User talk:Sarastro1/Archive 13

Qualification in ye olde times
Hi, I can see where you are going with your edits at the Jochen Rindt article, but the problem is that you are looking at a previous era through eyes more used to the modern systems. At the time of the 1970 Dutch Grand Prix, 'qualification' was something that only the minnows had to do. Top ranked drivers, works teams, and other popular entries (usually local heroes, or similar) didn't have to qualify as they had guaranteed places. Hence, what Rindt did was "set" the pole position time that other drivers would have to beat, so the phrasing "set pole position" is correct, rather than "qualified in pole position" which is not.

All this is a little beside the point, however, as having looked up the actual practice times for that race most of the information given on our page is garbage! Rindt actually set the fastest time of first practice (1:19.48), the fourth fastest time of second practice (1:19.78), and then the fastest time of the session and fastest time of all (1:18.50) in third practice. That time earned him pole position for the start. I don't know where the information came from that suggested he was only 10th in first practice and then fastest in second, that's just wrong. His braking incident happened on Friday afternoon, at the end of first practice and not in the race, and according to contemporary reports was an exceedingly minor bodywork prang which didn't require much rebuilding at all. All of this is covered in much detail in the report in Motor Sport (here). Pyrop e  22:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see. Well, you learn something new every day. That change looks fine. Could I be a real nuisance and ask you to add that ref to it as well, as I'm not sure the edit would be sourced by what we've got. You may or may not be aware that the article is at FAC, and if you spot anything else from ye olde times that I've missed (I'm not the nominator, just a reviewer) feel free to chip in. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, already part way through when you asked! Pyrop  e  22:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Anbe Sivam Review
Hello there. I am planning to later take this article to FA. I was hoping you could give an informal review before I open up the FAC page so as to fine tune the article. Thank you. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 12:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

2003 Cricket World Cup Final
Hi, I'm gearing up for the FAC. Since you assured that you'll copy-edit the article, I'm letting you know. TIA, &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the article for FAC. Look forward to your comments. TIA &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

2014 Japanese Grand Prix
Hi, Sarastro. I'll try to leave a review for the article tomorrow, holiday preparations permitting. Several Formula One race articles came through FAC in my early days as an editor, back when I was first becoming engaged in reviewing, so I have some familiarity with the expectations in the field. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 01:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring
Hi, I am contacting you for FAC mentoring. If one is willing to mentor will the work be regarding a submission by someone else or by the editor asking for mentoring? The article submitted by me is Pop Warner some work was done on it before it was archived. I am greatly interested in both editing other editors submissions and submitting on my own, so it would be great if I could get some help. Thank you very much. Rybkovich (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely clear what you are asking for here. Mentoring is designed so that someone who wants to nominate an article for FAC asks an experienced nominator to work with them beforehand to check that the article is ready for FAC and has no obvious problems; it is intended for work by the editor who asked for mentoring. If you ask someone to mentor you, it is usually between you and the person whom you ask whether or not you go for a joint nomination. It really depends how much work the mentor does. If you are asking me to take a look, I might be able to do so, but I can't give any guarantee how quickly everything would happen. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood the program's purpose. I think me and another editor have done most of the required work and the article is ready for consideration. It would be great if you looked at it and let me know if anything stands out, but only whenever you have time to do that. Let me know if you need help with anything. Thank you. PS I was born in Russia and raised in US but nevertheless I like to watch 20twenty matches when the big tournaments come around. Rybkovich (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer review/Keechaka Vadham/archive1
Hello, Sarastro1, and Happy New Year to you. I plan to take this to FA. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the PR page by pinging me. Thanks. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Forensic chemistry/archive1
I'd like to withdraw my nomination please. Over three months and almost 100,000 bytes of discussion later and we are still at "a good start". I've had enough. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems a little hasty. There is no rush here, and with three supports you are in no danger of being archived. I think Casliber's points are almost addressed, and John is one of the better prose people out there to be honest, and his comments will only improve the article. If I were you, I'd keep going as there probably isn't much further to go. But the choice is yours. It will be much later today before I can archive it in any case. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not hasty at all but a well thought out request. I refuse to appease someone who comes in at the 11th hour, clearly doesn't give a damn what I think about the article I wrote, and proceeds to insinuate that I don't know how to read (that last one is the straw that broke the camel's back). As one oppose results in a derailed FA nomination my request simply cuts to the end result. Sorry for wasting everyone's time but I've learned that FAC is not someplace I wish to participate. If jumping through hoops and appeasing those that would rather take the time to tell someone else to remove a word instead of just fixing it themselves and then being forced to sit there and be insulted is the price to pay to get a tiny bronze star I frankly don't need nor want that agitation. --Majora (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well, if that is what you want. I hope you reconsider at some point. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologise humbly to if I offended you by my comments, which were requested. Having one's own prose peer-reviewed can be tough, but it is an essential part of our goal to improve. I'm sorry if in the words I chose, I hurt your feelings. I encourage you to persevere as your article is good. --John (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin
FAC: I don't know if you saw on my user and several user talk pages that I'm getting nervous about it. I am on vacation, little time for Wikipedia. I hate pushing people but will on Sunday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I just don't want to see it fade away if possible. It will be fine for a while longer, especially if we can get some comment on it. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Paranthodon
Sorry I only just spotted your ping, so I can't reply on the Featured article candidates/Paranthodon/archive1 page, which is closed. I think your reservations about the alt text had some justification, so I've made an attempt to tweak the alt text (and caption in one place where I felt they were juxtaposed), along with as much explanation of my thinking as I could fit into an edit summary. Please understand that I didn't think that the alt text was bad – far from it, and I'm delighted to see nominators making the effort to write alt text. In fact, I think that rather than turning the exercise of writing alt text into a hurdle for an FAC to overcome, we're better off gently encouraging nominators, just as you did. Thank you. Regards --RexxS (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

