User talk:Mike Christie/sandbox

Notes on differences

Hog Farm, I've done a diff and will add the differences here as I go down the list.

• You credited Gog with an image review for 1983–84 Gillingham F.C. season; my mistake -- I missed it.
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Begotten (film)/archive3. You had a typo -- "flim" -- in the name of the article in one line, for Ceoil.
• On the same FAC I credited Serial with a review; you correctly removed it.
• For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benty Grange hanging bowl/archive1 I changed "Caeciliusinhorto-public" to "Caeciliusinhorto". I forgot to mention this in the notes I sent you. I think it's best to do this when I notice it, since we report on the stats. I only do it when I'm absolutely certain of the relationship -- otherwise it's up to the reviewer to request a change.
• For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina/archive1 you correctly credited Mirokado with both a source and a content review; I missed the source review.
• On the same FAC you correctly credited Sandy with a source review; I missed it, probably skimming and seeing it as part of the CCI comments which I would not have counted as a review on their own.
• For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/My Little Love/archive1 you correctly credited Gog with a review; I left the coordinator role in place.
• On the same FAC I gave Ian's review an SO for struck oppose; you did not. I recall hesitating over this as I went through. I didn't check the history but Ian mentions "I expect I'll drop the oppose" and "I wouldn't have struck the oppose" so I took it that in his mind this was an actual oppose. Looking at the history Ian never actually entered a bolded oppose, but put "striking the oppose" in an edit summary when he was done. I think one could go either way with this one.
• For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Easy Answers/archive1 you correctly removed a SchroCat review that was never actually done; I left it in.
• For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Snowy plover/archive1 you didn't include AryKun, whose only contribution to the FAC was a sentence about a source. I left it in. This is the way I've been doing it, because removing things like this forces me to draw a line as to when a review becomes "significant". Any thoughts on a better way to handle these?
• For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891/archive1 you marked Guerillero as a source review; I did not. I think you were probably right but I don't think it matters much which we jump on ones like this.
• For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teloschistaceae/archive1, you correctly removed AryKun; I did not.
• In the same FAC you marked MeegsC as an image review; I did not. I think it was not.
• For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas de la More/archive1 you correctly removed SchroCat's placeholder; I did not.
• For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower/archive1. You credited ZKang123 with a source review as well as an image review. I think that's correct. The content review is barely started and though I don't recall, it's possible I decided to skip it since ZKang123 was getting a review credit anyway. If so I think that was my mistake; it would lead into the same judgement calls as mentioned above.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That's all of them. Sheesh; are you an auditor or something? I'm embarrassed by my error rate; I hope it's not that high every month. I made nine clear errors that you did not make. You made a typo (that would have still shown up in stats, though with a bad link) and made different choices from me in half a dozen other cases. The only one of those I think is a clear error is MeegsC's review which I don't think was an image review. Very impressive, and thank you.

Let me know any comments and I'll do a custom update to the database to make the corrections. I should probably leave a note at WT:FAC too since that will change some folks' stats, and there are one or two who keep an eye on their numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over this, Mike! I hope you are mending well. I agree that the MeegsC image review is an error - I don't remember my rationale for assigning that. I'll have to watch for the typos; I have a tendency to make spelling mistakes both in typed and handwritten stuff. Hog Farm _Talk 02:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll do the corrections today and will post a note to WT:FAC. I'm probably going to go back and audit a few random FACs from the last couple of years to see how inaccurate I've been; if there's a systematic high error I'll redo them over a period of time.

If you're up for doing these edits occasionally, let me know -- I was mostly looking for a stand-in, but if you want to do one every six months or year to keep your hand in that would be fine with me. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm up for doing one over every six months or so; it would keep me in practice. Hog Farm _Talk 18:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Great. I will try to remember to call you in around July. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Summary of changes to make to FAC stats

• Add an image review for Gog for 1983–84 Gillingham F.C. season.
• Remove a review for Serial for Begotten (film)/archive3
• Add a source review for Mirokado for Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina.
• Add a source review for Sandy for Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina.
• Add a review for Gog for My Little Love.
• Remove a review for SchroCat for No Easy Answers.
• Remove a review for AryKun for Teloschistaceae.
• Remove a review for Schro for Thomas de la More
• Add a source review for ZKang123 for Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

June FAC stats?

Hog Farm, are you still up for doing the FAC statistics pass for the June numbers? If so I'll go ahead and post the un-processed stats for you to go through. If you're too busy, no problem at all. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Mike Christie - Yeah, I'm still up to take a pass through the FAC statistics. I should be able to get it done by Wednesday once the un-processed stats are posted. Hog Farm _Talk 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, great. The unprocessed June stats are here: User:Mike Christie/FACstats monthly data/June 2024. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Mike Christie - See this revision of my sandbox for the first pass through. I had a few 50/50 judgment calls with whether comments on the provenance of an image counted as a review or not; see the two removals on the archived Catherine nomination and there may have been one or two others if you want to handle those differently than I did. I'm not sure why Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AC/DC/archive4 doesn't appear in the raw stats table. For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Majed Abu Maraheel/archive1 I'm not sure if Generalissima should be given the nominator flag or not; it looks like they were suppose to be a co-nominator but then the article was nominated before they were ready. I've got a lot going on IRL right now so I'm more worried about this one than the last batch I went through that I may have missed something due to a full load of distractions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; will take a look, probably this evening. I wonder if that "/" in "AC/DC" is screwing up the bot somehow? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Those removals on Catherine are so minor I can't disagree; I would probably have left them in myself, since they are part of the discussion about the article, and I've never wanted to try to draw a line that would separate "long enough" comments from "not long enough", but I'm not going to add them back. For Majed Abu Maraheel, no, Generalissimo wasn't a nominator I would say -- if they'd been asked they'd have said not to nominate it, so they shouldn't be tagged with a failed nomination. I'll add the AC/DC archive myself and see if I can figure out why it wasn't included. Thanks a lot for doing these! I'll ping you again in January to do December, if that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Posted on WT:FAC; and I credited you. Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)