User talk:Marskell/Archive 26

barnstar
Thanks, Tim. But let me acknowledge how important your work has been in an essential and probably under-rated part of the featured-content process. I'm sorry not to be there all the time, but it's just not possible. Maybe we need a Signpost Dispatch on FAR to raise its profile and attract more reviewers. TONY  (talk)  01:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Marskell, yeah and per Tony...  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit?
Hi Marskell,

I saw your name on PRV and am wondering if you would be willing to do some copyediting on Spinosaurus. Your entry under Natural Sciences indicates that you've worked on animal articles, and although Spinosaurus isn't a mammal, I am looking for someone generally unfamiliar with the subject to look the article over. If you don't have time, it's not a problem, but the article was sent to the League of Copyeditors some time ago, before that project shut down, and nothing was done with the article. I would like to see a full copy-edit by someone new before it is sent to FAC, and I hoped you'd be willing to help out or offer suggestions for improvement. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Proposals
Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the biology section at WP:FA
I keep waiting for Yomangani to come back, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen, and bio just keeps growing. Raul weighed in, so let's pow-wow with Casliber and Tim Vickers here and get on with it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team successes!
Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you copyedit Mangalore?
Hi there, I saw you listed at PRV as a copyeditor. I was wondering if you would copyedit Mangalore which is a city article. The article is already a GA and it uses UK English. Hope that's not a problem. Language is very simple and the prose is quite precise. Copyediting won't take much of your time. Thanks!. Kensplanet (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi Marksell,

I am asking for a big favours of yours. I nominated the article Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) for featured list, but there were too many small grammar problems, so we decided to withdraw it, and do a peer review first. The list is complete and very well sourced. It also followed all he suggestions given in Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) (recently promoted to featured list), so in general is in a very good shape. Only the description fields for the coins are in a need of a good copy/edit. Can you please help us to get this list promoted?

Many thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

date autoformatting
Tim—I don't know whether you're aware that the campaign to persuade WPians not to use it is alive and kicking, especially at FAC; there, the removal of autoformatting from nominated articles has been, with one exception, met with either a positive reaction or passed over without noticing it. I hope you don't mind my going through the FAR/C in the same way. TONY  (talk)  12:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC) PS Essential information: it's no longer encouraged by MOSNUM. TONY  (talk)  12:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Marskell! My time allowing, I'll try to do my best in FAR.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Supremes
Marskell, I prefer for this to be held for a little while longer, if thats ok. Did you see there was another Filiocht article FAR'd today; The Cantos no less. Drat. (  Ceoil  sláinte 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ceoil is getting stretched thin at FAR. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, given Marskells patience! Here is me admitting that butter is still on the long finger, but worth keeping open. But if only Outriggr was still around to help with the Cantos. Oh well. (   Ceoil  sláinte 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for massive favour on India House, a current FAC
Hello Marskell, I was wondering if I could ask you for a massIve favour and help copyedit India House. This artilce is currently listed for FAC. A reviewer in the FAC mentioned quite strongly that the text is not upto the mark. I thought it would help a lot if somebody had a look and suggested any improvement, since it has already been copyedited once by another editor and once byself. Please understand that I am neither looking for your support in the FAC, nor am I asking you to comment on wether it deserves or not to be FA, since I realise this would be canvassing. Nontheless, any comments on improving the article would be extremely welcome. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Help
I have an FA candidate (Puerto Rican Amazon) that requires some copyediting. Can you help? Joelito (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you recommend someone instead? Joelito (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch
Marskell, at FCDW/July 21, 2008, I said you proposed the new system; I realize I don't have evidence of that, and I wasn't around then, so I could be wrong. Can you check the wording? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shrine of Remembrance
Hi there Marskell, the nominator has said that he's happy to end the review with a keep. Thanks,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I cleaned it up after it closed: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Shrine of Remembrance/archive1; it was well above others that hadn't moved yet, so I hadn't yet gotten around to it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's That Man Again...
I think Bsharvy is back in town. Watch this space: Anti-Americanism. Colin4C (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

dark ages
see comments below. Your discusiion was sensible and I wonder if you'd be willing to weigh in now and try to improve the situation at Dark Ages.

