I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.

Please provide a link to the article or page you want me to look at;
that will increase the likelihood of me getting to it sooner rather than later.

I lose track of those pingie-thingies; because I don't get along with them, I have converted all notifications to email only. And I never remember to check my email. A post here on my talk page is the best way to get my attention. Besides that, we used to actually talk to each other in here, and get to know each other. REJECT the pingie-thingie!

iPad typing: I am unable to sit at a real computer with a keyboard for extended periods of time because of a back injury after a big tree fell on me and tried to kill me.[1] When I am typing from my iPad, my posts are brief and full of typos. Please be patient; I will come back later to correct the typos :) I'm all thumbs, and sometimes the blooming iPad just won't let me backspace to correct a typo.

To doEdit


  1. Manuel Noriega
  2. Bob Dylan
  1. Hooray, Alzheimer's disease is a happening improvement !
  2. Jan 24 Caroline Island
  3. Notice Menstrual cycle, rest of med FAs
URFA Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020
  1. All the Star Treks ... to be caught up through 2009
  2. Do more notices
  3. Check URFA TFA bot in Feb
Peer review Template:FAC peer review sidebar
  1. Huaynaputina
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/League of Legends/archive1
  3. Category:January 2021 peer reviews
  1. Catch up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent#What_parts_of_an_article_do_people_actually_read?
  2. Article history (thru Jan 16 done), Jan TFA done
How to
  • {{banner holder|collapsed=yes|

{{Multiple image|total_width=330

{{multiple image|perrow=2/1|total_width=360|caption_align=center
| align = left
| image_style = border:none;
| image1 =
| alt1 =
| image2 =
| alt2 =
| image3 =
| alt3 =
| footer = {{font|size=100%|font=Sans-serif|text=Clockwise from upper left: (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... }}

Old FA archive questionsEdit

See User talk:SandyGeorgia/archFASorting. Done:

List of awards and nominations received by BoJack HorsemanEdit

  • Mike Christie apples and oranges alert: in the past, this would not have been archived, rather maintenance deleted. [2] If there are others like that, skews the data, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, there's going to be a difference there, but it won't be hard to filter out -- anything archived within a day or so is probably worth ignoring no matter what year it happened in because it'll be a SNOW of some kind.
    By the way, I've figured out a way to handle archives with names like "Archive 1", "archive 1", and "Archive1". Unless you think there's some other reason they need to be fixed (e.g. fixing articlehistory if it's incomplete), I'm going to record the data from those and not leave you a note about them. That should leave fewer to clean up. I'll work on August 2006 in a couple of weeks time and we'll see how that goes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    Mike Christie still catching up. A separate concern is that malformed nom will show in monthly promote/archive stats, when that situation has never before been viewed as an archive (it would be either maintenance deleted, or moved to the correct page as a Featured list). Glad you are finding solutions to the increasing mess we will face as we go further back. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, it'll show up. I've just signed up for a toolforge developer's account and will be looking into how I can make this data queryable, and one thing I think I'm probably going to do is set it up so that by default it ignores FACs with 2 or less days on WP:FAC. That will eliminate this FAC, and anything SNOW removed, and anything malformed archives that were quickly removed. I think that will help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    Interesting approach! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Christie we are still struggling with this nominator and this FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hemothorax/archive1. Fortunately, Laser closed it up quickly. But that's a real archive, happening as it should, and happening as the current Coords seem reluctant to action. It seems to me that your new plan (above) would discount FACs like this (less than two days), which used to be quite routine. So I am back to being confused about skew in your new data plan ... we used to routinely shut down ill-prepared FACs in a day or two, and that was a good thing! Why would we not even consider that in the data ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that that nomination is not in the same class. I think what you’re seeing here is just the limitations of this sort of data. There’s nothing qualitative at all in what I’ve collected; no judgement of whether a nomination was too early, or whether an early archive was because of a quick well-judged oppose or instead because the nominator was blocked. Questions like that can’t be answered by the data I have. Instead the data can address quantitative questions — have opposes become less common; are fewer reviews necessary now for promotion than ten years ago; is FAC participation on the increase; are experienced nominators a larger fraction of the FAC page than was once the case. I think it’s likely that eliminating SNOW archives and instant withdrawals will clean up the data for the purposes of some questions, but every time you clean data you usually remove some signal along with the noise, and that hemothorax FAC is a good example of that. But perhaps the main point is that I won’t be removing anything from the data at all, so if someone disagrees, and decides they want to include those one-day archives, they can do so. It’ll be up to each user to decide what’s a valid way to pose whatever question they want to ask. Unfortunately, I’m sure lots of people will want to ask questions that the data is not designed to answer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

FAC BoilerplateEdit

Hi Sandy, I do hope you are well in this treacherous time. I realise the WT:FAC topic was closed (which is probably for the best), but I'd like to reach out a hand and just make sure that I'm understanding the issues at length so I can fix my reviews if there is something suitable rather than rehash this by not being up to speed.

