Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive26

Active discussions


Please vote for a better hard-space code

May I point out to contributors that MOS requires hard spaces between all instances of "p." and page number, and "pp." and page range. FAs, which must follow MOS, typically have many instances of these in notes and reference lists. Inserting hard spaces is onerous using the current html code.

It is in all our interests to vote for a better code, and to support the subsequent process of having it implemented technically.

You can vote HERE. Tony (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be better not to write p. and pp. at all, especially when using citation templates. Ruslik (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Or, rather, any "onerous" code could be within the templates... --kingboyk (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I found it a very interesting discussion, thanks. Hope I was of some help.
Did you know of this proposal? "Merge of Hard space and Non-breaking space" (it can be found in Talk:Non-breaking space.)
--Kiyarrllston 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Checking sources

I'm just very gradually getting into reading other articles up for FA. I'd like to know how closely the sources are checked. I understand that using other free encyclopedias as references is not ideal. I wouldn't do it, knowing how shaky some information is here at Wikipedia, but would like to know if it's more common or overlooked in the FAC process. It's tedious to check 50-100 sources, so does everyone do it? I understand an editor can object on some weak grounds, as in - not an important enough topic, but I'm hesitant to object. I'd like to see if I can get a few more FAs before acting like I own the place. --Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I try to check through them. Anyone may comment on any nomination. DrKiernan (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I only check sources if I have them to hand - which is rarely - or if they are online sources, when I am a bit more rigorous (because I'm more likely to be sceptical of their worth). In terms of reviewing, jump right in. It is much better to review in a positive manner, with plenty of praise and suggestions for improvement: so long as you're doing so it doesn't really matter if you are applying the criteria in a stricter manner. The Land (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If what you're saying is that you want to check the references in FACs and comment on it, I'd say go right ahead. Some checking should be happening already but inevitably improvements can be made. Helping to ensure that potential FAs really are top quality isn't acting like you own the place :) --kingboyk (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
First question: Which free encyclopedias are you referring to? Usually when a reviewer looks at the article, there is a tendency to casually glance at the sources. Any dubious sources are then brought to the attention of the nominator. There is a project to verify sources: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on FAC

