User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 8

Citation formatting help?

• In the article - Help at Any Cost:

Hey, I am trying to reformat a few articles using Template:Harvard citation no brackets, but it's not quite working out correctly. [1] - Any idea why a few of these bluelinks in the "notes" subsection are not linking up with the lastnames in the References subsection? Any help/pointers/advice would be most appreciated. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec but what the heck:) Fixed. You need a "year" field in the citation template for Harvnb to work. That then matches up with the second parameter in the harvnb template. (NB that if you have multiple publications for the same author in the same year, you can use for instance 2006a, 2006b etc.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cirt (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No probs! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion towards the bottom of Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1 - is it possible to have the "last" field empty when the specific author is not known, or do you have to instead say "The New York Times staff" ? Cirt (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

With the "real world" reference system with which I'm most familiar (MLA style), you wouldn't fill in any author, and would alphabetize the reference according to the first word of the article title. On the other hand, that breaks Harvnb. As far as I know, the only work-around is the one you suggest. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay then that's what I'll continue to do, thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing on this - how do you get the Harvnb links to work when the References subsection contains 2 or more citations with an author by the same last name? Cirt (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as they are different years, then all is fine. (If you have different authors with the same last name who publish in the same years, then you start to have problems, though one could imagine work-arounds.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So, if you have the exact same author, 2 different books/articles/works, same year, then what? Cirt (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here, you can use "2000a" and "2000b" etc. See the Lacy references, for instance, on King Arthur. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks that will be very useful. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried making some fixes like you said, adding the "year" parameter in this article, but some of the notes still aren't working appropriately. Any ideas? Thank you so much, 00:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks as though you've fixed it... the problem with your "Charney" citations, at least, was that the "last" field didn't match, as you'd had "Charney, MD." Once you worked around that (by the way, I'd just omit the "MD" altogether... adding "MD" and "PhD" is a disease that afflicts self-help books in particular, and is merely a way to offer the patina of legitimacy), then the harvnbs worked fine, no? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears so, yea, Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) has been helping as well. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) harvnb has a formatting prob when handling 5 authors; workaround is to list 4 on harvnb and 5 on ref template. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed your note on the harvnb talk page. A little odd, eh? Glad you found a workaround --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous Betrayal

I've been doing some work expanding this article and making it a bit more comprehensive, wanted to get your take on something. I was thinking of adding a "Background" section which would be ordered just before "Contents", but then I thought that the contents of the Background section would basically be pretty similar to that subsection already in Getting It: The psychology of est. Do you think that would be okay to use the text of the Background subsection of that WP:FA in this article, with some minor adjustments? Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fine. It's a kind of reverse summary style, if you like. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Great thank you, just wanted another take on that. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous Betrayal

hey, I never know who uses what format, But Outrageous Betrayal has books in the Notes section and journals in the refs, see Fisher... Is that right? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do that depending on how heavily a source is used in the article itself. If it is a one-off source then (generally) I leave it in the Notes section, but if it is a heavily used source, or an extremely valuable/pertinent source, I include it in the References section. Cirt (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, the Fisher work was published in book format. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Two projects ?

I take it from Malleus's comment that there's another group from another school? When are all these FACs going to hit? Early December? Simultaneously? What is the other one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that AP Biology 2008 is a year-long project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, whew, so they won't hit at the same time then, yours is semester? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

If you're going to copyedit and add fact tags, please don't add obscure hidden comments to the page - and citation needed tags...! I've removed that by the way, it's cited already. This is a FAC candidate, please bring up issues on the FAC page instead of with hidden comments. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 13:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Was merely trying to help. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your help. I'd rather you continued to copy edit, rather than add hidden comments to the article, and fact tags for things that are cited already. There's a talk page and FAC page for a reason. Please bring up issues you have there. And I haven't asked you to stop. -- how do you turn this on 13:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's part of a copy-edit, as far as I'm concerned: pointing out things that can easily be fixed, rather than making a fuss on the FAC. NB the direct quotation to which I put the "fact" tag is not cited, unless you mean the citation that comes two or three sentences later. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you made a fuss on the FAC, because that's where I'll see it. I can't see hidden comments. The quotation is cited by the next reference that comes (the Guardian one). It wouldn't make sense to have it twice in a row. -- how do you turn this on 13:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, have done, as I said. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources - Carmen Rodriguez