I feel that our topic was derailed somewhat as it became about a specific edit, rather than the idea of "QPQ" at FAC. I currently post a substitution of User:Lee Vilenski/FA Template on every FAC I review, which is just how I work, I also do this at GA. I have updated it somewhat after our comments, specifically removing the word QPQ as well as being quite specific that I am not expecting any review in return for my review, rather that I have articles for review if the nominator was feeling inclined to do so. I have also moved this to the bottom of the review, which is more in keeping with other reviewers. I'd like you to know that I intend to use this going forward, so if there is anything in there that isn't suitable, let me know so I can make the changes.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but I've only actually been doing things at FAC for around 18 months or so. I know you commented about things being worse in the past, but I'm not familiar with the history. I'm just trying my best to adequately review articles, and make the articles I write be as improved as I can. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lee ... thanks for reaching out ... Got this message and just have not had time to get back over there and clear things up for several days now ... I promise to catch up and respond at length as soon as I get a free moment, last night I only tagged on to the last post on the page. I have some pressing things to finish, both IRL and on Wikipedia (preparing and submitting Arb evidence is like The Most Unpleasant Thing Ever), and then will turn my full focus to catching up with you. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Take your time, certainly not expecting a quick response. I do everything in my power to avoid ARB, so I feel your pain. I think my above post can be summarised as trying my best not to be hard work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I will get to this today ... I have not read most of what is at WT:FAC, so have to do a full-on catchup, which requires focus that I won't have until I finish my arb evidence. And reading through the kind of unpleasantry going on between the parties there (the arbcase) is just horrid and demotivating and demoralizing. (How is it that we let people get to the point of behaving certain ways for years, and that does have a direct relationship to why I no longer want to be part of the FAC environment, where an extreme minority of editors are allowed to shout down others at FAC when they raise a concern, goad and taunt, and close off what should be calm discussion, and that has been going on now for several years.) I want to be in the right frame of mind before I read up on the other and catch up with you. Just a long way of saying I really appreciate you reaching out, and want to give you the attention you deserve :) :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski I got caught up today on everything but this, so I will dig in tomorrow. My apologies for the delay, but after a day of reading unpleasant arb diffs, I don't relish reading through everything I missed at FAC. Mañana, best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, Lee Vilenski I am finally turning my attention to your template. I've briefly scanned WT:FAC, and there is much there that needs to be answered, and will be answered; I will focus here, and for now, only on your queries regarding User:Lee Vilenski/FA Template.

  1. I see it automatically creates a sub-head for your review. NOT creating a separate section for a review is an important part of the FAC instructions, that is there for very good reasons, but no one follows it any more. Well, of course, because there is no understanding of what factors led to the instructions specifically stating that should not be done. And it appears that no one reads the entire FAC page top-to-bottom anymore, to realize the problems caused. This is not your problem, since everyone else is doing it, but next time I put on my flame-proof asbestos suit, I may (once again) try to start a discussion thread explaining the history of why the instructions say not to do that, what the problems are, and how that practice is currently contributing to the decline in FAC reviewing and a commensurate decline in article quality. For now, ignore that part, because everyone else (except, I see Nikkimaria, who knows what she's doing) is doing it, too. Even I started doing it, and I'm kicking myself for falling prey, as only in a very recent FAC did I see a very clear example of exactly why the instructions discourage doing that.
  2. " ... but reserve the right to comment on any issue I see ... " sounds so legalistic, formal, we want FAC to feel welcoming ... maybe ... but I may comment on other issues I notice ... ?
  3. " ... which you can deal with in any way you like ..." If you think like someone who is submitting their first FAC ... What does this mean? They can't really deal with things in any way they like, because they have to address actionable concerns, whether or not you enter an oppose. So this could be very confusing to a first-timer, relative to what the instructions tell them. Maybe ... please ask me questions if you don't understand my comments, or you may indicate which items you have addressed. Or something ... just "any way you like" isn't really how it works at FAC.
  4. " Hope you don't mind!" ... This makes it sound like they should mind, and could leave newcomers wondering why they should mind. I don't see why you need to say this at all ... just remove it ?
  5. "Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list." What if they didn't like the review ... you still want feedback, right? :) :) I don't think the first part is necessary ... and they are "articles", not "items" ... so ... "If you are looking for articles to review, I have some at my nominations list." But I don't think you should add that until you have completed your review, for all the reasons I will explain when I do address what a HUGE problem this sort of statement was historically, explaining exactly what problems this kind of statement did cause, to such an extent, that we had to rewrite the FAC instructions to account for WikiCup interference. But I'll get in to those parts at WT:FAC. Just, for your purposes, we have to be very careful that a first-time nominator doesn't (mistakenly) think they have to run over right away and review one of your articles ... which could be really unpleasant for you, if they have no idea to how to review, and that was one of the (many) issues that happened in the past with this kind of post, causing a backlog at FAC with deficient reviews.

Hope this helps! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Usually someone makes mine a section anyways... Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this, most of this is suitable, and I'll make suitable changes. I simply don't see the issue with posting the link to my nominations page when I post the review. Historic issues (that I'm not aware of) and future issues aren't the same. When I post the header, I am committing to post a review for that article, unless it is archived before I finish writing my comments. The link is there as a nudge if you were to fancy reviewing another article whilst you wait, here is the link. I fear posting the link after would actually encourage quicker and less in depth reviews. I think that was the crux of the WT:FAC comments, as it feels like the community doesn't have a consensus on the link being there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Glad some of it was useful, Lee Vilenski. I'll follow up with the other points at WT:FAC, but regarding "historic issues and future issues aren't the same", remember that "Just when you think you've seen it all ... " and "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it". Even with well intended editors such as yourself on board, if we open a door, the next person who uses that door may not be a Lee Vilenski. And, the problems affecting FAC overall today are worse because no one is allowed to call out or discuss concerns at FAC talk, or think beyond the current examples. And when one does call out a problem, "proof", "evidence" or "samples" are demanded, and so nice people like you end up feeling targeted :) These are very problematic dynamics that have taken over FAC. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Oops, one part I forgot to add, which is, again-- think in terms of newcomers. Because most old-timers aren't the ones we have to worry about. I recognize that today FAC is very much a closed shop, but that wasn't always the case, and let's hope it won't always be the case! There used to be newcomers rolling through there regularly, and we hope there will be again someday. So when discussing process issues, they are the ones we should contemplate. I fear posting the link after would actually encourage quicker and less in depth reviews. No ... if they see that at the end of their first FAC, they are more likely to understand what a review is supposed to be, rather than running over and saying on someone else's review, "Support, this is the best song I've ever heard!" (Yes, we just saw that happen ... so think not of you, your level of expertise at FAC, the usual crowd at FAC ... rather those who don't know the ropes but may react inappropriately to a request to review elsewhere before they even know what is expected ... ). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

