User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat/Archive 3

July

Am I on duty this weekend? I don't mind, it just probably won't happen until Sunday. Got the keys to my new house today and have a week to "leisurely" move. Three boxes down, too many more to go! Karanacs (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

August

See User talk:Ucucha#FAC delegation; I will generally do FAC on weekends. Ucucha (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take care of this weekend (Aug 26-28). Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Hurricane Irene, I'm stuck in Miami until Thursday. Not sure how that will impact my time for FAC; I don't know whether I'll have Internet access. Ucucha (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck there, Ucucha ... I can't get to FAC on Sunday, but I'll see where things stand on Monday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There are worse places to be stuck than the beach ;) Karanacs (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

September

Ucucha, how is your weekend looking? My kitchen, which was supposed to be installed yesterday (already a month late), was ... surprise, surprise ... not, so I'm looking at another month at least of eating via microwave and toaster oven. Anyway, since I hve no kitchen to begin moving in to, let me know if you plan to pr/ar this weekend or if you'd like me to go through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll have plenty of time this weekend. Next weekend I'll be going up to Vermont, though. I hope that kitchen does appear at some point. Ucucha (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The kitchen woes must be going around. I'm having trouble getting people to actually install working dishwashers. Two weeks and counting. I officially hate moving. And Sears. Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got four walls and open electric everywhere and no plumbing ... but I do have a dishwasher in its box in my garage ... it's being kept company by the range cooktop, oven, microwave, wine cooler, refrigerator, hood, disposal, three faucets and three sinks. I bought Eggo Waffles to warm in my toaster oven today !!!! Thank goodness for Ucucha !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still planning to pr/ar for mid-week, but I got busy today and couldn't finish. I'll try to get it done tomorrow morning. Karanacs (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I archived a few tonight, but didn't have time to look at those maturing to promotion-- I'll be swamped again with the Blooming Builders on Monday, but may find time on Tuesday to look through. I noticed four FACs where nominators were bolding all of their responses :/ The Urgents list needs updating, which I'll do on Monday if I get a free moment after a construction appointment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, construction... I'll be able to go through sometime in the middle of the week, if necessary. I'd also like to see bolded text limited to just supports, opposes, image checks, and similar things; perhaps someone should post at WT:FAC. Ucucha (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I bailed last week - this is the busiest time of the year for me at work (several projects muct be completed by Oct 1). I'll do what I can today. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northrop YF-23/archive1

There was a fantastic article in last week's New York Times Magazine called "To Choose Is to Lose", documenting the point that making choices is the most "strenuous" thing we do mentally. When I can follow well-known copyediting rules, copyediting is more like a game and less like making choices ... but with some of these articles, it's more like wrestling than following rules. It wears me out, and at some point I give up. I need some backup, and I'm starting a conversation with Milhist people today on how to get it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Per User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#Aviation_articles, Harry has just offered to take the lead on copyediting aviation and biography articles for A-class and FAC ... quite a relief. Still, call on me any time if I can be of use. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that I've added so-called "status reports" to the end of my comments in the HMS Hood (51) and Northrop YF-23 FACs ... not trying to tell you guys your business. I've started a discussion at the Milhist coord's page about getting more people involved in FAC, and my proposal is that the coords give people specific suggestions about what's missing, in the hope that will demystify the process. I haven't gotten much response yet, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 10:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Both seem like good ideas to me. Ucucha (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

FAC notes

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive1 may be ready for archiving; see the nominator's last comment. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Background of the Spanish Civil War/archive1 was just archived after 2 weeks and 2 days, with no indication I can see that anyone had a problem with the article. That's not a problem for me, and I'm sure it won't be a problem for Grandiose, he's very easy to get along with ... but just for the record, and strictly IMO, it means nothing that it had no supports after 16 days, other than that the reviewers are busy and we tend to do articles (at A-class and FAC both) in chronological order. If articles are going to archived with no indication of problems after 2 weeks instead of 3 weeks, I need to make an announcement to this effect at WT:MIL, at least. (Speaking for myself ... I was very pleased with myself when I came up with the idea of copyediting half of some of the articles ... I figured that that would make it easier in several ways for others to do some of the copyediting, and it would put the burden on the nominator to help me to find the people who would do it. Sadly, there's no sign of the cavalry coming over the hill, and it looks like I'm going to have to finish the articles I get started on, if I want them to pass.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