Thanks for posting a question on the board. From reading the thread it seems that the best option is to get the interview published, either in the Ubyssey or, given that she's collaborated with them before, the Vancouver Sun. This might be a bit of a higher target to achieve but it'd be fun to try nonetheless. It wasn't directly mentioned on the board, but I got the impression that her CV and some of the other documents aren't a 3rd party, therefore can't be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstmaurice (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnson

There's no winning. We had the linking done correctly coming in to FAC, and one reviewer insisted on overlinking Boswell and went through and did that (and more, wanting new links in every section).[2] At this point, we have to just watch as everyone dips their fingers in, introduces passive voice, overlinks, and so on. I suppose such things can be fixed later. I woke up this morning to find the introduction of passive voice and removal of attribution <sigh>. Anyway, glad you fixed it, but the same editor may come back in and overlink it again. I have seen improvement of this article at FAC, but the damage I've seen has been rather surprising for what is supposed to be a process to vet our finest work. An entire group of editors develop consensus at FAC for X and subsequent editor goes through and changes to Y. Anyway. I left a note for Ottava about the inline queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to Sandy here. If you would like to know what was said to me, or other information, you can contact me directly. I have moved any hidden comments on Samuel Johnson to the talk page here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, tangled webs... Anyhow, I was just trying to help some on the article. I have no desire, however, to enter the maelstrom that is, or has been, the FAC. I like using inline comments because it is usually non-confrontational and time-efficient. I have even less desire to start an off-wiki conversation about this... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

TAM (tank)

Hey, thank you for your comments in TAM (tank)'s FAC. As I responded, I've been trying to change certain things to make the prose read better. If there are major issues which are barring the possibility of you removing your oppose I'd like to ask for some help from you in pinpointing the issues and resolving them. The article went through a copyedit during the FAC, as you can see by some of the comments on that page, and it seems that you don't agree with some of the "improvements" conducted by others. Please, any and all information is welcomed. I'd like to get the article to featured article status. Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Will try to get to this, but it won't be today, I'm afraid. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting at the TAM article may not be finished, but I want to kindly remind of the oppose in the FAC that I would like to attempt to remove (once you feel that the prose is up to standards). This oppose is the only one holding the article back, so I'd like to fix the issues as soon as possible. Also, I hope you aren't discouraged by me changing some things as you edit them, because I feel that they didn't make the text any clearer. I'd like to invite you to discuss this with me. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wearing out my welcome :-) Directing you to my comments at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TAM (tank). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

To jbmurray and HDYTTO

Hi guys.

Just a little patronising note (sorry, I can't help it) to remind you both that you're on the same side.

I have seen enough of both of you around the wiki to know you're both committed to improving the encyclopedia and developing high quality content.

Somewhere, something's gone a little awry in your communications with each other. Please see if you can attempt not to appear to be riling the other one or scoring points.

The kind of dispute you two are beginning to cook up never ends well and is particularly silly when you realise that you're actually on the same side.

Please excuse this well-intentioned personal comment.

