Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-29/News and notes

Discuss this story

Thanks for that graph - very helpful, and what an awesome third place for the Netherlands! This is great PR for both projects mentioned in their proposal; WLM and Teylers. The sitting WMNL board can be proud of their work, and Sandra Rientjes' well-articulated and timely answers must have helped in the overall assessment. Putting together a year plan is a bit like herding cats, and then getting the funding to execute is a whole other journey. So kudo's to all involved, and thanks again for a great article that sums up the FDC process results. Jane (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong here: Germany and the WMF itself gained the highest scores in the impact criteria, both 5, 5, and 4. Not enough chapters or too much scores? The Banner _talk 10:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the problem. No other 5s were awarded. Tony (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think confusion is from there being three scores and two groups. I got tripped up too before realizing that it meant that WMDE and WMF both got scores of 5, 5, 4 for the three impact criteria.--ragesoss (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the sentence to (I think) be clearer. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, thanks for the summary/graph. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree with everyone here who's thanking Tony and Jan. The Signpost's coverage of the FDC has been very good. Sue Gardner (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Byline[edit]

Is the byline correct for Tony1 and Jan? I just The ed17 in the page history.--ragesoss (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis correct; Ed, as editor in chief, advises us and discusses the text with us, as necessary, and does the final run-through after pasting it in from elsewhere. Tony (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is it me being tired or is there no link to the source data for "FDC staff publish initial judgements on applications." If that's missing indeed, can it please be added? Someone please pat me on the head if a looked over it... --Siebrand (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How odd! I have no idea how I found them - you're right and there's no link in the article. Siebrand, here is the link: meta:FDC portal/2012 - 2013 Round 1 Links/Staff assessment pages I guess we are just in Round one, so how many rounds are there? Jane (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt[edit]

Big thanks are due to Matt Halprin; he helped the Board in many quiet ways, and brought a great deal of experience and perspective to the Board's work. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Figure 3 mistake[edit]

In figure 3 the UK has 47 per the axis, but ?43 on the graph. Johnbod (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, that was my goof. Well spotted, Johnbod. Fixed now. BTW, if anyone wants to see the original Excel file I prepared, let me know (I guess I'll need your email to be able to attach it). Tony (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]