User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch110

FAC Advice

Hi there Sandy, I have been recommended by Ritchie333 to look for you on FAC. One of my works, Piccadilly line, was recently promoted to GA instantly. I have the intention to take this into DYK, but it is way too early for a special occasion hook on 15 December (date when the line was first opened). I am wondering if I am able to take this to FA status at its current condition so I am asking for some feedback whether I would have enough time to work on the article before I bring it to FAC in I suppose 3-4 weeks' time. Thank you very much :D Much love Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Vincent60030; thanks for stopping by (and thanks to Ritchie333 for sending you).

The idea that a first-time nominator at FAC could get an article through in time to be scheduled for December 15 is probably dead in the water, and there is already a pending request for that date from Aoba47. If you were to bring the article to FAC standard, and nominate it in three or four weeks (which would be quite an accomplishment), then you would have less than a month to get through FAC before the TFA Coords begin scheduling December, and no one is getting through FAC in less than a month these days. And you'd need to work out a swap with Aoba47 even if you could do all that, which is unlikely.

I don't engage DYK (other than noticing errors on the mainpage and watching for Spanish-language articles), but I have seen that they sometimes hold noms for later dates, for example, Evrik and Maile66 are recommending holding off for a later date at Template:Did you know nominations/Josefina Guerrero. They might be able to advise you as to whether you could aim for a December 15 DYK.

On the more general issue of bringing an article to readiness for FAC, I recently wrote User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content; it is focused on medical editors, but the general advice still applies. GA status has no bearing whatsoever in the FA process, and having an article "promoted to GA instantly" could be a good thing, or could be a very bad thing. It could mean the article is fantastic, and it could mean the reviewer didn't do a thorough job ... remains to be seen when the article is exposed to closer scrutiny. I suggest reading all the advice in my essay, and then let's talk about which way you want to go next. I'm willing to help, but don't want to repeat advice here that I've already included in that essay.

On a final note, although I haven't followed the discussions closely enough (because they make me ill),[1] the Wikimedia Foundation is cooking up something insane that could mean in the future, you should take great care not to sign posts from a male to a female with expressions of love. Sorry-- that's WMF craziness, not me :) Their proposed Code of Conduct is stretching things beyond the bounds of anything reasonable, and it could be construed by such craziness as sexual harassment. I'm happy you're spreading the love, but the WMF has gone too far. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, thank you so much for letting me know about that :o I'll take a look at the advice page and give a more detailed reply about it tomorrow as it is getting late here. Ah, also to clarify, I am aiming for a December 15 DYK, not for TfA XD. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 16:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent60030 I've never seen a GA done that way. Usually, it's some kind of check list, but every reviewer has their own style. I would urge you to nominate Piccadilly line at DYK within 7 days of that GA being completed. DYK criteria: "Articles designated as Good articles within the past seven days, regardless of whether they were expanded, are also eligible" Request the special date anyway. Even if DYK won't let you have that special date, it will still be reviewed and, if passed, will end up on the main page. FAC has a backlog of almost 50 articles. But even if you got an immediate consensus to promote this to FA, you would need to take the next step of nominating it at WP:TFAP, which also takes a consensus. DYK is your best immediate shot. — Maile (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Yes I do agree I am kind of expecting more from the article review too. I'll do that tomorrow :D Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Sandy's recent comments at WT:RFA, I am thinking this may interest her. This reviewer has made 262 edits, not much of which is content-related, writes talk page paragraphs that might make you vomit if you persisted past the first few sentences and has already passed five GAs, much the same way: 1 2 3 4 5. The system itself is apparently robust. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Usedtobecool-- that's a fine mess, and I'm glad GA people have gotten a handle on it. (I had not even looked at the GA review, although the "passed instantly" raised a red flag.) I guess this leaves Vincent60030 in a mess wrt DYK, but nothing changes wrt FAC readiness, which I will look at once Vincent has digested my general recommendations in the essay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also hadn't looked at the GA review, and gave Vincent a semi-holding reply as I was busy elsewhere; however I knew he had the same opinion on what were the best book sources to use for the article, and had responded to a query where he expressed concern that a particular claim could only be cited to a local newspaper, so I was confident the article was in good hands. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a belief that you can nominate it too early ... I would post the question to the DYK Talk page to see if they can give you a good date. --evrik ^(talk) 22:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision and HIV new proposals

Hello. Would you be able to give input on the proposal(s) made on the talk page?Thanks.[2] Prcc27 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a user just pinged you in the talk page. Would you be willing to give further input? Thanks! Prcc27 (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MED Newsletter - October 2020

Issue 5—October 2020

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Greetings! This month celebrates our second (I think) new medicine FA in 2020, a handful of newly reviewed GAs, and of course another month without major on-wiki disaster. The newsletter's featured section is off again, but please continue to drop comments and ideas at the newsletter talk page. Here is what's new this month:

**Newly recognized content**
Complete blood count nom. Spicy, his first FA! Beulah Ream Allen nom. SusunW, reviewed by Esculenta Antibiotic sensitivity testing nom. Tom (LT), reviewed by Larry Hockett and Spicy Marie Wittman nom. Pi.1415926535, reviewed by The Most Comfortable Chair Injector pen nom. Berchanhimez, reviewed by Tom (LT)

**Nominated for review**
Parkinson's disease now a featured article removal candidate. Discussion here Anatomical terms of location nom. Tom (LT), under review by ArnabSaha Endell Street Military Hospital nom. G. Moore and Dormskirk, under review by Amitchell125 Horace Smithy nom. Larry Hockett Charles Bingham Penrose nom. Larry Hockett Louise Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell Ulcerative colitis nom. Rytyho usa, under review by Tom (LT) Transmission of COVID-19 nom. Investigatory Seminal vesicles nom. Tom (LT) Vitamin K nom. David notMD Intravenous therapy nom. Berchanhimez Intramuscular injection nom. Berchanhimez Homeopathy nom. Aircorn

News from around the site

An ongoing drive at WP:Good article nominations seeks interested editors to help review the ~600 current GA nominations. The oldest unreviewed medicine-related GAN was nominated 1.5 months ago.
An open contributor copyright investigation involves edits to many medicine pages that need to be checked for copyright infringement. Interested editors might skim User:Moneytrees/Money's guide to CCI, and jump right in.
An update to the appearance of various WMF sites (including this one) will be developed and rolled out slowly over the next year. For details see the WMF blog post and the page on MediaWiki where individual features are being mocked up and discussed.

Discussions of interest

A discussion over wording at WP:PAID that centers on the extent to which folks that volunteer for an organization have an editing conflict of interest.
Editors could use more eyes to help sort through a number of data-rich templates at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#DONTHIDE_-_estrogen_template_problems.

For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Ajpolino (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers in citations

Dear SandyGeorgia, more than 10 years ago you helped me with citations on an FA review for Minneapolis. We use citation templates. Could be wrong, but I recall that four things are essential (title, url, publisher and accessdate). This week an editor who is possibly more in touch with current reality came up with this edit. Would you be so kind as to weigh in on this thread? No problem if not. Generally I would prefer not to let Minneapolis slip into Wikipedia:Former featured articles. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota

I don't believe IPs can initiate FARs according to the usual instructions, because it requires creating a new page which IPs cannot do. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am following up on article talk, and will make sure we get it submitted correctly. Unless you tell me to just go ahead and do that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I cannot create this page Wikipedia:Featured article review/Minnesota/archive1. Can you or someone else please create a FAR for me? Thank you! 2402:800:4383:7390:6535:B839:43C2:590E (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can start the page for you, and then you can type in to it, and then transclude it. But there are considerably more problems on that page. Stay tuned while I start the page for you, which your should transclude after saying what you want to say. I will do the notifications for you, as that is complex for an IP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, it is ready to go now; do you know how to add the page to WP:FAR, or do you need me to do that? Do you want to do the notifications yourself, or should I do that for you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I thought we used to have a parameter in the notification template for when someone else nominated and a second editor is only notifying; am I deluded? If so, I will manually write the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, you add it between the name of the article and the subpage: {{subst:FARMessage|Minnesota|2402:800:4383:7390:6535:B839:43C2:590E|1}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki ... I didn't know that, so I just did them manually. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dali FA

I'm not sure if you remember making a comment at the Dali FA about a grammatical error I'd made concerning plural vs singular goats... At the time I somehow could not understand what was wrong but I was looking at the article just now and I suddenly understood what the error was and I facepalmed so hard I think it registered on the Richter scale. Anyway, I figured you might find it funny, 'cause I definitely had to laugh at myself for not getting something so obvious the first time around :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to work really hard to catch up with my grammatical errors ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's

No, I cannot - suggest just tag db-author. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pax

Peace? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But let’s recognize that there are big problems to be solved, and we all have different views on what those problems are and how to approach solutions. We need to allow for frank and open discussion, without attributing motive to anyone. It is OK that we don’t always agree. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ACK. But let's not allow that to mean we ostracise elements of our key audience. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we take the dispute elsewhere...

As I asked TRM... can we move the whole who did what when dispute off the FAC talk? I don't have much time for wiki as it is and having to sort through all that interpersonal discussion is just making me want to drop the whole FA process as it stands right now. I asked him to take it to user talk and I'm going to ask you also. I haven't dug into who started the personalization, and I don't want to do so... it's immaterial to me and my growing tiredness of the whole FA process. So I'm asking you to help improve the situation by at the very least going elsewhere. This doesn't mean I know who started what.. .it's that I want it over and someone has to be the better person and take steps to get it away from the FAC talk. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did that already [3] [4] (if you can get him to, good luck !) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth got to me because you accused me of something which you refused to back up (!). And then you casually just redacted it without apology (!). Simple as that (!). The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you unable to just stop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hector

I appreciate you taking the time to provide a review for Hector. I know it wasn't the most exciting event that took place hurricane-wise that season. Noah^Talk 19:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah I got sidelined by real life today, but plan to dig in tomorrow or the next day, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I have a lot of college coursework to get done (the load should lighten relatively soon thankfully) and work. Noah^Talk 23:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens, dashes etc.