I hope this isn't an inappropriate place to post this, but I've written some notes about my experience with the FAC process, called "How I survive Wikipedia". I was sorry to see Rjgibb's notes on his experience with FAC; he evidently won't be back. His notes prompted me to capture my own thoughts. Mike Christie (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Outriggr's response to Rjgibb should be required reading on this subject as well: User talk:Rjgibb#Re "An Editorial Viewpoint". --JayHenry (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Those are all some excellent commentaries on the FA process and I've added links to them to my own essay about it [1]. Cla68 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Cla68's essay is one I read early on and paid a good deal of attention to. There are probably some other FAC essays out there; I'd be interested to see a list of links. Mike Christie (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rjgibb analysis and Outriggr's response are useful as personal reflections but they are merely re-iterating perennial problems. Yes, we get it, you want more thorough reviews of FACs. So, the 'problem identification' step is done, repeatedly. But what do you offer for solutions? Cla68 offers some solutions if the FA star is the goal. How about Mike Christie's (and other's) Wikipedia:Content review/workshop? The review process is flexible (and often taken on a case-by-case basis) but only goes where its participants want (whether through action or inaction). --maclean 17:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I for one disagree with Outriggr's comments. If he has a problem with the standards for FA, he should attempt to change them. If he has a problem with an MOS issue, he should bring it up on the page there. I for one think that nbsp's should simply be coded into the Wikipedia engine, but until such a time as the FA rules change or the MOS changes, this is the process for better or worse. That said, here is my FA guide (work in progress) — BQZip01 — talk 00:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • One weakness I see in the FA process is the assumption that people know the MoS or that the average editor will know how to copyedit an article. Telling an editor that an article may need another copyedit may be necessary, but many editors absolutely do not know where to go. In the real world, only a small fraction of the population has professional editing skills. Wikipedia is the same way. Editors who have these skills, in my opinion, should be more recognized and encouraged to focus their efforts in that area, since their skill is so rare. I also think that there should be some sort of repository for articles that are complete except for copyediting. Right now, the league of copyeditors is overwhelmed by articles with the "copyedit needed" tag which actually have much bigger problems. Wrad (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that people interested in this topic also consider posting at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop#FAC issue, which is the workshop Maclean pointed to above. It focuses on content review issues. As Maclean says above, we do need to identify problems, but we also need to find solutions, and that workshop's goal is to look for and help implement solutions. Mike Christie (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a simple solution would be to sweep through all articles with the copyedit tag and remove the tag from articles nowhere near FA status. If they have bigger problems, copyediting is not the answer. Wrad (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I like that idea. –thedemonhog talkedits 01:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've always liked something Mike Christie once said in a FAC (I think FAC; can't find the comment), which he reiterates slightly differently in his essay as "The reason I don't get upset at FAC when someone posts a silly oppose, or asks for MOSDASH fixes, or an infobox I don't think should be there, is that to me that would be like getting mad with the professor who tells you to change something in a paper you've written. I just try to have faith that the FAC process will work, and comply with (almost) all the requests I get at FAC. Usually I find it really does make the article better." Even when I disagree with a FAC point vehemently at the time, I have found a few months later I may start to see the validity to the point and that I was plain wrong. FACs do continue to improve even after they are promoted. Also true, it's great to come to a subject ("I knew almost nothing about Anglo-Saxon history") and selfishly write a Wikipedia article to become better informed on the subject you're interested in, with the by-product of an FA for Wikipedia.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It's from Mike's essay. The problem with this perspective is that quite often it is the nominator who has by far the greatest expertise on the topic in question, so FAC is not remotely like handing in an essay to a professor. The issue raised by the other comments is a perception that FAC is obsessed with MoS and its associated pedantry. There is an obvious solution to this: remove the formal "guideline" status from MoS, and modify the FA criterion 2 to say that "It broadly follows the style guidelines..." Then perhaps FAC will become more attractive to reviewers who focus on content quality, while those who care about things such as dashes and non-breaking spaces can quietly get on with it without wasting everyone else's time here. Geometry guy 11:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, in real life, there are writer/researchers, and then there are editors. Writer/researchers are good with content. There are a lot of them in proportion to the editors. One editor typically combs over the work of several writers to check format and writing style. They are the ones who really make the prose brilliant, in most cases. Editors do this work, not the writers. FAC seems to demand that the writers do all the work, but there is a reason writers are writers and not editors—they aren't really that good at editing. We need some way to make it easier for people to get their work copy-edited and reformatted. Right now, as everyone acknowledges, it is the hardest thing to accomplish at FAC. I'm not saying this because I want the requirements to be lowered. I'm saying this because I want it to be easier for articles to reach those standards by giving articles a place to go when all they need is formatting and copy-editing. A system like this would not only create more FAs, it would also make the FA page a bit more streamlined, since articles would have already gone through copy-editing and issues would be minor. Wrad (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
So how about if FAC can have two more outcomes (in addition to promote/archive): "promote pending MOS fixes", and "promote pending copyedit"? (Or both.) Then a MOS-fixing group and a copyediting group could clean them up and produce a diff showing that all that had changed was copyedit and MOS work. It would then be promoted. Opposes on FAC could then be "MOS oppose" or "Copyedit oppose"; any unstruck ones (that the FAC director agreed with) would cause the conditional promotions. Resubmission under those circumstances could be back at regular FAC but should lead to very quick promotions if the fixes are truly done. Or they could be resubmitted to a subpage to avoid clogging up FAC. Is that the sort of thing you were thinking of? Mike Christie (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. Any article failed for that reason would need to be put in some sort of category to keep things organized as well, and they should only be put in that category if the problems are too many to be listed at FAC. A few MoS or copyediting problems are no big deal and can be fixed quickly. I really think this would increase the quality of FAs and decrease tension between writers and reviewers. Wrad (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think that is a very worthwhile idea. Many FACs do fail due to small issues that an editor is not then prepared to go through yet another FAC to deal with, and separating out FAs with mild issues that cannot be done by the nominators themselves to be given a onceover by a specialised group seems a very elegant solution. Tension would go down, more FACs would be promoted, and the grammar nazis will be kept happy. Does this not seem an idea worth at least trying? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
We can start small and unintrusive by just putting something like [[Category:All-but-ce FA fails]] on the talk pages of appropriate articles. Wrad (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a practical or workable idea. In my experience, once an article is promoted, it's often hard to get editors to address minor items that made it through FAC. Far more practical is for editors to seek out means of addressing copyediting and MOS issues before approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That's only practical if the process is familiar to you and you are on friendly terms with a lot of copyeditors. That is the entire reason we need a system like this. FA is such an insider club right now. You have to know somebody who knows somebody. That's why tension is so dang high. Wrad (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Then we should set up processes that help editors make those connections before approaching FAC, rather than promoting articles that still need fixin'. It took me almost a year to build connections to help me bring an article to FAC; you are right that it shouldn't take that long. But we need to fix the front end, not the back end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that makes more sense to me. I actually had the same concern in the back of my mind. I think usually people know if their article is close, maybe just create a category like that for them to add it too? then we could add a not to FA saying that if you still need copyediting, please bring it to such and such a place before nominating. Wrad (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Good; I don't have extra time to invest in this discussion right now, but was just concerned that it was going the direction of promoting articles before they're ready, and I'd like to see focus on helping editors at the other end. That's all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