FAC Hi-5 (Australian band)Edit

Hi @SandyGeorgia: I've had a few more responses on my Featured Article Nomination. I was wondering when you might be ready to add some comments, after your work on the Peer Review? In particular, I'd like your feedback on two sources listed in the source review ([4] and [5]) - both of which are a thesis. The source reviewer seemed okay to keep them. Looking forward to your assistance, if you are able to. Many thanks in advance SatDis (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I will try to get over there once I catch up, SatDis; thanks for posting to my talk, as that is a better way to get added to my ToDo list (I archive sections of my talk page as I complete items) than a ping :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @SandyGeorgia:, I have addressed your comments over at the nomination page. SatDis (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


I've made my comments on this Featured Article candidate. I have found problems, but because of the problems I just don't have the time to do more right now. I have a lot going on right now. I will revisit it later. I have some misgivings about the prose that I haven't mentioned on my review, but as an inexperienced FAC reviewer I lack the ability to explain them, and I just don't have the time to do what I usually would (a full copy-edit)... It would take too long :( It’s the fourth attempt for this article & I just feel a bit crappy about it. Just letting you know I've made my comments. — — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, since my prose isn't stellar, hopefully one of the talk page stalkers here will pick it up ... the nominator has certainly tried their hardest and is worthy of attention! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll try my best when I get to the second stage of the review. It becomes a more involved process when I can't trust that the article reflects what the source says. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I see that has gotten complex, just as I am pressed for time. I will keep an eye on it, but cannot get there for several days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Just a note to say that ImaginesTigers has now supported the nomination. :) SatDis (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Peer reviewEdit

I was wondering if you could add comments to the second peer review of Cups? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, The Ultimate Boss; I am quite a few days behind here, but will do my best. It will take me some time to catch up and get over there, so please be patient. I see no one in Aoba47's absence is helping maintain Template:FAC peer review sidebar (and I will have to dig back in to do that myself), but the best way to get yourself on my (and others) To Do list is to add your PR to that template to draw the attention of other editors. I have done that for you, but you can speed things up in the future by doing it yourself. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

BannerShell and auto archive bot instructionsEdit

Hello! I noticed when you edited Talk:United States Electoral College you wrapped also the archive bot's instructions probably by accident, disabling auto archiving: [3]. Please ensure to inspect any banner wrapping before publishing your edits. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

CapnZapp thanks for making me aware that putting auto archiving inside a banner disabled it (that's stupid and counterintuitive), and thanks for fixing it in that case. I will work back through my other cleanup to find and fix any other instances. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Save: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

On FAC commentsEdit

Hi SandyGeorgia,

Thought I should ask you, as an FAC regular, about my 2.5th/third FAC comments here. I was wondering whether I'm being unusually picky for a reviewer, especially with punctuation things that are quite subjective, or if it's just the natural result of a long article. My current conception of featured articles emphasizes summary style and good writing, but I want my review(s) to be appropriate rather than pedantic. Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in, but every FAC regular will have a slightly different opinion about this sort of question. I prefer to copyedit the article as I go -- punctuation, word choice, typos, grammatical errors, and sometimes more than that. For example, here are twenty or so edits on Edvard August Vainio, a current FAC. I could have made that into twenty bullet points in the FAC but I think it's easier to just make the change and leave a note at the FAC saying "please revert any copyedits you don't agree with" -- it's much quicker and keeps the FAC shorter. I've been doing reviews that way for a while and haven't had a nominator complain yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Fwiw, I do mine the same way as yourself, noting issues with the article as I go - only making changes if I feel it is too difficult to explain what I mean. I think, overall, the format of the article isn't whats important, but (I think we can all agree) that the article is being improved is the most relevant part. Sandy may have her own views on this Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I am yet another (talk page watcher) Let me absolutely clear, Ovinus: I loved your feedback. I hope wires haven't been crossed here, because I had no trouble implementing your feedback. There were a few that made me want to die (doing {{'s}}) but every single piece of feedback—including that one—improved the article in a small way, and all adding up to stronger article. Gog noted that problems still existed, and I think theirs was precisely the kind of feedback they were looking for (it'll certainly make their next look a little easier, and they'll be thankful for your attention). Like I said on the review, I really, really appreciate the effort you put in. The reason that I thought an Oppose would have been valid was because my only Oppose has been on those grounds. It wasn't because I thought you were harsh; it was just the volume of the comments. This is a problem I have with FAC: I don't know when to Oppose. For example, the active FAC on Hi-5 (Australian band) is one that my gut told me to oppose. I actively regret taking it on now, because in addition to all the comments I've left, I now have to copy-edit the whole article to not leave the reviewing hanging. They've implemented too much and too courteous for me not to. When do we, as reviewers, draw the line? Why would I not simply ignore a candidate that I would oppose instead of reviewing it? Similar to Mike, if I only have minor problems with prose, I'll just change it (see my copy-edit/review on "O Captain! My Captain") but your method (shared with Lee) is 100% valid, too, and not at all resented. In short: it was a great review. You weren't being too pedantic. I really appreciate it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Another TPW piling on. Ovinus, for what it is worth, I incline towards Mike's approach, but probably restrict it to nominators I have worked with previously, experienced nominators, and articles which require few copy edit style tweaks. With newer nominators or with articles which I think need a relatively large number of grammar or MoS tweaks, I am more likely to list even minor points in the FAC. As I did with League of Legends. The theory is that while that is more work for me as a reviewer, going through identifying and correcting the issues is a learning exercise for ImaginesTigers, a variant of WP:DHTM. Or "teaching a nominator to fish". I have little idea if it works or how it is perceived, other than via a very low complaint rate. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, completely agree, Gog. Most of Ovinus' edits didn't teach me anything (they were just grammar corrections and improvements), but some did. If they had simply gone through and corrected these things – {{'s}} – then I wouldn't have known about it. That is totally to be expected; no reviewer has any way of knowing what a new nominator knows and doesn't know. Another thing here is that often I did disagree, but Ovinus explaining where he was coming from led to me clarifying the article text and improving it; the same occurred with Eddie's review, wherein sometimes him saying "this doesn't quite align with the source fully" led to me going out, finding a better source, and improving the language. This has been a great first FA process for me. I thought I was going to completely hate it, and there are still some things that cause me some fear (see my post on Iridescent's talk page), MoS and prose corrections aren't one of them. Ovinus, be not afraid: you've been an excellent reviewer for me, and (not to pick favourites) likely my favourite. That level of rigour can't be expected everywhere at FAC, but I'm so thankful you gave it to me :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC) (PS. Sorry you're gonna wake up to all this, Sandy!)
Re waking up to this, I see I am late to the party, but always thrilled to find thorough advancement of understanding via calm discussion on my talk. I have a whole ‘nother perspective to add to what has already been said, so please stay tuned. ;). But after an intense afternoon and last night of extreme back spasms from too much time typing yesterday, where I could not continue catching up on my ToDo list, my response will have to wait a bit to see if the spasms will subside and I can get some time on the real computer (ipad typing now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ovinus (and thanks @Lee Vilenski, Gog the Mild, ImaginesTigers, and Mike Christie: for also weighing in); digging in now, with apologies for the delay after a couple of very bad back days, that have left me quite behind on my ToDo List. There's a lot to get through here, and I have a lot to say, so I couldn't dive in until I could sit for an extended period to type.