Remind me, there was a script somewhere that corrects hyphens and dashes which you recommended for pre-FAC prep work, but I don't remember where it was. I need it for Quelccaya Ice Cap. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go ... user:GregU/dashes.js. I ran it there because that was faster than looking for it in my subpages. I will get over there soon, Jo-Jo .,, have been busy IRL, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both. I hope I am not asking too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Jo-Jo Eumerus; I will dig back in soon. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jeffrey Epstein

Note the the FACBot has merged the old AfD template, and, as bonus, sorted the milestones into chronological order. [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s aweseome, Hawkeye7. You may have noticed that I am still bugged that we let one sock and one prima donna chase off Gimmetrow/Gimmebot. In this case, though, I had to do lots of repair, because although the talkpage originally had all the information templated correctly, HAL333 had lost and changed some of the pieces before FACbot got there. If we were able to get FACBOT to process everything everyday, as Gimmebot did, there would be less chase of editors breaking pieces before FACBOT gets there. That is, Gimmebot went through all templates (DYK, GA, etc) daily. Gimmebot also used to leave spaces between events, and put all the other pieces at the bottom, as I did. Thank you again for all you do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My bad. ~ HAL333([6]) 02:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, HAL333: I'm just on a mission to remind editors to learn to use articlehistory, so we don't lose all of the effort of more than a decade ago to tame talk page clutter! See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches. It's starting to come back because we no longer have a bot that processes all templates, and editors haven't learned to do it manually. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Egg Cream for you

	The Worm in my Egg Cream Award
	This is for helping me get Squirm it's Featured Article status. Went a long way to get it to there and could not have done it without you. GamerPro64 14:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, GamerPro64; glad you stuck to it! Now don't forget to keep helping out at FAR :0 Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ...

... for noticing the mess. Tho' I wasn't practicing to deceive anyone, I still managed to weave quite the tangled web. I hope I have untangled it. All the best, and a happy new year! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA question

Hey Sandy, can you confirm that most (all?) FA nominations are "self-nominations"? ("My" one and only FA was nominated by someone else, a practice that at the time—"Brilliant prose" days?—I assumed was fairly common, but now I think is virtually non-existent). Thus if there are many editors (like me) who have no interest in nominating "their" articles, then FAs will almost certainly not represent our best work. Paul August ☎ 15:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While other-nominations were common in 2006 and before, they are extremely rare now; I can't recall when I've last seen one. I think they were uncommon by 2007 ???? And the simplest way to find out-of-compliance older FAs is to check whether the involved editors (whether nominator or not) are still actively maintaining the article. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably new since those days is this, at the top of the FAC instructions: " Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Effectively "significant contributors" have a veto on nominations. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August:, sheesh, that Village Pump conversation is tiring. Recurring instances of "I didn't type what you are reading", but I give up.

Anyway, to your point about articles that aren't submitted to FAC, I think that is why WP:FA uses the word some in the first line, and qualifies it to as determined by Wikipedia's editors. The process is less than perfect, depends on volunteers, and would be much better if more people engaged, but it's still the best we've got.

@Johnbod: do you think this "veto" power is stalling nominations? I realize I disagree with Iri, but I think what is ailing FAC is a) the extreme unpleasantry that took hold for several years via cliques and was tolerated, b) that noms are allowed to turn into peer reviews of basically prose nitpicks with limited focus on real issues (relative to, for example, a real review), c) good reviewers being chased off by said cliques, and d) the elimination of a director who worked towards making sure all processes (FAC, FAR, TFA) worked together and helped advance the goals of FA. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't think I disagree with anything you've said about the FA process (and you would certainly know considerably more about it than I do). And just to be clear, nothing I've said is meant as a criticism. There are several reasons why I don't have any desire to nominate articles, or participate in other ways (some of which you've touched on above, and which I could share, although I'm not sure they're worth much), but for the most part they boil down to "not my cup of tea". Paul August ☎ 16:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not detect any unintended or unwarranted criticism! (On the other hand, unlike you, there are some editors who avoid FAC because they don't want their POV to be noticed by a neutral audience :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlike you": You sure about that? ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then :) :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think the veto power is stalling nominations, or if it is, only in a good way. I agree with your analysis, I'm afraid. I stopped doing my "own" noms (as opposed to helping with ones mainly by User:Ceoil especially) just because I thought the large amounts of finicky extra work involved was of less benefit to the project than improving, sometimes starting, a much larger number of articles, mostly with much larger views. The tendency for FACs to cover micro-topics has rather put me off too. I still very much support FAs in principle, but these days am finding it hard to even do reviews. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to start again, doing it the old way (oppose early, oppose often, not ready, get a PR or CE and come back); we'll see how long I last! I tend to alternate between FAC and WPMED, depending on which one is giving me most grief! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Johnbod, I've been contemplating how to articulate my decreasing interest in the Featured process and you've done splendidly. I had been thinking about how the energy required to bring something from 95 to 100% is exponentially more than, say from 50 to 75%. Maybe my time and energy is better spent in that range, and maybe we as authors can better serve readers that way. I have also come to realize that 100% doesn't mean what it used to, being careful not to impugn many people's VERY fine work. --Laser brain (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! In my part of the forest, there are great numbers of articles where say 15-25 to 50-65% is possible, & quite easy for me to write and source. Just this minute I'm looking at tapestry topics, & now I see the main article has averaged 470 views a day but for the medieval & Early Modern periods is almost all on who made them & where, with barely a word (or link) on who commissioned them & why, or what they looked like. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "hours editing per percentage improvement" number goes up the closer you get to 100%, so it has to be true that working on weaker articles is a bigger net benefit to Wikipedia than trying to get something to featured level. My own motivation for working at FAC is more about enjoying the learning process required to get those last few percent, but for those with more altruistic motivations FAC is not the most productive vineyard on Wikipedia. As for long lists of prose fixes, I've been guilty of that but a while ago I stopped and now I copyedit. (If there's more copyediting required than I think is reasonable for FAC, I oppose.) That limits what I list in a review to things I genuinely can't figure out for myself, or more substantive issues that the nominator needs to work on. I don't know how to encourage that behaviour in other reviewers but I think it would be a benefit. I can't really blame newer reviewers for behaving like that; they see plenty of models to imitate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that FAC probably no longer is, and may no longer ever be, relevant anymore, I am not giving up that easily. I don't think Ceoil is ready to give up either. And I don't think that SarahSV is either. But I do think if we "old-timers" don't start leading the way, then FAC is done—stick a fork in it already. In that vein, I posted to FAC talk responding to Sarah what sorts of things I am still trying to do towards re-invigorating FAC. Maybe others will follow suit. Maybe others will start reviewing properly. Maybe if they try to chase off Sarah and Tony and Fowler and me again, others will stand up. If they don't, the demise of FAC is deserved. If the attacks at FAC talk don't stop, I will join those who say that FAC needs to be put out of its misery. To fully answer Sarah's question about Opposes, the lack thereof is somewhat related to WikiCup as an extension of the reward culture, in that it started many years ago with cliques who didn't ever Oppose because they didn't want their articles to be opposed ... as FAC became a machine to promote the FACs of mutually supportive groups ... limited checks for independent review or awareness of these cliques or at least limited interest in doing anything about them ... and from there, not opposing took hold and became commonplace, at the same time as the Coords allowed the notion that three supports= promotion to take hold. As to Coord exhaustion, ummm ... yes, hullo! ... there comes a point where one realizes one is only feeding egos, and getting little back in terms of the support needed to keep the wheels turning. Remember, I processed three times the volume we see now, and the attacks during my tenure came from not one, but three different prolific sockmasters, so buck up friends !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank - I don't have the time I did back in those days. And what time I can find for wiki needs to be relaxing and enjoyable for me. I do enough cat herding in my game job and enough soothing egos when I take photography clients or horse pedigree clients. I get paid for that. And I'm generally tired and cranky and .. yes, bitchy. If what is wanted is for me to return to the hours I used to spend at FAC, well, that isn't going to happen, sorry. And I suspect that what Mike's saying is that he doesn't have that time either. And probably Sarah doesn't either, honestly. And at some point, I just have to question... why bother? I get no feeling of reward or accomplishment from even looking at FAC... so what's in it for me? I'd rather go dig in dusty books for clients, thanks. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you telling me to just give up? Because I don't see any other qualified coords out there (Mike has declined many times). "Give up" means join voices with those who say we need a whole new assessment scheme, with some merging of GA/A/FA. Continuing a charade is not my style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm just saying don't depend on me being able to do what I did in the past. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand :) It's interesting ... as your life changed in one direction, mine changed in the opposite, and here I am stuck inside with COVID and more time on my hands than even when I was delegate, with two children still at home! So I will keep pushing for change; you'll just have to put up with me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very unfortunate indeed to loose Ealdgyth, who has done/put up with more than most over the years, and has always lead by example. Which begs the question, that I am not close enough to answer, are we nurturing enough (any) people to take over from her, Ian, Andy, and the burden they are carrying. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look now, Ceoil, but it's worse than that-- there's Nikkimaria, too, doing most of the heavy lifting. Honestly, if we lost either of them, FAC would no longer be turning out FAs-- we fool ourselves as to what it is producing.

But you've picked up on my concern that has me hitting the talk page often. There seems to be no institutional memory-- no sense at FAC of why we do X or don't do Y or what happens if we do Z. Most of the newer nominators or reviewers have no idea of Awadewit sourcing standards, or Tony1 prose standards, or what a thorough review looks like: all they have seen is prose nitpicking. The loss of institutional memory is exemplified in the complete absence of the Oppose, which led to the stagnation of FAC. And that I should be excoriated at FAC talk for even asking questions like, "what became of X" is curious.

And we lost the director, so no one is asking the hard questions or engaging the hard discussions about how to fix what ails FAC.

