User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch10

Hugo Chávez -- dispute has arisen, could use your opinion
A dispute has arisen on the talk page (and unfortunately a bit in the history page) on the article on Hugo Chavez, related to two thoroughly sourced quotes I added to the "Criticism" section of the article from two editorials from the Argentine daily Ambito Financiero (www.ambitoweb.com) - An editor very zealously deleted and reverted and, on the history page, made some very political statements that were politburo'ey in nature. I was trying to improve the article -- it has, as I've seen on the talk page over why its FA status went in and out, been plagued with problems of imbalance in the past. I was trying to improve it.

Anyway - if you're at all interested, I'd appreciate your opinion back there. Thanks. NYDCSP 07:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, NYDCSP - glad you dropped in. I'm traveling and can't get over there to have a look until at least late next week. A dispute has arisen on Chavez?  I'm shocked and awed :-) Normally the party line there chases out new editors so fast that any disputes are quashed.  You're either very brave, or related to Don Quixote; hopefully, the former :-)


 * IMNSHO Hugo Chávez has flown under the radar for years, as one of our must illustrative examples of the failure of Wiki's policies to address POV (not to mention that the article should be cut in half.) Now that he's in the daily headlines, maybe others will notice, and something will be done.  I don't hold out much hope, though; systemic bias is prevalent, tendentious editing is not dealt with expeditiously on Wiki, and excess burden to engage in time-consuming beaurocratic procedures is placed on individual editors.


 * You might want to put some text about yourself on your user page so it's not a red link: looks like you're just passing through - I hope you plan to stay awhile, because you've got a tiger by the tail.  The last time I helped out a red-linked editor on Chávez, he turned out to be a sockpuppet, and I ended up looking like a fool.  If you're serious, and if you make well-sourced and well-written edits, and if others are willing to help, I *may* be convinced to re-engage, but my first priority there will be to cut the article size before rebuilding it to something neutral.


 * By the way, have you seen the article in the Miami Herald discussing Chavez's mentor's (Castro) likely cleansing of the Cuban articles? For another discussion of Wiki's inherent weaknesses, see this article: US trade unions on Wiki.  Wiki is easily used:  I don't know why the US trade unions were so slow to find the party.


 * Bienvenido al "Bolivarianismo" ! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sandy, you're terrific. I'll take your advice on the user page, although I also worry, the more one makes this about oneself, the more we get away from the job at hand - but your point is taken, it's a community after all.


 * I just read the article now that you mentioned, and honestly I suspect that we're dealing with Venezuelans and a network of political supporters behind much of what looks to be similar ideological cleansing of these articles to push a political view, much like some conservatives have done on Democratic and left-leaning subject articles. It's a shame - but alas, it's freedom too.  Let's see what I can do to improve articles as that's what this is all about - and I will be taking big long breaths in between.  All the best. NYDCSP 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too quick to point fingers at either Venezuelans or conservatives. The beating taken on articles for conservative politicians during the last US election cycle, coupled with the severe hits to Joe Lieberman, seems to indicate a prevalance of liberal "vandalism" of articles about conservative politicians on Wiki, while articles of liberals were relatively unscathed; and some tendency of liberals to "eat their own". I was particularly intrigued by the number of single-topic editors who damaged articles of conservative candidates and then dropped off of Wiki as of November 14, 2006.  As to Venezuelans, please take note that, in Venezuela these days, when attempting business transaction with the government, one often encounters Lybians, Iranians, Syrians, Russians and Cubans, so assumptions about "Venezuelans" aren't necessarily accurate.  Many Venezuelans attempted to bring balance to the Chavez article, and were chased off; I wouldn't make assumptions about nationality of editors supporting an unbalanced Chavez article. His policies (and anti-US stance) are not particularly popular in Venezuela, you know; nationalizing millions of non-Venezuelans (and giving them jobs and handouts) was a guaranteed ticket to re-election.  Venezuelans aren't entirely without blame for having birthed this phenomenon, but they aren't solely to blame for electing him, either - unless we're counting Jimmy Carter as a Venezuelan these days. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sandy, please, "nationalizing millions of non-Venezuelans" sounds like llanero talking :-) JRSP 19:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Messaging FAR interested parties
Hi Sandy, I realize you're away, so I have FAR on my watchlist now, and will be messaging all involved parties until your return. No reply necessary. Jeffpw 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw that, still trying to pack, very grateful for your help ! Will make a few minor adjustments there so you can see how I usually do them.  You're the BEST !!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at my adjustments on the last two - there's a template for leaving the message, just use Name of article goes here I add the talk page links to the FAR, then use those links to go and leave the message. Thanks again!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saw Gerald Ford on the FAR page, I'll help. The article should be settling down now.Sumoeagle179 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kept meaning to message you, been too busy. I will pack now, I will pack now, I will pack now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan
Sandy, I just wanted to thank you for the valuable feedback you provided on the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article. After reviewing your comments and those of other reviewers, I have updated the article. If you have a moment to take another look, any additional thoughts would be much appreciated! Thanks again Cimm[talk] 02:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Sandy! I thought I would let you know that I have just nominated the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article as a Featured Article candidate. The feedback and encouragement from you and the other reviewers is what motivated the nomination. Thank you again for all your support! Cimm[talk] 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AC/DC
Sandy, several copyeditors took passes on the article, so it should be fine now. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