I am, as ever, Dweller (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NB You can score the first brownie point by reverting the last comment you made at the FAC... :-) --Dweller (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As he/she has removed the discourtesy, I'm more than happy in turn to remove the now redundant courtesy note. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Careful, too many brownie points can seriously damage your health. --Dweller (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

History of a Six Weeks' Tour

If you have a chance, could you copyedit and review this article? It is up for peer review. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Where in the world are sources for Carmen Rodriguez

Jon, sorry I haven't responded sooner, but I think the consensus that apparently emerged was correct -- the students' work can't be cited unless it's published. Of course the best answer is to publish the interview ASAP and then use it, but that may not be possible in the time frame your students have. Maybe an exception to your grading scheme would be appropriate if, when a Wikipedia article can't be written without the prerequisite secondary sources, the students create those sources instead of the article they were told to write? Mike Christie (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

Hi, you commented on the (failed) FAC; please can you help me out by leaving some feedback at peer review? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 12:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Bragsheet

I agree, I'll fix that up later. As I noted at Seraphim's talk, I will change it. Sorry for the uh, misplacement. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Could you look over Nevado del Ruiz for me? Cheers. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any help is appreciated, Mav should be coming to look at it within the next week. — ceranthor ^(strike) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't manage to do more. I'll try to get back to it, though I'm a little rushed off my feet these days. (Incidentally, shouldn't the "Geology" section be moved up?) Meanwhile, however, I note a new copyeditor on the block who just did a terrific and very thorough job at Khalid al-Mihdhar. You might want to give him a ping. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm?

FWIW, Collins's is right; Collins' is wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) ([3]) - I always thought the s isn't repeated after the apostrophe. Am I incorrect? Giggy (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See here. Some style guides allow exceptions, but the norm is to insist on 's in almost all cases. As always, I'm most familiar with the MLA style, which is among the strictest. Strunck and White make exceptions for ancient proper names (Moses, Isis). Some other guides make other exceptions. But I don't know any that would favour Collins' as opposed to Collins's. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Giggy (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Khalid al-Mihdhar

If you have some spare time, I would appreciate if you would take another look at the Khalid al-Mihdhar article. Substantial amount of copyediting has been done, with help of User:Momoricks. Please let me know if there is anything else needed with the article. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Hi Jbmurray, I've come to ask if you could help me copyedit Tropical Storm Hanna (2002) to save its inevitably failing FAC. If you don't have time, no worries. Thanks in advance, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC request

Jbmurray, since you have access to scholarly sources, would you have time to investigate the queries I've lodged at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosetta@home? No one seems to have noticed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a bunch; it now looks as though User:Orangemarlin is doing the others, which is grand. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I was wondering if you saw any indication (considering the resounding endorsement of the Company) that criticism was lacking or excluded ? To return the favor, I tried to do some cleanup on your Rio Grande articles; didn't find much to do yet, but I'll Be Back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the barnstar. It's my very first! :) Best regards, momoricks ^talk 01:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR

Jon, the discussion at FACR has had another choice added -- I wanted to let you know in case you wanted to change your comment. Mike Christie (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Enough Hours In A Day Department

Check it out: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Non-english_warning. I particularly enjoy the mixture of usted and "tus" in the same sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Would you kindly comment at this FAC? Ty, —Ceran (Strike!) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to put hidden comments into the text, please tell me next time so I can attend to them. Also, the "pile-on" referencing is due to the fact that the paragraphs have bits from multiple sources in them, and that's just my style. I've never gotten criticized before for that, I don't plan on changing it up now. Best, —Ceran [speak] 01:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

User:Hadrianos1990 has resumed editing under 86.122.224.23 (talk · contribs). I guess it's possible he hasn't seen his block yet, since he has a long habit of editing interchangeably via account and IP, but I thought I'd let you know. Sure wish the guy would communicate with somebody :/ Maralia (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too. (When doing my routine post-check of Gimmebotification, I realized that Real Madrid has had seven FACs.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the ip address traces to Romania and not Spain. I believe that Romanian is similar to Spanish but not sure he/she speaks Spanish. --Aude (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Apollonius...