Are we grooming future Coordinators? Well, I dunno ... because that leads to my next pet peeve ... the way the ECHO system (that damn pingie thingie) has stymied communication on Wikipedia. Remember when we used to actually "talk" to each other? That gave us a chance to observe character, integrity, how one reacts under pressure, etc. Now we ping each other to discussions, meaning our opportunities to see how some of the new(er to us) reviewers would handle certain situations is lacking. And I suspect few people read the whole FAC page top to bottom anymore, and may miss a lot. So how can we gauge suitability of potential Coords? I am encouraged that there are actually a lot of good reviewers emerging, but we don't know their character the way we used to ... when we all worked together at both FAC and FAR and actually communicated and observed behaviors. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I say are we nurturing enough (any) people to take over from her, Ian, Andy, i dont mean are people tasked with the job of mentoring; I mean is the process credible thought to attract....Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is ... and I think with a small bit of effort, we can see a resurgence. There are many solid editors engaging; I think some institutional memory will help. Here's an example of what's been missing. A recent FAC nominator announced they had COVID. No one seems to read all the FACs, so only two people noticed. Would we not expect more well wishes on that user's talk? The way to build back a community is by ... building community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment re WT:FAC post

Just to say I'm not sure you'll get much engagement at WT:FAC at the moment; sections like the one I capped exhaust people and reduce their interest in commenting. I will just mention that the stats I collect are certainly limited in what they show, but I think they're useful so long as they're not overinterpreted; and that not doing them wouldn't increase my reviewing -- there's no overlap in the time I spend on one vs. the other. I think you already know that I don't agree with your diagnosis of FAC, and hence, unsurprisingly, I disagree on the recommended treatment. We have a decade of evidence that exhortations to increase effort don't work. If there's something that can be improved, I don't believe it will be done by asking people to step up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SO what do you think will help? Add to the thread above where I hope we're all putting out heads together. As to getting attention on FAC talk, I disagree; more and more people are re-engaging as they see someone standing up to the new status quo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought I knew the best advice to give at FAC, I promise I wouldn't keep it secret. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that :) :) Which is why these voices trying to silence discussion need for someone to stand up to them. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Mike, the old adage, "if what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it" comes to mind. The status quo at FAC isn't working. I'll challenge it before I give up on FAC. "You have to break some eggs to make an omelette." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little late here, but I also read that WT:FAC discussion. Changed the way I approach reviewing at FAC mentally, as I'd previously mostly just saved the oppose for drive by noms. I expect an increase in opposes will have some pushback, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<rant on because I am out of time this morning, having to do some unexpected outside work> Most appreciated, Hog Farm. While I should be reading through the worthy noms from you and @Casliber, Ceoil, Coemgenus, Peacemaker67, Mike Christie, Harrias, and Hawkeye7: (and that's just the top of the list-- holy cow-- there are more!!!) so that I can fully support, and helping Jo-Jo Eumerus, I am instead wallowing in an ill-prepared nomination that STILL has significant prose issues, even after a GOCE run-through. We are seeing worthy noms archived simply because no one has time or the inclination to get them. Deficient prose is not fixed in one pass. We have dozens of worthy noms on the page, but limited resources go towards pulling unworthy noms up to standard, while the worthy noms languish on the page. And here I am, needing to go over to that article and outline the considerable prose issues that still exist, when there are so many other ways I should be spending my reviewing time. THAT is what discourages reviewers (having to engage an ill-prepared nomination, and then being sucked in).

I make a first pass through FAC just to see which noms should be withdrawn; I don't/can't support an article until I go back and do a thorough read. But at least getting the too-much-work noms off the page should help free up resources. And re-invigorating Peer review, where we don't have to work under the pressure of going back to re-review and strike, has always been the way to go.

And here's the rub. It has been EIGHT FLIPPING YEARS since I resigned as delegate, and the ill-prepared nom that I flagged was the same sort of work that writer was putting up way back then. So what has changed? Nothing for the better. I could understand these attempts to stifle me if FAC had seen some amazing turnaround since I resigned. Not the case. I would shut my mouth and quietly go away and join those saying that FAC should be abolished, but not without giving it a best shot first. The only thing that has changed in these eight years is that FAC has continued to stagnate, and we sure don't need any more data to know that. We need to get the ill-prepared off the page, so we can focus on the prepared. And we need to encourage PR. And we need to back each other when there are issues so that the Coords have the info they need to archive sooner.

So, I have to do some outside work today because of the weather, and will get back to all of these FACs as soon as I can, with apologies to all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, there are many more worthy noms on the page ... apologies to anyone I didn't list, as I only looked at the top. @Buidhe and Aoba47: come to mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:, I also do not fear pushback on opposes. In my experience (which I hope I can say is considerable), nominators WANT and EXPECT thorough review of their articles, and appreciate a serious review. (When they don't, we don't need their contributions at FAC anyway.) Many of my best collaborations and friendships on Wikipedia fell out of strong opposes, as nominators eventually come to realize that your strong critique is what eventually got them the bronze star. Each time you oppose, you hold your breath and hope this nominator will be one of the many gems who will appreciate your work and come to be a wikifriend or collaborator-- doesn't always happen, says more about them than you. And those who are still, eight years later, bringing ill-prepared nominations to FAC so that others could do their work for them, might consider the correct effort that Spicy put in to complete blood count after GA and before he approached FA. There's a first-time nominator success because he did it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the opposes are the problem. Lack of input is. And lack of suitable alternative venues - someone recently complained at WT:FAC that they were sent away from FAC to GOCE, GOCE went through the article, they went back to FAC and the prose was still a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another piece of fallout from chasing off our best copyeditors at FAC. The idea that the GOCE can run through an article in a day and prep it for FAC is just ... absurd. A good copyeditor will spend a lot of time querying what is really meant by prose that is unintelligible. GOCE copyediting is rarely FA-level. Query: what on earth does this mean? Water is the most important part of beaver habitat, and they require a yearly supply that is sufficient for swimming, diving, floating logs, protection of lodge entrances and safety from land-dwelling predators. Do they get an annual delivery from the Culligan man? Can they go nine months without water as long as they get it once a year? What the heck. At that article, such continues ... the writer should have developed a collaboration with good copyeditors years ago, and must know by now that you can't prep a broad article for FAC in three days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to ongoing FAC discussion

Thank you for the post on the FAC talk page. Apologies for posting on your talk page, but I was uncertain if this really fit with the current discussion. I agree with you that opposes should be used more often, but I would hope that they are done in a way that is not personalized against the nominator. I have reacted very poorly to oppose declarations in the past, and it is honestly something I am still working on. I know that it is absolutely impossible to avoid having a nominator respond negatively to an oppose declaration, but I wish there were more objective ways of opposing.

I remember a few years back when more reviewers opposed, and the discussion and overall tone would turn quite hostile very quickly from both sides of the conversation. I think the deteriorating relationship between nominator and reviewer could be linked to larger issues with the FAC and participation in that area of Wikipedia. That could just be me though. Anyway, I just wanted to voice my concern, because while I agree with you about the need for more opposes, I hope they return in a more constructive manner and not in the rather toxic or personalized ways that I have seen in the past.

Apologies again for the random message. I was just curious about your response to this. I do not consider myself to be an experienced Wikipedia editor at all so these kinds of discussions are best suited for those far more experienced than myself. Anyway, I hope you are having a great end to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is natural that nominators will react poorly to opposes in an environment where they are almost never used, so hopefully that can change if nominators understand that archival can often be the fastest route to promotion, because cluttered FACs stagnate on the page. On the hostile conversations, the technique Raul and I used in the "olden days" was to either remove the off-topic hostility to the talk page of the FAC, or if it got really bad, to restart the FAC. Current Coords refuse to use those techniques; beats the heck out of me why they won't, and why we allow hostility on FACs. No need to apologize; great to hear from you! It is encouraging to realize that people are paying attention :0 And I have never objected to whatever they called ... "cookie cutter", "niche", "pop culture", whatever :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! I never considered that but it makes sense. If opposes became more common in the FAC space, then it would be more expected and hopefully there would be more of an acceptance of it and less pushback. I only bring up hostile opposes because I have seen a few editors abandon the FAC space (and sometimes even Wikipedia in general) after a misconnection involving an oppose. Ideally, if there were more opposes, reviewers could possibly reach a better understanding on how to clearly oppose and lay out their reasons for it while still engaging the nominator in making the necessary edits away from the FAC space.

If you are interested, there is a discussion open on the peer review talk page about "Pre featured article reviews" (here). Apologies for my knee-jerk reaction to the "niche" vs. "broad" discussion because you did make it very clear in that same thread that this is not one of your concerns. I do have a tendency to over-apologize so I should work on that ><. I have a lot of respect for you for opening this discussion in the first place. I love your idea about a FA newsletter, and I've honestly never heard of Template:FCDW before. It does make me hopeful for the future of the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all of that. But you have to also realize that some personalities will never be suited to FAC. You can't please all the people all the time, and you have to be able to accept criticism of your work to be able to benefit from FAC. Some people can't :) I am also hopeful, but then, I am an eternal pollyanna :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that completely. It is good to be mindful on how to present criticism, but a person needs to be in the right headspace to really read and comprehend it (and appreciate the fact that someone took time out of their own day to help). It is a tough thing to have, and I must admit that I am not 100% great at it myself. I used to be more optimistic, and I am slowly getting back there. Just went through a rough period of depression years back so that kind of drained me of that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I hope you know that it is (reslient) editors like you who give me hope! Let me expand. At a non-profit organization, when training up people, they throw out a bunch of poker chips on a table, and tell managers that they have 30 seconds to gather their volunteers. Some gather as many chips as they can in one broad sweep. While the smart ones carefully pick out the blue chips. I'm not interested in pleasing all the people all the time-- and especially not on the Internet where every asshole with an opinion is happy to unburden their issues on to anyone they come across. I'm looking for the blue chips. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. That does encourage me a lot. Even though I've been working on Wikipedia since 2016 (and it is crazy to think about that), I still struggle with impostor syndrome. The Internet is such a weird space because I can find such inspiring and motivational material alongside things that are more toxic.