← I think SandyGeorgia may be misunderstanding Mike's proposal, which I think is a very nice idea (and of course, much more realisitic than mine!) As I understand it, an article with MoS or copyediting issues would not be promoted to FA. However, if these were the only issues for failing the article, then it could be tagged in some way, so that if it received the required MoS-fixes and/or copyedit, it would be promoted without going through another FAC. For instance, it could be listed at the league of copyeditors. Anyone from there care to comment... Happy-melon perhaps? Geometry guy 20:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For copy-editing, the League of Copyeditors exists (although I have a feeling that some copyedit requests unfortunately go unanswered). What about a new resource (Wikiproject?) devoted to shepherding articles through the FA process? Members could list their areas of expertise (copyediting, ref formatting, MOS checking) and those hoping to bring articles up to FA standard could list their articles for members to comment/give advice. Little issues could then be corrected before FAC. Of course, if an article is nowhere near FA quality (needs major expansion, more referencing, etc.), members could advise the person to try peer review first. BuddingJournalist 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There's already a pretty much dead Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles that we could revive and revamp. Wrad (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(Fix indents post ec - hope you don't mind.) Glad we had the same idea! I would further remark that any project (be it LOCE or WFA) which had the power to put finishing touches to an FA would probably become lively quite quickly. Geometry guy 20:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy is correct; my intention was that an article with MOS or CE errors should not be promoted. I agree with Sandy that ideally we should have this activity going on at the front end of the process, not the back end. However, I think it's clear that many people do find these particular criticisms difficult to deal with, or aggravating. That doesn't mean that they don't need to be fixed, but it's a fact about this particular Wikipedia process. We'd like to reduce the friction if we can.

Here's a more explicit description of one possible solution, with what I see as the pros and cons. I like this idea and would like some licence to try it.


