User talk:Graham Beards/archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

International Space Station

Hi Graham, I've been doing some c/e work on the article - how's it looking? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank you personally for your input to The Beatles FAC, and in particular for your emphatic confirmation that the article had indeed turned the corner with all the work since your very negative and very accurate comment at the previous FAC! It meant a great deal to me. With a shortage of FAC reviews regularly seeing nominations fall off the bottom of the list, this one was approaching that possibility, and your willingness to support at that point may have been a key factor in the eventual promotion because the comparison with your previous comment may have led other reviewers (at this time of shortage of reviews) to take a renewed interest in the article themselves. Thank you for your willingness to review and your emphatic support at a key moment. PL290 (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but you deserve all the accolades. I get a lot of pleasure from seeing articles that I have supported promoted to FA; but I get even more pleasure from those that I have "opposed" earlier and later supported. I don't like opposing, but the pride that editors justifiably take in achieving FA is because the standard is so high, so standards have to be maintained. Without doubt, The Beatles exemplifies our best work, but I only paid a tiny, tiny part in this success. I suggest that other aspiring FA contributors should study this nomination, and the previous ones, because they show what can be achieved when nominators are keen to work with reviewers. It was a beautiful article when I added my support, but now it is even better—amazing! You should be very proud, not only for the article, but for the way you conducted your nomination. Congratulations. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles references

Re: your recent edit to {{sfn|Unterberger|n.d.(a)}} on The Beatles that you made and reverted. During the FAC review, User:Gadget850 suggested using {{sfn}}. We've done that, and it works very well for sources with author names and dates. When a source has no identified author, we can use the name of the organization/publisher. When a source has no identified date, Harvard style indicates we should use "n.d.". When an author has multiple publications in the same year, we use "a", "b", etc., do distinguish them ("2000a", "2000b"). In the case of The Beatles, we have a couple authors with multiple undated entries. I decided to combine the "n.d." with the "a", "b", etc., as shown in the Unterberger entry above. I chose to avoid "n.d.a", "n.d.b", etc., because that obscured the use of "n.d." as an abbreviation for "no date". Using the parens seemed to solve that issue.

I could not find any pages with similar issues and thus I didn't have an example to go by, so I created my own solution. If there is a convention for this, please let me know! Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Rotavirus again

Hello again! I was reading through the Rotavirus article for changes that have been made since I translated it into Finnish. I noticed that it frequently mentions "gut", but which part of the gut is it actually where the rotavirus replicates? The parts where gut is referred to and enterocytes are mentioned are clear, but that one is a stickler. Thanks for your help! -Yupik (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, here "gut" refers to the duodenum, the first part of the small intestine of mammals. Interestingly, Ruth Bishop, all those years ago, suggested the name Duovirus, before the name Rotavirus was accepted. She offered this name because rotaviruses have a double-layered capsid ("duo" means "two") and because they replicate in the duodenum. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic, vaccine safety issues

Graham, the guy's saying both! The doctor quoted is saying both that some kids believed to be allergic to eggs aren't, and that some kids who really are allergic can tolerate the vaccine.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/health/entries/2009/10/30/can_kids_with_egg_allergies_ge.html

‘ . . . But Dr. Allen Lieberman said his practice with Dr. William Howland III, Allergy and Asthma Center of Austin, wants anxious parents to know their potentially egg-allergic children might be able to tolerate [emphasis added] a swine flu shot. . . . ’

‘ . . . “This fall we have been very successful and able to safely immunize over 50 egg allergic children to the seasonal flu vaccine [emphasis added],” Lieberman wrote in an e-mail before we talked. . . . ’

‘ . . . Lieberman added that some children who are believed to have egg allergies really don’t [emphasis added] and others outgrow the allergy by age 5. . . . ’

And it's not so much that you rewrite it more formally, but then a second and third person comes by and rewrites it again, and then we might be quite a bit removed from the original source.

(And actually the doctor's saying a third thing! He's saying some kids have been correctly diagnosed as allergic, but then outgrow it.)

So, yeah, Graham, you missed it. And because of the wikipedia overemphasis on formality. Which I certainly have struggled with myself!