I have just read through 50 pages of Talk on Dark Ages, and it reveals a Wiki article that is in deep trouble. 29 people contributed comments complaining about the one-sided polemics against the term "Dark Ages." 7 people argued that to talk of the Dark Ages is invalid and that the article need only represent this one point of view -- but mostly the rejecttion of diverse views is the work of two people, stbalbach and Doric Loon. Loon compliments stbalbach for "assiduously maintainging and defending this article over the years," meaning, beating back all other contributors and defending their personal POV. They don't seem to be ashamed that during this time the artcle lost its status as a Good Article, way back in Mary 2006. Some defense! In the talk pages, stbalbach and Loon state openly that they consider the Dark Ages not dark, and that their opinion is the only valid one, and the only one that may be included. For ex, stbalbach: "Its impossible to defend the use of the term (Dark Ages) with what we now know." Any alternate, referenced quotes or information are undone and dismissed as not good references. This is Orwell's 1984 - some pigs are more equal than others. Marskell said it very well back in 2005, and its still true now in 2008: "It's disappointing to see revisionism has won out. 'the middle ages were not dark, therefore there can be no causes of darkness...you see stbalback beecoming a crusader...it is still possible to walk into a respectable university and hear the Dark Ages discussed...unfortunately readers of wikipedia won't be able to find out...." One poor user of Wiki wrote his frustration on teh talk page, that none of the information he was hoping for on The Dark AGes was here, just polemics. His complaint was trashed. This page is crying out for arbitration, to stop a small number of people from domineering and preventing balanced POV. It's time to rebel against the dictatorial rule of stbalbach and his henchwomen. I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Judging from stbalbach's page, he is very active - does that make him impregnable or is there something that can be done? There is really no point in trying as individuals to improve the article while he is in place as the self-appointed Dictator of Truth. Now is the time for concerned people to speak up. If you agree that stbalbach's reign of power should end, and the article should include references that support the term Dark Ages, and explain why, so as to have a balanced POV, please speak up now. More experienced Wikipedians - what can be done?--Cimicifugia (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia

Planets beyond Neptune
Tim, I've run afoul of Tony1 yet again in the FAC process. For some reason I have never managed to best his verbal challenge. I suppose my master's degree in English literature was a fluke. Still, he seems to like what you do, so if you could give that article a once-over, I'd appreciate it.  Serendi pod ous  13:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FAR
There are two FARs requiring attention: Featured article review/Ronald Reagan and Featured article review/Roman–Persian Wars. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Make that three: Featured article review/William III of England is back, closed only a few months ago.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get a look tonight. I have been without internet access for more than a week. Hopefully it gets restored today. Joelito (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reagan was relisted at FAR hours after you closed it; I left a note for Raul. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just Curious
... about the Ronald Reagan FAR that you very quickly closed. I just wondered why, since the only reason given (by someone else) was that FARs shouldn't be used for questions about whether an article is neutral, which I didn't understand. Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New FA-Team mission needs your help!
Félix Houphouët-Boigny needs to be copyedited and peer reviewed. We would appreciate any and all help from the crack members of the FA-Team! Sign up here. Merci! Awadewit (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