FAC: House of Music
Hello there. Would you care to review or comment at my nomination of House of Music for featured status? The previous nomination did not gather enough commentary, so anything at all would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Iazyges FA
Hey, I wanted to follow up with you in developing the Iazyges article. I have removed the King Arthur myth section per your comments. I have also addressed all of the prose issues you have mentioned. I am still looking for information on their historiography, archaeology, and religion, but have found nothing that would meet RS standards. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  02:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Bobby Peel scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Bobby Peel article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 12, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/February 12, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Good to see him on his birthday, - Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Ultimately his was one of cricket's sadder stories. JH (talk page) 08:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday's Enterprise
Just finished with the God of War: Ascension FAC, which took longer than I thought it would, and I'm at a stopping point with Burning Rangers and Nike-X, so I can review Yesterday's Enterprise if you still would like me to -- let me know. I'm also planning to review Æthelflæd but that's probably it for a few days at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be great if you could manage it. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. To be honest I think the prose is OK; not glittering, but perfectly acceptable.  I made some minor copyedits and so did another editor before I got there.  Let me know if you still think there are infelicities and I'll have another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I just wanted another pair of eyes on it before it was promoted. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Prince Romerson FAC
Do you think Featured article candidates/Prince Romerson/archive1 is good to go?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

FAC
Hello Sarastro. As you know, my FAC of Nelson Mandela was recently passed and I am looking towards further articles to bring to FAC. I am of course aware that there is a two week waiting period that is usually expected between the end of one FAC and the nomination of another by the same editor. However, looking at the FAC page I note that it states that a co-ordinator can grant exemption in certain cases. I am not clear whether I have any strong reason for breaking this general rule, however given the lack of FAs to meet the need for TFAs I was wondering if I could obtain exemption, thus allowing me to nominate another article in the coming few days (probably Heathenry (new religious movement))? It would trim a week or so off the process - nothing drastic, but it might help provide some small alleviation of this problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The two week rule only applies when a nomination has been archived. If, like Mandela, the article was promoted, there is no time limit and you could nominate another one immediately. Hope this helps! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's great Sarastro. Looks like I've been misinterpreting this rule for years! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Bird production line...
As Corvus is just waiting on source review...are you okay if I post another bird FAC? Cheers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx/much appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Billy Cannon, Y.A. Tittle
It was on my talk page that Giants2008 gave rave reviews of your writing capabilities and recommended you for a mentorship. The article I asked him to look at was Y.A. Tittle, but one that I've spent more time developing is Billy Cannon. I requested a peer review of Cannon's and so far the only one was quite paltry; either they found very little wrong or didn't put much effort into it. The GA reviews for each went swimmingly, with Cannon's being instantly passed and the reviewer of Tittle's saying it was the best article they'd ever reviewed. So I'm left with trying to figure out which of these articles is nearest to FA quality. Could I ask you to skim through each and let me know which would be best suited for a mentorship and FA candidacy? Thanks, Lizard  (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look at both, and there doesn't seem to be much to choose from a quick glance, and they both look like they would have a chance. Your call really. Both would need a little polish, but if you let me know which one you decide to go for I will give it a copy-edit and see what else we might need. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's go with Cannon then. Lizard  (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I should be able to take a look either this weekend or early next week. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Acne vulgaris FAC
Hi there Sarastro, I think the acne vulgaris FAC has received sufficient commentary and consensus to promote to FA. Would you mind taking a look? Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're nearly there, and the most important point is that we look to have medical reviews. Unless I have missed them, we still need image and source reviews. I'd also maybe like a non-medical editor to have a quick glance at the prose to check it makes sense to the lay reader. I'll leave a note about the image and source reviews on the FAC (probably tomorrow now). I don't know if has much on his place at the moment, but he might be able to have a look at the prose. If not, we can find someone! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think I'll have time for this, at least not within the next week or ten days. If you still need someone in a couple of weeks, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. I'll try to find someone else tomorrow. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seppi did the MOS review. Wouldn't that cover the image part or is that considered distinct? Can you clarify what you mean about the source review? I don't think I saw that mentioned on the FAC or FAQ pages. I have no objection to a non-medical editor reviewing the prose though that has previously occurred. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A source review simply covers whether or not the sources are reliable, and that they are formatted correctly and consistently. If this is your first FAC, we will also require a spot-check of sources for attribution and close paraphrasing. This is standard for all new nominators. The image review is separate and covers whether the images are PD or if they are appropriately licensed, etc. It is standard practice at all FACs. I'll clarify on the FAC page tomorrow if no-one beats me to it. It might sound like a lot, but this last part of the review usually goes quite quickly and, hopefully, smoothly. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seppi did the review of source formatting and consistency. I believe Seppi also reviewed the article's images for proper licensing/rights as well. Otherwise, that sounds fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, that should be OK then. It wouldn't be the first time I missed reviews! Cheers, Sarastro1 (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Any bites on new reviewers for the last couple of to-dos for this article's FA review? Did you drop a message on the FAC page? I didn't see it so that's why I'm asking. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't manage to get anyone to have a look yet, so I'll leave a note on WT:FAC. However, we still need to wait for the source spot checks before promotion in any case. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, and who is doing that and when? I'm unclear on the details. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We are waiting for a volunteer; the article has been added to the list of requests at the top of WT:FAC. This last part of the review sometimes takes a little longer while we wait for someone to oblige, but there is zero danger of the article being archived at this point, so there is no need to rush. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This really seems like overkill at the FAC for acne vulgaris. Based on this terrible experience, I think I'll agree with WhatamIdoing and never nominate another article for FAC. This is absolutely excessive and not particularly helpful. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, there are some nominators who would kill for this level of input, although I appreciate that probably isn't too much of a comfort. The way to think about this is that the more eyes, the better the article will be. It may be frustrating when you think you are over the line, but my advice would be to stick at it as the end result will doubtless be a better article, one way or another. I would suggest address the points to the best of your ability or explain why you think they are not necessary. There is no danger of archiving, and there are ways of getting over any roadblocks in nominations like this; if we reach an impasse, there are a few more things we can try. But even if, worst case scenario, this ends up as archived, you will have done most of the heavy lifting and all articles can always be renominated. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but it's been a very unpleasant experience based on how some of the editors offer feedback in a style that does not seem constructive to me. This is already the second renomination after a premature close of the first one so I'm sure you can understand why I'm frustrated/annoyed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Another article you might be interested in