Apologies for yet another message, but I just wanted to let you know that it is standard practice to put music charts side-by-side. See the "Style" (Taylor Swift song) article for an example. I do not see why it would be a MOS:SANDWICH since having these charts side-by-side does not disturb the layout. Just wanted to let you know about that. Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aoba47; might you add that to the PR? I am tucked in for the night, iPad typing. Otherwise, I will add it toMorrow ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer, but I must decline. I just wanted to clear up this point as an editor somewhat experienced with music article. I have already committed to helping with a FAC, and I frankly have no desire to work with that particularly nominator. I will not say anything negative, but I must say no. I hope you have a good rest of your night. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I might take a look, although I admit I am not sure which PR we are talking about. Also, Sandy, in case you are interested the next article I plan to send to FAC is Quelccaya Ice Cap ... after dash-ing and basic prep work, of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review being discussed is Wikipedia:Peer review/Cups (song)/archive1. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 the GA reviewer specifically pinged me to the question, so some response was needed. My response is, "don't ask me because I don't understand GA to begin with"; no offense or criticism was intended there. :) But really, the GA reviewer's query should have been listed at the talk page of that PR rather than directly on the PR. Perhaps Jlevi will move it to Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive2 (and move my response along with it). Jo-Jo Eumerus, that is a PR you might be interested in: Wikipedia:Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. We just read the comment different, which is completely okay. Since the editor was asking for feedback/advice for their first GAN review, I just found it a little odd to respond with a no and a personal opinion on the GA criteria. That is just my opinion though, and I am likely wrong. My response was likely more unnecessary as I know understand why you responded to the editor's question since you are one of the active reviewers for the peer review. I agree the comment is better suited for the peer review's talk page. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also just wanted to thank you for all of your reviews for FACs and participation in peer reviews. I know that it takes a lot of time and energy, and you keep me inspired/encouraged to stay active in those spaces as well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you, Aoba47 ... maybe I will even catch up enough to go review yours ... so far, I am just able to keep up with making sure those that are not ready are processed, without time for any thorough reading needed for supporting. I am hoping if we get used to clearing out the ill-prepared, we will all have more time to focus on polishing the gems. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

On a somewhat related tangent, what is the issue with The Signpost? I've seen the discussion on the FAC talk page, and I have seen a significant amount of editors who were critical of it. I am very unfamiliar with the publication, although I have thought about writing an article or something for them in the past. Apologies for taking this into a different direction, but I was just curious about the criticism against this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly politicized, rarely neutral, partial to certain points of view re management of Wikipedia, and editors there play favorites and rarely acknowledge or retract any of the aforementioned. If you agree with their point of view and their particular favorite editors, you may like their coverage, but based on their pageviews, they have lost most readership, I believe because of those reasons. They are irrelevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a shame because it would be nice to have a centralized newspaper on here. I've enjoyed it when they did interviews with editors and spotlighted specific WikiProjects. I miss when it used to do stuff like that. I have unsubscribed to The Signpost so you are right. Still a shame though. Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost also changes over time as the editors involved change, which means that its most prominent failings change, too.

I am not sure that a monthly magazine is the best format for Wikipedia. It might have been more immediately useful when it was a weekly newsletter. These days, something more like a daily scheduled blog would probably be of more interest to editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I'd be interested in what a daily scheduled blog would like. It is interesting to think about what format would be best for Wikipedia. I was only curious because at one point in time, I had thought about writing an article or contributing something to The Signpost. Aoba47 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, I understand that there's a Facebook group for Wikipedia, and they might be doing something similar. If you want to look outside the English Wikipedia, then https://diff.wikimedia.org just started a little while ago, and is for blog posts written by (mostly) volunteers. I usually find more than enough to read just at the Village pumps, so I haven't spent much time seeking out movement media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response and links. I spend a majority of my Wikipedia time working on random articles with an eye towards getting to it the FA level. I am extremely unfamiliar with the more "behind-the-scenes" aspects of Wikipedia, and I could not even talk about the Village pumps with any real confidence. It is not something I ever really interacted with, but they are areas that I would like to and should know about as a Wikipedia editor. I highly doubt I'd really change my focus on here, but it just seems like useful information to know. Aoba47 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 on cue, the Signpost provides an example of precisely what I mentioned in this Newsroom discussion. At the talk discussion referenced, there are a number of disgruntled editors lamenting

a) that the current Arbcom is doing exactly what we elected them to do (take a harder stance on admins who behave in ways that would get non-admins sanctioned), and

b) that they did not get their desired outcomes at Arbcom.

This is succinctly summarized in that discussion here, and explained in depth here by Worm That Turned.

What is of interest to our discussion here is that the Signpost would even consider running a piece on what amounts to sour grapes. Why? Because those are the editors the Signpost is more apt to gear their publications towards. In fact, in the Arb section draft while the Medicine case was underway, it was apparent that the Signpost editors weren't following the issues at all, and did not seem aware that one arb did not appear to be even reading the evidence upon which they based proposed findings without evidence, or understanding the basics of the case (as in who filed it and why).

When editors hold opinions that sync with the Signpost's opinions, the Signpost is inclined towards covering them. And that is why most readers have signed off of reading the Signpost. We elected these arbs to do exactly what they are doing-- with the exception of the one who is having a hard time keeping up with basics. There is a lot of handwaving there about context et al, because some of the editors opining there reject the basic tenets of Wikipedia that the rest of us have to abide by. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out to me and including the links to better understand this discussion. It is disappointing that The Signpost would even consider running a piece on this, and it does take away all of my interest in that publication. I would think there are just a number of more productive conversations/topics to cover over this one. It is a shame because I have read some great pieces in The Signpost (specifically the interviews and spotlights on different WikiProjects), but after seeing this, I am in agreement with you on that matter. It makes me realize that even though I've been quite active on Wikipedia for almost five years now, there is still a lot about the site that I really do not understand at all. I don't know why, but it's just strange to think about. Thank you again for taking the time to explain this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 this is another of the reasons I have been pushing for a FA-process newsletter. Not that anyone is listening :0 We need something beyond the walled garden that is the Signpost, that is aimed at its pet editors, their peeves, grudges and sympathies-- focused on the kind of information we used to have at {{FCDW}}, which included those WikiProject interviews! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more editors will listen in the future? I would not be surprised if the FA-process newsletter got lost in the shuffle of the conversation as a whole so it be worthwhile to wait a bit and then bring it up as a separate discussion item. I will read through the FCDWs because that is something I am genuinely interested in researching further.
There are good WikiProject-specific newsletters like the one for video games and military history, but they see very few and far between. I would be curious if there is a way to see what editors would want from a publication and ways to avoid the same issues from past/current publications. Apologies for rambling on this. I always just found it interesting since 1) I thought about writing an article for The Signpost and 2) I was always curious on how these types of publications could foster a sense of community amongst editors to keep them engaged with Wikipedia to better the site as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

There's always something new for me to not be aware of. At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Month#Nominations you and GB both have the "Daily average page views for 2019". Where, pray tell, can I find that number for a page? Ajpolino (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino, hopefully SG won't mind me responding, but you can find them by going to this toolforge tool and looking on the right side. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Now I see it. Thank you Berchanhimez. I'll gladly take any help I can get. Ajpolino (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Berchan ... not unsurprisingly, I had to ask the same question recently, because digging up last year's is a bit hidden. You have to click ON THE DATE FIELD, to see a drop down menu, where you can choose last year. That there is a drop-down menu there is not at all clear ... and I generally prefer to look at last year's numbers, since everything this year is so skewed by COVID. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source cribbing from Wikipedia

Greetings,

I've seen you discuss the problem of publications copying Wikipedia articles and wanted to get some assistance. This paper published in 2020 is remarkably similar to our article at Nevado Sajama:

The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery of Sajama and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama. (article) with The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama. (publication)
It is situated in Sajama National Park and is a composite volcano consisting of a stratovolcano on top of several lava domes. (article) with It is an extinct composite volcano with a stratovolcano on top of several lava domes. (publication)
Changes in the subduction regime took place during the Oligocene and directed an increase of volcanic activity in the region. (article) and Changes in the subduction regime took place during the Oligocene and directed an increase of volcanic activity in the region. (publication)
Volcanoes in the region have ages ranging from Pleistocene to Miocene[15] and grew on top of earlier ignimbrites; the whole volcanic activity was controlled by faults. (article) and Volcanoes in the region have ages ranging from Pleistocene to Miocene and grew on top of earlier ignimbrites; the whole volcanic activity was controlled by faults. (publication)
Starting in the lake Laguna Huana Kkota on the northwestern foot of Sajama, the Tomarapi River flows first northeastward, then east, south and southeast around the northern and eastern flanks of the volcano; the Sicuyani River which originates on Sajama joins it there. The southern flanks give rise to the Huaythana River which flows directly south and then makes a sharp turn to the east. On the western side of the volcano originates the Sajama River which flows due south and increasingly turns southeast before joining the Lauca River.[11][9] The other rivers draining Sajama and its ice cap also eventually join the Lauca River and end in the Salar de Coipasa. (article) and Starting in the lake Laguna Huaña Kkota on the north-western foot of Nevado Sajama, the Tomarapi River flows firstly eastward, then east, south and southeast around the northern and eastern flanks of the volcano; the Sicuyani River which originates on Nevado Sajama joins it there. The southern flanks give rise to the Huaythana River which flows directly south and then makes a sharp turn to the east. Sajama River originates on the western side of the volcano, and it flows to the south and increasingly turns southeast before joining the Lauca River. Other rivers draining Nevado Sajama and its ice cap also eventually join the Lauca River and end in the Salar de Coipasa (publication)

Given that the article was last expanded in 2018 in a big batch of piecemeal edits and I don't see any attribution anywhere nor compatible copyright rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus I am looking now and will post over there at talk depending on what I find. But if you want me to say more about my time spent with the US Copyright office, that would have to be via email. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major additions by Jo-Jo mostly finished by June 2, 2019
The journal article was published more than six months later.
Comparing the 2020 published article with diff 900002581 from June 2019 [7]
Comparing the journal article with Wikipedia article even further back, diff 868379046 from Nov 2018 after significant work mostly completed by Jo-Jo [8]
I do not find Archeometriai Műhely listed on any predatory journal website, but Headbomb may be able to help.
I do not find Archeometriai Műhely listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/ABC (will need to be added)
Berchanhimez might help figure out who publishes and who hosts the website at http://www.ace.hu/am/ ... I have no idea if takedown notices work there, but getting them to work even in the US is difficult, as unscrupulous publishers can simply move their website elsewhere.