FA to portal
A proposal at Village pump %28proposals%29 to move some pages (unsure which) of the featured processes to portal pages. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After this and several similar issues, Gimmetrow has decided to throw in the towel. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen no indication from Gimme that this proposal has anything to do with his decision. —David Levy 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Marskell: Please give the discussion a second look. I believe that you've been misled regarding the proposal's implications (and SandyGeorgia just acknowledged that the proposal's outcome has no bearing on the bot situation).  Thanks!  —David Levy 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be illogical to separate WP:FA from WP:FAC, WP:FARC etc. They are part of organic parts of one project. I am writing here since the discussion on Village pump (proposals) became to long to follow. If people want P:FA they can start it and it can coexist with WP:FA. Ruslik (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:FA, in its current form, functions as a portal. Why not move it to the portal namespace and replace it with a page geared toward editors (which is what the Wikipedia namespace is for)?  —David Levy 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "a page geared toward editors"&mdash;I have always thought that the current WP:FA is "geared toward editors"!? If it is recreated after the move as you suggest, I am not sure that it will be much different from the current WP:FA, which is a product of consensus among editors in the first place. I am also not sure that editors will bother updating P:FA. Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just spent almost an hour drafting a response on the village pump thread, so you can go over and read that. Obviously, I agree with Ruslik in this thread (and thanks for watching my talk and jumping in Ruslik!). At the same time, I think David is arguing in good faith and I have tried to respond. I would like to keep it to one thread, and my talk probably isn't the place to do it. Marskell (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Helium FARC
G'day, sir! It appears we are done over at Helium's FARC. I don't mean to keep pestering people about it, but it's a monkey that we'd all like off of our backs. If you think it's ready, huzzah! If not, we'll figure it out. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Old FAs without review
Marskell, when I get around to it, I'll probably cross-compare User talk:Dr_pda to the citations list, eliminate duplicates, and post any newly identified articles in a new list at the bottom of the citations list. Does that work for you? I noticed the need to do this by reviewing the older medical FAs; there are several on that list that are in real trouble, even though they don't show up on the citations list. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Before doing anything else, I want to cross-reference the new list with the old list ... Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, lost track of that. A wikifriend passed away and I lost my train of thought on that. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds August newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 01:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review/Anna Politkovskaya/archive1
...know anyone interested in recent human rights issues? Peer review/Anna Politkovskaya/archive1 tks Solenodon (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism
Here we go again...I have tried to nip things in the bud, but if the admins want the whole operatic performance of long-standing editors being harrassed and intimidated and the article the subject of another sustained attempt to destroy it, by Bsharvy and his acolytes, and the rest of the whole time-wasting faraggo, so be it. Colin4C (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for red pen assistance
Hello, your name is listed at WP:PCR and I was wondering if you would be able to help me copyedit Bone Wars, as I'm getting nowhere looking over my own prose. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAWCP in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles with citation problems
I mentioned you in discussion, at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles_with_citation_problems. Though you should know. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:FAWCP
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

John Millington Synge
cited it, and I did some MoS tweaks. See Citations query. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heads up:  just got back-to-back FARs.   I notified the talk page of Coconut crab days ago, and then put it up, and he got a second one a day later from Cirt. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry
I apologize about the whole WP:FAWCP thing. I let a discussion get carried away and out of hand as opposed to just ending it and letting it go. Sorry to have wasted your time and I hope we can put this behind us. Yours, Cirt (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for replying, I appreciate it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lincolnshire, Illinois Copyedit
Hi Marskell...I was wondering if you could take a look at the Lincolnshire, Illinois article. I've been putting some hours in, and a senior administrator suggested I sniff around for some people to help me in the copyediting sector. I would really appreciate it if you took a look at it.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 04:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

FAs with citation problems
I'm allowed to add stuff to that aren't I? In any case I've been trying to ref some of the older ones anyway, eg History of the ACT, Canberra, Flag of Australia, Tom Playford etc without waiting for FAR to toll.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * B1nguyen, that list only reflects articles that were lacking citations at the time the citation requirments changed and the list was generated (back in 2006). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I see.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to discuss what to do with that page now that it's shrunk so much. Blnguyen, I'd like to avoid individuals adding things as it would turn the list into something it was not meant to be.
 * Sandy, maybe we should rename it Unreviewed Featured Articles. I notice you've already hidden everything from '05 and previous. I'd like to bump this up to end-June '06 (if Drpda doesn't mind) because FAR and FARC were merged that month. Then we'd keep the no citations/few citations sections and add an "other unreviewed" section. The only question is your notifications. I don't want to recreate a monster. Alternatively, we could create an Unreviewed Featured Articles page independently of the FAWCP. Marskell (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on the citations page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added thru Jun 2006 and added a blurb at the top, that needs your review. You'll have to view it in edit mode, or see this diff. If you agree, I'll 1) rename the page, 2) remove the by Project sections, and 3) unveil the hidden tables.  Then, as these articles come to FAR, I would maintain a separate set of stats below the by-year listings; that is, the previous list and the new list would be kept entirely separate for stats purposes, but on the same page so I can update in one place.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can easily make those structural changes once we unveil it; working in a hidden HTML comment mode is hard :-) The info is all there; it's just a matter of whether you want to unveil it and rename the page.  I can address the structure any time.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, I eventually want to do a Dispatch on you and FAR (see Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop). If we're going to unveil this next phase, please weigh in on the Dispatch page with your thoughts re the timing on a Dispatch (or just let me know your thoughts). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty, pretty please with sucrose syrup on top!
You ask for politeness and concentration on your peer review volunteer section, so I thought sucrose syrup'd be more concentrated than sugar on top. I'd like you to review Peer_review/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories/archive1 please. Thank you ever so much for reading. :)--Thecurran (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Red Cliffs
What would you like to do with Featured article review/Battle of Red Cliffs? Normally, in a situation like this, I'd bypass botification and manually move it to archive1 with a "Previous FAR withdrawn" on the cleared redirect, without adding it to articlehistory or the keep archive. Mattisse hasn't answered, and she seems to take issue with me often, so I don't want to archive this without checking with you. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No answer still, so unless you disagree, I'll go ahead and move it to archive1 and clear the redirect, but it doesn't need to be entered in articlehistory. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback
I trust your judgment and unbiased opinion so as to ask you to give me some feedback at User_talk:Jossi/What_shoud_I_do ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Premature FARs
Marskell, I used to always remove these for you/FAR, but now we're in a different spot. Since I promoted it, I don't think I can remove it, even though it doesn't conform with FAR instructions. Featured article review/Planets beyond Neptune How shall we handle these in the future? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, Serendipodous withdrew it, but the issue remains (that I'm not comfortable doing that background work at FAR on articles I promoted at FAC). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hydrocloric acid is good enough now; MoS seems fine and it's cited. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

