User talk:SandyGeorgia

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

Featured article removal candidates
Anarky	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
0.999...	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

About meTalk to meTo do listTools and other
useful thingsSome of
my workNice
thingsYukky
thingsArchives

Getting Started With The Working Group

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Whatever exchanges may have taken place in the past, between the various parties, it's in the community's interest for this discussion to go forward. Thanks. zadignose 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Daylight saving time FAC review

Thanks for your FAC comments for the DST article. I have tried to fix Daylight saving time along the lines of your suggestions. My responses are after your comments. Eubulides 08:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bottom of the page

Well then, backlog not so bad right now. On the three at bottom:

• I'm guessing United Kingdom corporation tax still provides insufficient ref info for your liking. But Winklethorpe is trying his darndest. Any more suggestions you can give him?
• Quadzilla has been working alone on Jim Thorpe. Refs could still use dates, at a glance, but seem OK.
• Despite the gnashing of teeth, Brian did, generally within hours, act on suggestions to Great Lakes Storm of 1913. I specifically asked him for the summative cites, and I don't think we have reason to doubt the info. Marskell 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mimi Smith

You wrote in your Mimi review that "Several sources are missing publication dates". Which ones? (so that I can fix them :) egde 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Length

We have not spoken directly lately, but we have crossed paths at a few modern sports articles where I have been taking heat for requesting too many citations. (I am currently engaged in both Dominik Hasek and Joe Sakic discussions) You may have noticed. Any expert opinion on this matter would be welcome. However, I am here on another issue. WP:CHICOTW attempts to produce reviewed articles from redlinks, stubs and redirects. We have over the course of two tenures as the featured article converted Chicago Landmark into a 100kb+ article that will eventually go to WP:FLC. What are the largest WP:FAs? I have heard Charles Darwin may be the largest. What do you know? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured lists have nothing to do with featured articles; I don't know what the longest lists are, but I do know that there are far too many of them that are far too large. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping to prepare Ellis Paul for May 22, 2007 TFA. Kmzundel 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Daylight saving time headings, sectioning, accessdate

Thanks again for your followup FAC comments. I further changed Daylight saving time along the lines of the followup suggestions, and responded on the FAC comment page. If there's anything else standing in the way of a Support comment, please let me know. This is my first Feature Article Candidate so I'm learning the ropes here. Eubulides 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

re

I wanted to thank you for your constructive comments regarding Manhattan. I have tried to address your comments to the best of my ability, but I am unsure about your issues regarding template positioning. Any further details that would allow me to better address your concerns would be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Alansohn; see WP:GTL. Templates belong at the top of the section, right under the seciton heading. There's a Main article template right in the middle of some text, and there are several templates at the bottom of sections. I'd move them myself, but I'm not sure how to deal with the one I saw mid-text. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Sandy, just a note to say thanks for all your hard work on the schizophrenia article references! - Vaughan 13:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Check it out

Very familiar. You should be chuffed that a high quality, well-sourced article is at #1 on Google. The copy/paste keys must be worn out on some journalist's keyboards ;-).

You might have schoolchildren stealing your text for their essays, but have you been translated into Polish? it looks like the editor on that article has done some of his own research on top. Just a shame I can't read a word of it.

I finished reading my copy of Kushner the other week. Took me longer than a "flight" to read it, but then I'm starting from zero. I enjoyed it and saw some medical names appear in the early European history that I'm familiar with from TSC. I plan to skim back over it to make some notes. I'd like to get hold of Kushner's journal articles on the subject (can you help) and various bits of biographical material. However, I'm also conscious that we mustn't rely too much on just one source/author. He's got a definite POV (as I'm sure have you). Colin°^Talk 18:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Schizophrenia FAR. I've had a (very quick) read of the article and the FAR. You've done a very thorough job. I've popped this in my watchlist. If I have time, I'll have another read and might have some comments. I agree with you on the size, amount of prose, lack of pictures and need for Summary style. I feel bad about not helping you more with the medical FAs. I know you'd like some more hands. I've got limited time and pile of things I'd like to improve that I'm more knowledgeable about (or want to be more knowledgeable about —- writing for WP is a great way to learn something) or personally interested in. Oh, I wish there was an active neurologist on Wiki.

Just to add to your pile, have you remembered Poliomyelitis? I won't bug you again about it cause you do more than your share. I just thought you'd like the change of helping with an article heading towards FA, rather than at FAC or FAR where everyone gets so defensive. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there are no arguments at all. It has been refreshingly constructive. I'm working on some stuff for it off-wiki at the moment. I also intend reviewing the sources to spot if anything is missing, in the history for example. It is a fascinating story. I had no idea that there were doubts about Roosevelt's diagnosis, for example. Anyway... must go to bed :-) Colin°^Talk 23:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC comment, please?

