I have just spent a fair amount of time fixing up the references and further edits are yet to be made. It will be added again shortly. Sorry for any inconvenience! Domiy ( talk) 08:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm off on my wikibreak. I think Bradman ought to now be on the main request page, but what this means is me being responsible for another deserving (if less deserving, perhaps) article that's been sitting there for a while dropping off and perhaps being ignored.
I'm uncomfortable about it and because I'm short of time, I'm struggling to work out why and express myself properly. (Who is it that said "I've sent you a long letter because I didn't have time to write a short one?) Anyway, I'll be gone for a week and I trust you and Raul implicitly to make sure that the right things are done. Just not sure if I trust the process we're developing.
Closest I can come to expressing my emotions is that it has an uncomfortable taint of bullying, but that's a loaded worded and it carries with it elements I certainly don't mean.
Gnash, I'm not doing a good job of this. Let's touch base in early August.
Cheers, me old mucker. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
What's up? Giggy referred me to you. I'm looking to expand my contributions to the 'pedia. I'm pretty nice at copy editing, I write advertisements that appear in newspapers as a 2nd job, and have been doing so for a few years. Anyway, I asked Giggy, and he said you're the person to talk to regarding copy editing at FAC. Stop by my talk page if you get a chance. Beam 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
New topic of sorts, regarding The Supremes review. Although I nominated it for a review I am of the opinion it should be left on hold to give Ceoil time to finish it. Our music related FA articles already lack diversity as it is, it would be very unfortunate to lose this soul/R&B group. When the MJ review is over I intend to help Ceoil if he want's it. I'm going to the shops over the next week and might purchase some books. — Realist2 ( Speak) 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether you're able to respond, right at the bottom of User_talk:Tony1#Ima_Hogg. Tony (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
In other news, Tim Starling added something which addresses the problem with move-archiving and redirects in general. So, it's not a problem on my end if you want to keep using WP:GO. But given Duke's stats, an average 60 hits per day, do you want to keep up with WP:GO? Gimmetrow 21:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for you forbearance with nuthatch, and giving the time for it to be improved. I know what Shyamal felt like with ant now! I appreciate the help given by bird project members and the reviewers in fixing this, although I had to take a few deep breathes before replying to the very late claim that it wasn't comprehensive. The good news is that the next one is a single species; the bad news is that there is a next one. Cheers, jimfbleak ( talk) 05:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the edit conflict. The result looks OK though. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 20:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Its actually part of the MediaWiki system, sorta like User:Pending deletion script and User:MediaWiki default used to be, so you'd need to bug Tim Starling ( talk · contribs) about it or file a bugzilla report. MBisanz talk 05:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. SandyGeorgia. Well I apprecaite that you moved unresolved issues to the Talk Page. But I don't think it's of any use. That's beacuse look at
Nichalp's comments on
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore. (I would not consider the first three to be reliable. The Penn University source is the work of a student as determined by the tilde in the url. World Gazetter on the other hand has been used as a source by wikipedia including several featured articles such as Mumbai.)
He says it's the work of a student, when it has been proved in the FAC that David Ludden is a professor at Penn who specializes in comparative world and South Asian history. (
Davis Ludden's Homepage). So I think you even need to move the related discussion to the Talk page. Or just allow me to do it. Because, without the discussion, the step is of no use. Thankyou,
Kensplanet
Talk
E-mail
Contributions
06:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Im tring to seduce The Fat Man as best I know how, but JayHenry and our mutual friend are making it difficult!! Help; for friday night sake? ( Ceoil sláinte 12:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear SandyGeorgia
I find it hard to understand your comment: "Remove original research, pls dicuss on talk how to incorporate, but opinion and original research has no place on Wiki" re my recent edit to add more depth to the entry on "Deep brain stimulation" and specifically the citation of a Nature study on thalamic stimulation in one patient in a minimal conscious state.
Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortenKringelbach ( talk • contribs) 22:41, July 27, 2008
One in a million :-) — Realist2 ( Speak) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to your reply to me at Gimmetrow's talk page, I was only expressing regret that the page was being consigned to history. Gimmetrow said "will anyone notice" in his edit summary, and I was merely saying that I would - that's all. I wasn't criticising anyone for the ending of the page, or anything of that nature. Just wanted to say that, as your reply seemed as though you were a bit annoyed by what I said. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, my oppose still stood. The article does not use summary style effectively and still needs grammar cleanup. WesleyDodds ( talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Basically, adding __STATICREDIRECT__ to a page will cause User:Redirect fixer to ignore that page (I added this to its userpage). Where it would normally make an edit to that page, it won't. This means that __STATICREDIRECT__ needs to be added to some redirects (Gimmetrow will know which ones and will probably do it), and nothing else needs to be changed.