  1. At FAC, you can oppose for the same reasons as now. If you feel the only issues left are MOS, or CE, or both, you can say Oppose - MOS or Oppose - CE or Oppose - MOS+CE. If you feel other issues exist as well you should just use Oppose.
  1. When the FAC director or his delegate closes the FAC, they may choose to promote or archive as before. However, they may also choose to mark an article as needing only MOS and/or CE fixes to be promoted. There would need to be a low-effort way to do this; it should take them no more time than it takes them to archive a failed FAC now. (I'm not proposing a method yet, but I know we can't make the job any more labour-intensive than it is.)
  1. If an article is marked as needed MOS and/or CE to become FAC, the editors who wish to see the article promoted will work on the article; ideally they will have resources such as the League of Copyeditors to draw on; and a MOS-LOCE would be cool too. Or maybe LOCE could take it on? Or the editors could try to address the issue themselves, or by soliciting help in any of the usual ways.
  1. Once the editors are ready, they can choose to resubmit the article to verify those flaws are fixed whenever they wish. The editors would submit a diff with this nomination, showing the differences between the version at the end of the FAC process and the current version. This diff would be to show the reviewers that nothing had changed except MOS and/or CE fixes . The resubmission might be done at a page similar to FAC but dedicated to this task.
  1. Reviewers with expertise in MOS and CE would frequent this page, I would assume. There would need to be consensus, as at FAC, that the flaws were fixed. The reviewers could also oppose because they see changes that go beyond copyedits and MOS fixes; changes that might require resubmission to FAC.
  1. The FAC director would promote or archive as they do now; perhaps to a parallel set of archive pages.


  • Editors who currently have strong negative feelings about MOS and CE would be able to separate the two experiences to some degree -- if there were opposes based only on MOS and CE problems could be deferred to the second phase, if the editor planned to get someone else to help solve those problems.
  • It might become clearer at FAC whether an article is really getting a review for the other criteria -- broadness, comprehensiveness, balance. A long FAC does not mean every criterion was considered by every reviewer; I'm sure many (most?) reviewers do not religiously validate every single criterion on the list. This process might clarify that.


  • It adds some work for the FA director and his delegates.
  • Editors might start leaving articles after getting to the MOS/CE stage, and not work on the last stage. We might address this by disallowing the MOS/CE submission after two months. (That could be done by adding a template to the article talk page with a date.)
  • Who gets credit for the FA? Easy if the same person nominates in both places; if it's two people, give them shared credit (easy to do; see here.
  • The separation of the two phases might become habitual, leading to an decrease in the number of articles actually promoted. To counter this comment, I would suggest that some level of assembly-line automation is going to be necessary to scale FAC. This would help scaling.

