User talk:Sarastro1/Archive 14

ALTNAMES
No, you are right, sorry, I missed that ALTNAMES didn't apply to non-common diminutives. GiantSnowman 11:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Considering a FA nomination
Hello Sarastro1, I've been working on the Tom Wills article intermittently for a few years. In 2014 it passed a GA review and now I think it is finally approaching FA quality. I went through the list of list of FAC mentors and by far you are best suited to the subject. I'd be grateful for any advice or suggestions on how to further enhance the article's quality in the lead-up to the FAC nomination. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , sorry for the delay in replying. I'd be delighted to help if I can. I should have some time to take a look this week, and I can leave comments on the article talk page where necessary. The first thing that leaps out though is length. At over 10000 words, it's quite long; a) it might struggle to attract reviewers and b) people will comment that it is over detailed. If possible, it could do to be cut. I've had sports articles get through at that length before, but if we can, trimming would be good. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sarastro1, I'll keep an eye out for any further comments. As for the length, I did grow wary of it as the page expanded, and made efforts to shorten parts and excise others. But it has been difficult cutting it back further, given that, as Martin Flanagan said, "Tom Wills’s life ... acted as a conduit for an amazing range of historical forces." If in the end it's necessary to trim the article then I'll figure out a way. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note to let know that I haven't forgotten this, and have started looking. I'll post a few comments on the talk page in the next few days; I think most of my comments will be about trimming, the basic shape and sourcing looks about right. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

FAC and current athletes
Hi, Sarastro. I'm doing just fine, although I don't have as much time for reviewing as I'd like. I really don't see any practical solution for this issue. It is true that biographies of active athletes can become outdated and drop below FA standards, but this is also true for articles in a wide variety of fields. To give one example from the current batch of FACs, this one is clearly about a subject who will have additional projects that will need to be added/fleshed out in his article as time passes. It doesn't strike me as fair to bar articles on active athletes, but not active actors, as they will have the same problems if left unmonitored. Even articles in seemingly stable fields will need updating over time, and these updates may or may not be done properly. From my experience, the first FA I wrote has needed updates that I couldn't have anticipated when working on the page, and my second FA requires periodic (typically yearly) updates.