New Review
Calgary Flames has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is a shame that an article that so badly fails the FAC should be listed as featured standard. In blocking reviews of failing articles it undermines WP, by giving editors such a low standard to aim for. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
? Could be a can of worms, but I wouldn't object. DrKiernan (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, it would merge FARC and FAR and shorten the overall period. (If there are any other substantial proposed changes, I missed them.) If FARC and FAR are merged, do you think we'll have a problem with a lot of editors instantly declaring Remove or Keep, before work has progressed (where they used to have to wait for a move to FARC), making it harder for you to sort what has been addressed and what declarations are relevant? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could the instructions be changed to suggest that editors not post Keep or Remove until someone has performed a detailed evaluation of the article, and local editors have had time to respond? That way, FARC and FAR could be combined into a less formal three-step process — first someone takes a close look at the article and reports to the FAR page, then local editors are given a chance to respond, then the community decides whether the response is adequate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we have to enforce "no declartions during FAR" even with the current divided system, I'm not sure that would be heeded. I'm concerned that unless we clearly keep two phases, we'll just get a lot of pile-on declarations early on.  I suspect Marskell is prepared to deal with that, but I'm wondering if it will make pages hard to sort.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa. I didn't know people watched my sandbox :). I was sort of hoping to keep this secret while thinking it through some more.
 * The issue of pile-on removes is the most serious one and part of the reason we have a two step process now. However, I am perfectly willing to ignore removes once work commences (as is Joel) and I think all the FAR regulars know that. Give me a few days to write up a rationale. Marskell (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Inactivity
Just so you know, I have been and will continue logging esporadically for the next two weeks until my new laptop arrives. Joelito (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gulftodaylogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gulftodaylogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Chagas disease
The Med Project has been at work; can we move it off the citations list? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson
Marskell, I left a response at Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson. The concern about decoupling Boswell and TS is that it is precisely the strength of the evidence in several bios and writings that informed the TS diagnosis. Without those writings, it would be just another speculative diagnosis rather than a strongly informed posthumous diagnosis that enjoys widespread (unanimous as far as I know) medical consensus:


 * He is also the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English, James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. Boswell's Life, along with other biographies, documented Johnson's behaviour and mannerisms in such detail that they have informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS), a condition unknown to 18th-century physicians.

I may not be following your line of reasoning, so need more feedback on how to fix it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He's ready for a new look; hope I didn't botch it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama back at FAR

 * Featured article review/Barack Obama, I left a note for Raul as well. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for Barack Obama
WorkerBee74 has already offered mediation. It was refused by the pro-Obama partisans who are homesteading on the article. I choose that word because they are living there and seek to WP:OWN it. Read Noroton's comments at the FAR carefully. There is no way to dismiss him as an edit warrior or SPA. Curious bystander (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Eckhart
Hey Marskell, listen, do you have time to look over Aaron Eckhart's article and give some feedback? I'm trying to maybe aim to FA status and want to know what needs to be done first. That's if you have time, of course. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Superpredator
I now suggest that the article Superpredator be redirected to Predation, which now includes even more material about superpredators. References can be moved as appropriate. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology) FAR improper closure
I'm sorry but you closed it on simply incorrect grounds, and very much too early. The people involved were all involved in the discussion elsewhere that lead to the FAR review, and were in no way unbiased. This simply wasn't a snowball. Reviews are supposed to be held for 2-3 weeks and you closed it in a few hours.

