Wikipedia

User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat/Archive 2

< User:SandyGeorgia‎ | FAC chat

(moved from front page) It's getting bad again like it did over the holidays. When I look at many of them, I am finding really obvious issues that no one is looking for. The thorough reviewers we have are way overworked. My fear is that we're going to have to go back to the community to ask for feedback on even more aggressive archiving (like archiving if there is no activity or movement for n days, even if supports have been received). It seems they've consistently been against letting the backlog grow. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't be around-- sorry to leave you such a mess. I'm additionally concerned about ever-increasing lengthy (peer?) reviews and the absence of simple opposes on those that just aren't there yet. Ping Karanacs? I try to avoid aggressive archiving until we pass 50 noms, but something has to give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries. You'll have to cover for me when I take my ironbutt ride up to Alaska this summer. :) I think increased mentoring of reviewers will help matters and possibly prevent burnout. Maybe if Karanacs doesn't want to dive directly back into FAC, she'll be into taking on some light mentoring tasks. If we have to scroll to see all of someone's review, it might have been better suited to peer review. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if this is intended as a 'private' forum for conversation, but I came across it, and it's a point I've been thinking about lately: though I can offer no solutions. To quote Andy Walsh above: "If we have to scroll to see all of someone's review, it might have been better suited to peer review." – I completely agree with this statement, with one rather big problem. Peer review doesn't seem to have enough of an effect, at least not in my experience. Take the article I recently brought to FA:
  • Herbie Hewett – Passed GA on 1 December without too many issues raised, and then later in the month received a peer review, similarly with only minor points. In theory then, this article is ready for FA, and shouldn't have too many issues. But instead, it fills nine of my screens (and I have quite a large monitor). By your strategy above – which I stress once more, I agree with in principle – this article would be a pretty quick fail. But I don't think the support is in place at PR to make this viable. If this article had failed, and I'd taken it back to PR, is there any guarantee the review that time around would be any better?
As I see it, the answer is to try and concentrate some better reviewing at PR. But everywhere is suffering in terms of quality reviewers: I'll hold my hands up and admit that I tend to avoid it where I can, although I tend to pop my head in at FL and GA every now and again. Anyway, I probably rambled far too much, but that's my two cents: feel free to move it elsewhere if it's not appropriate for here. Harrias talk 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, Harrias. You are quite correct that, like at GA, an editor's experience at PR will vary depending on the reviewer. There is a strong core of excellent reviewers at PR but they are as overworked as reviewers everywhere else. I think we're moving to an atmosphere where a content nominator needs to more proactively seek reviews to get the best results. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

edit
Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Andy, I plan to get through today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Andy, just a note, I have every intention of reviewing Parkinson's disease-- doesn't mean I'll actually get to it, though :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Checked Parkinson's, and the prose has now been considerably improved, so no need for me to lodge my concerns. (Garrondo is an excellent medical editor, but he has mentioned problems in the past with his prose, and that he often needs help with the writing). Other editors have worked on it, so I don't need to weigh in there, but there are still some pending issues and ongoing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Woo hoo! Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I just returned home, and see you promoted a few-- do I still need to go through? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's up to you. I had to ping several noms for images, sources, MoS, etc., but they can surely wait until this weekend. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Andy Walsh (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard/archive2 is interesting. The primary author, Helatrobus (talk · contribs), created their account at 05:23 on Feb 6 and dropped the entire article into mainspace at 06:03. Two days later, MartinPoulter (talk · contribs) brought it to FAC. [1] He's still got it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I may try to go through tonight if time allows. If not, I'll wait until Tuesday. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, what's your schedule like for the next couple days? I may not have time to go through the list again until mid-week. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked through yesterday and found ... nothing. After today or tomorrow, I'm out for a while. I will peek in later tonight or in the morning, and hope I find more "maturing" than I did last night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) FYI, I will go through the list this weekend, and then I will be out of town from 3/15 through 3/17 and won't be able to check in. If you think you won't be available on those days, I'll ask Nikkimaria or someone to keep an eye out for errant nominations, etc. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are going through now... --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Andy, I tried to archive some, but my connection was terrible and I spent most of the limited time I had cleaning up nominations-- finally gave up. I can go through again once I'm home next week, most likely Monday, but nothing before that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

