Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:15, 13 April 2007

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
To leave me a message, click here.

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

Featured article removal candidates view edit Boogeyman 2 Review now Shoshone National Forest Review now Northrop YF-23 Review now Emmy Noether Review now Concerto delle donne Review now FACs needing feedback view • edit Tesla Model S Review it now How You Get the Girl Review it now 2007 Greensburg tornado Review it now User:SandyGeorgia/FAs for review About me Talk to me To do list Tools and other useful things Some of my work Nice things Yukky things Archives Archives 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

Loss of information on musicals

Hello, Sandy. At Talk:The Sunshine Boys you wrote: "Weird, there used to be a real article there. But merging the two now will be quite a mess; is this occurring throughout the musicals? Straight plays? Films? What's up here?"

Yes, unfortunately, there has been loss of information from many articles about musicals, particularly plot synopses and cast lists. Also, they are being re-organized so that many of the section headings are removed, and instead there is just a long introduction containing all the background and production history information, followed by the list of musical numbers and awards history. I believe that the articles should make an effort to follow the guideline formed by a consensus of editors at the musicals project on this page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. Thanks for your interest. I have been worried about this for some time. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SS; I'll get on this when I can, but I am really swamped now. What a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bloom, Ken (2004-10-01). Broadway Musicals : The 101 Greatest Shows of All Time. New York, New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. ISBN 1-57912-390-2. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Kantor, Michael (2004). Broadway: the American musical. New York, New York: Bulfinch Press. ISBN 0-8212-2905-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Botto, Louis (2002-09-01). Robert Viagas (ed.). At This Theatre. Applause Books. ISBN 1-55783-566-7. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Larson, Jonathan: Interviews and text by Evelyn McDonnell with Katerine Silberger (1997). Rent. New York, New York: Ros Weisbach Books. ISBN 0-688-15437-9.

Good references. I added some of these to the Musical Theatre article. The Rent article already cited the Rent book. -- Ssilvers 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

MEDMOS

First things first, absolutely. I've removed my "call for volunteers"... I have a gift for straying off-topic, don't I? Fvasconcellos 00:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You do? How about me? As soon as I saw the problems at Prostate cancer, I started working on them. That was dumb :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Poland...

...has quietly become an extremely long review. I don't know what to do with it. I know Piotrus will address things when they are directly suggested to him, so I hate rm'ing. Marskell 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you've struck. I'm going to kp unless you have anything new to say now. Marskell 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't say POV in the deliberate sense of the term, because Piotrus is an excellent editor. I'd say you've got a hard topic for the unfamiliar to distinguish b/w the obvious and not-so-obvious. We've had this conversation in other contexts... ;). In brighter news, I'd tentatively guess our keep ratio is moving from a spike to a trend. Marskell 18:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reign in Blood

Hi Sandy, about two months ago you gave this article a brief overview and said it did'nt have enough content for FA (i agreed with your view). Since then the article has basically doubled in size, pictures added etc and i was hoping you could take another look to see if it's ready for FAC? I know your'e busy with travel and other requests but whenever you get time, or if don't then no problem, thanks for your time :) M3tal H3ad 14:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, as always greatly appreciated :) M3tal H3ad 02:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Moon

Hi, I've responded to your comments here. Regards, Nick Mks 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reminder to myself: Song Dynasty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin Brodeur

Would you mind looking this article over? It's currently going through FAC and I feel it needs more work. Maybe your comments would be helpful, as the editors are responding fairly well to my objections. Quadzilla99 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Will try to get there soon, but I'm just getting home and I have a long list :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

question

A long time ago, I wikilinked to a section regarding citations (in WP:CITE or some other guideline) that said something like... "The two main styles are footnotes and Harvard, but in come cases a particular field will use its own referencing style, and in that case, that style may be used instead" .

I can't seem to find it now. Do you recall that bit?

Thank you for your time and trouble, --Ling.Nut 00:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at WP:CITE/ES? I don't recall ever seeing that text. Maybe it's at those goody scientific guidelines, that came out of the GA mess, but I don't have that page bookmarked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the idea I'm talking about, but that's actually just a footprint of text that has been deleted from WP:CITE. I had to go back to 6 August 2006 to find it; don't have time to find the diff where it was removed:

• When writing a new article or adding references to an existing article that has none, follow the established practice for the appropriate profession or discipline that the article is concerning (if available and unquestioned).