References on translated articles
Could you please see Talk:Threshing-board? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalek FAR
Hi, Sandy. I've taken care of most of the citations you requested for Dalek, and commented out the one that I couldn't substantiate. I'm also going to ask for some copyediting help on the article. When you get back from your wikibreak, could you drop by Featured article review/Dalek and let us know what you think? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin-Madison
On 24 December 2006, I put up the UW-Madison article for Featured Article. It failed miserably, due in part to the fact that I had almost no idea what the criteria were for FA. I have now made considerable revisions. You had originally opposed at Featured article candidates/University of Wisconsin-Madison/archive1. Would you please consider looking over the article over again, and tell me how you would vote this time if it were put up for FA again? University of Wisconsin-Madison Thanks! – Lordmontu  (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding to my request! The TOC is small because I was referring to the University of Michigan and the Michigan State University articles, both of which are FA and have small TOC. – Lordmontu  (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR
FYI. Thanks for your guidance! --HailFire 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to revert in this case b/c I was literally about to close it when I noticed. I have archived. Hope yr travelling went well. I am going to reply to that e-mail you sent a few days ago... Marskell 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - wasn't sure if you were around. Yep, I'm home, but I've got a lot to trudge through.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, uh, speaking of trudging... Could you check again on your concerns over refs for Dalek? I know, I know—these two month reviews are awful. But the page is actually less backed-up then it was a week or two ago. Marskell 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done - still some minor concerns, but agree that ce is a larger concern - some of the prose was tortured. I didn't detail, since Tony already had.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

there's bold, and then there's ill-advised


Here's my idea of how slippery a slope can be! No offense taken, and I have been very happy being able to participate at FAR while you were away. I will continue there even though you've returned, since there is a backlog, and more reviewers can only help. You were missed, Sandy. Jeffpw 15:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Cemetery FA notice in WP:CAL project?
Hello, I just looked at this article, Oakland Cemetery, that you left an FA notice about in the WP:CAL talkpage. Isn't the Oakland Cemetery in Georgia? It would a stretch for the California to cover it. Cheers, Ronbo76 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * . . .unless you are asking for peer review??? Ronbo76 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am coming off a major league head cold and have made some blunders this week too. Fortunately, I have not been called onto the carpet but helped by members of our project. No harm, no foul. The good thing is you are working to improve Wikipedia and care. Ronbo76 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ah, ha - I shall blame you for passing that cold my way !! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

El Hatillo
Hi Sandy, good to have you back. I have no problems with you copyediting, I will check the history anyway just in case I disagree with any of your edits. Regarding your list, you can go ahead with your first two concerns, let me reply the rest: Anyway, I'd like to do a very extensive copyedit, if you agree. Then I'd suggest a new peer review before going to FAC, in case others who are unfamiliar with El Hatillo see things we don't see.
 * The first time I hit the word "Baruta" is in the second paragraph of History. ... distinct parish from Baruta ... I've never understood the divisions in Venezuela - what was Baruta at that time? Another parish? We need to clarify that in the text.
 * I honestly have no knowledge on the pre-independence system of divisions, but the original source says "Don Baltasar dedicó todo su esfuerzo a fundar a El Hatillo como pueblo y parroquia separada de Baruta, de la cual dependía", so Baruta was a parish, I don't know what it belonged to though. The current version says aiming to establish the area as a distinct parish from Baruta, you don't think readers will understand that Baruta was a parish?
 * Who was Manuel Escalona? He needs more "definition" - profession, occupation, something.
 * I have a good reference, will get on that after this.
 * I found one citation needed: In the 16th century, the indigenous Mariches were killed by the explorers; That's the kind of "political" statement that someone may want cited.
 * Done.
 * Number of homes in El Hatillo - the numbers seem hard to believe. Of the 18,878 homes, only 13,545 are occupied?  Why so many unoccupied - mostly construction?
 * Data. With the new constructions it's not such a crazy number. The 5,333 houses no permanently occupied are broken down in unoccupied (2,874; this may include new homes on sale), occasionally used (855), and under construction (1,604). Keep in mind that a common residential building can have 4 apartments per each of its 20 floors, making 80 apartments in just one tower. In La Boyera alone there are around 7 new towers, accounting for 560 unoccupied/under construction households just in one neighborhood. If you start adding up the building under construction in the whole municipality I think you can get to the 5 thousand households.
 * During the Guipuzcoana scandal in Venezuela ... This scandal needs a definition - what was the scandal - can you give a few-word definition, or can you create an article with a wikilink?
 * I will work on that after this.
 * ... Cerro Verde, Llano Verde, Colinas, Vista El Valle, Los Olivos, and El Cigarral. Which Colinas is that? I wasn't aware of an urbanizacion named only Colinas - is that Colinas del Tamanaco?
 * I know, it's a bit strange, but the source is the alcaldía website, so I don't think there's much we can do, it's the only reference that lists all the neighborhood, including the rural ones.
 * ... and the only place in Caracas where rock climbing is allowed. Is "allowed" the right word?  Is it prohibited elsewhere?  Should the word be "facilitated" or something else ?
 * I haven't found the article online, so all I have is the printed magazine. It's a Variedades March 2006 issue and it says: "Según pudimos conocer, es el único sitio en la capital que permite la escalada en roca, por lo cual está normado el uso de las paredes."
 * Do you want me to ask for the peer review now or to let you do the copy editing first? Saludos.--enano (Talk) 20:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me copyedit first: estoy todavia muy atareada e atrasada por el viaje - necesito un par de dias.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No hay problema, thanks. ;-)--enano (Talk) 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Sandy. I'm tight on time so the article will have to wait until Saturday afternoon for me to address it and request for a PR.--enano (Talk) 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I reviewed your copyedit and all looks fine, thanks again. I described who Escalona was and I reworded the sentence about Guipuzcoana. It's hard to explain what the company and the scandal were without getting off the main topic, so the description is very brief but I will create an article about it. The temperature, crime and unemployment are still pending. About the vegetation sentence, here is the original text: Las formaciones vegetales están constituidas por una masa arbólea que ocupa la mayor parte de la superficie y que conforman bosques densos, con árboles grandes, en los alredores y a lo largo de los cursos de agua permanentes e intermitentes, con una ocupación cercana al 30%. Dichas formaciones también están constituidas por formaciones arbustivas que ocupan aproximadamente un 9%, similar al porcentaje de las zonas con vegetación herbácea. Todas ellas están subordinadas a los cursos de agua. (...) My interpretation from the text is that the vegetation is concentrated around water bodies, with 30% being big trees and dense forests, 9% shrubs and ~9% herbs. I restructured the sentence so it's more clear, feel free to do further edits if you feel they are needed.

