Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) Tag: Undo |
|||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
: {{ping|Harizotoh9}} I hope I answered your question :) It is personally troubling to me, having given the better part of my Wiki-career and life to promoting Featured Articles for other editors, who turned their back on the process for what I consider to be largely selfish reasons, so that I have watched the process die, and that TFA-- that was once an example of how Wikipedia could quickly adjust the main page to keep up with the world-- is now set in stone days in advance. Raul654 sometimes put up the TFA literally within an hour of it running, and I liked that we had that ability to highlight topical FAs of current interest. I have held out hope that this article could be used spontaneously, at the right time, as was once the case, when the mainpage highlighted not only our "best work", but also an ability to be current with top content. Yes, I was once fearful of the fuckity-fuck-fuck inevitable vandalism, but I think I got over that years ago! I am also a strong believer that the way TFA is run now is bad for the entire FA process. FAR is moribund, and at least half of our FAs are not. When people did not know when their article might run on the main page, they did a better job of keeping them up to snuff. Now they have warning so far in advance, that they can ignore FAs until they get notice. And, running TFAs that were not up to snuff helped feed the FAR process, too. Lots of reasons why I am not happy to see the FA process dead in the water. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC) |
: {{ping|Harizotoh9}} I hope I answered your question :) It is personally troubling to me, having given the better part of my Wiki-career and life to promoting Featured Articles for other editors, who turned their back on the process for what I consider to be largely selfish reasons, so that I have watched the process die, and that TFA-- that was once an example of how Wikipedia could quickly adjust the main page to keep up with the world-- is now set in stone days in advance. Raul654 sometimes put up the TFA literally within an hour of it running, and I liked that we had that ability to highlight topical FAs of current interest. I have held out hope that this article could be used spontaneously, at the right time, as was once the case, when the mainpage highlighted not only our "best work", but also an ability to be current with top content. Yes, I was once fearful of the fuckity-fuck-fuck inevitable vandalism, but I think I got over that years ago! I am also a strong believer that the way TFA is run now is bad for the entire FA process. FAR is moribund, and at least half of our FAs are not. When people did not know when their article might run on the main page, they did a better job of keeping them up to snuff. Now they have warning so far in advance, that they can ignore FAs until they get notice. And, running TFAs that were not up to snuff helped feed the FAR process, too. Lots of reasons why I am not happy to see the FA process dead in the water. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
*Sorry to be a pooper here, but my view is that the sooner FAC dies, the better. Full of bullies and pseudo-intellectuals. Appalling standards in a number of respects. [[User:Tony1|<b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen">(talk)</span>]] 03:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:40, 25 April 2019
Tourette syndrome is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Toolbox |
---|
Copy edit March 2019
Gog the Mild thank you for the helpful copyedit. When the article was presented to WP:FAC years ago, it was copy-edited by the one and only Tony1, but changes have crept in over time.
I restored a few of your changes:
- Obsessive–compulsive disorder uses an WP:ENDASH: [1]
- We need to give the reader a bit more explanation in this article of the distinction between motor and vocal tics, so they aren't obligated to click out to another article to understand here.[2] (I appreciate that what was there before and that you deleted was uncited.)
More significantly, you unlinked a number of terms. It was decided in the FAC that it was OK/preferable to re-link a few technical terms when they re-occurred at some distance from their first occurrence. Readers unfamiliar with medical terminology felt that duplicating those few links further down in the article was helpful. I could re-instate those links if you don't object.
Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Sandy. I'm just the copy editor, feel free to make whatever changes you wish.
- On the dup links, you may have noticed that I left some in, where I thought that it may be useful to remind a reader. Obviously the extent to which one does this is subjective, but from memory there were four links to comorbid and to sleep disorder, which seemed to me excessive. But, as I say, these things are subjective.
- I often feel that my work on these high level articles a copy editors role is as much to provoke discussion and a relook at certain aspects as to insert a definitive reading; part of the reason why I am relatively relaxed as to any reversions you may make. Thank you for the courtesy notification.
- A couple of things. You are no doubt aware that in addition to the sentence I removed there are two other unreferenced statements. Both seemed useful to a reader and in line with referenced statements elsewhere, so I left them.
- To my mind there is an awful lot of repetition of the same facts in section after section. Obviously this is a valid approach, and so I left it; but you may find it helpful to go through the article with that in mind.
- I found the article informative and very clearly written. Well towards the upper end of FAs I have come across.
- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, if you noticed and left some links, then I think we can leave it at that. Some reviewers just felt they needed more wikilinks further into the article (and that also explains some repetition), but if you didn't feel that way on a complete run-through, I will not worry about it. Thanks for the kind words! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ho, ho, ho/oh oh! I have realised whose work I have been critiquing . Gah! Fortunately the Wikipedia article assures me that it is not possible for embarrassment to cause actual physical damage. Keep up the fantastic work. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, kind person Gog the Mild; you keep up the good work as well ! If you were to stalk me into some Venezuelan topics, you would find some of the most dreadful prose ever ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Some queries:
- "characterized by multiple motor tics and at least one vocal (phonic) tic"—does it mean "characterized by multiple types of motor tics and at least one type of vocal (phonic) tic"? At the moment, it looks as though one vocal tic pops out and your classified. Side note: You know, on reading the opening, I think I had a mild form of Tourette when I was a kid, from about 8–13 years old, except that I had no vocal tics—just blinking hard and a rapid head movement. Tony (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Tony. No, not "types of"; yes, just one vocal tic, along with motor, gets you TS. Tons of kids have tics that they grow out of! And most TS is what people refer to as "mild". Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh the ignominy. Oh the honour. Permission to abase myself before the master? Now corrected. User:SandyGeorgia, you will want to check. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I guess my response wasn't very clear. It's just multiple tics, not "types of". In fact, I don't even know what "types of" would mean in this context. Tony1, your beautifully crafted lead was long ago taken apart so that what was left could be more easily translated. Every time I remember the old lead, compared to the new, I still get knots in my stomach LOL !!! :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh the ignominy. Oh the honour. Permission to abase myself before the master? Now corrected. User:SandyGeorgia, you will want to check. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Extreme Tourette's in adulthood, though sensationalized in the media, is a rarity; tics are often unnoticed by casual observers." Do the two components of this sentence flow thematically? Adulthood ... unnoticed. Tony (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tony; adjusted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article
This has been a FA since 2006, and I believe it to be the oldest FA to never be featured on the main page as TFA. Is this page never going to make it to the front page ever? Seems a bit silly to have a FA doomed to never make the prime time. I understand that this page would be a prime focus for vandalism, but I think with some extra due diligence, it can be managed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- The moment when it coulda, shoulda, woulda been TFA (when the FA process had a director) was missed. I was always saving it for that moment, but the way TFA is run now, there is zero flexibility to be able to use an article when the timing is perfect-- such as happened when Tim Howard set his record in 2014, bringing increased attention to TS. I guess ask @Ealdgyth: if TFA will forevermore be stuck in programming TFAs weeks and months in advance, and never again able to have the flexibility to run a timely TFA, so that this article could be run when TS is in worldwide focus, as it was when Tim Howard did his soccer thing. That has been one of the many disappointing changes in the FA process since the director was chased away; the flexibility to run a very timely TFA is missed, at least by me. (But then, since I'm no longer working ten hours a day to support the FA crowd in their quest for stars, I understand nobody GAF what I think anyway :) You stop working for them, and the talk page stalkers who were once willing to help drop from 600 to one, thank you, Johnbod for sticking with me! ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- We can change things out - we just don't often get requested changes. To be frank, it's a lot less stressful to schedule out a month in advance. If I had to do the scheduling every couple of days, I'd quit. It's always possible to ask if something can go in on short notice - ideally a couple of days but it can be done reasonably quickly if needed. The idea of scheduling out is to give the editors a chance to look over the blurbs and get them right without the stress of deadlines. And to allow other editors to find errors without the blurb pages being only editable by admins. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it was quite amazing what Raul654 was able to accomplish all by himself, wasn't it?!?! Not that anyone will look back and appreciate the moment at which the FA process was murdered :) Now we have four schedulers to do less than what Raul (and Bencherlite) did entirely alone, writing every blurb and doing all the scheduling and he was able to maintain flexibility! Let me know, Ealdgyth, if you think the beaurocracy that now exists at TFA can find it in themselves to run TS as TFA when TS is in the worldwide spotlight-- that was always my hope, and it was entirely doable, feasible, and likely under the "former FA administration". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I know I won't spot the perfect time, so you'll have to drop me a note if you see it. I'll do my best to get it run - I'll admit I haven't run it yet because I knew you wanted it to run at a "good time". Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, you're a dear :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I know I won't spot the perfect time, so you'll have to drop me a note if you see it. I'll do my best to get it run - I'll admit I haven't run it yet because I knew you wanted it to run at a "good time". Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it was quite amazing what Raul654 was able to accomplish all by himself, wasn't it?!?! Not that anyone will look back and appreciate the moment at which the FA process was murdered :) Now we have four schedulers to do less than what Raul (and Bencherlite) did entirely alone, writing every blurb and doing all the scheduling and he was able to maintain flexibility! Let me know, Ealdgyth, if you think the beaurocracy that now exists at TFA can find it in themselves to run TS as TFA when TS is in the worldwide spotlight-- that was always my hope, and it was entirely doable, feasible, and likely under the "former FA administration". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- We can change things out - we just don't often get requested changes. To be frank, it's a lot less stressful to schedule out a month in advance. If I had to do the scheduling every couple of days, I'd quit. It's always possible to ask if something can go in on short notice - ideally a couple of days but it can be done reasonably quickly if needed. The idea of scheduling out is to give the editors a chance to look over the blurbs and get them right without the stress of deadlines. And to allow other editors to find errors without the blurb pages being only editable by admins. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Harizotoh9: I hope I answered your question :) It is personally troubling to me, having given the better part of my Wiki-career and life to promoting Featured Articles for other editors, who turned their back on the process for what I consider to be largely selfish reasons, so that I have watched the process die, and that TFA-- that was once an example of how Wikipedia could quickly adjust the main page to keep up with the world-- is now set in stone days in advance. Raul654 sometimes put up the TFA literally within an hour of it running, and I liked that we had that ability to highlight topical FAs of current interest. I have held out hope that this article could be used spontaneously, at the right time, as was once the case, when the mainpage highlighted not only our "best work", but also an ability to be current with top content. Yes, I was once fearful of the fuckity-fuck-fuck inevitable vandalism, but I think I got over that years ago! I am also a strong believer that the way TFA is run now is bad for the entire FA process. FAR is moribund, and at least half of our FAs are not. When people did not know when their article might run on the main page, they did a better job of keeping them up to snuff. Now they have warning so far in advance, that they can ignore FAs until they get notice. And, running TFAs that were not up to snuff helped feed the FAR process, too. Lots of reasons why I am not happy to see the FA process dead in the water. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)