Jo-Jo Eumerus there are some of the pieces, and I can add the backwards copy template, but first we should provide proof that you didn't copy the highlighted phrases from a different source ... As to pursuing this beyond adding the backwards copy template, I can tell you that my experience was not ... productive time spent ... and the copyvio at dementia with Lewy bodies is much more extreme than this (where Fymat took almost the entire article verbatim). Once we add some proof that the copied portions were your original words (which means going back to check diffs where you added some of those copied words), then we can a) add the backwards copy template, and b) add the website to Mirrors and forks. If you want to go further than that, I would only do that via email ... as I believe Wikipedia has sold us a bit of a bill of goods as to how much we can defend against plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been summoned! I have emailed SG my findings as I'm not sure she wants them posted on her talk page here - SG when you get my email please feel free to post in its entirety/part without attribution. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Berchan. Jo-Jo ... I will outline the next steps below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next, examining a specific passage fully duplicated:

The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery of Sajama and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama. sourced to page 361 of Smith and Lowell.

I see no evidence that Wikipedia copied from or too closely paraphrased from the source, but Ajpolino might give a second opinion. Next, to see where that wording was added ... specific diff ...
That text was added here, in Oct 2018 so we seem to have good evidence that Wikipedia had that text well before the journal did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged, concerning the bit about 'predatory journals', this one is seems to be published by the Hungarian National Museum. If there's a copyright issue, it's very possible it simply eluded the reviewers (it's not something most small reviews, or the editors of small journals usually pay attention to). While it may or may not be a super high quality journal (I'm really unqualified to opine here, since I know very little on archaeology), it doesn't strike me as predatory. It is indexed in Scopus for what it's worth. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To do next

Jo-Jo, here are the next steps:

I will add the backwards copy template to article talk.
I will add the journal entry to Mirrors and Forks, but you will have to follow that in case any updates are needed (that is, if they take it down).
IF you decide to take it further (good luck with that), you can try writing to the author's email and the server host at abuse@iif.hu (thank you, Berchan). The sample letters given on Wikipedia's pages have issues. You can see one sample letter from me (which did result in them taking down that article) at User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat#Aug_1,_Auctores,_Aug_10_email_followup. The other publishers, as well as the author, have blocked my emails, and refused letters from my attorney as well. And in my case, there is an entire production around taking Wikipedia content to use it for profit. My next steps are complicated by COVID delays at the copyright office.
If they don't take it down, you can go about having them added to predatory journal websites, but there are so many of them that one despairs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!

		The SPFLT Achievement Patch
		For your contributions to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory FAC (and probably a million other things you've done -- you're a pillar of WP Neopeius (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(and my apologies for Pinging you -- I didn't know you hated pings with a passion.)

Combining various FAC-related templates

Sandy, I've been thinking about the possibility of combining templates, as we discussed at WT:FAC, and I'm not sure it's the best way to handle that information. Some of the constituent pieces will need to be used in different places -- for example the new peer review sidebar can go on user talk pages by itself, and so can the FAC urgents and FAR urgents, but there's no reason to assume anyone who wants any of those three would want all three. So I'm starting to think they need to remain separate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, so I did it myself ... someone else could probably make it more elegant, but I tire of looking all over creation for the different pieces. See the top of my talk page (here). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good! I don't think I'll use it myself but I think others might find it worth having and it could certainly replace the one currently at the top of WP:FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie I think we could put it at the top of WT:FAC at least ... with nothing expanded to shorten the mess there ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC guide

I realise you are flat out and your time is hen's teeth...BUT...can you look at the Portrait of a Musician FAC. High potential 1st time nominator. Ceoil (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there! Focusing on trying to get PR going again and cleaning up article history milestones, destroyed since Gimmetrow left. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you re PR. Its suffering big time since the loss of Brian and Rurhfish's retirement; Tim and Schrodo have also been invaluable there, I owe both A LOT. However I have high hopes for A Crow Looked at Me which you also reviewed at PR...me, my two brothers and four friends are all now besotted by the album - I now rank in my top 10 of the 2010s - but hadn't known it before the nominator put the article forward. Wiki may be of use after all :):) Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK archiving

Sorry, I forgot on which article we discussed the problem of DYK archiving and link to the archive per wrong day. I woke up thinking that it wouldn't be a problem if the archiving was done immediately with posting. Sure, there would be occasional cases when a hook is pulled or reworded, but repairing that also in the archive should be a minor problem, compared to the programmed inconsistency, leading to wrong links day by day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, the broader discussion is at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Brain dump. I am pretty sure this is not something difficult for DYK to address, if they would only pay attention and understand the problem created by their current processing ... so keeping the discussion at a broader level may generate some interest beyond the individual article talk pages where the DYK links aren't working.

This kind of problem has taken over many different processes since we lost the coordinated conventions that were set up at Template:Article history and handled by Gimmebot in a consistent fashion across all processes. DYK is not the only problem, and each process is now going its own direction and adding to talk page clutter in different ways, so hopefully the broader discussion will help get us all back on track to taming talk page clutter (a battle we had won over a decade ago)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, and thank you for the link to Brain dump. "- clutter" is one of my frequent edit summaries on talk pages, removing transclusions of DYK templates where a link is enough. It's sad that Gimme (and the bot) are not with us, and Cassianto and SchroCat. I decided to stubbornly stay long ago. Thank you for watching over quality and consistency, and fighting clutter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary_ovarian_insufficiency

Hi, SandyGeorgia!

I have finished my Primary_ovarian_insufficiency revisions. Please let me know if you see anything else I need to address.

Talk:Primary_ovarian_insufficiency#Review_changes has the notes:

The “Genetic associations“ float has omim.org/ database links that work, and “Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man” is an interesting site that I had not seen before. The database was begun 1960s by Dr. Victor A. McKusick who some see as the father of genetics. I do not know if databases are primary or secondary. They look to me to be both.
There are still some primary references that I left alone as I did not find secondaries and the information looks good.

Thank you, Dan / Memdmarti (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dan ... I was wondering where you went ... hope you are well. I am (as always) struggling to catch, but will put this on my official to do list. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! == Memdmarti (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MED Newsletter - November 2020

Issue 6—November 2020

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Greetings. This month marks the return of the project's long-dormant collaboration of the month! With some luck and effort, perhaps we can keep it going. I hope you're all finding ways to remain sane during another tumultuous month. Ready or not, here is what's happening around the project:

**Newly recognized content**
Seminal vesicles nom. Tom (LT), reviewed by Berchanhimez Endell Street Military Hospital nom. G. Moore and Dormskirk, reviewed by Amitchell125 Horace Smithy nom. Larry Hockett, reviewed by Ajpolino UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by HickoryOughtShirt?4 Intravenous therapy nom. Berchanhimez, reviewed by Tom (LT) Vitamin K nom. David notMD, reviewed by Tom (LT) Homeopathy nom. Aircorn, review by Berchanhimez

**Nominated for review**
Parkinson's disease now a featured article removal candidate. Discussion here Alzheimer's disease Notice of impending featured article review is at the talk page. Anatomical terms of location nom. Tom (LT), under review by ArnabSaha and Aircorn Charles Bingham Penrose nom. Larry Hockett Louise Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell Intramuscular injection nom. Berchanhimez Blood culture nom. Spicy Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia nom. Maxim Masiutin

News from around the site

The WP:MED Collaboration of the Month returns for a trial run. We'll concentrate our efforts for November on Tonsillitis. Please help improve that article, and head to the planning page to nominate articles for future collaboration.
An open contributor copyright investigation involves edits to ~50 medicine pages that need to be checked for copyright infringement. I've left some short instructions here for the uninitiated. Every little bit helps.

Discussions of interest

Ongoing discussions consider redesigning the GA/FA icons and moving them to a more prominent place in articles.

For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Ajpolino (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diberri-Boghog

Hi, SandyGeorgia! Thank you for inviting me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hemothorax/archive1#Hemothorax

1) Clarification needed:

Diberri-Boghog at http://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi?

appears to be another name for what I (you?) have called

Wikipedia template filling at https://citation-template-filling.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi

Diberri-Boghog forwards to Wikipedia template filling at https://citation-template-filling.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi

Is that correct?

Yes, those are one and the same. It was originally programmed by Diberri, a med editor and Stanford physician, who no longer edits. After that, BogHog took it over, but most of us "old-timers" still refer to the citation filling template as the Diberri format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Are we restircted to a <ref name=":8"> reference naming style?

Thank you, Dan Memdmarti (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, those things are horrible and should be shot on sight. They are generated from one of the automatic tools and are the most dreadful thing ever, as they give no clue while you are in edit mode as to what the citation is, and are ridiculously cluttered. You have probably noted that I use a standard style of author name followed by date ... and when citing page numbers, I also add the page number. This came to be incredibly useful when I decided to switch the citation style at dementia with Lewy bodies, because each ref name told me exactly which source and which page ... scroll down in to the middle of this to see what I mean. Example: ref name= Yamada2020p2.

Thanks for jumping in there. It is frustrating when an editor we've not really "met" at WT:MED puts up a medical article at WP:FAC after doing a fine-- but not FA quality-- job on the article, as we don't want to lose the editor, but the essay I linked explains how it should be done. Also, be aware that it is unclear on this article if the editor understands WP:CITEVAR and that they changed the citation style. Typically, when someone undertakes to bring an article to featured status, we defer to them on their choice of citation style. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! I like Yamada2020p2; it is similar to my foyouzi2016c3 for a book chapter in Nanette Santoro's book. Nanette has been a star for 20+ years starting in New Jersey and now chair in Colorado.

I am going to put a plan to convert all ref name=":8" styles to your style in the Talk:Hemothorax page if you do not object today. If no one objects at Talk:Hemothorax, I will start that in a few days. Stay safe! Memdmarti (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would say that's a good plan. In this particular case, be very careful how your word it, because we haven't yet heard from the nominator nor do we know if they were put off by the archived FAC. Also, most of the sources are dated and will need to change, so don't spend a lot of time fixing citations to old sources. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that is User:4thfile4thrank, is it reasonable to ping them first" Stay safe, Dan Memdmarti (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure in this case, Dan; they haven't been very communicative. I would say just watch for a day or two to see if they respond on article talk. And if not, then make a carefully worded "request" on talk to fix the citations. Normally, you would just go ahead and do it ... but here, we want to take care that the editor is not put off. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! I plan for the Talk page:

The reference style "ref name=":8"" interferes with my manually correcting references. If there are no objections, I would like to change that style to a "Name Year Page# (when available)" like "ref name=Seligson2020p98". Note: Seligson (ref name=":8") does not have a page numeber and I have used an invented p98 as an invented example only. I also note that Seligson may need to be replaced as it is a StatPearls ref. If you have a bot or want to wait until there is clarification of StatPearls, emsworld.com, fpnotebook.com, symptoma.com, rn.com, please wave me off.