Thank you once again for reviewing Sino-Roman relations. You did a fine job providing useful suggestions and copy-editing the article to improve the prose. On that note, I would be grateful if not honored if you would take a small look at my recently successful GA candidate Macedonia (ancient kingdom), the homeland of Alexander the Great (and eventually a conquered Roman province, heh). It could probably use a fresh pair of eyes before I send it into the meat grinder of the FA review process. As you might see on the talk page, I'm fully aware that it's a large, dense article that needs to be split into sub-articles using Summary style. At the very least the "History" section requires this; it's no doubt the largest part of the article. Anyways, I hope you have the time to have a look at it, and if you do, I hope you enjoy it as well! All the best. Pericles of Athens Talk 01:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Fragment of a Crucifixion
I unwisely nomed this last weekend, and quickly withdrew. But can you add a "did not succeed" tag to the FAC so the bot can do its thing. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think it should have been done. I noticed you removed it from FAC and I tagged it as withdrawn. Let me know if there are any problems from the housekeeping end. If you have something else brewing for FAC, I don't think we need the usual 2 week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Wehwalt left food for thought on the talk page that I need to work through. Thanks for the quick action and understanding. My impression of the new hands at FAC is very positive. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping
Hi Sarastro, thanks for the ping. It's best that I post here (though you have my permission to move this post this to the FAC if you prefer having it there). I'd have to really dig in for a comprehensive review but I don't think it's quite up to snuff on 1a & 1b; 2 (MOS (though that's minor, but still), and 2b. Also Pimple has free media that could be used, so I guess that would fall under 3. Also, something needs to be done about Pimple, because the content is so similar, and I think the suggestions re WP:COMMONAME have merit. Also, my fear is that it's veered toward a false consensus. Thanks, and apologies if I was at all rude. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to add: what I've been trying to convey is that it's sometimes best to get out of the glare of FAC to do the work. But that's my own opinion and I suppose I might have been inelegant in my delivery. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Classic example of my concerns with FAC ....
Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2. Too much focus on minute style preferences. Nominator lashing out at reviewers. I'd hesitate to step into that FAC and review sources without knowing that the co-ords have my back. And ... frankly, I don't think I would have, at least not in the way I would be sure of when Sandy was the co-ord. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am very aware of that FAC page and I'm doing what I can... If you (or anyone else) steps in, I hope I can assure you that the coordinators do have your back. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarastro, the only two editors with obviously female names have been told our disrespectful "tone" won't be tolerated, when our posts seem (to me) to have the same tone as anyone else's. SarahSV (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous, WAID and Opabinia are female. Your not so subtle implication of misogyny is out of line and offensive. Sarah, your tone and Victoria's were absolutely unacceptable and rude to me. I refuse to work with either of you ever again., I take exception with your characterization of the FAC. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a more constructive comparison would be between Sandbh's review and the reaction to those comments, rather than Opabinia's or WAID's, both of which were quite brief. The reason I looked at the FAC, was that it was needing a source spot check and I was going to step up and do it. I didn't for two reasons - Sarah had already done a good chunk of it and the tone of the whole FAC put me off. Not just the replies to Sarah and Victoria, but the general attitude. Several people brought up the issue of cosmetics needing to be covered - but that was brushed off with replies that any sources would have to be either MEDMERS compliant or "high quality". High quality, however, is not a hard and fast standard; but varies according to the subject matter. You don't expect to have scholarly books from Oxford University Press covering the modern acne coverup industry so you'd have to consider high quality to be something a bit less rigorous. (Although there is a more historical research on cosmetics in history than you might suspect - I know there is some coverage on Roman use of cosmetics, and I would be very very surprised if there wasn't some on Victorian use of cosmetics, at the very least). I get that you think Sarah's tone was rude. On the other hand, myself, when I went to read the FAC (and I read most of it to see if anyone had done spot checks of sources), found your replies to Sarah to be assuming that she was out to derail the FAC even before she had a chance to reply to your comments. And I am very much NOT a Sarah "groupie", I get that she can be demanding - but isn't that what you want for an FA? Aren't we all supposed to be striving to make articles more accessible to everyone, not just medical researchers? Another point I was making to Sarastro was the incredible detail of Sandbh's prose comments. Frankly - that set of comments is very very illustrative of a point I was making in another place about how too much of FAC reviewing has devolved into minute requests for individual prose tweaks that basically come down to an issue of personal style. Many of the requests for removal of redundant wording boil down to personal style choices and if the meaning is clear, we should stop obsessing about them at FAC and concentrate on the actual content and making sure the content is clear to the lay reader. Encyclopedia writing is not the same writing style as Hemingway, and we need to remember that. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I made that comparison several times on the FAC so there was no need to do so again. They were very rude. I really couldn't care less if you were "put off" by my refusal to tolerate that disrespect. That's all. End of story. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a model of "How not to do yourself any favours", it is exemplary. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * First, Sarastro1, thanks for hosting this. Second, Tyler I went to your page to extend an olive branch but chickened out. I'd like to say here that there was no intention of being rude or brusque or overbearing in my comments. If they came across that way, please accept my sincere apologies. FAC can be stressful, to say the least, and I think it's best to try to achieve some level of peace. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted this on a number of the reviewers talk pages, but while I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work.  As I am somewhat semi-retired from Wikipedia, next time it goes up for a FAC, should you think of me, please email me and I will post a review again.  Thanks! --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Acne listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1
Umm so the only problem is basically no traffic or reviews forthcoming. Should I just wait and renominate in two weeks and go through the same cycle again? It's been through all the other review process and grammar checked everything so the lack of reviews is the only problem. The only difference I can see to help move the next one along is to directly ask other users to review it which I haven't done except for two. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe try and drum up a bit of interest. I've no problem if you want to renominate at once, and if my weekend isn't too crazy I might try to review it myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Here is the second nomination Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive2. Look at it when you can. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Blog
Hi, just noticed that your blog is no longer around... what happened ? Tintin 12:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Various reasons, but lack of time for it, mainly. I've taken it down to work on a few things. It might go back, there or somewhere else, eventually! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