While I agree with almost everything written here, there is another (separate) issue I want to raise. As everyone else has indicated, how one approaches a given FAC has many different components. If I am dealing with an experienced FAC nominator, whose style and preferences I know, I will often just dig in and do something myself, and only raise on FAC that which I am unsure of. If, on the other hand, I am dealing with a first-time nominator, I go to great lengths to make a gazillion small edits, each one with a complete edit summary that explains the whys and wherefores and links to the appropriate Wikipedia page explanation, and then I ask the nominator on the FAC to please step back through my edits, read my edit summaries, to understand the concepts. I don't always do that, though; if I feel like a nomination is rushed, and the nominator is basically expecting others to do their work for them, and not taking the time to learn, I may spell them out on the FAC instead. But NONE of this happens unless I am fairly sure the article can be promoted; elsewise, a swift Oppose, with brief samples, and refer them to Peer review is the kindest and fastest route to the bronze star. So, as others have said, how to approach any given FAC depends on many variables. Sometimes it's helpful to ask up front (if you don't know the nominator well). It almost always comes down to how sure you are about any changes that may need to be made (versus needing to inquire), how well you know the nominator, whether you believe the article is basically at WP:WIAFA standard (if it isn't, it shouldn't be on the page and improvements should be happening elsewhere), and what you perceive the nominator may still need to learn about how to optimally prepare an article for FAC.

Now, all that said, I have a whole 'nother problem with the way almost all FAC nominations are no longer following the FAC instructions, because those issues are impeding review and affecting article quality.

First, we have unfortunately obscured the instructions at WP:FAC via a collapse, and I am concerned they are a) not being read, as well as b) actively ignored. (This is not aimed at you; it is happening across the board, and even I fell prey.)

The first step in the instructions is: Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria ...
The point of FAC is for the Coords to determine if there is consensus that the article does meet FA criteria. The point of FAC is NOT to be peer review, and as FAC has increasingly become peer review and lost focus on yea-or-nay, it's ready or it's not, peer review has died as FAC has taken its place. Not healthy for either FAC or PR that reviewers are having to spend so much time on prep that should have occurred pre-FAC. (I am NOT saying that is the case for ImagineTigers article, rather raising a general point.)
Under "Commenting, supporting and opposing" of Template:FAC-instructions, for very good (historical) reasons the FAC page is set up such that section heads with extended commentary are discouraged (and yet, somehow, that has become the norm). Some of the problems with this new trend of extensive use of section headings, contrary to the instructions:
  1. They encourage longer and longer peer review type commentary on FACs. (And then we wonder why the Coords can no longer read through every day to detect any early problems.)
  2. They give the Coords considerably more to read through than is needed to know yea-or-nay, meets the criteria, actionable issues addressed.
  3. They cause the FAC page to reach the template limits, where commentary is then truncated (a problem with not only the section headings themselves, but with capping resolved commentary).
  4. They are used to convey, in essence, POV and a summary that discourages subsequent review, and furthers the faulty notion that three Supports are adequate for promotion (when in fact, no set number of supports guarantees promotion if actionable opposes are outstanding). We now have people entering their Support or Oppose in a section heading, which was once discouraged for very good reason. One can scan the section headings and get a (perhaps faulty) opinion about the status of the FAC (oh, it has five supports, I don't need to review-- BAD, BAD, BAD!) So, when reviewers look through the list and see a FAC that has three supports, they may move on, thinking "that one's done, doesn't need my input". That exact commentary affected a recent FAC I was involved in. So, rather than reading through a FAC to see what has been addressed and what has not, we may have reviewers passing by FACs they think are "done", and ... worst part ... no one realizing that in all of the WP:WIAFA 1(a) lengthy commentary, narry a reviewer has looked at 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d). The ideas that reviewers can tweak up prose when comprehensive and reliability of sources have not been addressed is faulty and leads to faulty promotions. And the idea that "enough support" or "enough review" has been generated comes from section headings, which allows subsequent reviewers to not really engage. At the same time, they add so much length to reviews, that they put off subsequent reviewers.