... is now featured! Thanks for your help with the FAC. I know you don't need to be told twice about a party, but just in case... Geometry guy 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: October

VPN issues. You'll see a whole mess of edits this weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoekie (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team on the move

See WP:NHB. Geometry guy 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Marvellous! Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the biology! That's the spirit of friendly competition that should make this productive and fun! Geometry guy 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you are watching "my" article of the Banker horse (or perhaps spying behind enemy lines???). Anyways, thanks for the offerings of guidance...I am sure that I will need it. --Yohmom (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

1964 Gabon

What I was trying to say was that since there are no English sources referring to this, no one can have the exact meaning put into French. My translation was no far off. Do you have a specific point (other than the occasional (small) mistranslation that occure even with hardened French spekers) to make this "firm oppose" actionable? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"What I was trying to say was that since there are no English sources referring to this, no one can have the exact meaning put into French." I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.

And the translation was sufficiently far off. It was very far off in its first incarnation. But it was studded with numerous and significant errors even at the second attempt. For instance, you don't seem to recognize the reflexive form of the verb: "Wanting and believing himself to be a democrat..."

I hesitate to bring up credentials, but... I have translated a published book. (This one, as it happens.) What we have here is not a translation at a professional level, which is what we should be looking for at FAC. I also teach languages, and have in my time taught translation. It seems to me that you would struggle in an intermediate (200-level) college course of the kind I am teaching right now (and taught this morning.)

Look, EotW, I know you're trying hard here, and really want to get this suite of articles through FAC. But I think you need to realize that in this case you're not in a position to do so. You would simply need far better French to undertake such a translation or work with French material to sufficient standard. That is my very specific point. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Page Numbers

Hey Jon, I don't understand why we need page numbers for only those two sources on the woman hollering creek page...we can do it, but can you explain why it's needed just in case it happens in the future? Thanks!--Katie322 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. It's not just those two. You need to provide page numbers for articles in journals or newspapers (which you have done) or in books (which is the case for the two in question). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire

Hi. Do you have time to copy edit this article. It has been through an extensive copy edit by several reviewers.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Carmen

I left some notes at Talk:Carmen Rodriguez; was that the right article? I ask because it had a section that was completely empty, which seemed odd if they thought it was close to GA. But there was a lot more there than the last time I looked, and I hope what I said was useful, so that's fine.

Having you nudge me to go look at articles is probably a good idea -- I'm a bit busier this fall than I was last spring, so I may not be able to stay in as close touch with the articles as I tried to last time. Let me know when you'd like me to check in on one of them, but I will try to keep tabs myself too. Mike Christie (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, that's magnificent. Many thanks. No, I agree that they're not ready now for GA, but they're at the stage of thinking more concretely now about what they need to do to get there. And I'm happy to nudge from time to time. Of course, don't worry if you're too busy! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song

Thanks for the info :) I thought that was for the best as well but since I failed the article it was hardly appropriate I relist it. GA can be a difficult process I've seen articles failed for things I would have put on hold for and other people have told me I've failed when they would have put on hold! Million_Moments (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song

Yesterday the admin/editor immediately re-listed the article for a review on the GAN review page, so I see no need for a GAR except to provide an opportunity to blame and criticize well-meaning GAN editors. Please keep me out of this ugly situation.

I have no differences with the article review. I was asked for a second opinion and gave it because I felt sorry for the editor in his plea for a second opinion. That is the totality of my involvement. My only concern was that the editor of the article (an admin) was repeatedly reverting the article history to remove any information from the article history that the article had failed. That editor was then enormously rude to uninvolved third parties who were trying to do the right thing and maintain the integrity of the article history. They were polite and helpful. That admin was given several chances to do the right thing and refused. I have no wish for any further involvement with an editor/admin who engages in this type of behavior.

If a GAR is set up, it will be an opportunity for this admin's "support group" (which this admin clearly has as I can see all the signs) to weigh in and criticize and affix blame on other well meaning editors of GAN in support of this admin. I see the writing on the wall. Through experience I have learned to keep away from these wikipedians as I, unlike special editors/admins, have no protection and this admin and "supporters" could easily decide to take things out on me, even though I had nothing to do with the outcome. I could see it happening in this case, as I recognize who is behind this; I have experienced this before these people as they are powerful, cliquish and protect their own, at the expense of other editors who are only trying to do their best.