During my long editing career, I've come to see imperfections as an inherent part of Wikipedia's model; I fight against them regularly with my edits, but they keep on coming from every angle, even with well-intentioned edits. It's a wiki, and this stuff is going to happen no matter how hard we try to perfect everything. Of course, this doesn't help our FAs, although many useful edits do happen to them. For article review purposes, all I ask is that an article meet the standards of the process when I review it. If my personal standards were tighter, I'd spend more time worrying about what parts of an article may deteriorate than judging what exists on its merits. To me, all I can do is assume good faith that an article will be keep up-to-date by the nominator or others; if it isn't, FAR can handle it. If I ever get free time, I'll have to look at the Sedins' articles and see what I can do; Filatov will be harder since he plays in Russia and the language barrier will be a problem. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 00:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'd bracket current actors, writers, politicians, etc together. How can they be stable when it could all change tomorrow? Other articles are vulnerable to new developments, of course, but for cases like these, the changes are inevitable and the "FA-version" will be guaranteed to be out of date, and we can only hope that the nominator, or whoever, keeps up with it. But as you say, that is a fault in the model that cannot really be fixed, and I think your take on this is spot on. I'll stop grumbling now! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine
I've just read through the FAC remarks, and I have a pretty good sense of the main disagreement. I have yet to read the article itself (and maybe I should have done that first, but oops). I'll try to approach the article as I would any other and see where that takes me. At the end of this, I'll add something to the ongoing FAC and hope that it helps. This might take me a day or two. Finetooth (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On this subject.. you owe me. As a female gamer, I feel slimed reading some of the sources in the article. That's not even getting to the gods-awful crappy adware the sites employ that is dragging my computer down or the problems I see with lack of high quality sources. There's a reason I haven't been doing video games... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Percy Chapman scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Percy Chapman article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 3, 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/September 3, 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?  13:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks., I've tweaked the blurb a bit as I think we need something about his popularity and heavy drinking. Let me know what you think, and obviously feel free to change anything I've messed up. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the "extremely glamorous England cricket captain"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on this. I don't think that "Representing the Cambridge cricket team in 1920, he once scored centuries against Oxford and in the Gentlemen v Players match within the space of a week" merits featuring in the lead quite so prominently, in between his Test achievements. In any case it needs rewording, as he wasn't representing Cambridge in the second of those matches, as the sentence seems to say. I considered editing it myself, but I'm reluctant to change a FA. JH (talk page) 09:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't around for TFA day! I think you are right about this, but it was only on the TFA blurb (which I couldn't have tweaked anyway as it needs an admin to do it) so I hope it doesn't matter too much now. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'd always assumed that the TFA blurb was a faithful reproduction of the article's lead (I hate the unnecessary coinage "lede" with a passion) but with the citations removed. I'd never thought to compare a blurb with an article's actual lead. JH (talk page) 08:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Re revert of D'Oliveira affair edit
Hi Sarastro1. Firstly congrats on all that work you've done on all those cricketers. Secondly, I strongly disagree with your revert of my D'Oliveira affair edit. The text I put came from the D'Oliveira article, but I was surprised to see the Basil D'Oliveira Trophy wasn't mentioned as in my opinion it represents a culmination of the whole affair in the sweep of history, of cricket and even more of South Africa and beyond. This comes after my reading of Oborne's magistral book (which incidentally came out in 2004 also). DadaNeem (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The trophy is named after D'Oliveira, not the D'Oliveira affair, and therefore if we are to mention it, it belongs in that article. Secondly, you did not source the statement and, as a FA, we really should have high quality sources. If we were to include it (and I'm happy to discuss further), we need a really, really good source that places it in the context of the affair, not D'Olly himself. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI
Re: Underwater diving FA candidate - as I'm sure you're already aware, mentioning one's area of expertise can be quite daunting on WP and at times more of a detriment than a plus which is why I'm bringing it to your TP rather than including it as part of the FA discussion. I just wanted you to know that as an advanced open water instructor and an u/w photography specialty instructor for two different SCUBA certification agencies (Scuba Schools International and NAUI), in addition to being a NITROX instructor for NAUI, (all of which are emeritus now), I did verify the critical statements made in the article to the cited sources, and all were verifiable. If for whatever reason you don't consider my review adequate for what you are expecting, I understand. Atsme 📞📧 22:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify this: for a FA spot-check, we need someone to have checked a few references (not all) to ensure that a) they do actually support the information in the article for which they are cited and b) there is no copyvio or close paraphrasing. If you did (or can do) both of these things, then that is perfect for the spot-checks. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, and noted on the review page. Thank you for the outstanding work you do in making sure our FA candidates are truly worthy of promotion. Atsme 📞📧 10:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you be interested?
Please see this campaign launch. All the best. Jack &#124; talk page 11:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Barge of the Dead FAC
Hello again! I just wanted to thank you for your help with the "Barge of the Dead" FAC, and apologize for my negative response to your comments. I greatly appreciate that you took the time to provide feedback, and I learned a lot about source reliability and use from that particular FAC process. It definitely made me more aware of reliable vs. unreliable sources and I will take that with to my future work on here. I will be better when getting constructive criticism, as it only serves to help me and better the article and/or list in question. Hope you are doing well, and good luck with all of your work and projects on here and in real life. Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Rotating locomotion in living systems/archive1
Hi Sarastro, I'm just wondering what the status is on this FAC. Does it need more reviewers? Or are you recusing yourself from promoting it because you did the source review? Thanks! — swpb T go beyond 19:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm recusing on that one. Better safe than sorry, I think. I'm sure will be doing a run through soon. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fair, thanks for the reply. — swpb T go beyond 20:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Balfour
Hi Sarastro, a couple of weeks ago you archived the Balfour Declaration FAC review. I was disappointed at the time, particularly in light of the aim to hit the upcoming centenary, but in hindsight it turned out to be exactly what the article needed. It catalyzed a bunch of additional peer review comments, and also it allowed me to step back and perform another thorough review myself. I think the article flows much better now, and is a much easier and smoother read. I may even get some more comments from FunkMonk. I am keen to put it up for FAC again in the coming days, but I wondered if you would be happy to take a quick look and let me know whether you think that it's ready or close to being ready. Many thanks, Onceinawhile (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't really up to me if it is ready or not; the coordinators only look at what the reviewers think. I could take a look, but it would be as a reviewer and not a coordinator, and I think you have plenty of quality reviewers looking at it already. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarastro,
 * Not sure if you’ve been following this, but I’m pleased to say that the second FAC seems to have gained a lot of good comments and support. Today marks one week to go until the centenary of the declaration, and I am still hoping there is a chance to get it to TFA in time. If you have a moment, please could you let me know what else I might need at this point in order to pass the FAC? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you today for Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851, "the first first-class cricket match to take place in Australia, although that is more of a quirk of history as the concept of such games is rather anachronistic. However, it was a grand occasion and the first cricket game between two colonies/states in Australia."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Learie Constantine
In response to your revert of my edit on Learie Constantine, I had reviewed the body of the article and found no references to support the wording of the lead in using the term 'controversial' in any source and neither did I find a source to suggest he was critiqued for being part of the establishment (or by whom). You have included these statements back into the article, please clarify where they are referenced? Mountain cirque · Join the Karate Task Force? 11:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (From the article): "In his last years, Constantine was criticised for becoming part of the Establishment; Private Eye mocked him, while the new generation of West Indian immigrants believed he was out of touch." and "In April 1963, when a Bristol bus company was refusing to employ black staff, Constantine visited the city and spoke to the press about the issue. His intervention assisted in a speedy resolution of the affair which, according to Mason, was crucial in persuading the British government of the need for a Race Relations Act. However, politicians in both Trinidad and Britain felt a senior diplomat should not be so closely involved in British domestic affairs" (which makes it controversial). Both referenced appropriately inline in the article to Mason's 2008 book. Harrias  talk 11:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Harrias has answered this better than I could, and the cited information is not hard to find in the article. The reference given in the section quoted here will take you to the pages in Mason’s book where this information is given. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlocked
I'm happy to take a look, but I did do quite a bit of work on the article's review section (see the talk page), so I think you'd want someone else to review the prose in that section. I'll look over the rest of it this weekend if I have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'd actually forgotten! In any case, I've pinged you (yet again!) at another article which is desperate for review. The nominator writes about unusual but interesting topics which are rather scarce at FAC, and is rather disenchanted with the process. I'd really rather not lose someone like that. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can certainly look at that -- not sure when, but not later than Sunday evening, I think. I'll leave Unlocked for now in case Josh gets to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sonic
No worries on the pings! I think Czar would be a better reviewer on this than I would; I probably wouldn't get to it till the weekend anyway, so I'll wait and see. I'll leave the ping undismissed and check; feel free to remind me by Sunday if there's been no review by then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