When the backlog gets pretty long, it's not unusual for us to archive articles that have zero support after two weeks. We (or at least I) prefer not to do that, but the list has been too long lately. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're not finding much help lately, Dank, but I agree with Karanacs that when reviews are SOOOO lagging, we've got to close 'em, even if that's not our preference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to get my supports in faster. Can this one come back to FAC in 10 days? - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Ucucha (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Does anyone want spotchecks for Nev1's article, Rochester Castle? I skimmed his FACs from WP:WBFAN and found no serious problems, though Brian had some minor concerns with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peveril Castle/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • A spotcheck is always better than none, but I think I'd promote this article without one if I had to. Thanks for all your work at FAC, Dank; it's appreciated. Ucucha (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• HMS_Princess_Royal_(1911)

This is Sturm's usual outstanding work. it's had all the checks, and it's been reviewed in prior FACs and at ACR, so I suspect if I left notices on user talk pages for everyone who's looked at the article before, we'd get some quick supports and it would be ready to go ... but there's of course the issue that to solicit reviews for some FACs but not others might come across as favoritism. I don't have a preference, and I'm interested in input. Since I come from German stock, I tend to like efficiency, and inviting the same people who've reviewed the article before to review it again saves reviewer time, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks

I was surprised to see a spotcheck request at this FAC FAC after I had already posted Copyscape results. The nominator has also questioned this. What does a spotcheck do that Copyscape doesn't? Using this service I can find copyvio and close paraphrasing in the online sources used and many other webpages that are not cited. Am I wasting my time and money doing this. Obviously, the more checking the better, but is it necessary to request a spot check after I have already reported the results of a Copyscape Premium search? Graham Colm (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your checks are very much appreciated, but (and forgive me if I misunderstand what the Copyscape check entails) I think a manual spotcheck of the sources can reveal issues that Copyscape can't reveal, such as sources that don't support the cited material and perhaps plagiarism from sources that aren't easily indexed by search engines, like Google Books. Ucucha (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I agree with this. Graham Colm (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, does copyscape pick up on it if, say, several sentences are identical, except that synonyms have been substituted for all the longer words? - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably not Dan. But it is often difficult to find synonyms for the words used for key points in the article. But, having read this and Nikkimaria's comments at the FAC, I now think the two approaches – manual and copyscape - are complementary. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all (and do appreciate the Copyscape checks, and agree they are complementary, both needed). Thanks Graham. And Nikki. And everyone !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October

FYI, I am planning to pr/ar sometime tomorrow my time. Karanacs (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry - I have a sick kid and thought I'd be able to promote yesterday or today. I just can't seem to find any length of time to be online and go through FAC. Karanacs (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably have time to look through tonight or tomorrow. I hope your child gets better! Ucucha (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit more settled now (kitchen and baths finished, now just to get the second round of fixing all the mistakes), so I can do more if needed ... just let me know! Everyone seems to have a cold ... hope the kiddo gets better and you don't get whatever it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ucucha! Little man seems to be healthy today so now to get caught up on work and then back on a normal schedule. Sandy - so glad to hear you have a mostly livable house now! I'm just about to start a bathroom remodel, but hopefully it won't be too chaotic. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hold that thought :) Remember, I expected to be done by June, and I'm not completely done yet-- still have a shower door and fan that need to be torn out and redone. <patience, patience> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Karanacs, I got called away multiple times today and engaged one FAC that was time consuming (recused)-- so I didn't finish. I got done archiving, updated Urgents, left queries for spotchecks and images, but didn't have a chance to read through the other maturing FACs at the bottom of the page. I can resume where I left off sometime Wednesday, unless you're free. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have more time today and can go through the older FACs. Thanks for your help! Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it to you, since I have more construction repairs on tap for today, thanks and sorry! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I archived two more and managed to recuse myself on the two I was prepared to promote. Apparently I have a weak spot for dogs :) Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

