User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch72

Poke
You may want to look at this... new editor registered today, posted an article that's not ready to FAC... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I took care of it, seeing as the nominator was blocked and everyone else agreed the article wasn't ready. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

math/maths on Asperger syndrome
Please see my comments at Talk:Asperger_syndrome for why we need to keep this as "maths" per WP:ENGVAR even though the prevailing dialect of the article is US English. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Trichotillomania
Hi, I would like to know why my edits on the trichotillomania page were deleted so I can fix my mistakes in order to allow the information to remain on the page relatively untainted.

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clipovsky2010 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:V, WP:MEDRS and WP:RECENTISM? Wiki medical articles should not report obscure primary studies, and that info is not mentioned in any secondary review.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to invite you to my query regarding decoupling... Thank you! --Neuschrank (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

FAC reviews
Hi Sandy,

As you requested a little while ago, I've been reviewing FA candidates and trying to assist the authors in getting the articles to FA status. My most recent review was a bit lengthy; I was wondering if this much detail is helpful, or too much already? Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

FT courtesy note
Hey. As I'm sure you know, Featured Topics are moving from requiring 1/3 of articles featured in a topic to 1/2 on September 1. I plan to notify those topics in danger and their creators within a couple weeks. As a result of doing this, there's a real possibility that in August, the number of FACs will jump a good deal (perhaps 10-15 extra, or maybe none, who knows). I don't want to cause a burden on FAC though, so I'm wondering if there's something I could do to make sure everything's ready for that change without causing any problems on your end; FAC is backlogged enough as is. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Tourette syndrome
Hi,

Sorry about the misunderstanding over the edit summaries here. I've made a more minimal edit wahich just swaps the archives box for one which allows for searching; this was really all I was looking for in the first place, but got a bit carried away. In future I'd appreciate a comment on my talk if it looks like I haven't understood a summary. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I'm sorry for not leaving a message-- I am completely swamped in real life, and barely able to keep up with my watchlist. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

FAC today
Hi Sandy. I know I said I'd be fine with doing FAC today, but I now have a sick baby who is pretty much refusing to let me put him down for more than a few minutes at a time. If you still have free time today - and by this late in the day you probably don't - and would like to meander through FAC then I would be really grateful. Otherwise, I should have time to run through tomorrow night. Karanacs (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we've addressed your concerns on Tosca. Hope you have time to take a second look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

FAC fail
I have two questions:
 * 1) I do not see any current rule at WP:FAC regarding a waiting period following an unsuccessful FAC. Is there one?
 * 2) If so, is that relevant when the FAC was closed with no opposes or unresolved issues?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stalker butting in, Tony, the rule is in : If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. -MBK004 03:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Also butting in). I'm assuming this is in regards to the recently closed Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive1. If so, the phrase "Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions" in the directions may also apply, depending on where the line of "minimal feedback" is drawn. As Tony says above, there were no opposes and all issues had been responded to. That's up to Sandy/Karanacs I guess. Just my thoughts - Dana boomer (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not ready to immediately renominate Millennium Park. user:Ruhrfisch said he would do a ce of it this weekend.  I would like permission to nominate either Lurie Garden or Grant Park Music Festival before the two week period. Alternatively, I would request an official minimal feedback exemption ruling.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could use the two weeks to help out by reviewing other articles, to help with the backlog, and assure that your noms are well prepared pre-FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All good advice for sure. However, in this specific instance could you say whether a candidate with no opposes and all issues addressed is eligible for a two week exception or whether this is eligible for the minimal feedback exemption since it was closed for lack of reviewer interest rather than opposes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with SandyG. Just looking quickly through the lead of Lurie Garden I came across this: "The Garden is composed of ..." versus "The garden cost ...". Also from the lead; "The light plate, which includes no trees, represents the city's future with sun-loving perennials that thrive in the heat and the sun." Sounds like the city and those sun-loving perennials are going to get married and live together. Those articles aren't ready. Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would look at my edit history you will see I am currently revising Lurie Garden. Aside from agreeing to be flippant, neither of you has stated whether a candidate with no opposes and all issues addressed is eligible for a two week exception or whether a candidate closed for lack of reviewer interest rather than opposes is eligible for the minimal feedback exemption.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At this very moment neither potential nominee is ready to be reviewed, but either could be in four or five days. I am competing in the WP:CUP and getting an article nominated ten days earlier could make a difference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well, that changes everything. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad the peanut gallery is amused, but I would like to be able to get back to my editing, so can I get a ruling on
 * whether a candidate closed with no opposes and all issues addressed is eligible for a two week exception.
 * whether a candidate closed for lack of reviewer interest rather than opposes is eligible for the minimal feedback exemption.