One day a few months from now I might write an essay about the history of the edits to WP:CITE, and who made them, and when, and how much consensus the change actually reflected. :-)Ling.Nut 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And how 'bout my typo (above); I put goody when I meant goofy :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem on the citation page

OK, I'll explain what pda fixed. There was an improperly closed html tag on the page. It's probably been there a while, but had no noticeable effect. A recent change to how html pages are generated in the mediawiki software affected unclosed html tags such as that page had. But some browsers still handle the resulting html in a way that looks right, so not everyone can see it. Gimmetrow 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

ah, ok, thanks Gimmetrow; I was writing on your page while you were writing on mine! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan See Also Section

Hey Sandy. Does Reagan's page evan need a "See Also" section, because everything in it is, in someway, incorporated into the article? Why don t you just delete it? Happyme22 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at them one by one; did I miss those? If you have *no* See also, someone will complain :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Enemy FAC

I have responded to your comment on the FAC. None of the stuff that needs citation (other than fan response) comes from any "unreliable sources". I explain further on the page. -- Scorpion 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Polite request...

Hey Sandy. I see from your contribs you've been quite busy, but after all the help you provided on metformin back in January I couldn't stop myself: I'm thinking of putting orlistat up for GA status, and would really appreciate it if you could have a cursory look at it later. I know you've got MEDMOS on your hands and probably a dozen FACs, so feel free to just leave this on the backburner until you have some free time... I'll owe you one more, and if I can help with anything, let me know. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on it right after lunch. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've replied to most of them anyway, even if only as reminders to myself. I'll start working on what I can ASAP. I've worked on all but two; it's amazing how after reading an article over and over we stop noticing what's amiss... Thanks again, Fvasconcellos 22:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I've gone ahead and put it up for GA. I think I've covered everything you mentioned in your thorough review. There's still a couple of things I'd like to tweak, but I figure it's gonna sit in GAC for ages anyway :) Fvasconcellos 00:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

By year nomination lists

Just FYI - I've updated FA vs. FFA and the mainpage appearance dates for each of the by-year nomination lists (like Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2007) - using various scripts rather than manual methods. As far as I know, these lists now accurately reflect the content of FA and FFA, and the TFA archives. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've got my hands full tracking ArticleHistory and making sure WP:FA and WP:FFA are accurate, so I can't keep up with yet another list. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh

Many thanks for your rigorous but fair assessment of Gwoyeu Romatzyh, which was eventually promoted to FA on 3 April. I'm sure that your suggestions helped the article on its way. All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

admin

Hey. I was lookign at some of your contribs and was surprised to find out you weren't an admin. Then again, I've heard you weren't interested in adminship. If I were to nom you, would you accept? It seems like you're quite busy without the admin load though, lol.--Wizardman 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I noticed two noms from last week, so obviously you'd make a brilliant admin. Though if you don't want to take the plunge I understand. Waiting until your number of support votes can beat Phaedriel's huh? :P--Wizardman 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Wizardman. No, I'm not waiting for anything; I'm too busy to wait :-) Just not interested. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan References

Hey Sandy. Thanks for all of your work on the Reagan article. It's much appreciated. Keep it up! Thanks, Happyme22 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I do have one question, though. Once the page numbers are added to the book references, will they all go back into the "a. b. c." format? Im just thinking about FAC....Also, I own a copy of Ronald Reagan's autobiography, but it's the second printed edition, so the page numbers do not correspond with those in the first edition. Is that okay? You seem to know what you're doing, so please get back to me. Thanks, Happyme22 02:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the page numbers aren't combined back into named refs, and that is fine at FAC. If you add page numbers from a different edition, be sure to change the main reference given in References to indicate the edition you're using, so that page numbers agree with the version/edition cited in references.

Did you do the other refs? If you did, it would help if you would:

Use shorter ref names.