edit
Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Will be out of town 3/15–3/17 and won't have time to check in. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm back, did not break a leg, and will begin catching up tomorrow (Tuesday); is there anything I need to know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to have to extend my leave at least a few more days—I have family issues I need to travel for. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1 has been mired in SPA's and off-topic discussion. Nikkimaria has been a big help in watching it when we weren't here. Glad you didn't break a leg! I have to stick to the bunny hill if I go skiing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm finally done being busy and will be able to dig in soon ... enjoy your time off! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy guacamole. Two hours for the first pass just to archive, now to settle in and read the following "maturing" FACs. I may not finish until tomorrow, in case any talk page stalkers wants to check for image reviews etc. Time for a dinner break !

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, dinner break, I'll come back later to look at Shakespeare, La Stazione, and the others I left comments on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Current recusals for Andy:

Note for Andy: [2] It will be hard for you to recognize these, so we need for reviewers to be more aware. I usually recognize them because I used to work so much at FAR, and because Maralia, Gimme and I built all the article histories on the older FAs, but I missed this one, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC) New note for Andy: I'm digging in again, for the second day-- I just got worn out yesterday by the length of the FACs, so deferred looking at Shakespeare until I was fresh. See User talk:EdJohnston#General query on Shakespeare authorship question; my impression so far is that, as a result of the long-standing disruption, the article takes a defensive, argumentative tone rather than the encyclopedic, factual tone it should aim for, evidenced by such issues as the "Overview" section, which argues the case separately from the lead-- something the lead should do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm back. Thanks for digging in over the weekend! The above was/is my big fear about the SAQ article. I, too, had to step back several times rub my eyes. I think we'll need a good subset of reviews from folks who are completely new to the material. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, would reviewing some FAC urgents be prudent for me at this time? How's your schedule for the next 2-3 weeks? --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have some changes in the works (will e-mail you), but should be fairly settled over the next few weeks ... I'd say to keep your reviews to only two or three, so we don't get caught? I'm thinking of adding my two cents to Shakespeare if I ever decide how to best handle the FAC ... that is, once I get my head out of the sand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not caught up at home and having a difficult time getting on wiki for any appreciable amount of time. :/ --Andy Walsh (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Two things. Is it a coincidence both of you guys' names rhyme? Wouldn't it be cool to have a FAC chat segment called "Talk with Sandy & Andy"? Next, I seriously doubt anyone will input anything significant here anymore. I'm trying to avoid PR-like comments at FAC, but you know how PRs can go. Instead, choosing editors myself is better overall, but I'll continue to improve my methods! :) « ₣M₣ » 02:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

edit

Something has to give. This week has been my most miserable ever of trying to get through FAC. I add FACs to the Urgents template yet they still sit there for a month or more with little review. Sub-standard prose is getting support, and prose reviews are lacking. FACs are getting lengthier and lengthier. The faithful are hanging in there with source reviews, and our long-time core reviewers are doing all they can, but our long-time experienced image reviewers are almost entirely missing (with several regulars trying to pick up the slack), very few reviewers are checking MOS issues (so that I'm having to do most of that myself), it's unclear to me how diligent reviews are in checking for copyvios, and I'm passing months-old FACs on scanty review. It's taking longer and longer to get through FAC, I'm having to do a lot myself, and I'm not thrilled with the quality of some of the FACs that are passing.

Considering the length of reviews and the backlog, some may argue that we need another delegate, but there are two problems with that: 1) we don't need five of us reviewing the page to conclude that few can be closed because they're lacking review, and 2) we can ill afford to give up any of the many reviewers who would make fine delegates, because we need them as reviewers.