OK? Stay safe! Dan Memdmarti (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, normally, that would be fine, but because we don't know this editor, I'd tighten it up even further (also, no italics ... we need to get you used to talk page conventions :) ... and no bot can fix this so we can leave that out ... and we should be clear you are proposing to change names which is different than changing citation style (WP:CITEVAR) ... also, the quotes are not needed on ref names unless there is a space in the name, so they just create clutter ... see my suggestion below ... also, see how you can insert paragraph breaks with a pb template ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference naming style (using numbers like "ref name=":8"") interferes with my manually correcting references and noting page numbers. If there are no objections, I would like to change that naming style to a AuthorYearPage (when available) like ref name=Seligson2020p98. Note: Seligson (ref name=":8") does not have a page number and I have used an invented p98 as an invented example only. I also note that Seligson may need to be replaced as it is a StatPearls ref. If you want to wait until there is clarification of sources like StatPearls, emsworld.com, fpnotebook.com, symptoma.com, rn.com, please wave me off.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Will do! Dan

Memdmarti (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Talk page conventions: Do I add a subsection in Talk:Hemothorax#Preparing_for_a_return_to_FAC or a new section? Thank you, Dan

Memdmarti (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a third-level subsection after the Post-FAC section ... that is, use === section name === , since it is part of the post-FAC (or pre-new fAC) work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SandyGeorgia!

Regarding "ref name=":8"": While setting up my key, I had an epipheny, someone else may be using a key that changing the naming style would mess up. I changed course and created a key in my sandbox at User_talk:Memdmarti/sandbox/hemothorax#Key_for_ref_name=":xyz" . Thank you, Dan -- Memdmarti (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1900 FA Cup Final

Hello, Sandy. You may have received a ping (I don't like them, either) earlier on about this article which I want to nominate at FAC. It passed GA three weeks ago and was on DYK yesterday. I've raised a PR request as that should be a useful preliminary. Since it passed GA, I've done some fine-tuning and added a few extra sentences but will not touch it again now while the PR is current.

I've had a lot of involvement at GAN but only three (plus one just started) FAC reviews done and I haven't nominated an FAC before. Gerda says you would be a good person to approach about the logistics and mechanics of the nomination and review processes. Providing you have time (and please say so if you don't), I'd appreciate any help and advice you can provide. All the best, Sandy, and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NGS; thanks for dropping in, and no worries about the ping. I am glad you took Gerda's advice to open a peer review, as that will assure you a better start at FAC. I will most certainly weigh in on the PR as I have time (it's on my To Do list, although I may not get to it for a few more days). In the meantime, as a first-timer, I strongly recommend you read my essay (and all of the links in it) at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. I served as what they now call "Coordinator" of FAC from Nov 2007 to Feb 2012, and have also been very active at FAR; what is critical to understand today is that both processes are seriously lacking in reviewers, so you have to be more pro-active about building a network of collaborators and being sure your article is well prepared before you nominate it, lest it languish at FAC with little attention. I wrote the essay to encourage more medical editors to re-engage FAC, but there is nonetheless generalized information in there that may give you a starting place until I can weigh in at your peer review. The most important is ... become involved at FAC and FAR so you can learn the standards. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sandy. I've been busy today but just want to say thank you for your kind advice which is very useful and much appreciated. I realise that patience is the key, as it is at GAN, but there's plenty more to be done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICH

Hi Sandy, I think I've seen you point out more MOS:SANDWICH violations than anyone else. I don't have much of an eye for the finer points of page layout and style, so I often need to rely on folks like you with a sharper sense for these kinds of things. But last night I bumped into Signs_and_symptoms_of_HIV/AIDS#Acute_infection, which made me laugh out loud and think of you. Unless it's something funny with my screen, perhaps even I can catch the occasional MOS violation. Anyway I hope all is well on your end. Another exciting week begins! Ajpolino (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: ... Oh, my :) One of the reasons I watch for this (and similar) is that User:Graham87 (who uses a screen reader) was always so helpful when I was FAC delegate, so I always have that in mind. I cannot imagine how Graham87 edits as much as he does when he has to get through the messes we leave on pages. I also check three different screens (iPad, laptop, desktop) before calling SANDWICH, but I should probably also check my phone. The VERY worst always shows up in Georgraphy articles, where people want to cram in every possible image. I am hesitant to fix the problems at hemothorax because a) I don't know which images to preference and which to ditch, and b) we haven't heard from the FAC nominator since the FAC was archived. We are well (still), but hunkered down. Hope you stay well. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pingie-thingies

Hi,SandyGeorgia! If I click “thank” at Diff, does it create a pingie-thingy? Do pingie-thingies include both "Alerts" and "Notices"? Thank you, Dan -- Memdmarti (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking creates a notice, but not an alert (as far as I can tell ... and I don't fully understand the difference). But ... to what I think you are really asking ... one of the (many) reasons that I hate the pingie thingie is that when people ping me to ask me to do something, I lose track of what I have done and not done. I use messages on my talk page as an easier way to remember what I need to respond to. So "thanks" don't create that problem, and I don't mind them. In fact, "thanks" are an easy way to show other editors that you have seen their edit and agree. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Dan -- Memdmarti (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closure script problem

Hi Sandy, you pinged me on What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This asking "why did the peer review script not archive this on talk?". I'm not sure why that didn't happen. The script was developed by another editor User:WritKeeper, and seems to work most of the time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, tom ... it's the only one like that I've found so far ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken

I've taken your point on board and will make no further comment. As soon as I made the SPI report, the guy disappeared only to re-appear tonight. The quacking is deafening. I would appreciate you taking a look at some of the other comments, they too are casting aspersions. W C M_email 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I made the revert ... there have already been three warnings, and the socking issue is keeping editors from addressing the legit issues. And we really should be saving that star! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archiving

Hi Sandy,

I'm going around the FA list and found a recent promotion (Binary search algorithm - 2018) that has a gigantic talk page. I don't think we need threads from 2011 called "terrible state of this article" in a recent FA's talk page so I set to archive the thing, but then I got afraid I would break something in it (silly, I know). Could you please take a look? Sorry to bother. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sandy. Only recently I began tinkering with my own archives so I was reluctant to touch that one :) RetiredDuke (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure ! I'm on a mission to clean up article history since we lost Gimmebot and Gimmetrow, who kept them in such good order! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a worthy mission from what I've seen. I sometimes collapse all the Wikiprojects so they don't interfere much with the talk page itself, and move things around so the talk page banner is at the top and Wikiprojects closer to the bottom, but finding lost DYKs and Peer reviews is not my forte. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you want to learn the tricks :) GimmeBot used to:

Put the events in order, with a space between each (many are now out of order).
Put the non-events at the end, with the current status first. Followed by maindate, DYK, and then OTD, ITN, etc.
The OTDs are a mess because they use a different format than Template:Article history so I am spending a lot of time editing them manually.
ITNs are fairly easy, because they usually occur only once.
On DYK, unless there was a name change, it's easy. The older noms did not have dedicated pages, and DYKbot is adding the nom on the very recent, so it's only the in-betweens that need a dyknom= parameter. To see if a nom page exists, just grab the article name, and stick it on the end of Template:Did you know nominations/<article name>. If nothing comes up, could be before the nom pages existed, or could be you have to look for an article name change.

That's it ! I figure if I do it enough, other editors will catch on and start cleaning up their own article milestones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I added the diff to my "useful links". I'll try to help while I'm checking FAs, it's always good to learn these things. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Hermandad Lírica

Hello. Evrik nominated the article for DYK, but hasn't been active since October. Would you be okay with adopting the nomination and addressing the concerns raised about the nomination, or do you think it should be closed? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I retroactively vest that authority just in case User:Gog the Mild has egregiously overstepped his bounds. Hi Sandy! I hope you’re well.😊 Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anythingyouwant, and thanks. I probably had, I am renown for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anythingyouwant ... we're surviving ... hope you are well. I have been cleaning up old FAC archives, and what a trip down memory lane! Good to hear from you ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the too long didn't read point for FAR noms?

Not gonna name the specific one, to avoid all implications of canvassing, but one of my two active ones is one of the longest currently at FAR. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Shiloh/archive1 from May was painfully long. As a point of advice, what's the general limit to people's willingness to read FAR noms in length? I like to be as comprehensive as possible when nominating for FAR, but I don't want to hit the TLDR point. I also tend to edit WP while listening to Turnpike Troubadours, which may contribute to a tendency to ramble. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I try to keep in mind that the main goal of FAR (to me at least) is to entice someone to improve the article. We have to give just enough that there is a record in the event that no one engages and the article is de-featured, but not so much that it feels overwhelming and helpless. No one would hog farm if they thought in advance that the entire cycle was like the few weeks between finishing pigs and bringing in new piglets. List enough to show it is serious and worthy of a FAR, but not so much to make it seem daunting. Generally, after someone engages, they will read every issue, TLDR is not an issue, and they may be resentful if you didn't list enough, so finding the sweet spot is key. And sometimes people come along after an article is defeatured and use the FAR commentary as a starting place to get the article re-featured. But few people understand that if they do engage at FAR, they will be given ample time ... so you can leave the extreme detail (citation consistency, prose nitpicking, etc) until you know if someone will actually engage, and then give some friendly wording like ... "once you've worked through these, I'll explain the MOS and citation work needed". Or, "if someone engages, I will list other technical issues". And, if no one engages, you always have the option to add on a fuller list of issues once the article moves to FARC ... and then you have left a record for future editors. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Example:

Additionally, there a major reference formatting issues. In the version that exists while I'm writing this, references 1, 17, 18, 28, 39, 40, 45, 49, 60, 129, and 130 are just URLS, nothing else. Other bad refs include "waymarkings.com" and "Essential Civil War Curriculum".

Could be ...