I did a bit of research on Transparencia Venezuela. The data in the news article can also be accessed here. Honestly, I think the organization looks serious, they have been doing studies about municipality's corruption for 3 years and they are related to Transparency International. Keep in mind that the study was about 69 municipalities, but Venezuela has over 300, so although the study makes El Hatillo look pretty bad, any of the other 250 municipalities can have a worse corruption index than El Hatillo. Let me know what you think.

I nominated El Hatillo for peer review, you can follow it here. Saludos.--enano (Talk) 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a few small tweaks - on the Transparency International info, I feel it is terribly misleading, but if you think you must add it to avoid an Object on FAC, I guess you could do that. I think it's undue weight, since there is NO way El Hatillo ranks that high in relation to other places in Venezuela, and I would defend that at FAC - but it's your choice, as it could become a problem.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi and question - new FA template
Hi Sandy, and welcome back (at least partially anyway :)! Quick question: what's this I hear about a new FA template? I've seen it on Talk:DNA and Talk:Immune system, and was wondering if it could be applied to Mary I of England; the templates currently on its Talk page are pretty confusing. Hope you enjoyed your trip. Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, FV - still struggling to catch up, nice trip. They did so much work on the new template over the last few days, that I sorta lost track, but it's the  template, and there's a discussion on Dr pda's page.  I think they're still working out the glitches, so we should let them alone for a while :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Should also mentioned, they tested it at DNA since DNA is an article that was featured, demoted, and re-featured, so a good sample for testing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a look (not edit it, I'm not crazy :) and wait for it to come out of "beta". Maybe they'll add it to all FAs/FFAs, and Mary I will get it in time. Fvasconcellos 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the plan, but I'd say wait until it has settled down before adding it anywhere. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Something about a "ten-foot pole" comes to mind... :) Fvasconcellos 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When Gimmetrow, Yomangani, and Dr pda are on board, I haven't the slightest concern :-)) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Christ Illusion
Hiya, Sandy, hope you enjoyed your trip and are all well and refreshed. When you find the time, can you give me a critical review of this article I'm trying to work towards FAC? Thanks for your time, and any input you may have. LuciferMorgan 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Lucifer - still struggling to catch up, but I'll get there! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You can call me Anthony if you like. Feel free to take your time to get back to me - Jeff has some concerns I have to address anyway.LuciferMorgan 01:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In terms of catching up, I seem to be taking one step backwards for every two steps forward. I still have several FACs to catch up on, and someone nominated three FARs in only one week, which makes it kinda hard to catch up in other areas .   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I know that person's identity by any chance? LuciferMorgan 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Blabbermouth.net excerpts a lot of printed media, so that's why it's been used extensively. Most of the info they use comes from press releases etc. from record labels - Metal Rules nicks a lot of their news stuff from there. The negative comments about Blabbermouth.net is sometimes due to irrelevant news articles, but especially the user comment tool - the users usually swear etc. about bands. Most things use disclaimers, even newspapers. I'd actually go on record to say it's the premier online source in terms of Metal news. I don't know how to convince non-Metal fans of that though lol. LuciferMorgan 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You could cite the print media they excerpt, but that raises a new problem - copyright violation ???? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope it doesn't raise copyright violation as it's excerpted, and is allowed under copyright. Also, the news info is sent by the mags themselves. LuciferMorgan 03:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So can you cite the mainstream media source, following it with "available at blabbermouth.net"? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm on a side note I read the disclaimer, and can explain it entirely. In short, Blabbermouth.net's server is run on Roadrunner Records, but the site itself is run by someone else. The disclaimer is just saying that Roadrunner has nothing to do with the news articles. When a writer writes an article, even newspapers run disclaimers, especially if the article is controversial, and Blabbermouth.net do sometimes run controversial articles. I wouldn't class that disclaimer as putting the verifiability into question though, but that's my personal opinion
 * In cases where the news articles excerpts interviews yes I can do that, and will, though I cannot add mag page numbers or issue numbers. I won't change the Metal Rules cite though as it's an actual first hand Slayer interview, so it definitely meets reliability - if it doesn't then every music article should be defeatured. Also, I'll italicise the web source names to make the cites consistent - I won't use those templates though as I personally think they're rubbish and don't allow flexibility. Thanks for your help Sandy, and I hope you don't take this as me having a rant. I'll be in touch after I've implemented the changes, and hope you'll take a fresh look at the article at that time. LuciferMorgan 07:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Rainbow
What's with the ++ replacing == in the Notes heading? Pesky vandals! Welcome back. Yomangani talk 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * uh, oh ... sounds like I'm talking on the phone and typing at the same time. :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Gillberg
Several months ago, you kindly joined in the editing of the article on Christopher Gillberg. At the time, you mentioned how it was difficult for you to evaluate things, because most of the source documents were in Swedish.