I'm going to be very busy from April 15 to about the end of June; I'll still be able to review FAC at least once a week, but the level of review I'm having to do myself before promotion is not sustainable or desirable. I suggest that what we most need is experienced reviewers to weigh in on some of the stagnant FACs so we can get them moving; I guess the long and short of my rant is that I'm asking if Laser brain and Karanacs will be able to contribute some reviews so that I can more easily promote/archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been totally slacking on the delegate role and probably will for another month or two. I can commit to doing 2 reviews per week. Will that help? Karanacs (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It would help immensely if you could pitch in on those that fall to the bottom of the page ... I often find that because some get support early on, we're forced to carry some that are ill-prepared and where independent reviewers haven't engaged, or that have glaring prose and MOS issues. I need your reviewing experience :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll be back to my regular level of activity (whatever that means) starting this weekend. I don't think I will do any reviews since it looks like I can best help out by pr/ar while everyone is busy. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Still swamped, but saw the helpful reviews from Karanacs-- Andy, I archived some, but haven't had time to promote, and have a busy weekend; will you be able to pr this weekend? Several are maturing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I suspect I'm not going to make people happy...3 reviews and not a single support from me :( If my standards end up being out of whack, feel free to smack me upside the head. Karanacs (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll be going through tomorrow, no time today. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Whew ... swamped ... I *will* Have A Life by mid-June :)  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I also happen to be swamped with RL priorities, and if it'll help, you can archive Wallkill Valley Rail Trail once it passes the two-week mark. I don't want to outright withdraw it and create the impression that I don't value the reviewers' input, and I'm hoping more reviewers leave feedback over the weekend, but I'm probably going to be editing sporadically for a while. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Back now, and through summer. Not traveling any more. Hear that, Mr. Booking Agent? Not traveling any more. Sigh. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I all alone at FAC now? I shall try to find time on Saturday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

edit

Sigh. I'm going to continue to do MOS reviews, but in light of the motion Arbcom is about to pass on dashes, and in light of considerable anti-MOS feeling revealed in this case and others, I'm going to call them prose reviews rather than MOS reviews, and I'm going to avoid doing anything with dashes. Again, if there's anything I'm not covering MOS-wise that you guys want me to cover, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Dank, could you link me to the ArbCom dash issue? I haven't been able to keep up ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, the current motion that's passing unanimously is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Motion. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
At the moment the motions are restricted to article titles, but it's looking like that'll end up being extended and applied more broadly. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That's my guess too. - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

edit

Sorry about Tuesday, Sandy. Came down with an awful ear infection that kept me in bed all day that day. Drama, drama, drama in real-life for Wednesday/Thur, but I think I've gotten on top of things enough that I can make a run through today and possibly next Tuesday (there is uncertainty on whether my house move will take place as scheduled or not). Thanks for covering Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I just saw you pop on my watchlist, so I thought I'd say thanks, and wish you luck-- I've got about 300 boxes to go, and FAC is utter mincemeat-- I've half a mind to restart about half of them to see if nominators and reviewers will start keeping the page tidy and legible. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

edit

Replying to the current thread, but on the talk page: I have reviewed everything in the FAC urgents that is associated with any wikiproject even tangentially related to the subject of "history" (except Ealdgyth's, which I'm doing now), which on average is a little more than half of them. I have a FAC disclaimer on what I cover, but I can cover a few more issues if you guys need me to. I don't want to get too far away from my competencies though, and I tend to stick to prose because I've got books to back me up. I'm already jumping in and just editing articles without asking and without even being aware (usually) of who's edited it before me and how many toes I'm stepping on, so I regularly push people's buttons, and I have to tread softly when possible.