There are bare URLs and incomplete citations.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public v Independent schools

In your peer-review of Elisabeth College you wrote

As a US reader whose boys went to a private all-boys school, I am completely confused about why an "independent" school is also referred to as a public school. I guess an independent school in the UK is not private??

In confessing you are half way there. If you look at the Clarendon Commission who investigated financial misconduct you find that there are only 9 true public schools, Public Schools Act 1868 put this into law and two of the schools fought in court not to be included in the new financial restrictions imposed on these 'public schools'- and won the right to remain 'private' schools.

There was a great marketing advantage to calling your self a public school. Public Schools Yearbook was published for the first time in 1889, listing 30 schools, mostly boarding schools, and the term Great Public School seeps in. This I think is where I draw the line, between public and private.

We have a list of 24 public schools on the 1911 postcard.

The Fleming Report has an appendix on naming problem, and comes up with no conclusion. There was a passage from 1581 about educating privately at home, rather than publicly in a school. (early argument against Home Schooling!). Its final recommendation to include all HRA and Direct Grant School is far too wide to be useful.

Our article Public school (United Kingdom) is good but confusing to read and I think would benefit from a few lists that could be taken from the Fleming report.

You and I, could set up an independent school tomorrow but to be a public school you need to have history: at the very least to have been mentioned by Fleming- but more properly to have been included in the 1889 Public Schools Year book. Which is verifiable. ClemRutter (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, you (Sandy) may be taking "public school" in its American meaning, where "public" means the opposite to what it does in other English-speaking countries. In the US, "public school" means "government run"; in the UK, "public school" means "private institution open to anyone who can pay the fee/pass the entrance exam, as opposed to members of a particular group". The BrEng term for what Americans would call "public education" would be "state education". ‑ Iridescent 15:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Iri, that helps. And thanks Clem! Considering my boys went to school in four different countries, including one in Europe, one would think I would be less ignorant than the average bear, but I astound even myself ;) But then I refused an assignment to the UK as I would not quarantine my dogs. So, in the UK, who pays for the special needs child from a poor family and what school do they attend? More importantly, is there any simple way to sort this at the PR in question for the ignorant reader like me? Elizabeth College, Guernsey SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, the special needs child would go to their local state school; in some cases (particularly in big cities) there would be a dedicated state school for that condition. (In a few rare cases, where the local state schools were genuinely unable to cope with the child's condition, the local education authority would either pay for the child to attend an appropriate local private school, or pay for them to board at a suitable boarding school.) In all cases, the local education authority would pay (unless a private school chose to offer the child a scholarship); public/private/independent schools are for those who don't want their children to go through the state system. ‑ Iridescent 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the specific case of Elizabeth College, Guernsey, I'm not sure there's an issue. Although Guernsey isn't in the UK it's very definitely in the British cultural sphere of influence and readers are going to understand the meaning of "public school"; to me, explaining it would be like every article on American football to include a "by 'football', we mean the American sport of that name, not the sport called 'soccer' in North America and 'football' elsewhere" disclaimer. ‑ Iridescent 15:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the key word in distinguishing is state ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although (at least in the UK; I don't know about Guernsey) it's slightly more complicated. State schools are subdivided into different types (comprehensive school, grammar school, secondary modern school, academy)—so for instance "she attended the local comprehensive school" would be understood to mean "she went to a state school that was non-selective in terms of who was accepted and taught pupils of all abilities". The key words in distinguishing are "private/public/independent"; if it isn't one of those three, it will be state-run. (There are a few oddities like public-private partnerships, religious schools, places where a big engineering firm has funded a specialist technical school for local kids to ensure the next generation of their workforce, etc, but in those cases the indicidual articles should explain the special circumstances.) ‑ Iridescent 15:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally membership of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference is essential - it used to be pretty much defining of what was a "public school", but it has been expanded in recent years to 361 I think, which is rather too many. "State school" is unambiguous & normal. Preparatory school (United Kingdom) is another bear-trap for Americans. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, it is still astounding that I didn't know all of this ... but agree with US football analogy from Iri, so no no adjustment needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:WereSpielChequers points out that if WP is believed, there are many "pubic schools" too, often with odd subjects and societies.... Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

In the URFA instructions, you talk about 3 experienced FA reviewers to mark one as okay. Would I qualify as an experienced FA reviewer? I'd say I'm experienced for the GA process (249 GA reviews), but I'm newer to FAC/FAR. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well of COURSE you are ! That's just a weasly way of saying "anyone who knows the standards", to prevent drive-by moves on the page. DrKay might fiddle with the wording, as he sort of refereed that process in the last WP:URFA undertaking, but I wanted to put something in place to get it moving. @FAR coordinators: Basically, if anything gets dicey, we can punt to the FAR Coords. Thanks for all the help you have given; I am overjoyed to see both Peer review and FAR finally re-invigorated, at the same as Ajpolino has gotten our Medical Collaboration of the Month going again ... so life is good! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flashbacks...

And perhaps a bit of PTSD even ... when I saw Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami/archive1 ... all those FACs of Catholic Church ... sorry I've been scarce, friend just lost her battle with breast cancer and I'm going to be reeling from it for a while. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry, Ealdgyth ... treat yourself with kindness ... sorry for the PTSD. Bst,SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penny for your thoughts

A draft nom statement. Am I laying it on too thick? Ajpolino (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like it ... whenever your personality shows, it’s a winner! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it's live! Ajpolino (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your help on helping me improve "Cups (song)"! I really do appreciate your help! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The Ultimate Boss; I hope you will reconsider and keep plugging away at the article. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Example of talk page sprawl

I stumbled upon this when fixing up some old peer reviews: Talk:Anna Hazare. I know talk page sprawl is a passion of yours and thought you might appreciate this :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear me ... ipad typing now, will fix that when on a real computer, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis

Hi, SandyGeorgia. I have a limited opening from now until January 15 in which to make any changes we need to Minneapolis. Several of us have been working on it and a few of the points you raised have already been addressed (cf. Talk:Minneapolis#To_Do_for_FAR and Talk:Minneapolis#Geology). Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're quick! Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given

... is getting so long it's almost painful to look at. The more I'm involved with FAR, the more I see why people complained about the bronze star rapidly losing value. This is gonna take years to resolve, it looks like. Thankfully, [[Wikipedia:There is no deadline|there is no deadline]. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We may need eventually to just redirect the Notices template to URFA, but let’s see how it goes ? Yes, if the pool of FAs is not what they are intended to be, the star is pretty useless. It took us six years to work through the last URFA list, and then we let it go for a full decade, so lots to catch up on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to a point like I have with a decent number of FAs to shepherd (not including the GAs and the other articles)... it really starts eating into your editing time. Just keeping my watchlist cleaned up is taking most of my editing time lately. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that it looks like my GAs and FAs will take little maintenance effort. It's mostly history stuff, so it's not really changing, but a lot of its so obscure that it gets basically no editor attention. Sometimes makes me wonder if all the effort I've put into Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment or Battle of Marais des Cygnes is really particularly productive to the encyclopedia, as probably nobody is ever gonna be reading these things. My most recent page creation, Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment, is somewhere near Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Haleth on the obscurity scale, and will probably never be useful to anybody, I fear. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, it's nice to have high-pageview articles that reach people with medical needs, but you have to keep your focus on what will keep you editing :) There are not enough wild horses in the world to haul most people in to editing articles that don't interest them. To keep this up, you have to recognize that you will edit what you enjoy editing. And ignore the other factors :) Because if you don't, you'll just burn out in the long run. Do not ever apologize for what you do or don't for "the project"; do what you enjoy. Sometimes that alternates ... when the muse is off on vacation, I clean up article histories :) :) For years, I couldn't bear to even look at the medical content I had generated, because that editing area had become no fun. And for those times, being an FA reviewer is good ! (And by the way, had we not lost the leader who kept the entire FA process working together, we would never have fallen so far behind on FA maintenance ... but I digress ... we can catch up, with the help of folks like you!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but it's kinda related to the discussion. Can someone direct me to a link that discusses the use of TMZ as a high quality source? John Frusciante has the most sordid exposé of the artist's divorce that uses TMZ and Alternativenation as sources and my alarms are ringing. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, WP:TMZ. There really is a link for everything. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yep! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RetiredDuke, gone, per WP:BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is your starting point... heh. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And in this case, if it comes back, go to WP:BLPN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. It all seemed very intrusive when I read it, wasn't sure about it though. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom...

When I was working up my guide today, it struck me that Arbcom is really really lacking in female viewpoints. Not a single candidate this year is female and it shows. And most of the guide writers are male and THAT shows. I'm not usually one to cry about bias on Wikipedia but while the main editor base is actually getting more female (at least from my point of view) ... the upper reaches seem to be getting more male. I think we need to start working to get some of the female editors to step up and start taking on more leadership .. any talk page stalkers have suggestions? -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haul Risker back in? Get WhatamIdoing to submit to RFA. Get SLP1 reinvolved? Have you run for Arbcom next year (NOT-- we need you at FAC!!!!) Work on Nikkimaria-- there is some real untapped experienced seniority there ... Ask for write-ins so we can run Bishzilla! Drag Moni3 back to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a chance in hell. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then we are all going to have to lean on SarahSV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would NOT be good on ArbCom. And less so now than in the past... I'm getting to the old-lady years and I was raised Southern. You know what THAT means... (And not "plantation Southern" but "hardscrabble-back-woods-Southern"... heh) -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sure do :) That's probably what makes you so awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Ealdgyth's initial question ... maybe we should explore the reasons for lack of desire to be an arb. (For me, they are a subset of the broader "lack of desire to be an admin".) Or better ... what makes Risker different that she wanted to be an arb (and was a good one)? And how do we find another Risker? Because ... I've seen quite a number of female admins I would seriously oppose at ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Great minds! Thx for wikilinking to this discussion, SandyG. From my perspective, Risker was an outstanding arb and is an outstanding admin because she drinks from the fountain of knowledge, understanding and good old common sense!! Without peeling the onion, we can see right away that she has a clue, critical thinking skills, and a NPOV wrapped around multiple layers of mature human experiences. To my knowledge, her contributions to WP were never to RGW or push a particular POV. I can also relate closely to Ealdgyth's self-description, as I too have lived my most formidable years as a hardscrabble Southerner but in the suburbs with weekends in the Texas piney woods. As to why more women don't run for ArbCom...perhaps it is somehow related to learned societal behaviors after centuries of women being portrayed as peaceful gatherers, nurturers, homemakers, etc.; quite an (r)evolutionary characterization when compared to the more primitive roles in female depictions...before brushes and make-up were invented. I can only imagine what women had to do during women's suffrage. Moving forward into the 20th Century, I probably would have been an on campus bra-burner, but my endowment wasn't a grant for tuition. Besides, I needed the stability so I could march in protest. Sooo...how do we convince some of WP's outstanding women to jump into the raging rapids without a life jacket? Shall we create a list? Atsme 💬 📧 15:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My list is above ... I could have forgotten some ... but I have carefully avoided listing those editors who identify as female but would be unsuitable as admins or arbs ... particularly the current female-identifying POV-pushing admins who regularly grace my watchlist, and editors making ample use of rollback outside of boundaries and have those behaviors supported by admins.