I've now helped to translate the main documents. And what I believe to be an accurate version of the story has been written. I thought that you might be interested in it: http://www.informath.org/apprise/a6400.htm

(After all the dishonest sophistry on the part of some of the other editors and the lack of a mechanism to deal with that, I gave up trying to work on Wikipedia.)

&mdash;Daphne A

Right
What would we do without you. Marskell 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I get confused when there's more than 35 on the page... Marskell 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

TS
Ah, yes. And it took a grand total of 16 hours for the vandalism to start over. Mouse over, actions, revert... Fvasconcellos 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Sandy, Thanks for all your help on the Emerson article! You helped me get it to GA status...now I have to aim for Featured Article status! --Mike Searson 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Mike - spend lots of time hanging out at WP:FAC to get yourself ready. After a few months of reviewing other articles there, you'll know the standards.  Also, look at the individual user recommendations at the bottom of WP:WIAFA.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor review
Hey Sandy,

If you ever get a free minute here on Wikipedia, I would be most honored if you wrote a critique of my contributions at my Editor Review, found here.

Thanks in advance,  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  05:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FAC
I did not mean to be impolite to that user and I apologized. I just found some of his/her remarks unconsiderate, but I guess that's just my POV, although two other editors were quick to offer their moral support, for which I was grateful. I apologized to him/her, please don't judge me in account of one unfortunate remark and categorise me as an impolite nominator.

Anyway, the article is almost there, the issues raised might be a little time consuming, but they are easily fixed. Fortunately, there is no deadline. I'm sorry you thought I'd said all questions had been addressed: I only meant the specific comment under which I had signed. I'll try to address everything asap. Cheers Raystorm 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem whatsoever, Ray - I just didn't want you to feel that FAC was necessarily negative - it need not be :-) You're well on the way - I'll check back in soon.  I hope you saw the named ref thingie I did on the article?  Saludos, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for supporting the article. :-) Listen, Explorer has supported it too, but has left a comment while doing so that, sincerely, I most definitely do not agree with. As I don't want to make the same mistake as before, and inadvertedly cause another heated exchange now that the article is well on its way, would it be too much to ask for you to take a look at the FAC page and, I don't know, give your opinion on my behaviour or something to counter his comment and provide a balance for it, according to your experience with me? He/she claims I've avoided his/her suggestions 'tooth-and-nail' while 'bending backwards' for others, but I did do what he asked for, such as rearranging the article structure, providing references for every single statement he put a tag on, fixing the lead and getting extra copyeditors. I find his/her comments unfair (and frankly, hurtful). I did my best to address all comments to the best of my capacity asap, I even apologized to him/her. Should I flog myself until I bleed for daring to discuss his previous objection? Sigh. Sorry for the rant. I'd appreciate any advice. Simply ignoring it seems unfair to me, but that's just my opinion I guess. Cheers Raystorm 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Don't worry about the rant - I'll have a look.  That would be bad for the give and take that is needed at FAC; it's hard to be under the critical gun, and reviewers should be understanding.  Before looking, though, I'll tell you it may be best not to create a tempest in a teapot.  Both of you may be overly sensitive at this point in the FAC; I'll peek over there in a bit and see if I can add something that doesn't further inflame the situation, will defend you, and will keep Explorer as a reviewer;  we need good reviewers, as far too much crap slips through FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Mutual Broadcasting System
I had no idea you had a specific interest in radio. But what else could have attracted you to Mutual? I'll be sure to keep you in the loop from now on. Do you have a specific interest in cinema? That's my specialty. If you do, I'll certainly post you when I next nominate a film article. And I've already got a feeling about your feeling for TV. When RKO General goes up, you'll be the first to know.

As you're the spokesperson for so many FA reviewers, I want to ask you something and I want you to be honest with me. You think I need to lose some weight?—DCGeist 09:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Firefox
Yes, it's me again. Tired of me yet? FWIW I've cleaned up the references on Mozilla Firefox if someone would like to have another look (hint, hint ;) I realize there's more wrong with the article than that, but still... Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - will do as soon as soon as I get a free moment. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very nice, FV !! I saw some 1-24-2006 retrieval dates - I'm wondering if those were you, and meant to be 2007 ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. The diffs seem to show those were M3tal H3ad's—I'll fix them. Fvasconcellos 16:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Silly request from a drooling noob
I just noticed the Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches featured article. It seems to me to have relatively little content related to the actual contents of the book. I was wondering whether that might in a way perhaps disqualify it as a featured article. I acknowledge my own lack of knowledge of the subject, and it could be that there actually isn't much more content to the original book. However, I would like a more qualified opinion, which I believe your own would be. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the guidelines on literature that closely - that's really not a question I feel qualified to answer. I see that Jkelly nom'd the article - I have implicit trust in him, but the article could have changed a lot since he nom'd it.  Perhaps ask  - he seems very involved in literature FAs.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

History of TS
Hi. I came across the early Tourette papers when digging around for Timeline of tuberous sclerosis. I wish I could draw on a whole book of material to make a history of TSC, but there's only one current medical textbook (Curatolo 2003) and one older classic text (Gomez 1999, which I've ordered but not read). A 10-page History chapter is tiny compared with Kushner's 320 pages! I'm also hampered by restricted access to online journals.

I am interested in medical history (but no expert). In addition to researching TSC, I'm currently halfway through reading Temkin's classic "The Falling Sickness: A History of Epilepsy". I'm sure there's a Wikipedia article in that.