Not leave empty fields, they chunk up the article size

Be sure to add dates and authors, and use correct titles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot. I'll try to work on the templates. I use Template:Citeweb and Template:Citebook. Are those good? Thanks for your help. I didn't know how bad these were! Happyme22 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not if you're citing a news source or a press release, or using cite book to cite a web source, or cite web to cite a book source. Most of the templates were used incorrectly, and it's harder to fix them than to just convert them myself. I suggest you just add the inline links , and let someone else work on formatting the references. The bigger chore will be finding the missing page numbers on book sources. After a trip to the library, perhaps you can start filling in page numbers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick one re FAR

Need some advice here :) I am cognisant that some people take things personally when they're not meant personally, always difficult when you work with the people concerned over a range of projects. I've become aware of an article which probably does not meet current FA requirements, and was passed about 2 years ago. A *lot* of work would be required to get it to the current standard, in my opinion and that of a few others. However, it has been used at several times in the past year as a "model" from which to construct other articles based on its status. What is the best way to raise this at FAR? Orderinchaos 11:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Two things you might do to head off trouble at the pass: raise the deficiencies first on the talk page of the article; or, make a query at the talk page of FAR to gauge reaction. Also, remember that FAR is featured article review; no longer necessarily FARC, so you can position your concerns as a need for updating/review. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolding of articles featured on main page

Hi, thanks for taking over the bolding of articles while my bot was not working (server problem, over Easter when I am away of course...). It should (hopefully) work ok from now on. Cheers, Schutz 13:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I may have missed some though. Better double check. Glad you're back on board! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Japan FAC

Hi, again. I think you took care of all the PDF files - I didn't realise you were having such problems accessing them. Also I thought you might be busy but had lost interest or something in the FAC, as you were doing so much other stuff.

As to opposition, you are to be honest the only person with real objections - Hong is being a bit too vague, so he can't really block the nomination with such a large majority clearly in favour. John Smith's 15:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, when I'm traveling, on a slow dialup, or on one of my older computers, PDFs always hang the computer, and it's time consuming to get out of that. I'll have a new look soon (still trying to finish up here and get to my "real" computer :-) I'm sorry I never saw your earlier message; that's scary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot can handle {{oldpeerreviews}}, they don't need to be split. Gimmetrow 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but will I remember? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Oldpeerreviews}} is essentially unused now, with all instances changed to ArticleHistory. Probably won't come up often. Currently only used on one other article which will probably be converted after its current GA nom is done. Gimmetrow 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA?

Well, the obvious question. Would you like one? Simply south 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to create the page yet unless....

Thanks for asking, Simply south, but I'm really not interested. I do appreciate the thought. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Regards. Simply south 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered one of these Template:User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator? The box text is better than its name. You may need to scatter it liberally about your talk page :-)

Good tip, thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

More MEDMOS

Sandy, I'll review your MEDMOS ToDo list tomorrow and try to action some points. What's your view on the Village Pump? JFW didn't seem to want to use that forum. I think it would be good to have widespread WP acceptance. On the other hand, we'd probably have to battle with a load of ignorant comments from folk who've spent about 2 seconds before leaping in with their POV. Colin° 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I intended to aggressively get on it today, but I've got some stomach thing bugging me, which is also giving me a headache, so I'm doing mindless work instead. I'm not a fan of the Village Pump idea either, for exactly the reason you mentioned. I think we should just reactivate the proposal, and if Radiant complains, just tell him there was never a consensus against the guideline, we just got busy and didn't finish. We mostly agree on everything and are just nit-picking the fine details. (Reminds me of what happens I ask the Medicine Project for help on a TS article; I spend so much time educating ... :-) Let's go to the Village Pump *after* we have a consensus vote which should show widespread consensus amongst ourselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Distractions and being busy elsewhere mean I haven't got round to this yet. But I'm not the only one :-) Perhaps tomorrow... BTW, and this may only distract you further, I've just received a copy of Kushner in the post. Cheers, Colin° 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know; I keep putting out other fires. (Kushner doesn't distract me; it's firmly in my summer plans :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you've started work on this. I can sleep soundly knowing my WP:DASH issues are fixed :-). I've got to go out now.... Colin° 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A class?