William T. Stearn
It would appear that Lingzhi and I have reached a total impasse on the William T. Stearn FAC and I am reluctant to undertake yet another total rewrite - this time the issue seems to be that primary sources should not be cited, if I follow a very convoluted discussion. We have had input from several other people already on the article as a whole. Can we get a second opinion on Lingzhi's issue. It seems to be a point the reviewer feels very strongly about and I fail to see as an issue. Actually it is the first time I have encountered this objection. I believe I have responded to all the other issues raised by Lingzhi. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

ygm

 * Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Briarcliff Library FAC
Hi Sarastro1, what do you think of my latest comment on the FAC? I realize this may be a more appropriate place to talk to a coordinator anyway, rather than on a page meant for reviewing the article. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 05:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarastro, does my idea sound good, or how should we proceed? Thanks ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 20:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm not entirely clear what idea you are talking about, or where you have said it. I couldn't see anything on the FAC page. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a direct link of where we left off: 1 (and before Werónika's comments). ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 21:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw that when you wrote it. I have left the nomination open as you requested, and there has been one further review. However, it still needs time for other people to look at it, including those who commented at the first FAC. I'm afraid we can't promote yet, and "three supports" is not a rule: articles are promoted when there is consensus that the FA criteria have been met, and it depends on depth of review of those criteria, not the number of supports. In any case, please be patient. It has not been on the FAC page for long and there are substantial comments. We just need to be a little more thorough given the unorthodox way this arrived at FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok neat. I don't recall anymore where Ian said about three supports, but what you said makes sense. About depth of review - I heard from one or two reviewers there that they did read through the whole thing very thoroughly - should the article review really suffer if that reviewer found no problems with the article? Anyway, I'll continue to be patient of course, I was just wondering what you thought of the three support idea and extending the review's time. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to work with ceoil for as long as I could, however they were being irrational and against policies/guidelines in many cases, so far as removing the org's logo simply because they didn't like the look of it. Their copyedits removed large swaths of the article nobody else thought was problematic, and as for their individual rewordings, I looked back today hoping to keep some of them, but none of them are beneficial, and many actually contradict what the two previous reviews' comments had corrected. The recent copyedits only confused an already rather complex topic, especially when it comes to present and former locations of the organization. I'm not sure what experience has to do with being a contributive and beneficial reviewer, but they were in no way beneficial here, and none of their comments/changes were anything like those of the other reviewers. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 16:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Mail
Would like to discuss something with you .. is it okay to send a mail ? Tintin 05:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

FAC request (always the same)
Hello Sarastro, I know I may be getting on your nerves, but would you mind having a look at Featured article candidates/Palais Rohan, Strasbourg/archive1? I am actually a bit worried because Ceoil, who said he's opposed to the promotion until I address some specific problems, is not coming back, although I have fixed all the things he has pointed out. I feel left hanging with an opposition that has no basis any more. I don't want to speculate on anyone's RL, but what happens if Ceoil or anyone else (including you, or me) quits in the middle of an assessment? Regards, Edelseider (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * what makes you think he isn't coming back? In any case, if the oppose is actionable then all you can do is address any concerns you consider to be valid. If everything has been addressed, the oppose would carry less weight, but in all honesty, without more support the FAC is going to stall anyway and may be archived. However, if that happens, it can be renominated after 2 weeks and have a fresh start. Many articles have to go through FAC a few times before they are promoted. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Sarastro, I did indeed address everything and I am quite sure that would retract his oppose if he came back. But he says on his user page that he is married to Kafka Liz, and Kafka Liz has retired from Wikipedia for good. That's what makes me think he may not come back, either.
 * If the article is not promoted as an FA, will it be promoted as an A-Class article instead? It have heard that this procedure may become automatic.
 * Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarastro, is not coming back and I would be very glad if you could answer my question about the promotion to A-Class; I would know what I'd have to do.. Thank you very much, --Edelseider (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he will be back at some point, he's been around a while. On the A-class issue, there is currently no way to promote articles to A-class at FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be a demotion rather than a promotion? As I understand, A-Class is superior to GA but inferior to FA. I thought I saw a discussion on that topic recently. I think it was SlimVirgin who suggested that articles that do not meet the FA criteria but are enhanced GAs should automatically be made As. That sounded quite reasonable. Have a nice day; Edelseider (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, for the article is not currently A class so it has never reached that status. In any case, that idea was just a proposal and there is, as yet, no consensus that this should take place at FAC nor agreement on what any criteria would be. Short answer: the article cannot be made A class at FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. If ever there is a vote on that particular question (moving failed FAs from GA to A), do contact me please, so I can participate. Have a nice day (are you in the USA?) Edelseider (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The article received a GOCE copy-edit today which the reviewers had no chance to evaluate yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it did, but there are still two opposes after the review has been open for a long time. We can't keep it open forever, I'm afraid. The copy-edit should, however, make it much easier next time. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have nominated it for A-Class now. If it passes, I will try an FAC again a few months later. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This may interest you
It is quite incredible, really: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. There is strictly nothing to gain from an attitude like that! Edelseider (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