I had a look at "A Cursing Brain" on Amazon and could read an excerpt. It looks quite readable and cheap from Amazon's Marketplace sellers. I don't think I could tackle the TS history article myself, but let me know if you want another pair of eyes. I wouldn't mind buying the book if that was useful.

Your TS footnotes claim that "Advances in Neurology: Volume 35. Gilles de la Tourette syndrome" has a translation of Tourette's paper. Is it complete or abridged? How does it compare with my awful French translation?

Cheers, Colin°Talk 22:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
A short thanks for your notification on the Northern Ireland Project's talk page regarding the article Battle of the Somme. I'm going to add it to the Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board too. -- Mal 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick one
Hi :) I'm working on a future FAC for Hamersley, Western Australia and have completed the lead section with references which are appropriately linked in the relevant sections of the article - however, it looks a bit messy as a result. How would you suggest proceeding? Orderinchaos78 08:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not of the opinion that everything in the lead must be referenced; routine information that is summarized in the lead can be referenced in the body of the article. I do believe that extraordinary claims, quotes, or anything that stands out as unusual should be referenced in the lead.  In your article, I wouldn't include the number of residents in the lead (too much detail for a summary), I wouldn't reference anything about location in the lead (that can be covered in the body of the article; it is not controversial info), and I wouldn't reference the type of vegetation (also not controversial; cover it in the body of the article, ref it there).  I would reference the statement about forcing down the price of land elsewhere, as that is the kind of controversial statement in the lead that does need a ref, IMO.  The three refs are unsightly; you can handle that by combining them into one ref tag as I do on Tourette syndrome (look at ref number 32 there).  It means giving up the named ref in that instance, but I prefer that to seeing a string of refs in the lead.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that :) I've made the suggested changes. (Was a case of being too close to it and knowing it was wrong but not seeing what was needed.) And I agree, a tiny bit of duplication (I've had to compromise in one other place as well) is definitely superior to anything that hinders (or distracts) readability. Orderinchaos78 14:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Beautiful - and fast! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

FARbot
I am following now, thanks. Yomangani talk 17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Speaking of cluttered talkpages
WP:Beatles needs to be asked to implement the "small" option on their banner; and it should also be added to reqimageother. Once that's done, the templates should be more-or-less neatly collapsible. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the source of the data in the graphs?
I am surprised by this critisisme; this article must rank as one of the best referenced articles on Wikipedia. Because of the high data quality, the article was proposed to be featured. In order to prepare the graphics I spent several days reviewing books and data on the websites stated at the bottom of the article. References are carefully listed in the text and graphics are simple and crisp to facilitate the understanding of a difficult subject. All numbers is presented in SI units to enable the reader to grasp and verify the data. If you check the references listed you will find at least two and often three sources for each number. Lastly the formating page you refered to starts with saying that formating is secondary to creating good articles. I am happy to fix stuff if you can make tangible suggestions and I would be estatic if you could actually edit the World energy resources and consumption article to improve it further. Frank van Mierlo 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot replies
Should jeffpw tag facfails? I would say no, the bot can do that. (However, he could if he wants, as the bot is already programmed to check if someone has updated the page before the bot.) As for formerFA/currentGA, bringing that up at User talk:Dr pda since it has an effect on the categories the AH template includes. Gimmetrow 03:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, it won't hurt if he continues to do it, but the bot will get it if he doesn't. I guess the only advantage to doing it manually is to let antsy editors know right away, but most FACs that fail are usually obvious.  Thanks, Gimmetrow!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I would allow a couple days for the bot to run, but if I don't get to it for (say) 2 days and people are seeming anxious, then do some by hand? Gimmetrow 03:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - doing it isn't that much work, anyway - it's only switching the fac to facfailed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Harvest (band) footnotes
Dear SandyGeorgia,

Thank you very much for your help in editing the footnotes of the Harvest article.

If you have any other suggestions for improving the article, please let me know.

Thanks,

Jamie L. 04:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I thank you, kind editor. Onwards and upwards.... andreasegde 07:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Military brat
You're the only person I'm going to contact regarding renominating the military brat article (and only then because you will undoubtably see it on the FAC as that is your haunting ground.) But I would love your feedback on the article... actually, there is one other person I will contact specifically because he asked me to contact him (Mike H)... but I regret contacting people during the CfD and don't want a repeat so it'll be up to them to notice it.Balloonman 09:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

your email
Just replied! – Outriggr § 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Other featured articles
Thought I'd reply here rather than dragging the FARC page too off-topic. Thanks for your words about wanting to see those other articles improved. User:LuciferMorgan and I have discussed this a bit on our talk pages, and I'm going to try and work on Our Friends in the North &mdash; my personal favourite thing I've helped write a Featured Article for &mdash; this week and message him when I've had a go at it. Should I drop you a note when I've done so too, so you can look it over? Angmering 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm more concerned with the two I mentioned, since they're on the list of articles lacking citation and will need to come up for review, but I'll be glad to look at the other as well. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, now I'm a more experienced Wikipedian than I was two years ago I worry that BBC television drama borders on original research. Much of it can be cited, I'm sure, but I wonder whether it's really an encyclopedic article... I don't know. I wouldn't be heartbroken if it fell by the wayside, anyway. I will certainly try and bring Quatermass and the Pit up to scratch, but I thought I'd do Our Friends... first as I didn't want to risk Quatermass fatigue! Angmering 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you really feel that way, you should decide if you want to save it, or if you want to bring it to FAR at a time when you can pay attention to it, lest someone else bring it sooner. Good luck !  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know that after thinking about your advice and taking another look at the article, I have decided that I will do as you suggest. So I'm going to roll up my sleeves and get stuck into Quatermass and the Pit this week.


