User talk:Mike Christie/sandbox

Notes on differences

Hog Farm, I've done a diff and will add the differences here as I go down the list.

You credited Gog with an image review for 1983–84 Gillingham F.C. season; my mistake -- I missed it.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Begotten (film)/archive3. You had a typo -- "flim" -- in the name of the article in one line, for Ceoil.
On the same FAC I credited Serial with a review; you correctly removed it.
For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benty Grange hanging bowl/archive1 I changed "Caeciliusinhorto-public" to "Caeciliusinhorto". I forgot to mention this in the notes I sent you. I think it's best to do this when I notice it, since we report on the stats. I only do it when I'm absolutely certain of the relationship -- otherwise it's up to the reviewer to request a change.
For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina/archive1 you correctly credited Mirokado with both a source and a content review; I missed the source review.
On the same FAC you correctly credited Sandy with a source review; I missed it, probably skimming and seeing it as part of the CCI comments which I would not have counted as a review on their own.
For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/My Little Love/archive1 you correctly credited Gog with a review; I left the coordinator role in place.
On the same FAC I gave Ian's review an SO for struck oppose; you did not. I recall hesitating over this as I went through. I didn't check the history but Ian mentions "I expect I'll drop the oppose" and "I wouldn't have struck the oppose" so I took it that in his mind this was an actual oppose. Looking at the history Ian never actually entered a bolded oppose, but put "striking the oppose" in an edit summary when he was done. I think one could go either way with this one.
For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Easy Answers/archive1 you correctly removed a SchroCat review that was never actually done; I left it in.
For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Snowy plover/archive1 you didn't include AryKun, whose only contribution to the FAC was a sentence about a source. I left it in. This is the way I've been doing it, because removing things like this forces me to draw a line as to when a review becomes "significant". Any thoughts on a better way to handle these?
For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891/archive1 you marked Guerillero as a source review; I did not. I think you were probably right but I don't think it matters much which we jump on ones like this.
For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teloschistaceae/archive1, you correctly removed AryKun; I did not.
In the same FAC you marked MeegsC as an image review; I did not. I think it was not.
For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas de la More/archive1 you correctly removed SchroCat's placeholder; I did not.
For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower/archive1. You credited ZKang123 with a source review as well as an image review. I think that's correct. The content review is barely started and though I don't recall, it's possible I decided to skip it since ZKang123 was getting a review credit anyway. If so I think that was my mistake; it would lead into the same judgement calls as mentioned above.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all of them. Sheesh; are you an auditor or something? I'm embarrassed by my error rate; I hope it's not that high every month. I made nine clear errors that you did not make. You made a typo (that would have still shown up in stats, though with a bad link) and made different choices from me in half a dozen other cases. The only one of those I think is a clear error is MeegsC's review which I don't think was an image review. Very impressive, and thank you.

Let me know any comments and I'll do a custom update to the database to make the corrections. I should probably leave a note at WT:FAC too since that will change some folks' stats, and there are one or two who keep an eye on their numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over this, Mike! I hope you are mending well. I agree that the MeegsC image review is an error - I don't remember my rationale for assigning that. I'll have to watch for the typos; I have a tendency to make spelling mistakes both in typed and handwritten stuff. Hog Farm _Talk 02:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the corrections today and will post a note to WT:FAC. I'm probably going to go back and audit a few random FACs from the last couple of years to see how inaccurate I've been; if there's a systematic high error I'll redo them over a period of time.

If you're up for doing these edits occasionally, let me know -- I was mostly looking for a stand-in, but if you want to do one every six months or year to keep your hand in that would be fine with me. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for doing one over every six months or so; it would keep me in practice. Hog Farm _Talk 18:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I will try to remember to call you in around July. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of changes to make to FAC stats

Add an image review for Gog for 1983–84 Gillingham F.C. season.
Remove a review for Serial for Begotten (film)/archive3
Add a source review for Mirokado for Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina.
Add a source review for Sandy for Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina.
Add a review for Gog for My Little Love.
Remove a review for SchroCat for No Easy Answers.
Remove a review for AryKun for Teloschistaceae.
Remove a review for Schro for Thomas de la More
Add a source review for ZKang123 for Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June FAC stats?

Hog Farm, are you still up for doing the FAC statistics pass for the June numbers? If so I'll go ahead and post the un-processed stats for you to go through. If you're too busy, no problem at all. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie - Yeah, I'm still up to take a pass through the FAC statistics. I should be able to get it done by Wednesday once the un-processed stats are posted. Hog Farm _Talk 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. The unprocessed June stats are here: User:Mike Christie/FACstats monthly data/June 2024. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie - See this revision of my sandbox for the first pass through. I had a few 50/50 judgment calls with whether comments on the provenance of an image counted as a review or not; see the two removals on the archived Catherine nomination and there may have been one or two others if you want to handle those differently than I did. I'm not sure why Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AC/DC/archive4 doesn't appear in the raw stats table. For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Majed Abu Maraheel/archive1 I'm not sure if Generalissima should be given the nominator flag or not; it looks like they were suppose to be a co-nominator but then the article was nominated before they were ready. I've got a lot going on IRL right now so I'm more worried about this one than the last batch I went through that I may have missed something due to a full load of distractions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; will take a look, probably this evening. I wonder if that "/" in "AC/DC" is screwing up the bot somehow? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those removals on Catherine are so minor I can't disagree; I would probably have left them in myself, since they are part of the discussion about the article, and I've never wanted to try to draw a line that would separate "long enough" comments from "not long enough", but I'm not going to add them back. For Majed Abu Maraheel, no, Generalissimo wasn't a nominator I would say -- if they'd been asked they'd have said not to nominate it, so they shouldn't be tagged with a failed nomination. I'll add the AC/DC archive myself and see if I can figure out why it wasn't included. Thanks a lot for doing these! I'll ping you again in January to do December, if that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on WT:FAC; and I credited you. Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]