waypoint

 * I would like to express my gratitude to you for generating this clear waypoint in my Wikipedia editing career. You have instructed me quite clearly that "we can't piss off the science people, because then they'll stop contributing" carries significantly more weight than WP:WIAFA. How naive I was to believe that we mean what we say when we create things like WP:WIAFA! [BTW: Please don't embarrass both of us by dodging behind the flimsy pretense of lack of WP:CONSENSUS.] I think naïveté has been the hallmark of my Wikipedia career. yes, I know it has. I now consider my eyes fully open. I have learned. I have grown. Thank you. My level of FAC participation will be adjusted accordingly. Thanks again for setting me straight, and best wishes in all things.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to get into an extended discussion here, but two points in reply. First, you seem to believe that your view should overrule all others on that page. That isn't how it works; you have your interpretation of WIAFA, others either disagreed completely, thought you had some valid points but did not agree enough to oppose, or did not care. FAC works by consensus, and there was no such consensus. One interpretation cannot derail a FAC. If you believe that this is a flimsy pretence, we must agree to differ. Second, I explicitly stated that this was not to set a precedent, and that opposes on the grounds you expressed would be valid and actionable if there was a consensus that this is a correct interpretation of WP:V. But nowhere do I yet see that consensus, neither on the page or at WT:FAC. I do believe it was unfair on that FAC and it's nominator and reviewers, to attempt such a "test case" there. If you wish to complain more, this is probably the best page. If you wish to prove you are right, WT:FAC or WT:V may be the best venues. Sarastro1 (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The "over-rule" thing is way off the mark (inaccurate). The WT:FAC discussion was heavily leaning toward "pages must be included". It was already a consensus. The only naysayers (unsurprisingly) were the science folks. Talk of consensus is null/void however, because 1) there already was consensus, but 2) if someone was masochistic enough to take it all the way to RfC, science wikiproject boards would light up, email canvassing would be done, and the results would be a landslide. Many of the non-science voters would be extremely reluctant to speak out, to avoid a showdown etc. As for "test case", there would be no way to do it without a test case. but it doesn't matter; you have already codified precedent. Done... but it doesn't matter. I'm gonna skip the whole FAC review thing from now on. I have one article that I swore I would attempt to drag through as a nom, and after that, I'm done. So good luck. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, we have a different understanding of consensus on these issues. And while I respect your opinion, and you have raised valid issues before at FAC, I'm afraid we must agree to disagree here. In any case, I hope to see you at FAC one way or another. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say - I missed some discussion on including page ranges for journals? From the sounds of it, it sounds like science editors are objecting because their specialized field doesn't do page ranges. Huh. Weird. I distinctly recall the MOS-folks overruling specialized sources to force their own ideas of what should be capitalized. I would think that ease of verification would be even MORE important that we follow general practices, not specialized ones. In almost all other fields, page ranges are given for journal citations. Is the discussion still ongoing? Ealdgyth - Talk 11:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , the brief version is that some articles are using the page range of entire journal articles, not the specific pages where the information is to be found. The reason was, I believe, that this is common practice in science academia. I think one or two articles were not citing pages for books either, but I think this was objected to. There were a couple of long discussions at WT:FAC and in one FAC, but there was no real consensus. Like you, I have a history background and find this a little odd, but the consensus is not there at the moment; personally, I see it as a WP:V rather than a FA issue. But the split seems to fall along arts/sciences lines. However, as I said above, we need more than one editor expressing this view if it is to carry weight. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarastro, V requires page numbers, and the FA criteria (1c) require V compliance. See WP:CHALLENGE (part of V): "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." Because that's a policy issue, one oppose on that basis is enough; arguably the coordinator could archive even without an oppose if the text isn't verifiable.


 * Often the journal articles appear on one screen, so I suppose the argument is that we can use search, but that often isn't appropriate, especially for very long articles. But books always need precise page numbers or ranges that aren't too large. Some of the book cites in that article do offer precise pages, e.g. The Sauropod Dinosaurs: Life in the age of giants, but others offer only a very wide range; e.g. 15–49, 259–322, 430–453. The text isn't verifiable with such wide ranges. One book cite is missing the editors and publisher too (Thunder-Lizards: The sauropodomorph dinosaurs). SarahSV (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Your closing
Yes I'll complain. Tony's oppose was literally only due to Ceoil's edits which made the whole article very confusing, and Ceoil's oppose was irrational and part of his griefing efforts against me, as it spread to the Briarcliff Manor article and talk pages. Neither of those opposes should be counted under any fair circumstance, so I am denouncing the FAC process for this as well as all of my other thousand issues with the process, none of which you all recognized or tried to fix when I raised the issues. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