With swine flu, if we play our best game and get out quality information in a timely fashion, we might be able to save several dozen lives. And that trumps formality. Cool Nerd (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

PS I compliment you on spending time on the issue of rotavirus. If anything's more important than swine flu, it might be that. As a socialist once explained to me, what to us in the West is a mere embarrasment, is literally life and death in the developing world. He didn't convert me to socialism, not his brand at least, but I did find myself liking the man more.

Hi CN,first, thanks for the compliment, but regarding swine flu, I don't think the blog is a reliable source and this throws a shadow across your desire for "quality information". There are two different, approved vaccines against swine 'flu: Pandemrix, which is produced in eggs, and Celvapan, which is not. For very good reasons, the use of Panderix is is contraindicated in individuals with a history of anaphylactic (i.e. life-threatening) reaction to any of the constituents of the vaccine or of any trace residues within the vaccine (egg and chicken protein, ovalbumin, formaldehyde, gentamicin sulphate and sodium deoxycholate). If vaccination is considered necessary, facilities for resuscitation should be immediately available if needed.[1] And, although Celvapan has similar contraindications [2], its lack of egg protein makes this less of a problem. The "scratch test" is in fact a RAST test for egg allergy—that's all. To "play our best game" we need to maintain WP:NPOV, given that the vaccine is only about 70% protective (i.e. only 70 in 100 persons are protected to any extent) and that the rationale for mass vaccination is to establish Herd immunity and not to protect individuals as such, we must be very careful in what we write. With respect, I don't think "I missed it" at all. If anyone I know who is allergic to eggs should ask me if Pandemrix is safe, I would have to say not in their case. Anaphylactic shock can kill a person in minutes, and one cannot assume children have outgrown their allergies. I am sure that the RAST test is reliable, but for those with any history of egg allergy, Pandemrix is contraindicated, Celvapan is not, but requires two shots because the levels of virus in this cell-culture-based vaccine are lower. Please do not rely on these blogs, who knows what conflicts of interest the writers might have—vaccines are big business. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the part about the blog. A second set of eyes does help. I read it as Austin American Statesman. It is in fact a blog posted on the Austin American Statesman site. Maybe a regular feature, maybe partially sponsored (?) and thus some kind of hybrid, but until we know that for sure, we should be cautious and identify it as a blog. I have now done this.

The following BBC article identifies Baxter as a vaccine without eggs.

GPs to receive swine flu vaccines, BBC, Oct. 26, 2009: “ . . .The GSK one will be offered to most patients, while the Baxter vaccine is being generally reserved for people with egg allergies as the GSK jab was made using chicken eggs. Most patients will require only one dose of the vaccine, although children and those receiving the Baxter version will need two doses, three weeks apart. . . . ”

Maybe Celvapan is another one and maybe there are others, too.

And, yes to all of it. People should know that if they have an allergy to chicken protein, ovalbumin, etc, etc, etc, they might want to stay away from most vaccines, unless it's only a moderate allergy, and thus the discussion of severe allergies and anaphylactic shock is also a worthwhile discussion.

And the issue of 70% protection should get covered, provided we can get good references.

And the claim that it's mainly a benefit of "herd immunity" and not so much a benefit to the individual, if we can find well-respected physicians/public health researchers saying that, let's include that as well. And at the same time, include recommendations from CDC, WHO, etc. Should make for a lively discussion.

As I see it, it's not our job to arbitrate truth, but rather to lay it on the table to the best of our abilities.

I mean, I'm pro-vaccine, as much on the thinking "something beats the heck out of nothing" as anything else. But, I will endeavor to remain open-minded and look at other sources. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural Season 2

Hey. Can you please list some examples of the "appalling" prose, so I will know what you are referring to? Thanks. Ω phois 22:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I prefer to keep FAC discussions on the nomination page where they belong. I have replied there. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdw ^talk 06:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cato June

Would you be interested in continuing with your critique at WP:PR?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I am sorry for the delay in replying to you, yes I would be, but it might prove to be very frustrating for you. A year or so ago, I worked with the nominator of this FA 2005 ACC Championship Game. At the time I was having similar difficulties in understanding the jargon. But, and to cut a long story short, he eventually said this [3]. Some idea of the sort of stupid questions I ask can be found here review. If you still want to pursue this course, just let me know. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your hidden comments. Some of them need further response from you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic, new WHO press conference available

Hi Graham,

The audio and transcript for the weekly WHO virtual press conference is now available, and I mean today's Dec. 3rd conference.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/multimedia/swineflupressbriefings/en/index.html

Cool Nerd (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Public life

Heh, at least he was more honest than a politician! :D Parrot of Doom 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this much is true :) - (made me smile, thanks). Graham Colm ^Talk 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC4.