Next up is all the Milhist FAC pages. I'm happy to look at any FAC article you need input on that isn't in the urgents or tagged by Milhist if you need me to, just ask. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I've hit most of the current reviews on images and sourcing, but if any need prose/MoS review I can cover that too. I'd be happier not doing image reviews, simply because I'm not as familiar with US copyright law as our image experts, but they seem to have vanished lately. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Nikki would make a great FAC delegate. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about nominator

edit

I generally take FAC questions to WT:FAC, but I don't want to point a finger in such a public place if the nominator hasn't done anything wrong. User:Guy546 had no edits to Abraham Lincoln when he brought it to FAC, and he has responded to just 3 small things during the FAC; almost all the works is being done by others. I'm concerned that people will get the idea that a nom doesn't mean anything. How has this been handled in the past? - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the significant contributors agreed it could go forward, so ... that's that for this one. But I am curious to know why we haven't heard from Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs), JimWae (talk · contribs) and Rjensen (talk · contribs) and I typically ask why those people haven't been listed as co-noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. On another point, I haven't thought for a while about MOS reviews, and I may be rusty, I'm not sure. I tried a MOS review for this one; please let me know (wherever you like) if there are things I'm missing that wouldn't be caught during a more general prose review. I will generally do prose reviews, but sometimes there are too many cooks swimming around in the broth. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Anything we can do?