YOUR UNFAIR JUDGEMENT
I just saw that you have archived my nomination. WOW! I am not surprised. That reviewer puts an OPPOSE sign and its enough to rule out other six supports? Am I missing anything here? That irresponsible reviewer didn't even had the courtesy to reply or talkback on time and his oppose cost me an FA? You know what? I was planning to leave this place for a year, after few days but thank god you two have opened my eyes. This proves that I was wasting my precious time here on this site where there is no value for the hard work. Editors like SYEK8 can only waste other's time. Well, atleast he taught me a lesson that I will never forget. Krish |  Talk  05:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your this statement is laughable "I would be prepared to allow an earlier renomination if the nominator can work with Syek88 and the latter is happy that the prose meets FA standards. Who the hell is that editor to decide whether my work passes or not. I am sure he doesn not OWN wikipedia and neither do you. The FACs works on a group of reviewers and not just one. I challenge your final judgement on the article. Why the hell that user needs to be happy with my article? When I put an OPPOSE on an FAC that wasn't even counted and yet that article passed but what happened this time? So tell me if I would put my oppose on every article nominated right now and sticks to it saying I am still not happy with the prose', does it means that the article in question will never pass? Or its for Indian articles? And, why would I work with that editor on my article? I asked him that he can go ahead and give a c/e if he want but he didn't even care to do anything and came up with a long lists of rants. Tell, Isn't this FAC is a way to help improve article if that article is nearly FA-worthy? Instead, editors here like to pull others down to show that they are the most beautiful writer in the world world and only they can write something which matters. I am sorry but I can't take this anymore. Thank! Krish  |  Talk  06:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel this way but having looked over the FAC I can only concur with Sarastro's judgement. It's not that one reviewer's opinion is all, it's whether the comments are reasonable and actionable, especially when the FAC has been open so long.  I know it seems harsh that one oppose can derail a nomination but it isn't simply about numbers.  I hope you will continue your work here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can only echo what Ian said here. The FAC process requires collaboration and consensus, and it is always better to work with reviewers to ensure the article reaches the highest standard. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for intruding on this conversation, but I just wanted to chime in (as I was a part of the discussed FAC) to say that I also believe that Sarastro made the current decision in this case. I think it would have been better if the nominator was more collaborative with Syek88 and Numerounovedant as they raised valid points that needed to be addressed for the article to be FA quality and to be promoted. I know that I am not the best with receiving critique and I definitely have to become better with it in the future, but I do not believe being angry and disrespectful toward Sarastro1, the FAC process, and Syek88 and Numerounovedant (who both took the time to actually provide very good feedback/commentary) is the right answer to this. Hopefully, the nominator will return to the article and use this FAC process to improve it and have it be promoted in the future as it is a shame to see all of the work be stopped. Again, I apologize for intruding on this discussion. Hope everyone has a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The nominator's conduct (especially in FACs/FLCs) isn't surprising at all. A cursory look at Priyanka Chopra's FACs clearly suggests that they haven't improved a tiny bit since then; in fact, their behaviour has gotten a lot worse. , and  must be quite aware of the user's behaviour. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Easy Narada Muni First I don't have anything to do with you so stop adding ghee in the agnikund (fuel to the fire). Write a big article then we will talk and when it will fail for some dumb reasons, then I will ask you about your feelings. It's easy writing Cricket lists I guess, so do your job. My rant wasn't even that offensive or abusive, it was just a way to show my sadness and not my anger. I have contributed more than you have and I know you will never acknowele=dge my contributions becuase like most Indians, cricket ranks above films. You don't have to remind me and others of what I did in my first year on wikipedia. It is called pulling others down, which you are really good at and I am not even surprised. Krish  |  Talk  08:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Krish, thanks for "demonstrating" my assertion. Btw, Tiruchirappalli and 2003 Cricket World Cup Final aren't 'easy lists'. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with respect to clarifying when exactly did the match start
I'm having some trouble finding out when the match actually started. Within the section Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851, we have mentioned 10.30 am as well as 11 am as the time when the match started. We'll have to ditch one and keep the other, per your discretion. Thanks. Lourdes 18:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate
Hi! I'm a student working on a project for wikied, and I recently nominated the page my group has been working on to be featured. We've put a lot of work in on it (Indigenous Environmental Network), and I would really appreciate your help with the nomination/ feedback on how to improve the page. Thanks! Gmhardesty (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC Star Trek Faces
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Faces (Star Trek: Voyager)/archive1

Why is this archive? I thought it was active because I saw it on the FA candidate page? I added some comments. If it is too late because the article has been promoted, that is fine because I only commented to give ideas, not to pass or fail anything. Vanguard10 (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I realise it probably seems a bit counter-intuitive but the "archive" is just the way the FAC nominations are formatted -- the page isn't archived (or promoted) until a coordinator invokes a bot that closes the review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please close/withdraw Bengal Famine of 1943 at FAC