At least, that's what I make of it. Hopefully this clears things up. :-) — Giggy 07:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
That FA one of the hardest things I've done, and I have a kid! But it was fun too, and the article definitely improved as a result of the process. Thank you for all the help, especially the otherwise thankless job of re-formatting all the refs! Maury ( talk) 12:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, as a delegate to the FL director, can you do a quick review of SummerSlam (2003), I plan on nominating it for FAC. This is a wrestling article, and as you know in the past these haven't passed because of sourcing issues and jargon. This article is written in a more enhanced way with a reception, no jargon, and reliable sources. Thank You. You may give your response on my talk page.-- S R X 15:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, SandyGeorgia,
I would like to request your opinion and advices regarding this recent GAN. It was failed, in part due to confusion about the reviewer's asking for a second opinion. See my protest and the archived GAN. I am wondering if this article merits being taken to GAR for community review/assessment? JGHowes talk - 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Having not read the GA reviews too carefully, it looks like the remaining point of contention was whether or not the prose was so purple as to be imprecise, POV, OR, etc. GAR, I think, is really meant to handle situations when a reviewer was way off base (not following the criteria, etc.) or when an existing GA needs to be re-evaluated (akin to FAR). So, if you think the reviewer was indeed off base, GAR is a valid route to take. If you think the reviewer's remaining issues have some merit, however, I think it would be more appropriate to work to fix things up and renominate at GAN. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we went through all the things in your edit summaries. That isn't to say that some inconsistencies don't remain, but we didn't spot them, anyway. Punctuation style got edited a bit back and forth and I tried to get it consistent with the logical style, but that style isn't intuitive with me. qp10qp ( talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Qp and Slp together on an FA for NYB :-)) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a little note to say I was thinking of you (fondly, of course), and that I am managing. Going to bed in a few minutes, as I have to be up early for work. Hope you're doing well and are happy. Jeffpw ( talk) 20:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
How do you always notice these things five seconds after I do them? As it so happens, that's not an Italian interwiki—it's Lithuanian. That's a lowercase l
(ell), not an uppercase I
(eye). I wouldn't have noticed either, except I copied and pasted.
Pagra
shtak
16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, Now that all the concerns have been put to rest as per your advise, I hope a decision will be taken soon on its nomination.-- Anish ( talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury and Template:Infobox Saint and Template:Infobox Archbishop of York. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ann Arbor, Michigan will need to be reviewed again starting in about two weeks. Its currently slated for Today's featured page August 5. The article has gotten WEAK. I just left a review on the talk page hopefully someone will pick it up and fix the page. .:davumaya:. 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've started and must finish soon. Leaving in 15 hours' time. Should be able to pop in from time to time over the next week. Blizzard at the moment, so the net will come in handy Friday. All that money just to sit inside! I trust you can handle the mechanical stuff at the right time. Tony (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on Hurricane Vince (2005) and it is more-or-less finished. All relevent information has been included and the article comes to just over 15 KB. I have never seen a Featured Article so small, and am wondering whether Vince would be laughed at. Is there a hard floor on the size of a Featured Article? Plasticup T/ C 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey SandyGeorgia, I currently have the article The Great American Bash (2005) up for Peer review. I come to you in hopes of you reviewing the article, as I'm aiming to get this article prepared for Featured Article status. I would really appreciate if you would take some time and review this article to the best of your abilities. Cheers, -- iMatthew T. C. 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the reference 20 in this article, "Odol, Autobahne and a non-smoking Führer: Reflections on the innocence of public health, had some problem, the doi created another link in the refernece section. I have fixed the link, compare [3]. If you think my edit had any problem, feel free to revert it. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your tip on using citenews. In fact, my problem was that I coudn't see the publisher name; it was there but I coudn't see it because I got lost in the long quote. JRSP ( talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Gack! Are you in charge of this? This isn't ready, and the merging of Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is not at all a good idea. I don't know who Xenus is, and I just got a message on my talk page after it had been nominated for Featured Topic. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm back; by the way, whenever you see something goofy like this, be sure to check for backlinks. You often find an awards-center-type or admin-coaching drive behind the nom. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You are better versed in this detail than I am. You might want to chime in. Or not. -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A retraction would be nice. [6]-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw you reverted my slide right of the image at Samuel Johnson. I understand the "staggered" image issue. However, with the last image (a simple text block) being so much further up the page, wouldn't the fact that the image interrupts the flow of the blockquote override the minor concern with left/right staggering? S. Dean Jameson 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)