Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Sea Otter/archive1

Moved from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sea Otter. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on nomination. I'd like to make clear that User:Clayoquot, with more than 400 edits, is the primary author of this article. I think it VERY unfortunate that Samsara would nominate without even mentioning Clayquot's name. Whether intended or not, that's a slap in the face and a breach of basic courtesy.

I suggest withdrawing this nom, until Clayquot herself is ready to bring it forward. I have argued loudly that FA production should increase—but not without consulting the person who actually wrote the article. No. Marskell (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Marskell and I are discussing his comments. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah Marskell - Since when is showering accolades on something an offense? Sometimes the people writing an article get so wrapped up in it, they don't realize how good it is. It is in no way a bad thing for a person removed from the process to recognize a good thing. I see no attempt by anyone to hide who did the bulk of the writing or not give credit...everything was done in good faith, and the number of support comments already present confirms this. I really hope you'll re-consider your rather disparaging and uncalled for rant. Clayquot wasn't offended, so I don't see why you should be. pschemp | talk 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To chuck in my thoughts, while pschemp does make some good points, I see it as extremely unthoughtful to nominate an article at FAC which another editor has poured a month of time into without even bothering to check to see if the article is complete, but instead leave it to be a "pleasant surprise" (per the striken quotation, I incorrectly thought that this is what Clayquot said above in response to the nom., realized it sounded sarcastic otherwise, my apologies). Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, has anyone stopped to think that maybe he did check and just forgot to mention it in the nom? That perhaps he thought it so good, he forgot to say something in the rush to nominate? AGF anyone? Samsara has never made a bad-faith nomination at FAC or tried to take credit away from anyone. The vitriol level here is unnecessary. Instead of posting a bad faith rant, Marskell could simply have asked Samsara if he forgot that, and I bet the answer would have been, "Oops, sorry, I forgot, I'll fix it." Then it could have been addressed in a mature manner. I'm still shocked and saddened at Marskell's behaviour and complete failure to give the nominator even a chance. pschemp | talk 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I did check Clayquot's talk page before posting, and [1] was the first mention of the FAC, two days after it began and two days after Clayquot said it wasn't complete. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And I said above that sometimes the people closest to the work don't realize how good it is. Also, from above "Comment The nomination is exciting and well-deserved. Clayoquot has put in enormous amounts of quality work in the past several months and the result is easily already as good as many other FA's." - Credit was given, even if it was overdue, but the oversight was fixed. I don't see not asking as such an unforgivable sin, and you are sill assuming bad faith on the part of the nominator. In mature problem solving, you go to the person, ask them if that was an oversight and work it out from there. Marskell didn't even try to do this, just posted a huge rant. And you RCS, are now doing the same thing, assuming bad intentions, not asking the nominator directly even. What a lot of unneccessary drama for a great article.

While the nominator may have made an honest oversight, Marskell has handled it terribly and in a confrontational and rude manner, without assuming good faith, and without trying to deal with it maturely. Jumping down someone's throat for trying to do a good thing is never acceptable. pschemp | talk 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm replying on pschemp's talk page as it does not have anything to do with the article anymore. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments were drama inducing. I'm obviously more bothered than Clayquot, who prefaced her surprise with a comment of delight. To explain, I saw no interaction from Samsara on user talk or on the article talk. There's only this brusque comment that offers no credit for the work done. In checking article contributions, I saw 11 from Samasara AFTER making the nom. That is, s/he brought it here without having made a single edit to it and without confirming the nom with the primary author.

Thus I don't retract the principal complaint. Two things:

• It IS rude. If you pour time into something, having contact prior to a nom and acknowledgement in the initial nom statement is a fair expectation. It has nothing to do with OWN.
• The nominator simply can't be in a position to properly speak for the content of this article. S/he's done zero previous work on it. Reviewers at FAC are under the assumption that, unless indicated otherwise, the nominator is responsible for the wording and the sourcing. Samsara is responsible for nothing here.