 * Please close/withdraw Bengal Famine of 1943 at FAC. Thanks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC archiving, unfounded
You yourself said "There is no time limit, as long as something is happening. As you are now responding, there is no great rush as long as we are making some progress. However, I would advise against leaving an open FAC unattended for too long as it both discourages reviews and makes archiving more likely. Anyway, the ball is rolling now, so no problems." to another user. I have always responded to the issues in time and worked on the article. There is no reason why it isn't promoted and it's not my fault the reviewers do not react. Completely unfair to "archive" it (just policor talk for "FAIL"). Tisquesusa (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The review was open for 6 weeks without attracting any support. If there had been support, it might have been different, and similarly if there had been ongoing review, but 6 weeks is pushing the maximum for any review. There is no time limit, but we need to be reasonable. Additionally, it is not about "fair": reviewers have no obligation to review every article at FAC. In any case, the article can be renominated after the mandatory 2-week wait, and there is no limit on the number of times an article can be nominated. There is no need to be discouraged; most nominators have FACs archived at some point. It goes with the territory a little, I'm afraid. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I need some guidance
So I come to you in search of guidance because I am not seeing any options with the CMLL World Lightweight Championship FAC review. I feel like I am repeatedly being faced with either bad faith or some sort of agenda from Siuenti under the guise of wanting to do a source review. I have tried to be civil, I have tried to cater to the users requests for me to do the legwork that the reviewer normally does but each time I face negativity and implications that I am either trying to fool someone or incompetent or both simply because I use print sources that some people do not have. I hate that the FAC is bogged down, but frankly that's the least of it, I could happily just shut down the review and never get FA status - I worry that if Siuenti keeps on it would affect the FAC process in general with another FAC that has print sources that are not available at the snap of a finger. Any suggestions for next actions? Thanks in advance.  MPJ  -DK 22:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep....
That's why I'm not reviewing pop culture FACs for sources any more. I had enough of them the last time I did source reviews seriously. Movies, pop stars, TV shows, athletes, wrestling, etc. Do not envy the people who have to do it, but it ate ALL my time and I have less of it now to spare for editing. Just don't need the hassle. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Seconded. I am putting together the May FAC stats, and just looked through the CMLL World Lightweight Championship FAC; I think you did an outstanding job handling that.  I think I saw signs on talk pages that Sarah is going to help work on the article, which would be a great outcome.  Thanks for the work you do at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thirded, of course -- from the start, Sarastro has performed like he's been doing the job for years. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words... though I'm not sure they are deserved! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Peter Dinklage/archive1
I have nominated the Peter Dinklage article for FA status and i'm wondering, if you have time, could you have a look? -
 * I'd prefer not to unless we are desperate for reviews as I might need to keep my coordinator hat on; at the moment I'm trying to recuse on as few articles as possible. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking and voicing my own opinion...
I will make sure to observe that rule next time. But honestly, if a FAC is closed based on lack of participation (i.e. one or no participants), I think the nominator should be allowed the right to automatically bypass those two weeks in waiting as long as the one participant supported. It is pointless to wait another two weeks when nothing is presented to improve. What are your thoughts?  danny music editor  Speak up! 02:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite so, but someone needs to judge what counts as a lack of participation, which is why it is at the discretion of coordinators. Otherwise, irate nominators who have had pages of commentary can claim a lack of feedback. In any case, as I said, I'm happy to leave this nomination open but would appreciate if you asked before doing this again. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Closing note
Thank you for closing. The article will not be renominated, at least not by me. I don't know how to deal with the damage mentioned in the FAC without appearing as its "owner". I'd also like to discuss the reliability of Bach Cantatas Website. - We offered mentoring to new nominators, - how about mentoring new reviewers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Today's featured article/July 31, 2017
Hiya. Gubby Allen has been scheduled for the above date as Today's Featured Article. I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You can edit the text that will appear on the Main Page if you like; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the accurate and fair account! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarawak FAC
-- Let me show you a few howlers.


 * 1. I first got involved with Wikipedia about 10 years ago
 * 2. My involvement with Wikipedia dates back about 10 years.

In this context, the words "ago" and "back" are synonyms. Take a look at paragraph two in the lead. The first sentence reads: "The earliest known human settlement in Sarawak, located at the Niah Caves, dates back to 40,000 years ago". The error here is one a schoolkid could spot.

Elsewhere in the article we are told that Sarawak became a British Crown colony on 1 July 1946. The source for this (reference #54) is the Daily Mail. Yes, really. The link has been archived, but is blocked by a robots.txt file. Try it and see.

The article states that the "rate of deforestation is 3.5 times higher than found in neighboring Asian countries". Two sources are given, only one of which (the Daily Telegraph) discusses comparatives rates. The Telegraph's headline is "Malaysia destroying its forests three times faster than all Asia combined". Do you see the problem here? The author of this Wiki article is comparing Sarawak's deforestation to neigboring countries; the Telegraph talks about "all Asia combined". And why is an issue as important as this sourced to a newspaper rather than a peer-reviewed academic study?

Check this paragraph

'Sarawak has a number of national parks including Niah National Park, within which the Niah Caves are located, and Lambir Hills National Park, known for its various waterfalls. The Gunung Mulu National Park, which was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2000, is also located in Sarawak. The park is known for Sarawak Chamber, one of the world's largest underground chambers, Deer Cave, the second largest cave passage in the world, and Clearwater Cave, the longest cave system in Southeast Asia.'


 * 1. The phrase "a number of national parks" is meaningless. Why not be specific? How many national parks does Sarawak have?
 * 2. Why the need to tell us that the Gunung National Park "is also located in Sarawak"?
 * 3. Notice the repetition re: "known for".
 * 4. What does "various waterfalls" mean? Are we talking about quantity or variety?

I could go on (there are factual errors and prose issues everywhere), but can't be bothered. 14.207.36.231 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above message was left by the blocked user Singora (see confirmation). – 213.205.194.55 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sarawak Updates
I'll post copies of this to Mr Cervaise, Mr Sarastro and Mr CasLiber.