As Taemyr states:

'''I would disagree with Marskell's statement that the nom does not directly adress WP:WIAFA, WP:WIAFA begins with the requirement that the pages in question meets our policies. Taemyr (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)'''

"A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes."

the requirements are the List of policies. It fails on WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article was extensively debated at FAC with wide participation over a long period of time; FAR does not second guess FAC and FAR is not dispute resolution. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, which rule is that? I was completely unable to find it. Where's that written? If that's a rule, why isn't it on the FAR page?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll just have to AFD it then. I was trying to avoid it, but I guess when an FAR is improperly closed on spurious grounds I'm left with no choice.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * FAR is not designed to handle policy disputes, which is basically what you wanted to initiate. The idea that the article fails NOTDICT is strange, to say the least. Marskell (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a rule either. That's not a rule you can give to not to review the article. You do not get to invent the rules as you go along.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't meet WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm not challenging that policy in any way shape or form. I'm challenging the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea that administrators get to decide policy- where's that written? Nowhere, because they don't. By doing this you are abusing your powers, and I'm raising this on the administrators noticeboard. You're totally out of order here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing Davenport, Iowa
Hi! I was wondering if you could copy edit Davenport, Iowa? I am working on getting it to a Featured Article, and one of the suggestions on the peer review was to have a "fresh pair of eyes" copy edit the page, which is a good idea anyway. I will be asking a few people at the PR volunteer's page, to get the widest copyedit perspective I can get. If you can help me, let me know on my talk page or just go ahead and edit the article! If you can't, thanks anyway, a note on my talk would be helpful, but not a big deal if you don't. Thanks again!  C T J F 8 3 Talk 00:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to help me with this?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Note
See Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Followup:   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just another day at the office: not one, but three AN/I FAR threads.  Macedonia,  Law, and Sorkin.  Have I had a nice day?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya
Regarding "excellent" articles, I'll reply here since people are already a bit fatigued at WT:FAC. If the goal is to find and help and co-opt as many editors as possible who are involved in other review processes but not yet at FAC, then I think the most effective marketing would be to pick a name for the goal that sounds as easy as possible (DYK) rather than one that sounds hard. I've also tried myself, and seen other people try (as you have), to get people interested in new forms of ego-boo and new awards, with absolutely zero success. If people are motivated by awards at all, they seem to want the existing awards. (Feel free to respond here or over at my place, or not.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations list
I moved the Citations list to Unreviewed featured articles and added the unreviewed articles through June 30, 2006; the top needs a rewrite now, best left to you. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless Tony/Dan want it for the monthly updates, WP:FCDW/October 13, 2008 is open for the next Dispatch (they usually publish about a week late, so it's not really the 13th). Please let me know if we should aim for that date, otherwise I'll plan something else.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will WP:FCDW/October 20, 2008 (which would realistically be around the 25th) work? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. Don't worry, the next 316 aren't as hard as the first 523 :-) And I hope FAC is making your end of the line easier:  of the almost 600 FAs promoted in the last year, only five have been FAR'd, all speedily kept or withdrawn. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Takur Ghar
Marskell, a while back the two of us decided we would work together on the Battle of Takur Ghar's article just as soon as my life settled down some. Unfortunately, my life did not calm down as expected, and looking at things I know are coming, it will be many years before I really have the time and resources to put serious work into Wikipedia articles, especially because I won't have access to most of my reference sources for a while. So I apologize for not being able to help as I originally thought I could.--LWF (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds October newsletter
The October 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR
Tim, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Pilot (House)
Marskell, pls see my note at Featured article candidates/Pilot (House); I'm not wanting to see a revolving door and paper shuffling between FAC and FAR when issues can be addressed within a few weeks. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody wanted to work on it at FAR. Maybe someone wanted another star at WBFAN. Gimmetrow 22:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, AGFing, but it's not a trend we want to see take hold, and it provides a good argument to back Marskell's rationale for allowing all the time needed at FAR. If the trend is taken to an extreme, we could see a revolving door between FAR and FAC.  I'd certainly not want to alter FAC instructions to preclude an immediate re-nom of a defeatured article, as that wouldn't be in the best interest of articles, but I don't know what else we might do to prevent this trend.  This is why I'm constantly harping that we need to recognize and reward those hard-working editors who save stars at FAR.  We need a dispatch on Ceoil and DrKiernan.  And Wesley Dodds, Ww2censor, Dr pda and Yomangani.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pages like Featured articles promoted in 2007 seem to recognize more than one editor for some articles. Can FAR savers be added to that? Gimmetrow 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, since Rick Block has many times encouraged editors to update that page as needed, so we could certainly do that. But then, that just brings us back to Yomangani's love of WBFAN: people could nom FARs just so they could get added to WBFAN when they fix the FAR. Rather than just fixing the article without a FAR.  Leading to more paperwork shuffling.  Arrrrgh!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We already had our dispatch! And the reward is Unreviewed featured articles. And more importantly the universal respect the FAR team seems to hold in the eyes of all the community. Ha Ha. Ceoil  sláinte 02:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is a serious talk page; keep your jokes to yerself :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but Unreviewed featured page is quite enough, is my point. Although I do pay regard to WBFAN, I think it has gotten a bit ridicelos at this stage, and that the culture at FAR is not so compeditive is appealing. Ceoil  sláinte 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to move FAC more in the direction of Marskell's open style of management of FAR. Not sure how successful that's been :/  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed, but it will be a slow process. The fact that you are approcahable and sympathetic is a big plus, but some things can't be managed. My main issue with FAC is why spend 20 minutes listing 20 problems when you could fix them in 10. FAR doen't have that as much, people dig in.  Ceoil  sláinte 02:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. I miss the fun of just digging in at FAR.  Well, I miss doing that at FAC, too :-))  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sincearly, the roll-up-you-seleves and jump in habit ia I something I picked up from you, as did many others, but you cant do everything (although it seems you try!), and your current role in building a strong tema of reviewers is more important. Ceoil  sláinte
 * (posting after ec) I also dont think a further reqard system will bring new people into the process, from what I've seen people seem to stick with FAR after they have worked on saving an paticular article close to them, and are impressed by the culture of the place, ie when work is actually happening there can be a huge amount of encouragement and help from the other regulars. Thats certainly my experience, and I would say with Wesely and Ww2censor. A few nasty reviews tend to taint what is often a very constructive room. Ceoil  sláinte 02:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean you want me to hold my tongue the next time someone noms a perfectly fine article and then tells me he's too busy to do the notifications and then removes talk page correspondence and then begins to systematically introduce errors into the article that weren't there before? Ok, I'll behave :-) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. We dont reward bad behaviour. There will be a few bad 'un's. Hey Marskell, by the way. Ceoil  sláinte 02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'm sorry I didn't leave out biscuits and milk.