On the "related to ... centuries of ... ", I already raised my scrapping two-year-olds, had to deal with infantile behaviors, and am ever-so-happy to let others deal with behaviors on Wikipedia I would not tolerate at home or in real life :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot one ... should we lean on Diannaa before WMF gets her? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we can't have an admin discussion without inviting Barkeep49, who can be trusted not to intervene too much where the women are discussing women :) Or, as my husband is fond of saying, "Watch out, they're all sisters in the end." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation Sandy and I hope I don't overstep here with my comment to follow. I'll say that I've made a couple comments privately that were quite similar to Ealdgyth's original comment Not a single candidate this year is female and it shows. I hadn't thought too much about the guides being predominantly written by males also but I am also extremely skeptical that the guides substantially influence (or even predict outside consensus candidates) the election. My one thought about how to address this imbalance is to view it as a multi-year project. It took several years of many editors bugging both Primefac and TonyBallioni before they decided to run, to name two candidates from this year who had been perennially mentioned. It might be worth having conversations with more of the female arbs to see what motivated/pushed them to run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I've bugged one of the best to this discussion (Risker). Barkeep, you're missing an important function of the guides that you may not be aware of ... that is, those who are perennially pestered (whether publicly or privately) for their opinions and votes find it much easier to put it in one place. And they do affect outcomes. That is not observable via pageviews; it's observable via the people who read about those comments on non-Wikipedia sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you so much for your high praise; it means a lot to me. I think there are a lot of factors that play into where women editors and admins decide to spend their time. Something to keep in mind is that 11 years ago, when I first ran for Arbcom, there really weren't a lot of "leadership" roles within the project that were easily accessible, let alone the movement as a whole. Today, there are so many roles that didn't exist, or have become much more attainable, that a comparatively boring one like Arbcom isn't as interesting or motivating as it once was. And with so few identifiable, experienced women, they are invited to take on these roles disproportionately to male editors. In other words, Arbcom is only one of many paths to a leadership role within some aspect of the community (global, geographically local or national, project, etc.) The WMF has also hired away many of our women - WMF staff can't be on Arbcom. All of these things are *good* things in the big picture. On the other hand, a big part of our issue is our continued reticence in handing out admin tools; as difficult as it is to understand the true role of Arbcom for admins, non-admins really tend to get it wrong. We've yet to have a non-admin arbitrator, even though there have been some good candidates over the years. In summary: women editors are pretty likely to find better and more personally interesting things to do than dispute resolution, and the universal prerequisite for getting elected (adminship) is pretty hard to get. And people like me, who have been there and done that and have an entire drawerful of t-shirts (I really do!) are often tired of having to go through elections and the snarkiness to have the honour (?) of saying, to quote a former arb, "you are all idiots". :-) Risker (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spewed my drink when I read that last line. 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 22:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Risker was one of the best arbs we've ever had, and is currently one of the best functionaries. More like her would be good. Paul August ☎ 22:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while we're on the subject and what it's like to be a woman on Wikipedia, how's that? Oh, Ealdgyth, dear ... add that ta yer diffs! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for pity's sake. Commented there. The guy had already been OS-blocked TWICE for similar behaviour... Risker (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That whole talk page is ... annoying ... because of the whole deification taking place there. And yet ... BHG was desysoped for being abrasive. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cringe at the thought. I was doxxed to the point that my businesses and personal domains were heavily investigated, and it was all over a couple of primitive fish articles that I had already disclosed (and had forgotten about it). And when that didn't work to get me site banned, I was railroaded into a block, all based on his misinformation and incitement of others that I was (1) an alt-med supporter and (2) had an undisclosed COI. smh! Bygones need to remain bygones. Atsme 💬 📧 21:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erin O'Toole, the broadness criterion, and layout issues

I'm currently working on the Erin O'Toole article and am unsure about how I should approach adding material to the article. The article is not too long so size constraints should not be an issue (not now, anyway). I recently found some international coverage of O'Toole's approach to the working-class. Most of the material was already in the article, though I am not sure whether to include more. I think the change in stance from 2013-2015 to now is important (I have not added it yet because I am unsure about how to format it) but am not sure about whether the gambling that this shift...will revive the party's electoral fortunes should be in the article. As well, I am unsure of where to place things in the article. For example, I put his "anti-coruption committee" proposals within his political positions, though it may be better put within the other sections of his biography given that was his reaction to the WE Charity scandal. Thanks, Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review) (I'm trying to engage with FA regulars early, though the PR is a pre-GA one)} 01:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Username6892 Sorry to not get back to you ... I just spent a crazy amount of time trying to disentangle a mess in FAC archives, and now I have two to three days of long trips for medical app'ts. Wehwalt might be able to advise you as he is versed in how to organize bios about politicians, and another who might help is Wasted Time R I will try to have a look once things settle down for me ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about timing! There's still a decent amount of time until it gets copyedited and it'll likely be very different by the time it reaches FAC (I plan on holding off on FAC until an election happens, I think it'll happen sometime in 2021). Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 01:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: I haven't been able to get to this yet; might you be interested in helping out? @Wasted Time R: any interest? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Username6892: Looking at the Erin O'Toole article right now, it's 3,300 words of which 1,600 words (about half) is taken up by the "Political positions" section. To me, that's too much for a biography article. Material isolated in that section tends to lose biographical context, such as what political or personal forces led the subject to take a particular position, and tends to age badly, as the years go on and those particular positions are no longer in the news. So I would either rework/merge the material into the biographical sections or to split it out to a Political positions of Erin O'Toole subarticle like many US politicians have. But that's just my view. Many readers come to WP articles for policy stances and may like it presented the way you have it. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever his political positions ultimately reside, it would probably be worthwhile to add a subsection describing how they have changed over time. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is much to happen before I can get the article to FA, but I do think that his arguments (mentioned in most areas when referring to current positions) can somewhat account for giving context to his positions, though I think that it doesn't provide enough based on the first comment. I could likely find some good context for some policies in RS (such as Defunding the CBC and his positions on Unions). For the idea of a "Political Positions" article, I'm reluctant given the length of the article. In the US-related articles I've looked at, the ones with "Political Positions of" articles are the ones with articles that would be well within article size splitting guidelines, with Nancy Pelosi not having one (also in "Probably should be split", but not as much as the other 4 I looked at). For the idea of reworking it into bio sections, I suspect that may lead to many policies being crammed into the 2 sections of his Conservative leadership campaigns, especially the one this year given that most of his policies came out during or shortly after the leadership election. As for the idea of a subsection describing policy evolutions, I think it would be better to explain them as I explain each position (Doing that would isolate former policies and how his policies evolved to form his current positions). At this point, the best thing to do will probably be to look through RS to find further context for policy positions and add as appropriate before nominating for GA. If O'Toole becomes Prime Minister, I'll probably rework former policy positions into bio sections so the Political Positions can be more focused on Policies as PM. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 02:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasted Time R: Would the current format of his policy on the CBC be good in terms of context? Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 01:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Username6892: Well, my own personal view is that this misses the mark. Opposing funding for public broadcasting is usually a cultural or philosophical issue more than a budgetary one, since such funding is typically a very small percentage of overall expenditures. So why is it in this section? And you say that O'Toole was previously not in favor of eliminating the CBC budget, but you do not give a reason for the change. It sounds to me like he switched positions as part of his "true blue" push to win the Conservative leadership campaign. Now imagine the Conservatives win and he becomes PM, and your hypothetical "with the goal of privatizing it by the end of his term" becomes an actual possibility. But suppose he actually never cared that much about the CBC, and gives defunding it a low priority, preferring to fight other battles. What happens to your present-tense treatment then? Now imagine it is 15 years from now, he's out of office, what do all your present tenses look like then? This is why I prefer putting as much as possible into biographical sections and rendering it in the past tense. But again, that's just me, others will approach it differently. (Also, as an aside, there are some MoS issues in the couple of sections I looked it – see MOS:CONTRACTION and MOS:NUMERAL – that all editors would agree need to be fixed.) Wasted Time R (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Username6892 do you feel like you have been given enough to work on for now? Knowing you are in competent hands with Wasted Time R and Anythingyouwant, I have failed to get back to you, as I've been so busy so many places. If you've got enough to go on, I will archive this section and wait to hear back from you if you want a fresh look. Please let me know, best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: It'll likely be a long way before the article reaches FAC (I am still deferring it until after an election so I won't have to worry about whether or not he'll be Prime Minister) so you can feel free to archive it. Username 6892 18:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

Le Panini has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! Le Panini ^Talk 16:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Thanksgiving! Stay safe and well! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Le Panini and Ssilvers. I hope you are both enjoying your day, and staying well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Youngstrom has given you a *second* Turkey! Why? Well... Just read that Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day yet another notch better -- a second turkey makes sure you have leftovers to extend the holiday and share with friends!

As a digestif, [here] are some slides that I will post on the Wikimedia Usergroup tomorrow (it's late here, and I am full of turkey!). Please also check your email for some things that I am still in negotiations to be able to upload to Commons (or I will just make a new recording -- the slides are already CC BY 4.0). Happy Thanksgiving! Eyoungstrom

Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Eyoungstrom some considerable amount of work in there ... how long is that talk? I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. I promise to go catch up on my e-mail today (or tomorrow), but I am so behind there that the pile is daunting! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]