 * It's going to be trickier to find free images to replace the fair use ones for that one, though. Can it still keep featured status with just one Fair Use image included? Angmering 10:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

FAR
Severa, is hard at work on the article - can you have a look and provide further input about progress and your concerns at Featured article review/Roe v. Wade? Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have time or energy to review the Roe FAR now. But per Ferrylodge, please see Talk:Abortion, Talk:Stillbirth, Talk:Fetus, and Talk:Late-term abortion. A lot of other editors have found Ferrylodge's pattern of editing to be problematic. My main concern for the article was NPOV and a lot of this user's edits seem to have been ideologically-motivated. -Severa (!!!) 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As a FAR reviewer on a topic I'm not familiar with, I see what is presented on FAR, focusing on content, not editors - please keep us updated on your concerns via the article FAR. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that such a factor would present a valid concern. I'll ask a couple of other editors from WikiProject Abortion to go over the FAR in my stead. I don't know if I'll be back to editing regularily before it closes. -Severa (!!!) 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerns focus on article content, not editor disputes. Since you nominated the article for FAR, it would be in your interest to bring content concerns to reviewers' awareness. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to bring personal life onto Wikipedia, but I spent yesterday in the hospital, so you'll have to excuse me for not having as much time or energy to devote to Wikipedia as I might usually have. -Severa (!!!) 03:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem - seeing that you had the flu, I expected a delay - the review still has plenty of time to run. Some direction for work to proceed would help, but time isn't a concern yet.  Gosh, sorry it was so bad you had to be hospitalized - feel better soon !  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, get well soon, Severa.Ferrylodge 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wood Badge
I am the main writer of a GA called Wood Badge. I'd like to get it to FA but before that would appreciate the input of fine copyeditors such as yourself. I'd truly appreciate it. Rlevse 12:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My edits to Wikipedia talk:Featured articles
Dear Sandy,

Thank you for your advice with regard to changing talk page section headings and editing statements made by other editors (which, in the case of the following statement that you reverted, is my own made under a former nickname). Pardon my editing of that talk page paragraph, which I came across again after quite some time and in which I found a factual inaccuracy. I have this habit of being very meticulous, and it is this that led me to make the above edits. Will remember from now on not to change section headings, especially (as you've pointed out that it could cause confusion when others want to refer to that particular section). Appreciate you taking the time to advise. Regards, AppleJuggler 14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ah, glad to hear it was your own edit you were altering - that's a whole 'nother story :-) Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalek FAR
No problem. And thanks for all your work during the FAR process — I've learned a lot, and whatever the outcome I think the article has been improved. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So glad you feel that way - I know it's been a tough one. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Spain
I think Raystorm has cleared up your objections, would you like to take another look? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I'll get over there as soon as I can - up to my eyeballs right now tracking some missing FARCs. Was she able to figure out the citing issues?  I saw she was asking others for help; I'd be glad to do the work if more help is needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Raystorm's got it back on track after that shakey start. What I wanted to ask was, you mentioned that the WikiProject has layout issues that breach current wikiguidelines. What did you mean by that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I put your stuff from Raystorm's article into a template, and was going through some of the other articles to add it, and found a lot of layout issues - external links in strange places, lots of See also stuff in infoboxes, etc. My concern is actually more of a general one - that gynormous infoboxes and See also templates are taking over Wiki, contributing to load-time issues - Projects should keep a close eye on that, and keep tight standards about infoboxes.  I was surprised that Raystorm had been told to add that info per aesthetics - yes, aesthetics matter, but GTL and other guidelines matter more; See also should stay See also.  I'm not sure what standards exist for infoboxes, but I should spend some time investigating - the gynormous ones taking over Wiki are a concern.  We focus on how prose size affects load time, but some template creep is getting out of control (more so on other Projects than LGBT).  I also found a LGBT portal in one article - there's some instruction somewhere about Wiki meta info belonging on talk pages only - again, I don't know where to find this info, though.  I've got to figure out what standards exist, since too many articles are really getting cluttered.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)