Hi Sandy! I've agreed to copyedit user:Indon's FAC, Toraja, but only if the referencing is reviewed and updated as necessary. (In other words, I don't want to invest in copyediting and then see the FAC failed for other reasons.) I see a lack of page numbers for books. I wonder if you could add your insights to the FAC review? Thanks! Hope you're not too busy. I'm thinking of helping with the Schizophrenia article as well, superficially at least. –Outriggr § 02:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done for now; left questions for Indon and on talk page. Hope he doesn't mind that I moved citations into the Notes. It looks very doable ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, on Schizophrenia, we still need for the main editors to put a lot of work into citing and trimming before it's ready for a copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Toraja

Hi Sandy, thanks for reviewing. I am going to answer you and Outriggr's concern centrally in the Toraja talk page, but I want to ask something to you first about separating References and Notes. But first, I really don't mind if somebody else directly edits the article. I really need that, seriously. Okay, about Ref & Notes, I prefer to separate sources that mainly explain about the subject, that is Toraja as an ethnic group, apart from tangential information sources. And that includes journals and books. Therefore readers can grab quickly the most important sources, instead of digging in the sea of notes. Web sources are usually tangential, thus they always put in the Notes section. Let me know what you think about this. — Indon (reply) — 09:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please disregard my comment above. I decided to use all citations in Notes section and left general sources in the References section. — Indon (reply) — 11:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Last update: I have fixed all references that all are now verifiable. I've answered your concerns in the article's talk page. — Indon (reply) — 13:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, back for anothe look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Duran

Well, the fact that these issues have been pointed out now confirms that remove was probably best, though I might have done one of the "how are things going?" comments. Catherine's reasonable about it, and it is a good article all round. On the prose, I notice a lot of "it is this that" writing—unnecessary words. And lots of too short paragraphs. I'll pick away at it. (Oh, and right—no reopening FARs, AFAIC.) Marskell 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reagan

To tell you the truth, I have no idea what User:Fabartus was talking about on my talk page. Last week he tried to help the Reagan article by adding an equal amount of pictures on both sides with some technique, but it looked awful. He and I have set some images indifferent places though, and I think it's all good now in that field.

Yes, it's going to be a heck of a job getting Reagan's article passed. I have a good book written by a scholar about all of the Presidents that actually just came out, and I will begin citing statements and fixing up the page that way. I already have fixed many citations, which is good, but the job is far from over! Your helping on the citations and general clean up of the article is much appreciated, and I thank you. Once everything seems to be done, I'm going to submit Reagan for a peer review (the last one gave great suggestions, especially from Awadewit), and we'll see what comes of it.

Again, thanks for all your help! I look forward to working with you again in the future. Best, Happyme22 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Heads-up

Just to let you know I've moved "Causes of Schizophrenia" to Causes of schizophrenia—a minor cap mishap, perhaps? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Duh - thanks ! I'm a bit concerned that none of the regular editors are working on the issues. I wish the article hadn't come up just as we also have Lesch-Nyhan syndrome and Byzantine Empire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I wish I could help, but I have a lot going on right now—loads of work, meatspace deadlines, and something hush-hush that will probably happen to me next month. I noticed a name-drop, and wouldn't want you to think I'm just hiding :( Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Made me look. :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

TFA/R

The conversation is getting spread out. I think there are two sorts of date requests. Those where the date is central to the article (date of birth or major milestone for biography or historical event), or when the article relates to the date (holiday, popular sporting event). In the latter, the article may not mention the specific date but still be relevant, eg Samuel Adams on July 4, even though the date is not mentioned in the article. Flag of Portugal is one possibility for Portugal Day, though it would obviously be stronger if the flag article mentioned it as an official flag-flying day. Which makes me wonder - why is there not a section in that article listing all the flag-flying days? Gimmetrow 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what to do next; the idea was to help get the monkey off Raul's back, but I'm not sure what kind of help he wants/needs, if any. <shrug> ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he wants a centralized place to locate these date requests. The TFA/R page is still a mess, it's no wonder he generally ignores it.

This discussion at WT:FAC reminded me about something I had thought of a while ago. A lot of articles come to FAC with fairly obvious format (MOS) and language issues. Someone (maybe you) suggested a "pre-FAC" stage to sort out these issues. What if every article had to start in the pre-FAC stage, and could not move to FAC proper unless one of a set of FAC clerks (out of perhaps six, determined by Raul) moved it there? This would be a pretty weak bar, and if an article can't pass that, it's not FA level. This would reduce Raul's workload without (I think) stepping on his toes, and would help to filter out those articles better prepared for a serious read. I'm certainly not tied to this idea, but it might help avoid some difficult situations with withdrawn FACs. Gimmetrow 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that was Awadawit's proposal. I'm not sure Raul would go for it. Before putting work into ideas that will get erased, we should get his take on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't put any work into this, just thinking in text. One problem that comes to mind is how would something be removed from the pre-FAC. Eh, just a thought, only tangential to the current issues. More than one person has said something about two featured spots per day. That would double much of Raul's work setting up the TFA pages. It might even make the scheduling more difficult, as there would be twice as many topics to balance out. Gimmetrow 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Smells Like Teen Spirit

Thanks for cleaning up the citations on "Smells Like Teen Spirit". I must admit the cite templates often confuse me, and the reason the blank fields were left in the templates was because I get confused if I take them out. By the way, I figured out the proper date for the NME.com citation from the dead link. The spot that showed the 2006 date is the part of the site page that shows whatever today's date is; the 2006 date was thus the day the screenshot was taken. Thanks again. WesleyDodds 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your work

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This isn't for anything in particular, just for being a great editor. Keep it up. Quadzilla99 02:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)