I wish no further contact with the admin/editor in question nor the article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I regard a GAR as a more open and less fraught opportunity to re-examine an article and its previous GA review, and a means by which the community as a whole can once more re-articulate its standards. Simply relisting at GAN can seem like cherry-picking--waiting for a more lenient reviewer to come along--and doesn't help establish consensus. It seems to me that opening a GAR is less, rather than more, cliqueish. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are wrong or opinions differ. I just received a post from an editor who posted the 3RR complaint against the admin you are defending, saying that GAR's are a minefield, best to stay well clear. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be me. I somewhat share your view, at least on this particular article, which I had no interest in other than one editor's attempts – an editor who ought to have known better – repeatedly to destroy its history. GAR has developed an unfortunate tendency to degenerate into acrimonious witch hunts of late in any case, which is why I won't be taking part in the review either. "What shall we do with this crappy reviewer? Shall we burn him or just hang him?" --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the article has been totally altered since it was failed. So the only thing left to do is persecute the editor who failed it for not being able to see into the future. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The outcome was extremely disillusioning. It was incorrect for SandyGeorgia to say: "someone ended up blocked for trying to bring a perfectly good article to good status." (Although I and the other GA review end up being criticized for trying to do the same thing.) The article in GAR because the article editor of Brenda Song, rather than using appropriate channels, choose to repeatedly vandalize the article history so the article history would be incorrect, thus getting blocked for four reverts in a few hours time, after several well intentioned editors tried to intervene. The editor, an admin I believe, engaged in a revert war, the same editor who maintains article history for FAC; further that editor received an extremely short block for the four reverts. By SandyGeorgia's defense of this behavior, I can only image any editor reverting an FA article history four times in as many hours would be tolerated also and defended by SandyGeorgia.

As predicted, SandyGeorgia made an issue of criticizing me. Overlinking should not be mentioned? Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles specifies in the criteria "appropriate use of wikilinks".

To go through GAR, where the editor's supporters will come in from the outside and weight in (throwing their weight and heft around), expressing inadequate knowledge of the facts behind the case, putting GA reviewers in a bad light and casting a partisan vote is not helpful. SandyGeorgia is know for her disdain of the whole GA process She has made that clear on multiple occasions. She is also known for her support of her FAC clique, regardless of their behavior. I do not appreciate her self serving evaluation of my judgment at GA. My review helped this particular article enormously when the editor implemented many of my suggestions after the article failed. The article now is immensely improved over its state when it was failed. However, that is much to my regret. I feel like I have been used. A very ugly experience. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Rather than personalizing things, by focussing either on Gimmetrow or on SandyGeorgia... I'll just say that I have found the GAR process to be very useful to get a more objective view on things. I've often welcomed (and sometimes actively encouraged) GARs for articles that I've failed at GA Review, precisely so I can find out whether I was right to have failed it, or whether my standards were out of line with those of the GA reviewing community.

Precisely because GA Reviews are usually conducted by a sole editor (the regular complaint against the process), I feel that GAR can be used so that reviewers can compare their standards and interpretations (about wikilinking or anything else) with those of others.

In this case, for instance, Mattisse, you'll see I basically agreed with your characterization of the article: that there are a lot of short, choppy sentences, and that in places it doesn't flow as well as it might. We differ, however, as to how bad we see that problem as being. With input from other editors, I hope we can both learn as to whether we are being too strict or too lenient in our understanding of what's required.

That's how GAR should work; and in my experience, it's how it can work. Which is why I thought a GAR in this case was a good idea.