Hugo Chavez and Sexual Objectification
I think it's odd to put in a comment about the Hugo Chavez photo (which I still disagree with is removal) - I didn't continue to force the issue, and it's not there. But the issues are unrelated and I by far have shown to put photos (95% of my additions) that add value to pages. It came across as spiteful, and I don't even remember you. --DavidShankBone 18:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you thought it spiteful - it wasn't. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. There were a series of papier-mache caricatures of Kirschner, Balechet, Morales, and Chavez. I tried to put a photo on each page...and was shot down on each page...lol. There was no mal intent. I often go on photography expeditions specifically for Wikipedia, as a hobby. The photos of the South American leaders I thought were good additions, and came from the same show in which I put photos of stiltwalkers, clowns, jugglers, bearded lady and Jennifer Miller. I stopped debating the issue because I figured, "Well, win some, lose some." --DavidShankBone 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, most editors trying to edit Chavez mostly lose some :-) It's "owned" :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind
Thanks Sandy. I see that it was Francesco himself that nominated it, which is one way to get the article back to its previous status at least. However, I think that the additional comments raised by KSchutte are valid, and would require a much more extensive revision of the article than just a revert to the un-mucked up version that was promoted. I don't have a ton of time to get into this right now, but I will try to set aside a little time. I will also add my two cents over there. Edhubbard 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - wanted to make sure you were aware. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your questions
I'll begin with the easy one first. :) Autonomous Communities are capped in Spanish, so I don't know a reason to uncap them in English. About civil unions being the same as civil marriage....Well, they're not. Maybe you've heard the term pareja de hecho? Civil unions generally grant certain level of legal coverage, but they're not the same as a civil marriage, in terms of adoption or inheritance, for example. As they are not too major (i.e, they don't require rewording the Constitution), every Autonomous Community is free to regulate them as they see fit, always within certain limits. Now, civil marriage is different, it involves a lot more things (more rights), and as such only the state can authorise such an important reform of the Constitution. As far as I know, Catholic marriage isn't legally valid in Spain now, you gotta marry civilly for it to count (exceptions might be made for people who only married by the church, I don't know, in 1920 or something like that, if they wanna receive a widow pension I heard). And likewise, the church only recognises Catholic marriages, not civil ones, for they believe the only true marriage comes from them (which is also related to the Spanish church hierarchy being so angry about the word marriage being used in a union they believe devaluates or weakens the term). This law doesn't change that situation, it simply adds another form of civil marriage (with more rights than a mere civil union), legally recognised by the state and ignored (or contested) by the church. I hope that cleared things up a bit. :) If you have more questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers! Raystorm 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm going to bed now, I'll check tomorrow your changes ok? :) Cheers Raystorm 01:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I've began checking your changes. I read the link you provided for the word claim. To be honest, I think the intended meaning was the legal one, but as there's no court context I understand why you felt it might be best to remove that word. I saw you added 'government-run' to the CIS sentence. I think it might be a little bit misleading (I think the source was trying to make some point there), but it certainly is true.
 * The all but except phrase...I think it's valid. It reads a bit strangely now, with the exception of blah blah and blah, parliamentary parties favoured the reform. I think there's no problem with adding all there. Nonetheless, I'm gonna add 'the different' before parliamentary parties, check to see how it looks ok?
 * I'm not sure about the Constitution sentence. That's because I don't know the Constitution by heart. :) I'm guesssing that only the State has the power to legislate marriage because it says so in the Constitution. It does make sense. But I don't know if that is mentioned (in those terms) in the source provided. I'll check it.
 * Aside from that, great changes. :) I also think King is capped, but I think at one point a copyeditor changed that. Thanks for your help. And I'll see what I can do with the third paragraph of the lead ok? Cheers Raystorm 11:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: I capped Autonomous Communities in the Civil unions in Spain article, FYI. ;) Cheers! Raystorm 13:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I checked too the Spanish article for background info, but it was horribly unreferenced.

Regarding your points:


 * Okay, we mention in the article that only the state has the power to legislate marriage, so that's covered.


 * About the Constitutional declaring it wouldn't be considered unconstitutional to not recognize same-sex marriage, I think it might be best to wait and see what they say about the challenge issued by the People's Party. I mean, that comment was from 1994 (I think the OMS still considered homosexuality a disease then).


 * The civil code is the one being modified, but that's obvious right? I mean, we're talking about civil marriage here. But I can add a line to specify it.


 * You're right, the rewording of article 44 should be added. I don't believe there's an official translation of it, but I'll search for a good source.


 * Yeah, seems kinda redundant. There's a link to the marriage article somewhere that specifies the rights of married people. We do mention a few in the article, so I don't see a need to get into much detail here.


 * The jurists sentence I don't think we need to add, because it's not an official body of lawyers saying that, just certain members. Might be POV.


 * Phew. Just reading about poligamy and zoophilia zooms me into non-NPOV nightmares. I'll see what I can find. However, if they had to change their conclusions seems to me they weren't exactly impartial or neutral when they first drew them, and that already makes me suspicious.


 * That Psychology article is from 2002. The sources I provided include its author and her conclusions. I did search for the article online, but couldn't find it at the Spanish School of Psychology.

Cheers and thanks for your suggestions! Raystorm 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: The Consejo de Estado is the General Council of Judiciary power, so we _did_ introduce their report in the article. :) Raystorm 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you're on top of it. Do you want someone else to ping Opabinia and Explorer to have a new look?  Let me know when you hear from Opabinia - if her concerns are addressed (she is a very good reviewer), I'll Support.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made the changes. Do you think it's better now? I've left Opabinia a message at her talkpage. If you could get Explorer, great (I saw a notice in his/her talkpage stating he/she is very busy in real life now though). Cheers Raystorm 17:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the templates. It certainly has sparked interest at the LGBT project. :-) Btw, I've followed your suggestions at the FAC page. Thanks for hunting down those refs! Cheers Raystorm 11:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, did you let Dev know of the navigational template info? I'll get over to look at the FAC later today.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mess
No problem, FACs are waiting on reviews and DYK is backlogged anyway (Churning out?!? They aren't cheeses). Although...I'm not sure what's going on...are you moving all the missing and old FACs and FAR/Cs to the new names? I'll get on it in a while - got to go out for few hours. Yomangani talk 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm moving them so that the category and the FFA page will agree, and I'll be able to track it as all these changes occur. There are a couple of pages that are really messed up that I need help on - go to the bottom of the list, and look up from there - you'll see the messy ones.  Thanks !!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at it more closely, the move to Business Strategy was a unilateral move by a new editor with about 2 edits beforehand, and as well as violating the MoS it created a lot of double redirects and isn't descriptive of the article contents, so I moved everything back to Strategic management. And I didn't know what an RBP was either. Yomangani talk 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * RPB, I meant RPB. Yomangani talk 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL - took me a while to figure them out. These old-timers should go easy on us still-sorta-clueless newbies !!  Haven't I given you a barnstar already?  I need to have Gimmetrow set up a bot to bestow weekly barnstars to Dr pda, himself, and you :-)  Thanks so much, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * RBP is where I got Platypus from. It looked like it was a bit mad - 3 people vote keep and it gets removed or vice versa. No need for barnstars - just have a look over Featured article candidates/The Four Stages of Cruelty (but not just before eating: it's 18th century London in all its glory). Cheers, Yomangani talk 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not before eating - yikes - sounds like a task for right after my morning coffee tomorrow :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be an idiot...
What's an RPB? I'll do what's ever needed now. Marskell 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So somebody whitelisted should add them all to WP:FFA? I can do that tomorrow. Marskell 21:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some BP promotions (those that were added before any nomination process) lasted less than ten minutes (Breatharian 7 minutes), is it only those that got reviewed at RBP that get listed as FFAs? Yomangani talk 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ... headache. It's not on the list Placebo posted at talk FFA, so I guess it's not our problem :-)  I'm glad when this is all over, lots of things will be simpler.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infobox and template standards
I'm not aware of any formal attempt at standardization (and I don't think one is really necessary, since most of the commonly-used infoboxes are quite adequately maintained by the associated WikiProjects); but, at least according to Infobox templates, the term "infobox" only applies to summary tables, not to navigational templates.