I can feel the FAR love... Why does it more or less work? Because it's intimate. Everybody knows everybody and the people who make saves do indeed dig in. And it's the antithesis of competitive: nobody gets a star and a large majority of pages have already been TFA. So, the people who have become regulars are truly the types who log-in for the sake of improving content and nothing more. I hand out barnstars a lot, but I often think the FAR people don't really care about them. Last time I gave one to DrK he archived it immediately :). I don't think that it's possible to create this atmosphere at FAC. Necessarily, there are people who'll be fixated on WBFAN and it's simply much busier. The only downside at FAR is that there's so few of you. This year, for example, Ceoil and DrK have been totally irreplaceable.

As for Pilot (House), I will AGF and assume David simply didn't think to improve until after the FAR. I don't want it to become a habit, certainly. Marskell (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, though is perception, a lot of folk dispise us (but whatever) and are not shy about saying it, even if they dont have a firm grasp on the process. Thats a big issue for me; I often stumble across talk pages where I'm being mocked, by editors who havent added content within living human memory. Ceoil  sláinte 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unwatch 'em. I do. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Next step
Tim, I'd like to get your advice on what the right next step is at FACR. Some of the editors I respect most are saying the poll is premature. I don't quite understand this, since there has been so much talk about this topic already, but if you see it that way I believe you have a good reason. To me the straw poll is just that -- throwing straw in the wind to see which way it's blowing. There's nothing binding about it. What it tells me is that there's significant agreement that the existing wording is ambiguous, and probably should be changed.