 * (outdent) the exemption is solely for those that lacked reviewers. You had some, but not many, so you might be able to use the exemption. I'm not an FAC regular though so mine's a grain of salt answer. Still, make sure for each article that the basics have been dealt with already (multiple refs, copyright tags, etc.) before nominating. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not seen a case of NO reviewers. How often does this happen?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TT, I've already answered the question-- I suggest you ponder your role in the FAC backlog and how you might help the process. You may renominate in two weeks.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Or I can co-nominate immediately or whenever I want. I apologize, but for the remainder of the WP:CUP I will not be spending significant time reviewing. Hit me up in November and I will do some reviews.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think that attitude might have anything to do with why your FACs don't get reviewed, or why we had to implement a provision for repeat nominators who treat FAC like peer review? Have you noticed the selfless and thankless work put in to FAC by SO many reviewers?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The FAC regs are doing marvelous things. Again, I apologize, I will be doing thankless and selfless work on behalf of WP:CHICAGO, and the Michigan Wolverines for the rest of the WP:CUP, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992/archive1
I would like to clear up the image issue, but I have no idea what the problem is. I was under the impression that logos are permissible for identification purposes. In this case, the image is essential to how the campaign portrays itself. And I believe the debate image is fair-use since there are no free images of Perot during the campaign. It is essential to show the reader how the three-way debate was organized and how the candidate appeared. Please let me know what I need to do to clear up the issue. I will remove the images completely if need be. Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please ping in some image reviewers for second opinions-- I'd like to see nominators themselves make sure that images are cleared rather than constantly having to prod for an image review. Good luck!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is an image reviewer? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (interjecting) Anyone who is familiar with looking at images and making sure they have legal and decent copyright rationales for the page in question. If they don't, they need to be moved off the page and even deleted in some cases. RN 00:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jappalang, Stifle, Fasach nua, Elcobbola, Awadewit, anyone else you can think of who reviews images. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/The Boys from Baghdad High/archive1
Sandy, does this FAC need to be closed? The reason why I asked is because User:Matthewedwards, the nominator, had a recently failed article, Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song). The same day, he placed The Boys from Baghdad High up for FAC. Now, I believe that he prematurely put another article up for FAC, but I want to know if it should be closed because of this. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've withdrawn it (but it doesn't need to be entered in articlehistory, since it was premature and had little commentary). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:MED show case
I removed WP:FFA from the show case section of WP:MED as I did not think FFA qualified as show case material. Have added other stuff instead. It was discussed. Cheers -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Closing both FACs?
I can understand closing one, per the FAC rules, but both (here and here)? I tried contacting User:Karanacs about the possibility of letting it slide this one time but I never got a response. Either way, I don't think it's appropriate to speedy close both open FACs when the only thing wrong is that there are two of them. At least reopen one so I have something to work on while I wait out the other two week time limit. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of them needed more work before being ready for another FAC; please take a few weeks to prepare them. Good luck!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Reopening FAC?
Hi, Sandy. What should I do with Featured article candidates/The Boys from Baghdad High/archive1? It was removed from FAC because I'd just had a different nomination archived. Two weeks will have passed on Saturday, so it should be eligible for nomination again. Shall I transclude /archive1 again, or start afresh with Featured article candidates/The Boys from Baghdad High/archive2? Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat  03:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Matthew, since the FAC was not archived to the FA log, and the bot did not process the nomination, I think it will be fine if you put /archive1 back in FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dabomb; just transclude the original again, but make sure and resign it so we have today's date as a reference and not the old date. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with starting a second FAC, so there's a complete record (even if they aren't articlehistory events), but it really doesn't matter one way or another. If you submit the archive1, I've cleaned it up, but you should re-sign with a new timestamp.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Tune for the recently freed