I look now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hi-5 (Australian band)/archive4 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/League of Legends/archive1, and I despair. I have no inclination to dig in to reviews that long. I don't know why most of that is not placed on either article talk, or the talk page of the FAC, with a summary of where things stand and a link to page containing the detail. FAC was never intended to handle such extended commentary, and is discouraging subsequent review, and resulting in crucial things being overlooked.

So, what I am suggesting instead ? Back to the instructions with consideration for why they were put into place. FAC commentary should look something like:

  • Comment The prose is competent, sources are reliable, and the article is comprehensive. I am leaning support, but I do have considerable prose polishing nitpicks, which I will detail on article talk. Then you provide a link to the article talk page section, and keep the Coords informed about progress. Short and simple, Coords know where things stand-- subsequent editors know which parts you have looked at and what is underway. Coords can look in on the extended commentary and decide ... reasonable (let the FAC continue) or too much for FAC (archive it). We have completely lost the sense of when it is faster to archive, since almost ALL commentary is now extensive, and that has come to be the norm.
  • Oppose The article has issues with 1(a) ... brief sample list ... 1(c) ... sources missing ... and (2) ... sample list. That can be accomplished in a few lines; no reason for sectioning, which might discourage subsequent reviewers from even reading.
  • Support I have no prior involvement with the nominator or the article, and have reviewed all criteria and find it meets them. I have the following queries, though ... followed by brief list ...

That is, ANY TIME a reviewer needs an entire section, they should be taking it to article talk anyway, and this trend is part of what is undermining FAC. The instructions were put in place to avoid precisely what has become the norm: FAC as peer review, and length discouraging subsequent reviewers. If an article needs extensive work, the question of readiness comes up, and should the nomination simply be Opposed and archived quickly, so the nominator can make adjustments and be back quickly. That doesn't mean we don't value the excellent copyediting that often happens during a FAC, but we don't benefit by filling the FAC page with all the gory detail, when that can go on article talk. If we would move back towards the way FAC was designed to work, we might then also see FACs shorter and more likely to engage more than the three cursory prose checks, and we might also find more reviewers understanding that a prose support, when comprehensiveness or reliability have not passed an Ealdgyth review are really doing nothing but chunking up the FAC page and discouraging subsequent reviews and resulting in subpar promotions. So, Ovinus, in your case, if you believe the article can be brought to standard during the course of a FAC, but that your extensive copyediting is only polish, icing on the cake, you can say that on the FAC, and take the lengthy commentary to talk; the Coords will check in with you before promote/archive if you don't keep them posted on your progress.