I don't see enough consensus to actually change 1b yet; the numbers are too small. Sandy's already said that the discussion on 1b should be allowed to go on for weeks, not days. I agree with that. So what is currently wrong with the discussion at WT:FACR, and what can I do to help fix it? I have been trying to push the discussion along, since I've felt the outcomes of the discussions we've had so far (no changes) have not reflected the opinions expressed. But I can just stay quiet for a while if I'm having a negative effect. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, and also for the FAC comment. I'm pretty sure there are no more significant sources for the magazine, but I can't be so sure about Republic Features Syndicate; perhaps there's a history of 1950s radio that covers it.  And I agree that that would be a good merge target, if it can exist.  I think an oppose on the basis that RFS should be investigated first is a reasonable oppose.  (I did suggest this myself, earlier in the FAC; as you say, I was trying to make case law.)  I'll do some digging into 1950s radio and see what I can find (not an area I know anything at all about, unfortunately).


 * Re WT:FACR, I see your point about getting agreement on changing 1b first. I guess I thought that was pretty clear already.  I see something slightly different going on; perhaps it's my imagination, but see what you think.  I think that there are deeply seated views of what an FA really *is*, and these are not consistent; 1b is the most obvious point at which this inconsistency is visible in the recent discussions.  The prior discussions were about mechanisms, so they didn't generate as much gut-level alarm as the suggestion of a change to a foundational criterion such as 1b is doing.  The discussion has moved from the periphery to the core; or from talk of medicine to plans for surgery.  And when editors such as Sandy, Awadewit and yourself are alarmed at the turn of the conversation, my reaction should be to stop and reconsider.


 * To be practical, what I propose to do is to limit my comments at WT:FACR for a while at least. I think the point that some change is needed is clear enough that the conversation will not just go away.  I don't think more needs to be concluded than that from the straw poll. I'm happy to agree that the proposed rewordings are none of them satisfactory.  But I really do want to see some change to 1b; the ambiguity is quite real and should be eliminated.


 * Thanks again for your thoughtful comments, at my talk page and elsewhere. Mike Christie (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pilot (House)
Sorry... I only saw the FAR once it had moved to FARC, and I wasn't aware that you could still ask for more time (thought it was just a 'yeah' or 'nay' based on the current article quality.) I didn't think I was going to get around to editing the article at any reasonable time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch
Want to help me out at FCDW/TempFAS? The flow is a bit weird, but that long Signpost logo down the side dictates other image and graph placement. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, fuck
Bringing Giano's name into every quarrel everywhere is about ten lightyears from my idea of "an interesting thought." Bishonen | talk 19:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC).

Subst'ed FAR templates
Talk:Constitution of May 3, 1791. What started the trend of subst'ing FAR templates? I did not design the script for that. Gimmetrow 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An article a couple days ago had the same thing. I'll fix that page eventually. Could you check that pages have the FAR template when you close them? Gimmetrow 13:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It happens a lot; I don't know why. It's one of the things I regularly check for, but I've fallen off lately on my routine checks of all new FACs and FARs, thinking that they were no longer necessary (we've been using GimmeBot and articlehistory for almost two years now, I'm surprised we're still training the community).  And wishing other editors would do more of the janitorial work that I have always done for both FAC and FAR.  I'm still doing all the same janitorial work that I did for Raul and Marskell before I was a delegate, and still hoping that other editors will pick up some of this routine work and checking on every FAC and FAR.  I listed it all at User:SandyGeorgia/FA work.  It's ironic that I'm going to have to give up the Dispatches so I can continue to do the janitorial work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States
Hi Marskell. I've responded to your comments at Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States's FAC. Do you have any actionable concerns about the article, like prose, comprehensiveness, etc? Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The converse case
I think your idea is right in theory, but in practice I'm not sure that a section on RFS in the magazine article would make sense. It wouldn't really be a magazine article at that point; it would be rather unbalanced if there were enough for a section.

A point that occurred to me is the question of whether primary sources exist which could, in theory, be looked at to generate further secondary sources. I'm sure a determined researcher could dig into corporate filings and records of the relevant radio companies and find more info about RFS; there's got to be some primary sources out there. There might be reviews of the shows in some newspapers, and so on. So I visualize a kind of uber-Wikipedia in which all possible secondary sources have been written, and our articles contain all available data. Something like that vision is behind some of the views of the nature of FA we've seen expressed. I don't object to the vision, and perhaps one day Wikipedia will have enough influence to suggest, guide, or even fund research to help achieve it, but I want to write articles here and now, not in a utopian parallel world. I'd like FA to reflect that reality. Mike Christie (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sputter, sputter ...
Oh, my. And to think, I could have just gone to sleep. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 08:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)