October FAC notes

• Could someone remind me what all has to be done to when an article title is changed during a FAC? Chaplain-Medic massacre needs a dash, though I've asked at the FAC if the sources support some other name for the event. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you want to rename the FAC, fix the link to it on the article talk page and the transclusion at FAC, and delete the redirected FAC. I believe I did that before and it didn't confuse Gimmebot; it might confuse my bot, but I'll take care of that. Ucucha (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Done a couple of days ago, and I haven't been reverted so it looks like it will stick. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• WP:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2‎‎: I'm soliciting thoughts on this one. My personal preference would be that, as a standard operating procedure, when there's been a little sloppiness in the sourcing (probably involving differences in pagination in this case), someone (me if no one else will do it, I'm a little uncomfortable wearing so many hats that I start to look like a delegate-wannabe) should encourage the noms to go through everything making sure the page numbers are right, then encourage reviewers to get their hands on as many of the sources as they can (check the books out, through ILL if necessary, even if we have to extend the FAC a little) and make sure the noms were more careful the second time around. This is a long article and a potentially contentious FAC, and I'm pretty sure none of the reviewers, including me, wants to go through the whole thing a second time two months from now, if the sourcing problems are all benign. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• The only Milhist FAC more than 2 weeks old where nothing's missing at this point is Rochester Castle. If Day just picked up an image review and its 4th support; it's not quite 2 weeks old. [Promoted.] I've solicited reviews for the Milhist articles that need them have fewer than 4 supports and are more than 2 weeks old (namely, Chaplain–Medic massacre and Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer)) at WT:MIL#Milhist FACs needing reviews, October 12. I'll give you a holler if this solicitation seems to provoke any less-serious reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• In my posts soliciting reviews at WT:MIL, I'm (somewhat arbitrarily) only including FACs that have fewer than 4 substantial supports (including my support). I'd rather pick a number than make a judgment call, but if course if you-all want to make a judgment call whether I should be soliciting for a particular FAC or not, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) and Stephen, King of England aren't missing anything. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Is copyediting the problem with any of the FAC urgents? - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm about to post the weekly "Here's what's needed in Milhist FACs" to WT:MHC ... if it's useful, feel free to pull up WT:MHC weekly, I think I'm going to do it on Tuesdays so that I can link people to the Signpost's Featured Content page to congratulate people on the previous week's promotions. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• WP:Featured_article_candidates/RAF_Uxbridge/archive1: nom is asking for a ruling. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible "vote" getting on an FA

A recent FAC for My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic has been attracting "supports" from IPs with no prior editing history and users who have not edited in multiple months and never been to FAC. It seemed a bit fishy to me, so I poked around a few websites devoted to the show and found this. Something the FAC delegates might want to keep an eye on, as it seems like possible vote-getting; something a main contributor to the article suggested was a possibility in the candidacy. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads' up. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Featured_article_candidates/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II/archive1

Sandy, I'd like to have a chat about your comments, I'm concerned they could be misinterpreted in a way that could make trouble for you, me, or both of us. I guess the main thing to say is: I often get the sense that you feel that you either can't talk with me or other Milhist people about things that bother you, or you can but it won't do any good ... and that's not the way I see it, we're tackling roughly the same problems in the same way. I can do voice chats or email or chat here or on your talk page, whatever works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment/concern at all, but we can chat on my talk or at WT:FAC (this page is really for coordinating FAC delegate schedules). Generally, my concerns about aircraft and ship articles are general, not related to any given editor, because too often, non-MilHist editors will not engage because they find them boring and too full of lingo and numbers. Since most non-Milhist reviewers won't engage ships and planes, I have to spotcheck prose myself, and I almost always find issues in those articles, even after MilHist support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. To all: since I'm not covering A-class this month and next, I'll jump on all the Milhist FACs as soon as they get to FAC to try to avoid problems like this in the future, except for aviation articles, which would take more time than I've got. - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

November

I'll be out of town this weekend, so I won't be able to do FAC. I can probably go through on Monday, though. Ucucha (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WIAFA

<grrrr ... > From a comment on one FAC, I just discovered that apparently the last time I commented at WT:WIAFA, I inadvertently unwatched the page, and that was December 2010. Sorry to be MIA! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)