"

Hansi Brand DYK? Nomination
Hello,

I have just responded to your comments hereTemplate:Did you know nominations/Hansi Brandand addressed all of the concerns that you had in regards to this DYK? nomination. Please respond back to me whenever you are able to. Thank you very much.   
 Hi, Futurist ... I'm sorry I didn't get back to this, but I see that all was resolved.  Thanks for the quick and amicable resolution!   (Talk) 

 Pisco Sour 

Dear Sandy,

I hope all is well. Pardon the abrupt question, but could you please provide an update on your views at the Pisco Sour FAC?

Best regards. | Talk 
 No.   (Talk) 

 Tyrannosaurus FA 

Hi Sandy, I was wondering if you would have a quick look at the Tyrannosaurus article and see if it looks to you to meet current FA standards?  I am wondering whether to initiate a discussion on it with a view towards it needing an FA review as the text to me seems repetitive, handling of units hap-hazard and inconsistent, significant overlinking, and needing some reorganisation.  I would welcome any thoughts you may have, and to be clear I am not asking that you take on the job, I just seek the view of an experienced FA contributor.  Thanks.    
 Hi, EdChem ... I'm sorry I have been of so little use in responding to your requests for help lately !  I've been quite busy in real life, so haven't had the time for the sustained commitment needed to review at the FA level, although I can occasionally dip in to DYK for a quick source review.  (Will respond to Tony's DYK issue as soon as I can I'm more concerned about sourcing, padding, and copyvio issues than how interesting hooks are at DYK I think interesting hooks might be a concern if the basic pillars of Wikipedia were being met, and I'm concerned that DYK is still a place where not even basic pillars that apply to all articles are upheld.)   When I was new to Wikipedia, dinosaur articles were all the rage; as often happens, it seems that many of the editors who maintained those articles have moved on.  At a quick glance, I can see numerous problems (as you outlined, including uncited text) with the article, but those problems aren't as bad as many older FAs that typically appear at WP:FAR.  It's not surprising that a high-profile topic like tyrannosaurus would deteriorate after its principle editors move on. Instructions at FAR ask that editors post to the talk page before initiating a review, in hopes that some interested editor will improve the article and remove the need for FAR.  You cannot go wrong by listing some of the obvious issues on talk to see if anyone will surface to work on the article.  If no one surfaces in say a month, I agree that the article probably needs to go to FAR.  But there are so many FAs in so much worse shape ... I digress )  Best,  (Talk) 

 Cochrane Library Sign-up 

Have you seen Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Free_Research_Accounts_from_Leading_Medical_Publisher._Come_and_Sign_up.21? (Talk) 
 Thank you so much for pointing me to that ... if that comes through, it will be immensely helpful to me ... much more so than HighBeam or Jstor, which have turned out to be not very useful for medical editing, although quite useful in other topic areas.  I appreciate the pointer.   (Talk) 

Correct link:  Wikipedia:Cochrane.   (Talk) 

 Better late than never 

Hi Sandy - thanks for your email way back when. I've finally gotten around to responding via email - I'm sorry it took me so long. Cheers. ''''''