There's GA candidacy and FA candidacy, but would there be anything for people to give an article a review to bump it up to A-class? - Pandacomics 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the WikiProject involved, but you can always consider peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nafaanra

I see you're working on it right now, thanks for that. I'll wait until you're ready, already had an edit conflict once. Best, — mark ✎ 13:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a further look this evening or somewhere tomorrow. — mark ✎ 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in getting Nafaanra off the citation problems list. Much appreciated. — mark ✎ 11:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Tamil language FARC

Hi, Thank you for your many helpful comments and copyedits. I've fixed all the things I could think of. Would you be kind enough to put some tags in the article where you believe it can be improved so that we can rectify them quickly and keep the FA? Thanks.--Aadal 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Raptors

as you may have noticed i wasn't particularly expecting (or requested) the article to be nominated. now that it has been, i'm not too sure what to make of it either. i'm not going to pretend i relish "defending" the article since i didn't think it was ready for a FAC, but at the same time i was always working on it to make it more than a GA. the long and short is that i need more time to work on it, but perhaps if the nomination isn't taken off it can be an opportunity to listen to some feedback on the article. however, this is all bearing in mind that i've stated the article will no doubt undergo some structural changes in the near future. Chensiyuan 17:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

i have little objectivity remaining in myself to assess the article. if you would be kind enough to look briefly at the article and can spot some fundamental problems, that would be good. if you don't fancy doing that (quite a tedious task if you're not into basketball), then my tentative answer is i would rather not undergo a harrowing FAC failure, inasmuch as i don't think the article lacks quality. Chensiyuan 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will incorporate changes where necessary. I am going to sleep first though, as it's 3 am over here now. Would let you know about whether to speedyobject soon. Chensiyuan 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Raptors FAC

I wanted to write to Tomer T regarding this nom (and possibly others), but seeing you already did that, I will refrain. I think it should be specifically written, perhaps on the WP:FAC page, that the nominee has a responsibility to oversee the process they've started (if it isn't already somewhere, I know it's standard practice, but now and then such rogue nominations spring up). Cheers, anyway, Ouro (blah blah) 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We do have instructions that deal with that; I left him another note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to not sit on the fence any longer and try to tackle this FAC nomination. Chensiyuan 05:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What's going on

Rick, I apologize for the confusion, but I'm completely losing the train of what the issue even is on the Today's featured article request talk page. The situation started as Tony the Tiger wanting to change a process (that's not broken, doesn't need fixing, and has been defeated twice) for choosing main page articles, leading him to partially and incompletely strike articles from your list. Your list was working; I was concerned at why he was introducing another means of tracking something that is already tracked elsewhere. Now we've morphed to talking about why Gimmetrow is running GimmeBot, and whether stars should be blue or rust. I should probably bow out, because I'm no longer sure what we're trying to solve or what the concerns are? If you want to keep up with Tony's work, that's fine — I'm not sure what the issue is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. And I apologize, too - the conversation has splintered and I'm sure I'm sounding vastly more annoyed than I actually am (I'm only a teeny tiny bit annoyed). Your summary is certainly close enough. You objected to Tony's attempts to indicate FFAs in the by-year lists. When I started these lists I meant them to reflect FFA by using strikethrough font. Tony wasn't inventing this, he was simply going through (manually) and indicating some. It seemed you were interpreting this as something that someone would be expecting you to do. Like most things around here, if you wanted to no one would be stopping you (but no one was asking or expecting you to, either). Pretty much specifically to address your concerns, I spent a fair amount of time developing automated ways to update both FFA status and mainpage appearance dates for all articles in these lists. Your response was "As of today, they're out of date" (which comes across as both critical and unappreciative) and you seemed to be arguing that these lists have no value unless they can be kept absolutely current.

I never had any intention of updating these on a daily (or hourly) basis, but this is certainly possible by augmenting the automated tasks that are already done. I've thought for a while that how the automation works is mildly broken (Mark adds a FAC transclusion to the monthly FAC log, and some indeterminant time later GimmeBot notices this and does the rest - if Mark ran a bot himself all of this could be done immediately, with no delay). So, thinking about making the by-year lists more current, to make them absolutely current we could add updating them to the "FA bot" activities and, if we're futzing around with bots anyway, I'd like to try to turn it into something Mark runs directly. This is substantially different from GimmeBot (which Mark doesn't run), and your comment "That would be GimmeBot, ..." comes across as dismissive (or perhaps simply misses the point).