Heck, otherwise I could have simply reviewed the article myself (I'm an editor who's had nothing to do with it) and pass it immediately. But that would seem a worse outcome, and more liable to charges of cronyism or whatever. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda image

JB, the issue isn't necessarily where the image came from; numerous possibilities exist. The path could have been, for example, the following:

magazine -> Commons -> Teen Idols

magazine -> Teen Idols -> Commons

In either such case, neither Teen Idols nor the Commons would be the point of origin (i.e. copyright holder). It could also be the case that Teen Idols is indeed the point of origin or even, although immensely unlikely, that Commons was. The test we use is whether information provided substantiates the license. In some cases, that is a "direct" link to an external source; for others, like "self-made" images, it is the "indirect" presence of details. This image was low resolution, had no metadata, was from a drive-by uploader, was an unlikely vantage point of a celebrity, had a contradictory external site (authors Ren vs. KTGirl), etc. It's a matter of preponderance of the evidence and very, very loud quacking. Эlcobbola _talk 13:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. Thanks for the reply and explanation. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray, thank you so much for taking this on and doing so much work to get that ball rolling; it's really appreciated (even if I don't understand GA processes :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

From Mattisse

Since my comments were reverted off the GAR page, and I worked on them hard, I am going to post them here. This will be the last time I post here. I certainly will never post again at GAR. This has been a horrible experience. The only good thing was a note from Gimmetrow saying he had no trouble with my comments and thanked me for my help. Not so anybody else. I hope this is the last contact I have with you. I will not be working on GA or GAR again.

Reply to SandyGeorgia

• Well, promoting this article will not help your complaint that "many GAs appearing at FAC daily aren't GAs either, and something needs to be done." It will just reinforce the standard of the bad GA's of your complaint. Gimmetrow was not blocked for trying to relist the article. He did relist it and that was not included in the 3RR complaint. He was blocked for reverting the article history on the talk page four times in a few hours, even though other editors tried to intervened helpfully, to which Gimmetrow made an uncivil comment. The article still has problems when it was failed:

1. The image concerns had not been addressed
2. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles states: "with appropriate use of wikilinks" - overlinking is not generally accepted.
3. "At a bare minimum, reviewers should check that the sources used are reliable...". Hard to tell when a link is dead.
4. the article does not meet WP:LEAD, per comments by Geometry guy below.
5. jbmurray says: the section on "Endorsements and public image" is rather listy, and as a whole the article tends towards

proseline. Some general assessments of Song, her career, and her significance would be useful."

If your goal is to decrease the quality of GA article (and increase your complaints about them), then your interference here, will move you toward your goal. It might help if you became familiar with Reviewing good article before you make more pronouncements about what fulfills the GA criteria. We know your poor opinion of GA. You have made that abundantly clear over time. So why is Gimmetrow repeatedly vandalizing article histories over this pathetic GA status, anyway? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Relist. I knew I would be attacked, as I told jbmurray on his talk page when he set up this review. SandyGeorgia, who has made her disdain for Ga review clear on multiple occasions, declares that the reviews refer "to issues which I can't detect. WP:OVERLINKing is not part of WP:WIAGA as far as I can tell, nor does GA have the same requirements for fully formatted and consistent citations as FA does, so several of the issues raised don't seem to apply to GA." Well, does "with appropriate use of wikilinks" count? What about: "At a bare minimum, reviewers should check that the sources used are reliable...". Hard to tell when a link is dead. So making suggestions about a dead link and three references is enough to cause an admin to vandalize?

Perhaps SandyGeorgia could bother actually looking at Reviewing good article before making such pronouncements.

And it is horrible to make suggestions for improvement? (All suggestions do not have to be covered in order to pass - GA reviews are, if anything, too kind. That is probably why jbmurray can justify promoting a bad article on the grounds that GA articles are bad anyway.) The FAC editors making pronouncements above appear to be pulling for GA to lower its standard. Then they can complain even more about how low the GA standards are.

Further, there were images issues that had not been fixed. Does that count? Or no, it does not because this is just GA?

Geometry guy has brought up valid concerns in his comment above.