Sorry for the length and thanks for all your help at FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As a tangent, I am reminded that we had one FAC reviewer about a decade ago who consistently, almost every nomination, went through and copyedited and then entered a "Support on prose only" declaration, which was not only a waste of time, but slowed down the whole page. (I completely ignored his supports, unless his prose review came AFTER a sourcing review, but this kind of reviewing has become commonplace and accepted.) What on earth good is it to support on prose when reliability of sources have not been checked, comprehensiveness has not been addressed, and the article may still be changing? It is things like this that began to make Ealdgyth's reliability checks seem futile; why check reliability if people are supporting articles that do not use reliable sources? My new approach, when reviewing in an area I am not familiar with, is to indicate something like "all my quibbles addressed, learning support, pending review for reliability of sources and by content experts". So, I've told the Coords the nomination is viable, but should Ealdgyth uncover sourcing issues, I haven't left the Coords saddled with a premature Support, making it hard for them to archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been thinking this over... I don't know. The thing you say about FAC becoming a sort of "Peer Review +" does resonate, but it feels unavoidable. You note (in horror) that LoL has a long FAC page, and that is true. But at least one reviewer indicated that they hadn't reviewed others' writing (absolutely fine, in my opinion), so it clearly isn't a huge obstacle. Another issue here is that League already had a fairly extensive Peer Review: it received more attention than many, many other articles do, and still ended up with a lot FAC process. And a fast FAC process, to be fair.
Is there nothing that can be done about the technical limitations of FAC? I don't really understand why they have to be replicated, in full, on Wikipedia:FAC. It seems like madness, and would never happen were the process instigated today. I know your scorn for it, but the information could all be relayed via a regularly updated table that draws from another source, just like the WikiCup does. Something like...
Nomination Topic Age Nominator(s) Participants Supports Notes
League of Legends Video games 1 week old ImaginesTigers 8 3
And for older reviews, that last section could be used to convey urgent needs:
Nomination Topic Age Nominator(s) Participants Supports Notes
Star Trek Generations Films 9 weeks old David Fuchs 14 6 Image review requested.
You can laugh me out of your Talk for being naive, if you wish! But the template limitations, in my experience, make navigating an actual review much harder than it has to be. If they were a little more structured, like the pre-defined speech areas of ArbCom, for example, then it might be easier... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Ack. So, my point was missed, which is VERY likely because I didn't explain it well. The length per se is not the problem, if the commentary is valuable and helpful on a nomination that was prepared and is likely to be promoted (that is, icing on the cake). But that kind of polishing can be detailed on article talk. The Coords need to know if WIAFA 1 a, b, c, d, e, 2, 3 and 4 are met: not how many prose nitpicks and tweaks were done along the way. Tweaking can be done on article talk: a FAC is supposed to answer yes or no, criteria are met. A link to talk can be provided if some polishing to an otherwise prepared article is underway. THAT is being overlooked with the exclusive focus on prose nitpicks, and overwhelming page length due to prose tweaking. FACS need to be readable so coords and other reviewers alike can see which criteria have been reviewed.
Separately, what you are proposing is precisely what I am saying is the current problem with how sections are being used. Reviewers look in, see X number of reviews and supports, and think Done. That is happening now, and all of WIAFA is not being addressed. This is to FAC's detriment, and would be exactly the wrong way to go. Seeing that an article has 8 reviewers and 3 supports does NOT tell you whether any of those reviews were any good, and whether any one engaged the core issues that should be FIRST at FAC: WP:WIAFA 1 (b) (c) and (d). There are not technical limitations; we only need to get the "icing on the cake" moved back over to talk where it historically resided. So that reviewers and Coords alike can truly scan a FAC to see if ALL of the criteria has been reviewed for and addressed-- not just prose nitpicking. FAC is not PR. FAC is not GOCE. Prose should be competent before a FAC is opened, and copyediting should occur off FAC if needs are considerable, so that FACs can examine also whether an article is comprehensive, neutral, and reliably sourced. Consider that I have encountered in only a few months nominations that were passing with biased text, that only I pointed out, in articles that had already garnered support. What if I had passed them by? But as FAC stands right now, it is not much more than GAN. GA is one person's opinion about a few items. FAC has become three people's opinions about a few items, rather than assurance that all criteria are being addressed. Neutrality, reliability and comprehensiveness should be first and foremost, yet they are rarely even reviewed where we instead have lengthy copyedits. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
No—I see, and I totally understand. It’s me who didn't explain myself clearly, because I think this can fix some of these issues! Bear with me here, because I think this can be put to our uses! You say that the criteria is not being applied in the way that it absolutely must for FAC to be (or, depending on who yo ask, return to being) a rigorous process. Pre-defined areas of speech might fix this, if the criteria were to be embedded in each of them. You compare it, derisively, to GA, but one of the things that is admirable in the GA process is the precise application of the criteria; it is the only way that an article can be passed or failed. Thy have templates to this effect, for example this one. If each nominator were forced to confront the criteria, directly, being reminded of it, it might bring down the average length of reviews by making them ground their opposition or support in the language of the FA criteria. The first step of every FA review should be a source review, followed by a spot check. Prose discussions would not valid (or counted as actionable) until the source and spot check were fulfilled. If someone wants to be the first person to conduct a FAR, then they are going to be doing either a spot check or an extensive source review.
The reason that the technical limitations are important here is because the co-ords can't implement templates to be used like this while full reviews are being transcribed onto WP:FAC. That limitation is affecting the project's ability to re-centre itself. The tables above would fix that: they would provide only a brief overview, and open up the Project to making FACs more rigid, by removing the technical limitations. If this system were in place, things would become easier for the co-ords, because they can easily see that (firstly) the sources are judiciously chosen and corroborated within the article, and then (secondly) that the prose is being assessed. Does that make sense? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Clarifying, ImaginesTigers, you said I "compare it, derisively, to GA". I said, "GA is one person's opinion about a few items. FAC has become three people's opinions about a few items". I am no more derisive about GAN than FAC :) And that is precisely what GAN is: a one-person review of a subset of the FAC criteria. No derision intended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
As an aside which doesn't impact on the important points of the discussion, the GA templates are substituted ("subst"), so they would probably work with FAC even within current limitations. CMD (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
That's all the typing that's left in me for today; let's see what others have to say. Possibly the solution is a blend, possibly just raising awareness, but that's all I'm good for today :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Two different tables/templates are being proposed, as far as I understand, plus then the "source review first" question which I know has been talked about previously. The first template is the overall "status" of the review in terms of supports/opposes, which I agree is more likely to cause problems than solve them. The second, regarding which criteria are addressed or not by a review, is more interesting. ImaginesTigers, take a look at my comments here - is that something like you're imagining? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