FAC
Hello! A couple of things; nothing urgent! First of all, I got the ping to the Ethiopian historiography FAC but was in the middle of something and the next time I looked Cas and Mike seemed to have things in hand. I just wanted to say please feel free to ping me for anything that's struggling for input I can't promise I'll answer every time, but if I'm about and not neck-deep in something else I'll try and take a look. I'm hoping to sit down and do some reviewing over the weekend because I'm behind and there are a few articles I'd like to look at. Second, Manchester Cenotaph seems to be making good progress even though it's only been open a couple of weeks and I was wondering if I could have leave to nominate Mells War Memorial over the weekend? It's had an A-class review an it's no a huge article so I'm not anticipating any major problems. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  11:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979
Thanks for your review of the Kieswetter FAC; I'm hopefully working through the last few wrangles on that at the moment. I wondered if you'd take a quick look over Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979 and let me know what you think might need doing before a potential FAC? Personally, I feel it's a bit light on contemporary commentary, partly due to the lack of The Times that summer! Harrias talk 19:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay replying to this, it's been a busy couple of weeks. I had a quick look, and I think the biggest issues for me would be the background and aftermath. For something like this, I think we could do with slightly stronger sourcing and a bit more about the wider picture, not just Somerset. Off the top of my head, I recall a little bit more in Wisden over the issue (I'd have to check, which I will at some point today). I think there might be something in the Peter Roebuck biography from a year or two ago as well. Anything to give some wider context; maybe something about the number of OD competitions, and the growing pressure on teams, etc etc. I notice that the Williamson article links to the underarm controversy; maybe something else somewhere makes a few links between this and growing commercialism. And did anything ever come officially from Somerset such as an official rebuke, or anything in the yearbook or from the committee? (It might be in the article, I've only skimmed it, so I apologise if I missed it!) Ironically, for all that cricket has recently gone down the filthy lucre route, including ultra-professionalism and match fixing, there has never been anything like this in terms of official cheating since the early 1980s! Sarastro1 (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries for the delay. The Cricketer talks a bit about the financial rewards that might have had an impact, and there was the similar instance in Welsh club cricket recently which might be worth mentioning I guess. I'd like to pinpoint more details on the change of rulesrules (the article currently follows the source in saying the laws were changed) but I think it was the playing conditions that actually changed. Struggling to find anything for that though! Harrias  talk 10:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you'll see it anyway, but I thought Featured article candidates/Jack Crossland/archive1 might be of interest. I've spent a fair bit of time refining and adding to this GA from a few years ago, and think it's more or less ready for a round here! Harrias  talk 10:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