We all know that GA can't hold a candle to FAC, as SandyGeorgia makes clear, And when all references are correctly formatted except three, it is justification enough to sent an admin over the hill to vandalism by pointing out the three. I see my review was taken as the enemy in this situation and it was blamed. I thank jbmurray for mildly standing up for me, and he also describes the article's problems:

I have some sympathy for the comment (by Mattisse, the editor brought in for a second opinion) "The prose is choppy with too many short sentences." It's true that the section on "Endorsements and public image" is rather listy, and as a whole the article tends towards proseline. Some general assessments of Song, her career, and her significance would be useful. On the other hand, the article doesn't suffer from such defects much more than similar articles that have been adjudged of GA standard.

Isn't jbmurray referring to a general standard Wikipedia condemns that says we will pass it because I can find other articles just as bad? Or, others do bad things, therefore I can as well. Well, perhaps GA cannot stand up to FAC bullies who determine what goes on here, when one of their own is involved. They don't know the standards and they don't know the practices, but, hey, a GA article is bad anyway. So what if this one is also? Well, I don't feel like being bullied by FAC editors in this GAR, especially since jbmurray assured me this would be a constructive process. I do not see that as the case. The outcome was predetermined by SandyGeorgia and jbmurray. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, please believe me that I had no intention of pre-determining the outcome of the GAR. As I said, I hadn't even read the article with any great attention when I put it up for GAR. I then read it, and said that in my view it passed. I could well be wrong: I'm willing to be put right.

In saying that the prose was OK but not great, I was thinking precisely of WP:WIAGA which requires of a Good Article that "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct." This is a lesser hurdle than the "professional" quality required of an FA. To say this is not a criticism of GA.

Now, again, I could well be wrong with my understanding of the current standards at GA. I have done plenty of GA reviews in my time, but not recently. This is why I pinged Geometryguy, an uninvolved editor who has great experience with GA, whose views I respect enormously. More generally, the point of GAR is to seek comments from the broader community.

Again, if I (or anyone else) wanted to ride roughshod over the GA process, we'd simply have reviewed the article and passed it forthwith. But no: my purpose in putting the article up for GAR was to defuse the conflict, and get a broader spectrum of views.

The purpose was also to separate out the question of the article review from the issue of the block. At GAR, we're judging the article, not the editor (or even the reviewer).

I'm sorry if for you this experience has been "horrible." I certainly have had no intention to "attack" or "bully" you, and indeed have not attacked or bullied you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

Ah, so you involved Geometryguy. It was a set up No wonder he deleted my comments from the GAR. He is part of this protective ingroup. SandyGeorgia contacts you because, one of her favs gets blocked for vandalizing the article history. You take over and summon another of the family for an "objective" view. SandyGeorgia's comments were completely dismissive of GA. Then she goes on to give reasons that are not true, and that show a misunderstanding of the GA criteria. I explain the criteria. and Geometryguy deletes them. So the unpleasant, demeaning comments of SandyGeorgia are allowed to misrepresent GA with no correction. Makes sense now. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse... How about assuming good faith!? My ping of Geometryguy was not a "set up." I can hardly think of anyone else who is better versed in GA processes. And he is certainly not someone who is dismissive of GA. (Nor, incidentally, am I.) This is not some kind of conspiracy. Everything here is above board, and everything I've done is to clear the air, not to bully or to demean or whatever else. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

I am not basing this on one instance. This is a pattern I have been observing for quite a while, at least more than a year. This is the second example of this sort of thing in the last few days. In fact, it is the third example, if I count the FAC editor interjecting into a GA review that the article was almost on FAC, causing the article which multiple editors had agonized over for months because it was such a mess, to be promoted right away. It is an article that never should have been promoted. It is misleading and confused, and the editor that promoted it now agrees. But what to do now. It needs a massive amount of work. It has been edited basically by one person with over 900 edits. Obviously the GAR would be a nightmare because of the same interference and conflict of interest that plagued this one. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, I'm sorry that you're unwilling to assume good faith. I have nothing at all to do with whatever other article you're alluding to here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