Joyous tack. Although I'm straight, the line he wants to wash me makes my stomach quiver. Now go promote, goddamn it. Ceoil (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Put me in a bathtub ... I am promoting, goddamnit. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are more of a clam than bathtub person. Ceoil (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Showers are highly overrated.  2.  Venus has a good wax job.  3.  Who told you Boticelli was my favorite?  4.  I'm promoting, goddamnit, so stop distracting me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1: Showers can go it either way, it depends on the company you keep. 2. Spanish have all the best tricks. 3. Delighted. 4. Remember what we agreed though, doom articles by Yoman, Moni, Malleus, Canadians and Cologoneese. Viva Cork! Ceoil (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm on for Cork as long as there are good spas there; you set the date, I'll bring the Canadians. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)
 * I've asked our airport guy, Ted, to stop Canadians coming in. He checks the luggage, serves the drinks, takes the plane up, across, and down and watches out for them Canadians. He's working out well so far, is Ted. No problem. Ceoil (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, dear, why do you want to keep out all our favorite Canadians? Are you trying to keep me all to yerself?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I just did a cleanup of Featured article candidates/Shimer College/archive1, can you check again? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm out of time ... if I get a break before 0 UTC, I'll try to have a look, unless Karanacs happens to be online and get there before me-- I don't expect to have any more free time today, and until I'm home on Tuesday. Thanks, Dabomb!  Would you have time tonight to update all the stats and archive pages?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I should. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good gosh, I looked at my computer time and went dashing out for a manicure in the wrong time zone! Got it-- thanks again Dabomb, and thanks for doing stats and archives tonight-- I don't think numbers will mix well with the amount of champagne I plan to imbibe tonight.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All done. That champagne better have been good! Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All Champagne is good. I've had horrid Cava, Cremant, Sekt, etc, but never bad Champagne.  Courcelles (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Either the champagne was exceptionally good, or it seemed so because it was 1) cold and 2) not more BBQ beef with heat and humidity. Thanks so much, Dabomb!!  We've got an RFA to conduct by the end of next week.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Jail/gaol
Well indeed. Tony  (talk)  16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you (either of you) think this makes it unstable enough to warrant holding it back from FAC? Hopefully, this new version of the footnote will be enough to satisfy all sides. I had this one earmarked for FAC next; my other current contender, Brill Tramway, is still quite new and I prefer to give them time to settle before sending to GAC/FAC. Besides, I imagine everyone is sick of the sight of train articles right now. – iride  scent  17:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Molehill --> mountain. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, especially given that the sentence "The younger Daniel Lambert was a much-respected gaoler; he befriended many of the prisoners, and made every effort to help them when they went to trial" should make it pretty clear what he did. But, no point sending it to FAC if it's going to be plastered with "oppose, fails 1(e)" comments. – iride  scent  17:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Kent, Ohio FAC
I am wondering what the pressing issues that need to be worked out at Kent, Ohio that are preventing it from being promoted and why it needs to close now. Every issue presented in the FAC I have addressed and the only outstanding one, the issue of the seal image, really hasn't been pursued by the person who brought it up as a problem nor did he address the rationale I provided as to why the seal is a valid part of the article whether it's copyrighted or not (even the issue on the copyright problems page was never addressed other than by the original editor who opposed the seal and the editor who believes it is not copyrighted). Doesn't seem fair that this gets closed with no consensus because the 2 that "opposed" did very little to elaborate or even respond to the changes I made, especially with the other supports that did appear. Even the comments by Tony were addressed but he didn't remove his "oppose" because he hadn't gone through the rest of the article (but planned to do so) because he "came in so late" (it's been all of 4 days since he last responded). Yes, I'm a very frustrated editor at this point. I feel like I've done everything I've been asked to do (which in many cases I felt was far more nitpicking and personal preferences than actual improvements) to get the article where it needs to be and been very patient only to get burned in the end and have to submit this again and endure another endless review process all over because other editors have taken their time to respond to changes and "issues" in the article. Even the "See also" question you raised never got a response (yeah or nay) after my explanation and changes. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry: I can't give much time to FAC reviewing until later in August. Tony   (talk)  14:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