(It should be pointed out that, strictly speaking, there's neither a requirement to have an infobox in all articles, nor anything forbidding a navigational template being placed in the top corner if there isn't an infobox there.) Kirill Lokshin 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

World Energy
Why did you make the article a candidate to be featured again? Frank van Mierlo 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates matches WP:FAC until articles are removed to archives. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They match now  Frank van Mierlo 03:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Menstrual cycle
Can you submit it for Featured Article Review. The lead is too short? I am male so I don't feel like submiting for review. :) --Parker007 09:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Parker - I can't submit that article for several reasons. 1) WP:FAR is somewhat backed up right now, and I'm not making new submissions.  2) I try to submit only one article at a time from any given WikiProject, so as not to overwhelm the Projects; there is already a medical article at FAR.  3)  I haven't looked at the article, but a short lead doesn't strike me as sufficient reason for review - that could hopefully be addressed by raising the issue on the talk page, or posting a note about deficiencies that should be corrected at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.  4) There are numerous medical articles that have far bigger problems than a short lead, and I would submit them first (when the backlog at FAR is resolved and I can make a new submission).  If you still want to submit it, and would like for me to help you prepare your submission, please let me know.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Anne of Great Britain
Thanks for noticing. Mocko13 14:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And make mine a double
Yep, all the cites were already there, just in a sorry state. I quickly checked each one individually to weed out any gross inaccuracies (one down, BTW) and make sure no links had gone dead, but there you go. Thanks anyway for your confidence in my citation skills :) Also, what's with the confusing in "Trademark and logo issues"? Fvasconcellos 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Darn, you made me read that article? I have no idea what that section is saying - if that's what the prose looks like, I think I'll go ahead and vote Remove.  I was waiting to see if someone could improve the prose, but it doesn't look like it's happening.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't let me stop you :/ I'm a pretty terrible writer, so I won't touch prose issues. I'll still try my best and address Lucifer's concerns if he presents them. Fvasconcellos 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here - that's why I focus on refs and hope someone else will fix the prose. Unfortunately, Tony1 is really busy right now.  Unless someone steps up to the plate soon, I'll object on prose.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson
The article says "and possibly obsessive-compulsive disorder" which does not seem concrete enough to categorize him among people with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Doczilla 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That source backs up the Tourette's. I'll check for a decent OCD reference and think about the wording, though. Doczilla 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The genetic relationship between Tourette's and OCD is irrelevant. We diagnose OCD based on OCD symptoms. Anyway, I found some more references. Doczilla 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: External links?
Hi there. This kind of stuff happens because the dump is a database query which does not discriminate between references and plain external links etc. Thus, I am not able to exclude external links inside references because Wikipedia does not have such field in the database. The idea of the external link dump is to give External links and WikiProject Spam a list of articles with many external links so that people can check each of them and verify whether they are articles with spam or correctly used (as the articles you pointed out). Ideally, you would edit the table and add a check or something to demonstrate you have reviewed the article and found it as a correctly sourced article instead of being abused by spammers and fans, however we are too few to do a full run, and instead concentrate on the ones that have

Note that links to Wikipedia itself (this is pretty common inside some templates that use full links instead of wikilinks) are also considered external links for the database, so templates like birthyr give every article in which it appears over 20 external links. This is clear in the top articles, where most of the external links in fact come from the coor d template.

As a side note, in the specif case of Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, I would argue that you have 11 external links to the same site, when common sense would dictate having one to the main site and letting the user browse the site from there. But since it is just an outsider's point of view, I won't say anything ;-) -- ReyBrujo 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Images
I am considering FAC2 on Campbell's Soup Cans. Before I do so I was hoping to get an informal opinion from people who previously objected on fair use grounds. I have revised all image pages and captions and would like your opinion on my fair image usage before renominating my article. Please respond at my talk page. TonyTheTiger 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
I'll do my best. Give me a few days ok? I already have previous commitments with other editors that I had to postpone due to the FAC. I gave the article a cursory view, it seems quite complete. Just one thing -saw a red link. Maybe you could get the author to lose it or create a stub for it? I don't think I've ever seen a FA with red links. See ya Raystorm 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Red links are actually OK in FAs, and some argue a red link is preferable to a poorly-written stub, and will encourage someone else to fill it in. He only created that the other day at my urgine, so I'm sure he'll get to it soon.  Thanks for looking !  I know El Hatillo well - baptized all my godchildren there - so I'm too close to it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)