I know you did not. I am merely remarking on a systematic pattern that I have observed. I did not mean to imply it was you. I never thought that although I knew you were on the radar. I am talking about a systematic pattern of behavior utilizing many other editors, as needed, for the occasion. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

1964 Gabon series

Hi Jbmurray. I'm taking a break from the 1964 Gabon series to work on 2003 Bam earthquake, but could you contribute to the discussion toaward featured status on its talk page? Specifically, could you check out the books to back up the sources (I assume you're fluent in French, but please correct me if I'm wrong). I really dislike the mentality of "translated article--oppose" if nothing can be done to fix that. I'll be hopefully submitting FAC in, say, December. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fluent in French, I'm afraid, though I can read it fairly well. I would want someone more proficient than me to check out these sources and the translation. (With Spanish, I could help; and with Italian, probably, too.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ILL

you mentioned that one of the books in our bibliography wasn't at koerner and that we should order it by ILL. what is this and how do i do it? -thanks (Trowan (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Interlibrary Loan. (And look, Wikipedia even has an article about it!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ordered! thank you (Trowan (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

citations

Hey Jon, thanks for fixing the citations on Carmen Rodriguez. Not 100% sure on how to consolidate them, sorry to make you do tedious work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstmaurice (talk • contribs) 05:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, I don't mind doing the tedious work. But do look at this question. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Oi, something kinda scary is going on over here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of a standard template, but there seems to be a bewildering range of efforts to merge templates right now, and I'm not entirely sure what's going on. Sadly, I don't really have time to figure it out, either.

For what it's worth, in my view there should probably be at least two types of template: one for "References" sections (equivalent to "Works Cited" or "Bibliography" style in the real world) and one for footnotes. And Wikipedia should probably decide whether it wants a uniform style or not. It's a little odd that so much minutiae is decreed at the MoS, while citation styles are left almost completely up to individual editors. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's because individual editors, or groups of editors, keep having the discussion in the wrong places, and also because editors who don't have a lot of experience actually adding content keep doing this stuff, and messing up citation and other MoS items. In the meantime ... I sit happily on the sidelines, having had the foresight to use a manual citation method and avoid any templates so they couldn't mess with me :-) Even the bots leave me alone, (Ling, na-ni-na-ni-boo-boo !!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I have to say I wasn't most impressed when a change to citation earlier today screwed up a bunch of articles I'd been working on. Yet still they press ahead, and this seems to have nothing to do with this unicite business. I'm tempted to move away from templates myself, though as you know I do so love {{harvnb}}... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to ignore them all and hope it comes out all right :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for starting up the GAR I had asked someone else to do. Your and Mattisse's comments on the prose were mostly correct, it needed work; a lot was written by fairly young persons. I think that's handled, although I think the reading level is still somewhat higher than my target (and so I would disagree with Mattisse about sentence length). Even with various prose issues, I think this article is a lot better than the two Disney actor GAs, both from 2006. I would like this GAR resolved rather than pushed off to another GAN - and another two months to wait. I might get faster turnaround at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review. Second, before I realized the difficulties, I wanted to move to a generic cite system, where the article would just have something like {{cite|refid}} and that would refer to a reference "refid" somewhere else in the article which defined all the pieces of the citation. The style, however, would be a user-pref (much like date prefs), and the cites would be rendered in any way desired. If the reader wants APA or MLA - or numbered refs alphabetized by last name - it wouldn't be a problem. Not likely to happen, though. Gimmetrow 06:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds...

...interesting - tell me more (and good to hear from you, btw!) EyeSerene^talk 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Well, the mission is... if you could drop by on Julia Alvarez. I have a fear that young User:Sauceyboy in particular is a little frustrated. I've told him the obvious things that need doing to get near GA status, and they're still some ways off but have made great strides recently. Any words of advice you could offer would be most welcome! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)