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

iguana

I don't have the energy to discuss changes really about copyediting, if you disagree I won't be offended if you put things back. Those bits of the edit summary refer to a quotation attributed in the article to the attorney when in fact it is quoting the author of the book paraphrasing the attorney, and to the fact that the supreme court never says why they took a certain case (unless in a personal interview afterwards or something) but in the article it said that this certain argument was the reason they took it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Note to any uninvolved readers, this discussion is about this comment. Clearly, copyediting rarely requires any discussion, but the deletion of whole sections from [4], and nominating images for deletion in, a FAC without any discussion seems to me to be unfair on the nominator. For me at least, FA nominations, can be stressful. The nominator in question might be protected by a thicker skin than mine, but as I have said, I would have preferred to have seen more use of the Talk Page and the FAC nomination page. I apologise for my not knowing that "atty" was short for "attorney" and the rest of my confusion with regard to edit summary in question. Let's move on. Best wishes. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural (season 2)

Hello. You had previously reviewed the FAC nomination for Supernatural (season 2) here. I have since copy-edited the article, and had a member of the copy-editor's guild look over it. Sasata, the other opposing reviewer, appears satisfied with the changes, so I was wondering if you also though it had improved enough for FAC. Thanks. Ω phois 20:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I will try to find time this week to comment at the PR. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Ω phois 23:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has been renominated here. Ω phois 16:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Electress Anna Maria Luisa

Hey, Graham. I recruited a user to check out the prose; her report can be seen @ Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici/archive1. Thanks. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack, yes I know I have the page watched. I'm busy right now, but I'll take a close look later. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Graham. I made several -- over 20, to be exact -- changes to the article's prose. Kindest Regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

FAC nom

Please check here. Hekerui (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

FV, thank you for this, it is very pretty and I appreciate your kind gesture and thinking of me. I'm trying to take a Wikibreak for a few days and I know Colin is spying on me to make sure I do, but I am sure he won't mind my replying to this greeting. I have begun to look forward to your greetings at this time of the year—they make me feel that I am a valued member of the huge Wikipedia team and make me think about the year that soon will pass and what we have accomplished; despite all the challenges we have faced. Best wishes to you, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

FA-Team revival

I've made a proposal to bring the FA-Team out of inactivity—with a mission a bit different than we're used to. This is just a generic note I'm sending to members asking for their input. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

MyKetocal

Could you review the changes by Downtown1. Leaving aside the best location for the footnote and the spelling, we've got:

replacement of the manufacturer's UK product information web page with a US/Canada publicity/infomercial website set up for the American market.
removal of "Each 100 g of powder contains 73 g fat, 15 g protein and 3 g carbohydrate, and is typically diluted 1:5 with water." I'm not sure whether this is because that was boring detail, or that the US product differs in 1g, or that mention of the 3:1 variant complicates it.
mention of both 4:1 and 3:1 ratios. The UK site mentions the new 3:1 variant here.

Considering this is a reference not an external link, the actual website used didn't need to change. The MyKetocal weblink could be made more specific here but it still reads more like an advert than a manufacturer's data sheet. I don't think MyKetoCal website could be made an external link per WP:EL. What's your thoughts on these changes? Colin°^Talk 21:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a difficult one to call. I agree that the MyKetocal weblink can be made more specific by using the product.html page, which again I agree, is not like a proper data sheet, but it does contain a lot of information; more than the shs-nutrition link. My immediate thoughts were to revert the edits because I suspected commercial interests. I suggest a compromise: use the myketocal product.html link but delete, "in both 3:1 and 4:1 ratios, either", which is not really explained. The deletion of "Each 100 g of powder contains 73 g fat, 15 g protein and 3 g carbohydrate, and is typically diluted 1:5 with water." is OK, I think, because the 3:1 variant, does complicate this and it's not the case for all formultions of the product it seems. The original reference was used a least twice (sorry to be vague but I only have the diff page opened at the moment) does the myketocal product.html support the other statements? Graham Colm ^Talk 18:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. I'll tweak it tomorrow. Colin°^Talk 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)