edit

I see you've been asking for help with tidying up FACs, Sandy, and with some of them, I'm not sure if I can help, or what to do. In Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sack of Amorium/archive1 (disclaimer: Milhist) for instance, there are a lot of "comments" where later on, somewhere in the fine print, they say that all their issues are resolved, or they're not going to stand in the way ... or they don't say anything. Should I leave notes on their talk pages, or copy the bit where they declare that they're satisfied to the the beginning (or maybe the end) of their comments and put it in bold? Or would it be more helpful to just add my own comment at the end summarizing my own view of what's been done and what's lacking? - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For now ... it's helpful if someone checks that sources have been cleared, images have been checked, independent review has been done, a close paraphrase and WP:V check is done on "new" nominators (that is, we know many of the "established" nominators went through the plagiarism scandal and are up on close paraphrasing or have been checked in the past-- I see Nikkimaria often comments "spotcheck not done", and we need that on new nominators at least), that old opposers have been pinged, that double supports are removed ... things like that ... one thing you could do is stalk my edits when I start through FAC to see the kinds of things I have to pick up on ... the kinds of things that others could be doing :) I don't really understand this call for "clerks", when this is stuff anyone could be doing, and is the sort of thing I used to do for Raul when I was a reviewer. Thanks for everything, I did a quick glance just now, and see boatloads of FACs that are still lacking review, and that probably explains more than any single factor why our other two delegates are MIA-- it gets discouraging to read through so many lengthy FACs that don't come to consensus or are lacking review. It would also be helpful if regulars would update the Urgents so that it always includes the "truly" urgent only-- those lacking in review or consensus after several weeks ... it does us no good if there are 25 FACs on the urgents, and some of them aren't truly "urgent". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been marking pretty much all my source reviews as "spotchecks not done", simply because I've gotten very lazy about doing them...Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
You already do well more than your share, Nikkimaria ... I'm concerned that other reviewers don't pick up on the need to check sources, spotcheck for close paraphrasing, etc, since WP:V is policy and that should be one of the most important aspects of FAC. Still concerned about this call for more "clerks" or "delegates", when the problem is lack of review giving delegates something to work with, not lack of delegates, while you (and a few others) seem to be holding down the lion's share of FAC work, and we can ill afford to lose any of you to reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, it seems likely we'd be fine with more reviewers. Btw, I just got a golden opportunity to push for more reviewers a couple of days ago when several of the Milhist coords suggested we start collaborating with other projects in the history peer-review, and I suggested the natural extension to history-related FAC articles. Too early to know if my attempts to encourage/shame people into action will bear fruit, but I'll let you know. I'm optimistic, actually. - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
A separate, short-term thing that would help me now (during my construction) would be to pop a list up here of FACs that might be maturing to promotion, so I can quickly look at them before I dig in to the whole page ... I won't need this once I'm re-settled, but it would sure be helpful for the next few weeks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned, Jefferson nickel seems good to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a helpful list ... I have a 2 pm app't, and will get through FAC when I return. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The following each have at least four supports, no opposes, images and sources cleared (most no spotchecks, though): FAC for Banksia marginata, FAC for Jefferson nickel, FAC for The Red Badge of Courage, FAC for Nebula Science Fiction, FAC for Percy Grainger, FAC for Halifax Gibbet. This is from a quick look only, so it's quite possible I'm overlooking things. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, FAC for Guy Fawkes Night, FAC for USS Chesapeake, FAC for 2012 phenomenon, FAC for Sack of Amorium, FAC for Slow loris are maturing - at least four supports, no opposes, images and sources cleared. Dana boomer (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding some detail, on the off chance it's helpful. Agreed with the above that images and sourcing were covered in all these, and so far, prose and MOS were covered too (that is, I'm making a judgment call based on who's reviewing and what I saw in the article that prose and MOS were probably sufficiently covered ... but this isn't a certification, just "I'm guessing it's worth your time to have a look".). Unless otherwise noted, "support" means support that felt substantial (I know from the reviewer's past work or from the particular review that they're trying to cover at least some part of the review comprehensively ... the lead, MOS, units, whatever). Some "support" is actually labeled "comment", but then somewhere in the fine print, the reviewer says they're happy ... if you'd like me to edit the reviews to make the happiness more transparent, I can do that. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Not in the lists above (disclaimer: Milhist, but so far, all of these have a good mix of Milhist and non-Milhist reviewers):
  • RAF Northolt: 5 supports, 1 more support with little elaboration from the GA reviewer. Jarry asks an image question which IMO is answered by Australian Rupert. [Note: I've asked for help on the insignia issue (NFCC)]. HJ dropped by and settled the one image issue, we're good to go I think. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • William Brill: There are probably 7 supports, although Nikki and Lightmouse didn't sign off. Usually, when they just list a few items and the nominator seems to deal with them, that means they're fine. [Nikki says below she's fine with this.]
  • Kenneth Walker: getting close. Nikki, were you happy with Hawkeye's replies? [Note: no image review yet, and I need to look at the sourcing stuff.] Sourcing is good, Nikki just did the ir, waiting on Hawkeye's replies. - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Duplicating the lists above, adding detail:
  • FAC for Banksia marginata: 9 supports. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC) [spot check done by me - Dana]
  • FAC for Jefferson nickel: 6 supports, 3 more with little elaboration (but unless I say otherwise, I don't see anything that suggests that they didn't read the article carefully). - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC) [spot check done by Fifelfoo - Dana]
  • FAC for The Red Badge of Courage: 5.5 supports (I was the .5 :). [Spot check done by me - Dana]
  • FAC for Nebula Science Fiction: 7 supports. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • FAC for Percy Grainger: 7 supports, then Nikki says "leaning support", but she's including it in her list above so it must be good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC) [Nikki says below she's fine with this.]
  • FAC for Halifax Gibbet: 5 supports plus one quick comment by Fifelfoo. Again, Nikki has included it in her list so she must have been happy with the responses. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC) [Nikki says below she's fine with this.]
  • Inserted note: not necessary to read the next two comments, I've moved the comments to the relevant links above. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • A few quick points: AR addressed the lesser of the two image issues on Northolt, but didn't touch on the larger issue of the insignia; Harrison did, but given his argument I was reluctant to call it cleared, so I didn't include it in my list. Brill is fine for sourcing; I was hoping someone else would weigh in on a couple points for Walker, but it's not a big issue. Grainger could be improved but I certainly wouldn't object to promoting now, particularly as Brian would likely address those issues even without the FAC open. Gibbet is fine (I'm one of the supports). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I've asked for help on the NFCC issue on Northolt. Walker still needs an image review. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • On to Dana's list ... btw, I'm including image and source reviews in my "support" total even when the reviewers don't consider those supports per se:
  • FAC for Guy Fawkes Night: There are certainly a lot of people supporting, but because of the canvassing mess, the PBS brouhaha, and the fact that the nominator is starting to get "short" with reviewers toward the end (which I understand), I'd rather not say anything about this one.
  • FAC for USS Chesapeake: 5 supports, 2 more supports without a lot of elaboration.
  • FAC for Sack of Amorium: I don't think Truthkeeper (the last reviewer) is quite finished, although he's leaning support. (I'll go see if I can help.) Btw, mea culpa that this one is taking so long; I ok'd the nom's approach of using occasionally florid language back during the A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Truthkeeper switched to support, everything's good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • FAC for 2012 phenomenon: 5 supports, and the nom removed the "Further reading" section per your request, Sandy.
  • FAC for Slow loris: Snek01 has switched from support to oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • FAC for Richard Barre - 6 supports, image, source, spotcheck reviews Dana boomer (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • FAC for Thatgamecompany - 5 supports, image and source reviews Dana boomer (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all of this effort, but I just needed a list of those I need to read-- better than reading FAC and then re-reading FAC here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all !