Just noticed that ANI thread about yesterday's edit warring on the Sarawak FAC page. What a ridiculous waste of time! The guy who closed the thread displayed rare intelligence in noting: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. And if you care more about rules than about encyclopedia-building, go find another website"

Today I picked out the following paragraph:

'Tourism plays a major role in the economy of the state, contributing 9.3% of the state's GDP in 2015. Foreign visitors to Sarawak are predominantly from Brunei, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and China. A number of different organisations, both state and private, are involved in the promotion of tourism in Sarawak: the Sarawak Tourism Board is the state body responsible for tourism promotion in the state, various private tourism groups are united under the Sarawak Tourism Federation, and the Sarawak Convention Bureau is responsible for attracting conventions, conferences, and corporate events which are held in the Borneo Convention Centre in Kuching. The public and private bodies in Sarawak hold a biannual event to award the Sarawak Hornbill Tourism Award, an award for achievements within various categories, to recognise businesses and individuals for their efforts in the development of tourism within the state'

I've re-written it thus:

'Tourism plays a major role in the economy of the state, contributing 9.3% of the state's GDP in 2015. In the same year the top five countries for foreign visitors were Brunei, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and China. Different organisations, both state and private, are involved in the promotion of tourism: the Sarawak Tourism Board; the Sarawak Tourism Federation, a collection of private tourism groups; and the Sarawak Convention Bureau, a body responsible for promoting MICE tourism, the venue for which is the Borneo Convention Centre in Kuching. The public and private bodies hold a biannual event to award the Sarawak Hornbill Tourism Award, an award for achievements within various categories, to recognise businesses and individuals for their efforts in the development of tourism in Sarawak.'

Points to note:


 * 1. You repeat "Sarawak" way too often. You don't need to. We all know what you're talking about.


 * 2. You tell us that: "Foreign visitors to Sarawak are predominantly from Brunei, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and China". This isn't true, nor does your source, the Borneo Post, support the claim. The correct source is Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture Sarawak: Visitor Arrivals into Sarawak 2015. Take a look at the figures and you'll see the word "predominantly" is incorrect: in 2015 China was only slightly ahead of Thailand, India and the UK. See how I've re-jigged your sentence.


 * 3. See too how I'm replacing your newspaper sources with government ones: when you discuss official stuff it's usually best to use official sources. It makes you look more cleverer and more betterer.


 * 4. You have: "the Sarawak Convention Bureau is responsible for attracting conventions, conferences, and corporate events". I've replaced this with MICE tourism, where MICE is an acronym that represents: Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Events. Check to see if MICE tourism is wiki-linked.

To be frank, it seems that just about every source I check is wrong. There's an obvious conclusion to be drawn from this, but it's not up to me to make it.

And that's it for today. Doubtless some shit-faced moderator will now come along and ban me, but I'm happy to help. If you're interested, I live just above the Malaysian border, not far from Penang. Stay cool. AuricGoldfinger (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
Hello, Sarastro I - I just finished reviewing your recent  to Macedonia (ancient kingdom). I regret to say that I don't agree with many of them. I had completed a thorough copy-edit of the article on 12May 2017 in response to a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and, as I'm sure you know, Dank made further copy-edits. I know you are a coordinator at FAC, but I'm a little surprised that you would make so many copy-edits at such a late stage in an FAC review, but maybe since you're a coordinator, it's not a problem. I don't know if you care to discuss them or not. – Corinne (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe a better link to that stretch of Sarastro's edits is this one. Were my edits okay, Corinne? Sarastro did say "feel free to revert". Looking quickly, most of those edits could be framed as usage questions, and I keep some distance from usage questions at FAC, per my standard disclaimer. (I would rethink that "but" in the first sentence, though.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are perfectly entitled to disagree with my edits. I'm always happy to be reverted. Just to note, as Dank says above, he does not usually look at usage, and there have been other articles where I've gone in after Dank without any complaints. Additionally, Tony1 had a few issues about the lead on the FAC review page, concerns I shared and hence I copyedited directly. I also note on the FAC page that the nominator and primary contributor to the article does not have any issues with the edits. Copy-edits late in a FAC are common, and not a problem for anyone, coordinator or not. I'd be delighted to see you chip in at FAC in future, as we always need prose reviews or people to work on prose. I've killed the "but" and can only apologise and say that it's been a long, long week here!! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarastro1, upon re-reading all your edits, I see they are mostly fine. I think I overreacted, and I sincerely apologize. I can only attribute it to the mood I must have been in. There are just a few I would like to discuss, but read on at User talk:Corinne only if a detailed discussion of style will not irritate you. – Corinne (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not getting back on this, I've been utterly swamped in RL and never even got back to the article. Given that rather a lot of water has passed under the bridge, I'm not sure there is much benefit in revisiting this for now, but just to reiterate that I'm always happy to discuss edits and if you ever see anything that you think I've messed up, please jump straight in. Detailed discussions don't irritate me at all! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just ran an eye through the discussion, and I missed Corinne's question the first time: "I wonder if you think it might be a good idea to ask a member of the Guild of Copy Editors to copy-edit an article after it has been approved for FAC but before it goes onto the main page" ... before, during, after, GOCE copyediting is welcome at any time, and yes, there are always bits that are missed at FAC. Any editing can conceivably cause problems, and if so, we'll deal with the problems. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sarastro1, and Dank. Dank, the only way a member of the GOCE would know if an article has been approved for FA status and is about to go onto the main page is if s/he had the FA review watchlisted and somehow knew about the queue and when an article was about to go onto the main page. I think that is, in general, unlikely. It would be up to someone (such as the nominator) to request a copy-edit. Of course, that person might be hesitant to request one for several reasons, including perhaps thinking that it was already in good enough shape or that an unfamiliar editor might actually make it worse. I don't know what the solution is; it's just that I often see small, but sometimes glaring, errors in the featured articles on the main page, and I think those errors reflect badly on Wikipedia. Any good copy-editor, including either of you, would find those errors at a glance. All it takes is one careful read-through. Perhaps requests for copy-edits of FA articles about to go onto the main page could be placed in a special category at GOCE: for an immediate check by an experienced copy-editor. Any thoughts, ? – Corinne (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My two cents: Familiarity with an article, or any piece of prose, can lead to blindness to minor errors or problems. This is normal, and it can be challenging for an editor who has worked on an article for a long time to see minor errors that are obvious to a new visitor. I find that the two best solutions to this problem are to read the prose aloud and to ask a fresh editor to take a look at it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)