What I'd personally like to see is unlikely to ever happen and would be difficult to get intrenched reviewer to do, but I'd much rather see a system where it's based more on criteria that raw support totals. One idea might be to automatically include a small box template highlighting the criteria with each FAC - would substing the template be a workaround to the transclusion limit on the FAC page? Substing would also have the additional benefit of keeping the version of the template current at the time of the substitution up there, which would be more useful for future editors looking back at old FACs if the criteria change. It just seems to me that there's becoming more attention to just raw support count than a detailed criteria-by-criteria look; we seem to get a look of supports based mostly on 1a and 2a.
I also think some things are just more complex than a simple support would suggest. For instance, I recently reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James A. Doonan/archive1. In that review, I felt comfortable with supporting criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, as well as the second and third segments of 1c. I'm just not familiar enough with the subject matter and the sources to be expected for such a thing to judge comprehensiveness, and I simply didn't check 3, and licensing is not my strong suit. And it's hard to convey all that in the expected support/oppose declaration. There are several instances where I can think of that I'd rather detail which criteria I reviewed against, rather than declare a plain support, as I think it's more nuanced than that. @WP:FAC coordinators: - is it going to be problematic for some reason if in my reviews I start declaring which criteria I've checked it against and think it's satisfactory or not, rather than a straight support/oppose statement, or is this far enough from the review norms that it'll cause problems or trouble? Hog Farm Bacon 04:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Responding to the first ping I've seen here, and I'm not going to weigh in on anything before your immediate points, Hog Farm, at least not yet. Consensus to promote is based on meeting the FAC criteria and resolving comments based on those criteria, not raw support totals. Yes there's a long-standing convention that FACs require a minimum of three supports to pass but it's deliberately not written into the instructions, and I don't even mention it unless pressed, because there are supports and supports and not all are comprehensive. The word itself counts for nothing if not backed up by some evidence that the reviewer has considered the FAC criteria. No, I would have no problem with you declaring which of the criteria you're satisfied with and which you're not or don't feel able to offer an opinion. It all helps determine consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm, funny you should ask :) Reviewers used to explicity state things like, support on 1a, 2 and 4. As FAC has become more and more 1a-lite, references back to WP:WIAFA have been completely dropped! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Nikkimaria! So, first, the table you see above wasn't a proposal for something to appear in a review. Instead, I thought that the tech limitations were going to mean that my second change (the one you are interested in) wasn't possible. I thought, for that to happen, WP:FAC could become a simple table, where reviewers could skim the available nominations, and (more importantly) co-ords would be able to directly indicate if there was an urgent need for a second type of source. The existence of the headings is a huge barrier to what I was thinking about...
Secondly, sort of, yes! What you have shown me is very similar, but it would need to be a new template rather than just text; that would make it easier for reviews to fill out. The ones that exist for the GA-level are—in my view—unsatisfactory to just adapt wholesale for FAC. I can't obviously provide a quick, exhaustive example, but here is something I threw together very quickly as a sample: User:ImaginesTigers/sandbox3. In lieu of more comments here, I've added all of my feedback in the lead of my sandbox. I hope you don't think I'm a new reviewer coming in and trying to cause upheaval. I'm not taking any of this to WP:FAC. I just think this is something that could be worth considering! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
As a formerly external observer I wonder if that upheaval is needed, though. Greater clarity at least... twice now the length of my comments has, in part, cracked the FAC monolith. Maybe it would help reviewers if there was an overarching table for each FAC, where reviewers write down which criteria they can support/oppose/tentatively support on? With broad comments on the main page, and smaller changes (up to a sentence, maybe) on the talk? I should be more active at peer review. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Ovinus you could unbreak the Internet by simply adding to your user space and following Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If nominators knew they could encounter more excellent and engaged copyeditors at PR pre-FAC, they would be more likely to use PR !!! Just imagine a FAC-world where everyone had first been through an Ovinus at PR !! That is how we should be optimally functioning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
LOL, I'm flattered. I haven't been here that long, but after perusing some of our history and archives I feel like it's become more individualistic in general. Do you think that's the case? I wonder if there's a way to quantify that. I have so many questions to ask now... another one, if you have the time, is why there are a lot of obscure topics at FAC. As I told ImaginesTigers, I feel like achieving the bronze star—and, to a lesser extent, the green plus—is significantly more worthwhile for vital and/or highly viewed articles. I ought to tread lightly here, but is it just easier to meet the criteria for comprehensiveness on an extinct terrestrial mollusc? Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Ovinus, I have all the time in the world, locked in per COVID; the problem is how much I can type on any given day :) The problem of the obscurity of topics is covered on Iri's talk page, starting here, and continuing here. Yes, the problem has become aggravated (although Iri disagrees on the reasons). Not only that, but reviewers who raise the concern and rail against the trend are berated and shut down on FAC talk. I can add a medical example as part of the problem. It is near impossible to get reviewers to engage a medical article (kudos on Hog Farm and Gog the Mild for being the few non-medical editors to engage recent medical FACs). So, if you're a medical editor who has put the months to years in to writing a medical FA, and show up to FAC only to be rebuffed and ignored, why bother? The medical editors have already reviewed; what one seeks is solid layperson review. Meanwhile, the video games get reviewers. It is quite discouraging. What is most needed is for frank discussion of these issues to be allowed at FAC talk and calmly discussed rather than shut down by a small minority whenever one raises them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, let me extend that; it is more than discouraging, it is infuriating :) I cannot begin to count how many hurricanes, football, ships, battles, videogames, TV shows, you name it, FACs that I have read over the years, even if I have no interest in or know nothing about those topics. (I don't know how to turn on my TV, although I do own one, and I also own a Blu-Ray for when my sons visit.) I read them to help lend a voice to whether they are comprehensible and jargon-free for a non-content expert. I make it clear to the Coords that is the basis of my review. Yet, over and over we see two things: reviewers saying they are afraid to review a medical article, and jargon-laden articles passing FAC where the nominators refuse to address the jargon. Srsly? As a medical editor, I have to put extensive parenthetical explanations for the layperson. I think football editors should be held to the same standard. If I, because of my interest in Tourette syndrome, want to understand Tim Howard, I should not have to wade through football jargon I don't understand any more than the footballista should have to wade through jargon they don't understand at the TS medical article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
(how long till you outdent?) Yeah, medical FAs are among the most important in my book. Their information, for better or worse, determines so much. Regarding jargon, I totally agree. I think there is a stronger ethical argument to be made to not use "sequelae" in Tourette syndrome than to not use "comma pump" in twelve-tone equal temperament, but if the point of FA is an excellent article, it should be accessible to a pretty wide audience rather than a gang of those invested in the topic.