FAC Request
While we wait on any possible further response for The Fountainhead FAC, would it be acceptable for me to post a nomination for The Bat? I'm hoping to get some pre-Halloween reviewer interest for this "old dark house" thriller. --RL0919 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

1962 Tour de France FAC
It created the nomination on 25 September 2017 (1 month, 23 days ago) and only actually on 25 October 2017 (1 month ago). I know the process times differ, but my last FLC lasted four months! BaldBoris 00:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * FACs don't last as long as that to be honest, and whenever they are transcluded late, they generally don't end well. In any case, the article can be renominated after the usual 2-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Two weeks it is then. I think I can wait after nothing at GA for two months, a wasted month and the past month here, although that was productive and bought it up to pretty much the best it could be. A PR will be a no hoper. What if the next FAC attracts the same or less as this one, will the be considered as one in terms of the amount of support? What if there would've been three further one-line supports? I only worked on this to get it to FAC (which doesn't mean I didn't care), and for it to not get it would be probably put me off ever doing one again. BaldBoris 00:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Each FAC is a "clean slate" and supports/opposes do not carry forward, although where applicable, we encourage unaddressed concerns to be dealt with before renomination. I think in this case, it may be worth approaching a few reviewers and asking them if they could have a look; that practice is fine at FAC as long as it isn't a case of "please support my article". Finally, we do not count supports in considering promotion, but rather look at the depth of review and if all of the FA criteria have been looked at in the FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It has not happened before ...
... to me that an article was mentioned in a DYK and was promoted to FA while there ;) - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry!
I've come to the conclusion that my head is, or has been, in an entirely different world than everyone else on Wikipedia. I take it way too seriously. I think there's a right answer and a wrong answer. There isn't. Sanger was right: it's purely social; it's the Encyclopedia Game. I don't fit in because I didn't see it that way.

I swore to myself that I would continue with Famine '43 until it is FA. I doubt I will continue editing after that. I am too burned out.

I probably owe apologies to any number of people. But can't apologize to everyone.

So anyhow. Cheers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Golden jackal
Hello Sarastro1, you have removed Golden jackal from the FAC list, however there has been no bot promotion - there may be a technical issue. William Harris •  (talk) •  12:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It takes a few days to process.  ceran  thor 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like a glitch. I've asked the bot operator. Sarastro (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Turns out that the glitch was that I'm an idiot. I never saved the page when I promoted it. My fault. Or maybe my computer. But probably me. Sarastro (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought that it may have been human error, and perfectly understandable during this mad run-up to Christmas in addition to the commendable volume of work you undertake here on Wikipedia. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  07:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Polk
The current one seems more or less done so would you mind if I put up James K. Polk?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I should get to closing the current one tomorrow as I seem to have missed it today! Sarastro (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851 scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851 has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 February 2018. Please check that 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 11, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Bat FAC
Hello, its been over a week since the last review and support. The article currently has four supports and reviews have covered everything from sourcing to images to the text. Is there anything else needed? LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been busy and only working through the FAC list slowly. I've promoted it now and I apologise for the delay. Sarastro (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Permission to start a second FAC
Hi, I'm currently responsible for Featured article candidates/South China Sea raid/archive1, which has been open since 27 January and appears to me to be well on track to soon be closed as successful (5 supports and no unaddressed comments). Would it be OK if I started a second FAC for Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service? It's also an A-class article, and I think it has a high likelihood of passing FAC. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * . I'm working through the backlog slowly, and should get to it soon, but a second FAC is fine in the meantime. Sarastro (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Although it's a little academic now! Sarastro (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nick-D (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Railway FACs needing final review
The Carolwood Pacific Railroad FAC and the Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) FAC are ready for your review. I believe the former has satisfied what you requested, and I believe the latter has done the same, depending on whether you interpret Sladen's last comment on the bottom of that review as a support. These are currently the only active FACs where you have previously left comments, and Ian Rose is most likely skipping over these because of that in order to allow you to complete their review processes. Normally, I would be content to wait as long as it takes for an FAC in which I have heavily participated to be reviewed by an FAC coordinator, but in this instance I insist that these FACs be concluded before 25 March. This is because the Walt Disney World Railroad is scheduled to be 25 March's Today's featured article. The Carolwood Pacific Railroad is part of the same article series, and the Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) is prominently linked in Walt Disney World Railroad's See also section (both are railway attractions within major theme parks in Central Florida). Getting those little bronze stars placed in the top-right corners of those articles before they get a big spike in pageviews would be ideal. Jackdude 101 talk cont 14:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)