In any event, I'll talk to Gimmetrow about the possibility of adding some code to GimmeBot to update the by-year lists. If this doesn't work out for any reason, I'll continue updating them (probably roughly monthly). If you don't like them being up to a month out of date, I'm open to other suggestions (your disclaimer idea is actually fine with me). If you want to completely ignore these lists, that'd be fine with me, too (by which I mean I am distinctly not expecting or asking you to do any maintenance of them). If anyone ever complains to you about problems in them please let me know.

The bit about the WBFAN stars is a completely separate thread. I think I misunderstood this comment:

In the repromotion case, both stars are blue (not rust), because articles are considered featured unless they're in FFA (but not in the repromotion list at the bottom). IMO, it's a mistake to show a demoted FA (FFA) as an FA in the by nominator lists. Often, FAs are demoted and re-promoted by another author; the original author no longer has an FA in that case. Can this be fixed ?

I thought you were suggesting no star at all, but based on your most recent comment I gather you're suggesting the original nom's star should stay rust colored regardless of whether the article is repromoted. I didn't mean the response I added today to sound snippy (does it?), but I would prefer not to make it work the you're suggesting (and not just because it would be harder :) ). IMO, what the star designates is the original achievement and the color of the star simply indicates the current status (FA or FFA) of the corresponding article. And, quite sincerely (no snippishness implied), if you feel strongly about this please bring it up at WBFAN's talk page.

Is there anything else we need to talk about, or are we OK? For my part, I'm OK. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I think this clears things up; lots of misunderstandings along the way. If making the dozen or so re-promoted stars another color is a lot of work, it's certainly not worth worrying about. I lost the train somewhere along the way that what Tony had started manually was now semi-automated by you, so that concern is addressed as well. Mark is always on board for anything that will make his job easier, but we just had a bad bot experience. Some group wanted something done with an automated FA and FFA counter; we went through a ton of work, I had to babysit it for months, it kept breaking and never worked so I had double work, and now we've abandoned the bot and are back to where we started. So ... I'm a bit bot-weary/leary :-) (GimmeBot excepted, because He Can Do No Wrong.) And, I'm not sure you'll convince Mark to do the work of running a bot unless he's convinced it's much simpler than what he has to do now. As to my concerns about the multiple lists, as part of the ArticleHistory construction, Gimmetrow and I just spent weeks to months digging through various old lists, diffs and archives, so I'm thinking of some poor soul who comes along five years from now and can't figure out who's on first with respect to different lists of FA history. Some sort of explanation on your archive lists—maybe pointing to the "official" FAC and FAR archives—might help prevent some editor five years from now from going through the kind of confusion we went through trying to sort out the ArticleHistory templates. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Atheism

 Done I've made your suggested changes. Thanks for the help! If you have any more suggestions, please list them on the FAC page. If not, please consider changing your vote to either Weak or Strong Support. Thanks again! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 14:42Z

•  Done I'm fairly sure that all the refs have been fixed as you requested. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions. As for "an uninvolved editor who will critically analyze the prose and structure of the article rather than support it for FA because it's much improved over a month"... the following users in their Support mentioned nothing about the improvement: Dark_Dragon_Flame, EnemyOfTheState, Dwaipayanc. And who's to say that the ones who do mention the "vast improvement" didn't check out the prose? If you can cite problems, I'll fix them. Otherwise, please consider changing your vote to Weak or Strong Support. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 17:09Z

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Shuttle-Mir Program

Just to say that i've started on the changes you suggested to improve my article and have posted a reply on the FAC page, along with a question. Thanks very much for reviewing it! Colds7ream 19:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made further changes to the article, and have posted another reply on the FAC page. Many thanks, Colds7ream 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Farc?

Should we FARC Scooby-Doo. How did an article with this atrocious referencing make FA and get on the main page?Rlevse 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't review it :-) If it's that bad, I suppose someone will FARC it after the five-ish day waiting period, but I've got too many other irons in the fire to take on a cartoon article. I haven't really read it, so don't know how bad it is. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy!

Hi Sandy,

I just wanted to say thank you for your incredibly scrupulous review of Encyclopædia Britannica and, more generally, for all the work you do reviewing other articles at FAC. We're very blessed to have you. I'll do my best to make my articles as fine as possible before they reach FAC. See you around, maybe at the MCB WikiProject, Willow 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)