Personally, I would try to fix every problem myself at my FACs, and would not ever wish to go to this second phase. I can see it might be a better process for some people, though.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It would make the process more complex, but overall I'm in favour of the proposal per the second pro. Epbr123 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I would only add to that list that we should make it very clear that MoS and CE issues should be fixed before FAC. Preferably, people should take their work to the CE page as a final step in the FA process. Also, reviewers should refer them to that page. If communication is good, then FA directors will not need to leave a note at all. As for credit, I hope no one is worried about that. Credit for FAs is such a fluid thing on a collaborative encyclopedia. I feel great whenever anything becomes an FA, even if I had nothing to do with it. Editors of the page should also be aware that as the copyeditors go through the article, they need to follow the work to make sure nothing is "lost in translation". All in all, though, I think a lot of kinks will work out as we start putting it into practice. Wrad (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all, MOS and CE problems, IMHO, are not simply minor issues. Many articles have things about them that simply are not phrased well, but, once a CE is done, they may not reflect the exact information the author originally intended simply because the copyeditor is not an expert in the field. Example: "The ship's construction was halted and on 12 December sold for scrap" changed to "The Navy halted construction of the ship and, on 12 December 1964, its hull was disassembled and sold for scrap." Did you see the problem there? You probably wouldn't unles you knew what you were looking for. (For those interested, a "hull" is simply the exterior of the ship designed to be in contact with the water. It is not the entire ship. Furthermore, ships do not necessarily have to be disassembled before being scrapped.) As for the MoS, I think some of the "rules" are silly and simply need to be incorporated into the software (why can't any number with a space after it simply be soft-coded to appear with a no break space?), BUT until such a time as changes are made, we need to make sure it displays well for everyone not just your computer screen. The MoS is in place for a reason, to make the articles accessible and readable by EVERYONE, not just those with a setup just like yours. To that end, there are tools (like the semi-automated peer review) and guides (guides like mine at User:BQZip01/FA Tips) that can help you if you are willing to put forth the effort. I think it cheapens the process to say, "Well, in the interests of making more people feel good, you can put up an article for FA status that isn't ready and someone else will fix it." An FA is not supposed to be easy, though I'm not saying there aren't things we can do to make it simpler.
  • Second, we are not simply writers. We are editors and people who want an FA article need to treat it as such. They need to learn both aspects of the process. Writing, as I've found, is the easier of the two, but editing to please a large group of people is the difficult part. Well, there's my two cents. (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You've got the wrong idea about what we're proposing. We aren't saying MoS and CE aren't important. We're saying the opposite. We aren't saying "Drop your almost-FA article off here and we'll do the rest." We're saying, bring your article here and work with some skilled copyeditors to finish the final steps. (Clearly, editors who know the subject and wrote the content should supervise copyediting as it occurs so things don't get "lost in translation" as I said before). We therefore aren't cheapening the process, we're enriching it by making it easier for articles to reach FA by providing more editing and writing skills to more people. That's what wikipedia is all about. We call it collaboration.
  • Second. It is absolutely untrue that we are all editors in a professional sense, just as it is untrue that we are all admins, or conflict mediators, or reviewers, or vandal fighters. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. Gone are the days when one person can bring a high-profile article to FA status single-handedly. Wiki-editors gravitate towards what they are good at, and that's the way it should be. Some are good at researching, some at copy-editing, some at vandal-fighting, some at MoS. We need to make it easier for people with FA skills to collaborate. That's what we're saying. Wrad (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wrad on the above. I'd like to hear some other comments; I'd be willing to put some work into investigating if the above idea could be made workable, if I hear some support from other editors here. By "workable", I mean that there are reasonable changes that can be made (templates, categories, changes to the ArticleHistory template, etc.) that could make this approach workable without being a significant burden. Perhaps the first step would be a test run on a current FAC that might be agreed to have only CE or MOS errors. (I don't have one in mind.) Mike Christie (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have an article that I believe fits the criteria. It hasn't been through FAC, but I think a CE is about all it needs. I'm sure there are more out there, though. Whatever we decide. The article is Green Knight. Wrad (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I too somewhat agree with Wrad's position, but as to finding a current FAC with only CE or MoS issues, there I think you'll be looking for a needle in a haystack. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Yeah. I don't think you'll ever find any article with only [XXXX] issues anywhere, but I think we all get the general idea. I'd also say the smaller the group of articles we have to work on, the better the work we can do on it. I don't think anyone wants a huge pile of stuff to copy-edit unless it's all very close to FA. Wrad (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Slight diversion, but still sort of on-topic. The whole MOS compliance thing gets my goat sometimes, even though I think the idea behind an MOS is a good thing. The problem is that MOS is such a moveable feast. It changes just far too frequently. We mere "writers", and even "editors" can't be expected to keep track of a manual of style that can change very rapidly, with no formal notification process. I'd suggest that the way to address that would be to stabilise MOS, with predetermined "release dates" (6 monthly, or quarterly, say). Changes to the MOS should, between releases, be confined to "draft" sub-pages where those who are interested in such things can argue it out between themselves. On top of that, some parts of MOS as it stands now are just too vague, or written with a target audience of those who are already knowledgeable about grammar, punctuation or style guides; there are parts of MOS that I simply don't understand, and others that I think I understand until I see someone else commenting on that part with a different interpretation from mine. How can it be a requirement to comply with something that changes without notice, that is ambiguous, that leaves too many options or alternatives?
I've lost count of the number of times I've remembered an entry in MOS, commented on it at a review, only to find the entry gone, vanished, expunged. I'm not the only one either. And I've seen plenty of different interpretations of things like logical quotation, or the various dash parts. Carre (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal put up: I have proposed the same ideas in this section at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop#FAC-help project. Wrad (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may, on a slight different note for some reason I always had mixed feeling in regards to support votes. On one side of the coin this votes indirectly help the project by acting as encouragement; all humans love to receive compliments of their work. The other (dark) side is based on principal. How useful are they? They create more reading material for the FA director, they can make some reviewers (hypothetically) skip reviewing an article due to the illusion that it has received a fair share of interest and lastly I always thought democracy is what wikipedia was not. Does anyone here think they are useful? Can we somehow take the compliment aspect from them and display it in a different form: talk page, barnstar for every FA ...something else? (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't understand that at all. I have always understood that the purpose of a support !vote isn't to encourage the nominator/article writers/editors, but to indicate an agreement that an article should be listed as an FA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I doubt there are many reviewers who support out of encouragement, although you're right that reviewers shouldn't support without thoroughly checking the article. Epbr123 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand the concept of approving an article to be FA by a support vote but I feel that it has little bearing on the promotion. I'm not sure that the FA director actually passes articles based on the number of supports or who the supports are from. I think the support vote just signals that a persons' objections were fixed or (if no objections) that he/she feels the article meets all the criteria. The first point can easily be summed up with "All my objections were taken care of" so the added support is more of a symbolic compimentary gesture IMO. As for the latter I don't (correct me if I'm wrong) think the FA director really cares about who thinks the article passes the criteria but rather if there were any objection and if they were fixed. Wrong analysis? (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The FA director usually requires about 3 supports without any opposes before he passes. Any supports after the first 3 have little bearing though. Epbr123 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably time to let the FA director speak for himself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I must say I thought more supports were helpful if there were Comments still lying around or Opposes which were not specific. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