FAs by size..
Can someone who stalks this page remind me of where the list of FAs by size is located? It's gone missing from my "files"... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured articles/By length. Yes, MM would be the shortest ever. – iride  scent  18:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Any chance of some clever person making a graph of that? Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not clever with puters, but I could produce a graph (without the article titles, I guess you mean, just the spread of the sizes?). Off to bed now, it's 20 past 4 in the morning! Tony   (talk)  18:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really should nominate ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus, just to beat that dead horse. Dead rats are better. Ucucha 18:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * More interesting would be size at time of promotion, as Sandy has complained that some article writers after FAC, expanded their articles beyond what would have been accepted at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what these are? Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask and ye shall &c. Featured Articles sorted by size.png Size distribution among Featured Articles.png
 * Incidentally, did the consensus at FAC change recently? I've always been told that short articles are proverbial snowballs at FAC, and that for these there's no shame in sticking with GA. If short articles now can be featured I'd see your fossil rodent and raise you one 11 year old boy (well, except I see it has amassed some cruft lately). --Xover (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What matters is whether it's comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail; there's no minimum or maximum size. The 1,400 word Halkett boat recently sailed through (sic) – iride  scent  21:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Halkett boat is an extreamly beautully and charmingly illustrated page. I'm not feeling so much love for MM tbh, though I very much respect Ealdgyth would not oppose on a preferance or meta issue. In other words I just wanted to chime so to be ample knock that appaling pun. Facepalm: even Jesus is embarrassed by that faggetory. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Faggetory (var. "faggotory") n. A location, such as a laboratory, set up exclusively to experiment with one's sexual orientation. --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise known as "boarding school". – iride  scent  22:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See also: Sorority house; women's studies department. --Moni3 (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So thats what it means? Jesus when they used to shout it at me at school I assumed it was had far worse meaning. A location, such as a laboratory, set up exclusively to experiment with one's sexual orientation. How the fuck did they know about about my lab? Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm—love to know if Samantha and Chelsea are aware they're gracing the fifth most popular site on teh interwebs, and whether they actually consented to its release. Wikipedia Review may often be a gaggle of lunatics, but when they talk about Commons having an extreme blind-spot when it comes to personality rights, they do have a point. – iride  scent  22:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I always, as a photographer, get the willies when I see things like that. I mean, you need a model release for that! Really! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, getting the willies is exactly what happens in the faggetory. – iride  scent  23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fantastic - thanks very much. Actually I saw there was an older graph at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, but these do indeed seem to show a trend to longer articles. I think you're ok so long as the subject isn't a road junction or stiff breeze. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is current size, correct? Not as of passage?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sizes are current (as of 26 July for the graphs here), yes. Updated periodically by  as far as I can tell. --Xover (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, I win, I win - gawd, this article is like my old bougainvillea hedge///dang thing needs to be pruned just so often... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. For reference, it looks like your winning candidate there is currently about 184k, but at the time it became featured it was 129k. For whatever that tells us about trends... --Xover (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And on the other end of the scale, Tropical Depression Ten (2007) has grown from 14.8k to 18.6k. Ucucha 23:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Medical articles are amazing in their ability to swell from interesting adds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But seriously, the bottom graph is nice - I generally find 20-30k is a size of a bio article where I feel it is in a 'comfort zone' with comprehensiveness fears below and size fears above...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Worried about size, are you Cas? Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (shuffles feet, looks at sky) no, not at all...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to do a graph of articles at time of promotion, possibly using oldid?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but someone needs to write the script. Ucucha 23:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible. You wouldn't even have to calculate page length using a script because all the old revisions have been retroactively populated. But you'd need to be able to programmatically match up promotion time with the page history to get the correct size, and I'm not sure how easy that'd be. If there's a particular oldid you could pull for each FA from the talk page or something, it'd be fairly trivial to write a script to look them up. All that said, there's a huge difference between page length in bytes and readable prose. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The ArticleHistory for each FA should have an oldid for promotion. Ucucha 05:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As opposed to "faggotry" (what goes on behind bushes in parks at night). Tony   (talk)  07:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is, is that size at time of promotion is far more useful to us. Once the article is promoted, the writers can do as they like with them, for all practical purposes, and Sandy has complained that some of the large ones were much smaller at promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have missed all the faggotry fun, but yes, it is a pet peeve of mine when an article grows enormously post-FAC ... IMO, any article that is 20% or more larger than what was reviewed at FAC should be FAR'd for a new review, since most of that content wasn't vetted. A bigger pet peeve now is all the primary sources and non-WP:MEDRS content that is being globbed into medical articles.  Oh, well.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)