edit

Goodness, when it rains, it pours -- thank you all so much. I'm home for the day now, and plan to get through by tonight ... this is most helpful! And I got a lot done today, towards my RL "stuff", which I feel good about! Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yay. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A huge thanks all round to all of you-- barnstars are in order, but I was up til 4 am promoting, and have been utterly swamped all day. I hope you all find my notes below helpful, and I look forward to my construction ending soon, without killing me ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm checking your comments and learning a lot. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

List

edit
Not ready
  • And now we see why-- multiple supports from MilHist editors, close paraphrasing and text unsupported by citations found by Nikkimaria after I prompted for more review here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Second instance of close paraphrasing at MilHist found in as many days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Other
  • Took me two hours to sort the mess there made by only a few reviewers-- no longer needs a restart, image issues pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

edit

Okay, we're starting to get some volunteers for image work. It seems to me that there are two jobs available: going through all FAC images pointing to potential image problems, and looking at a FAC where someone has done that already and offering advice and potential solutions. One person asked to be pinged if we had image questions; my concern is that, in some cases, there will be canvassing objections. Would it be possible to set up a page somewhere to solicit opinions on tough FAC image questions? - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new page (instruction creep), and I have always pinged in specialist image reviewers, so I don't consider it canvassing-- it's a specialty area, I don't speak images well, and I don't intend to learn to speak images considering my time limitations, so I have always relied on specialist image reviewers. Hands down, Elcobbola (MIA) and Jappalang were our best image reviewers. Whenever a new image reviewer appeared on the scene, I asked them to spot check the work of the new reviewer, and they frequently found issues to the point that I realized I couldn't rely on some new reviewers-- so, with any specialist image reviewer, go ahead and ping them in, but then consider asking Jappalang to spotcheck his or her work, and we will gain confidence in the quality of their reviews if Jappalang finds nothing missing. I used to place a section on WT:FAC of image reviews needed, but since we're lacking image reviewers lately, I stopped doing that, but feel free to resume. Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
<butting in>I don't mind looking at images when there are disputes or queries. I've done quite a bit of image work in an admin capacity, but I don't really have time to get round all the iamges on all the FACs. I'm happy to be pinged to offer a third opinion.</butting in> HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
wonderful-- thanks-- there's one listed somewhere in the list in the section above that needs a second opinion, but we could move back to the system of listing image reviews needed on WT:FAC if we have willing image reviewers. However, please do not list image reviews lacking until everything else is clear-- there is no point in having image reviewers spend their limited time on FACs that have other deficiencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
never mind, I see you've already been to William Brill :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks (both). - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SandyGeorgia/FAC_chat/Archive_2&oldid=1142406241"