I'll have to think about their actual contents later, but looking at those talk pages strikes a bit of fear in my heart. A bit of a tangent, but in my third month of this place I was disillusioned after having the ingenious idea of looking through ArbCom cases. I eventually realized they usually involve those few editors with the most passion, or with the most vitriol, but it was still... disconcerting. I'm just a teen with a hobby, you know? And a rather sensitive one at that, frankly, although I think I'll harden up in due course. Thankfully, my daily editing has been entirely peaceful and my experiences at FAC have so far been places of collegiality. So it scares me a bit that such arguments are encroaching on FAC, or perhaps were always there... a place I see/saw as an idyllic place of making the "perfect article" and, in that process, meeting wonderful people like all of you. Anyway, I think I'm being wayyy too dramatic. I'll probably mull it over on a walk. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Weighing in at Iri's page is typically "safe" and reading there is usually informative. (As long as you always remember that I am always right and he is wrong :) :) Just kidding, really! As to ArbCom, you are correct, and it will suck the soul right out of any decent person, and leave you wondering why you participate here. Over the last two years, as I saw both of my areas of most frequent editing (WP:MED and FAC) affected by disruptive personalization, I decided I had no choice but to weigh in on several cases (my only other choice was to just stop editing, which I did for several years). But I have seen diffs at Arbcom that make me wonder about humanity, and why we let things fester as long as we do. And you are right that the wonderful people we meet along the way, and some of the brilliant articles we get to read at FAC, make it worthwhile. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Tiger, I thought about your proposal while I slept (sure, doesn't everybody do that? :) Consider these examples:
  1. About a decade ago, we had one editor who quickly "copyedited" every FAC, and entered a Support on prose. Which was useless until sourcing and comprehensiveness was nailed down, and was even less helpful because the copyedits weren't that good. So, suppose we had a template and an editor like that always checked the 1a box. And then, as we see now, other editors skipped on by, assuming prose had been reviewed. Not good.
  2. For a long time, we had a sockmaster who damaged prose so badly that I had to keep track of what she had done so as not to shut down nominations prematurely simply because she had damaged the prose before the nominator could fix it. The sockmaster had a vocal group of supporters who prevented any means of effectively dealing with her disruption, and when not under the pressure of FAC, could be a good copyeditor. But I frequently found appalling grammatical, typos, punctuation you name it errors in FACs when I looked, and wondered why the FAC hadn't been immediately opposed, and then would look and see that she had damaged the prose. Worse, she completely mangled one FAC by opposing on sourcing based on only having read journal article abstracts, rather than the entire articles. So again, allowing someone to check off a table can obscure issues like this. Coords need to be able to read FACs that are not overly long, and sort out what's what and who's who, knowing that different reviewers have different strengths.
  3. In as many months, I have encountered three FACs that passed MilHist A-class with POV/balance/comprehensive issues. And one of them already had three supports by the time I read it. If each one of those three supporters had checked the 1b, 1c, or 1d boxes as they went through, that would imply that those issues had been reviewed. And lead other reviewers to skip over that. Bad.
  4. Look at the counterexample of what poor Nikki is dealing with at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Climate change/archive1 (thankfully she is infinitely more patient than I am). There we have a miles-long review which makes one wonder, at what point are we going to draw a line and say, is it within WIAFA or is it not? Well, there's a world of difference between FAC and FAR in terms of outcome. At FAC, if we decide a FAC is too lengthy and there are still too many moving pieces, we can archive, knowing that no harm is done and the nominator can work off-FAC and be back in two weeks. The situation is less straightforward at FAR, because shutting it down means Keep or Delist-- so more patience is required. I bring that up because what FAR might need is different than what might best serve FAC, and Climate Change is the rare exception at FAR (most FARs are unwatched FAs that can be delisted without a lengthy page), and hard cases make bad law, so we shouldn't be setting FAR processes around the lengthy Climate Change FAR.
So, I think my position stays the same. FAC is not limited; the problem is how FAC is being used. Short, readable FACs with extended commentary and nitpicking placed on talk allow other reviewers and Coords to quickly assess what has been reviewed so far, and whether or not to weigh in. Long, convoluted FACs obscure that which has not been reviewed, and discourage subsequent reviewers. The routine use of sections and section headings that convey Support or Oppose (against the FAC instructions) are leading to less thorough review and a decline in quality. All we need is a return to the instructions, and using FAC to briefly assess whether WIAFA is met or not, with extended commentary elsewhere, and quicker shutting down of those that can be better worked off FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
It's actually extended FARs like Climate Change or British Empire that this kind of organization might be most helpful, which I why I tried it at the latter. For that matter, at FAC - particularly extended FACs - it might be useful for coordinators to be able to clarify which criteria have been addressed or not, to have something to point to when someone inevitably complains "I have four supports already [on prose], zOMG why has this not been promoted!1!". But I think for reviewers, an individual rather than overall approach would be best - here is my review that addresses 1b and 1c, not here are all the reviews and 1b and 1c were addressed by Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Posting to let you know that I'm still mulling over your comments, and have been distracted over the past few hours. I haven't forgotten, and I'm not ignoring—this just feels pressing right now because the FAC has calmed down and I really need to get back to improving content while I have the chance. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Just passing through. I see you're still active. Happy new year. Gimmetrow 04:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Gimmetrow and a very Happy New Year to you, too! Always wonderful to "see" you; perhaps your ears are ringing about how often I've been mentioning you lately. One of the most acerbic factors that chased you off is no more; I continue struggling to restore some previous normalcy to article history milestones and tame talk clutter. There's a big long discussion at the Idea lab, should you care to peek in. And ... should you be inclined, I think you could quickly tune up Ecclesiastical heraldry to get it marked satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020, and then go back to your peaceful retirement (I'm not sure I am able to accomplish the tune-up myself). I hope you are well, Gimme ... except for the normal "ravages of aging", things are good here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


I feel guilty now for being reluctant to act. Boing! deserves double thanks because he came down with COVID-19 a week ago with very similar symptoms to mine and still stepped in. I'll try not to get so wound up by Colin in future. --RexxS (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ack, poor guy ... hope he's OK. I hope I don't have to set up a space in my userspace to get Colin and you to smoke the peace pipe! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


I'm working on cleaning up some of the notes you left on a few of the URFA ones, purging six WP:ELNO failing links from the Invasion of Tulagi and doing some work on Confederate government of Kentucky. I'm looking to correct the BADITALICS issue, but I'm not sure which italics are against the MOS. The only italics I'm finding in the article right now are a Latin motto, the name of a ship, and the names of books and newspapers. Should the motto not be capitalized, or did you already get all of those? Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, there are several work titles missing italics in Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah. That makes sense. I was looking for extra italics, not missing italics. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed three, which were attempts to hardcode italics via '' '' into the title parameter in {{Cite book}}, which apparently had the opposite of the intended effect. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I already removed some bad italics; it is possible there are no others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)