In general, I think it would be a bad idea to allow this to recur at FAC. We should work under the assumption that people who have actually made main space edits are the people who bring articles forward. Clayquot has indicated she's on a small trip. I do think this should be on hold until after she returns and can comment herself. Marskell (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And there you are, now defending and continuing your assumption of bad faith on the part of the nominator. It is not rude to MAKE A MISTAKE. There was no premeditated slight here, and your continuing to assert that is disgusting. AGF means nothing to you I can see. Clayquot's own words, only 2 hours after the nomination were that she was "delighted". By continuing to refuse to even admit that a good faith oversight could have been made, you are showing the worst of wikipedia and that is the reason good contributors quit. Your attempt to communicate with Samsara is way too late. It is one thing to make a mistake such as you did when making rash accusations of bad faith, but then to go and defend them...

What you haven't gotten is that is doesn't matter what you consider rude or wrong here, WP:AGF requires you to give the benefit of the doubt before you berate. Requires. You didn't do this. Then, unbelievably, you defended your unacceptable actions with the same poor reasoning. That is the ESSENCE of RUDE. In your haste to call out someone else's behaviour as rude, you have yourself behaved worse. pschemp | talk 05:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC) pschemp | talk 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pschemp, I don't want secondary drama, so there's no need to yell at me. I apologize again for creating drama in the first place; my first post was far more pert than it needed to be. I was angry on behalf of an editor who is extremely helpful with people and wasn't shown the consideration that we ought to extend to one another. I said nothing about premeditation; but sometimes thoughtlessness is rudeness.

Thus if I can retract my tone, I retract that. But the reasoning is perfectly sound: Samsara is not positioned to handle this nomination. There's a more recent paper on the phylogeny not included, for instance, that Clayoquot should handle herself. She has said "I would like to do a peer review and come back here in a few weeks." I suggest that we follow her on that and that this be withdrawn or put on hold. Marskell (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This discourse has digressed a bit from the assessment of Sea Otter as a featured article, much less working on the article itself. It seems that while there is a universal consensus that the article is very, very good, there is some disagreement as to whether it is ready. The primary author indicated that there are content gaps and structural issues. Rufous and Markell suggest we defer to Clayoquot's judgement, and I agree. Clayoquot's multi-month madness has been, in fact, pretty methodical and the project is simply not quite finished. While it is occasionally true that "writers get so wrapped up, they don't realize how good it is," it does seem prudent to at least let the author wrap up a draft before assessments are imposed.
In my view, the most important content gap is the all-too-short section on taxonomy, which has zero information about evolution or fossil record and very little specific on phylogenetic relationships to related species (compare the analogous sections in Lion, Island Fox, Hippopotamus and other FA's). The structural "problems" have been largely summarized above. Unless contributors here are willing to tackle these issues themselves, I second Marskell's suggestion that it is best to wait for the principal author's return, work together on the remaining "10%" or so of the article, and then revisit the FAC. That said, if a great wave of editors feel that it should be promoted now, I won't categorically oppose the nomination. Best, Eliezg (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. My gosh. Wikilove. Please. I really appreciate the concerns expressed for my feelings, and I can assure you that I wasn't offended by this nomination, nor have I participated in any off-wiki discussion about it. What I see above is basically, I think, rooted in some significant differences in working style. It is unusual to bring an article to FAC without first dropping a "hey, are you guys done yet?" note on the article talk page. I don't think it's necessarily offensive to overlook doing this, although I agree that it is generally preferable to have a check-in on article talk first because it ends up saving reviewer time. Some regrettable and uncalled-for things have been said, and not just by Marskell. However, I would much rather spend my time working on the content than figuring out who made what faux pas, so I hope people can do what is needed to forgive each other and move on. I will also move some of this discussion to the Talk page of this nom if nobody objects. I will drop a note here when I think the article is ready, and in the meantime I will try to stay focused on content. Best regards, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your graciousness makes the previous lack of it (that's a self-accusation) more apparent.

We could move this to the peer review target and cut the commentary to that talk. The comments on substance in this would be most appropriate when a PR is done. The FAC page would be clear, when the article is definitely ready. Marskell (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Marskell. However I don't think this is ready for peer review either. I just need more time. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)