UCR FAC bot archive

Can I restart this? The FAC only received two opposes, both of which were in process of being addressed extensively. Ameriquedialectics 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The article only had five days at FAC. Ameriquedialectics 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You can always resubmit FACs, but I would suggest taking a few days to work on whatever comments you have already. Or ask User:Raul654 about it. Gimmetrow 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've complained to Raul, though I made it clear I wasn't asking for the debate to be reopened. szyslak 00:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to let it go for the time being, as I'm kind of busy this week, but this article will be back soon. Ameriquedialectics 01:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Give it a try in two weeks time. However I see a lot of issues with the present content. In the interim period, summarize long sections and have it copyedited. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh sod it, lets have some fun

OK, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Support--Kiyarrllston 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Props to working in clinical depression and death.--CM (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ummm...huh? (I don't get it....)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Clinical depression and death (under "can't take it anymore" and "goodbye" respectively) are two choices for the competition. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha, shoulda realized... XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talkcontribs) 13:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
<sigh> Way too overlinked...please read WP:MOSLINK :-) (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture: What happened to "brilliant prose?"

Yesterday, after a full 40 days as an FAC, the Western Chalukya architecture page was denied promotion. As someone who made many comments in the FA review, I feel that the decision was the right one. The article not only does not meet criterion 1(a) (that the prose be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard,") but also continues to flagrantly violate the norms of ordinary high-school English prose.

However, no sooner had I learnt of the article's fate than I happened upon an exchange on user:Giano_II's talk page in which the FA director user:Raul654 was suggesting that the article be renominated immediately. Soon user:Giano_II was not only voicing agreement, but also, in his edit summaries, egging the primary author of the failed FAC (user:Dineshkannambadi) to renominate pronto. I then made a post on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture page and pointed out numerous errors in two random paragraphs. Our intrepid FA warriors, however, did not respond to the post. Moreover, in their attempt to nail the elusive FA, they have already renominated the article. The prose in the article remains both shabby and convoluted. Can someone explain this to me? Is the quality of prose no longer important on Wikipedia? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but I would guess the next step is to voice these concerns on the FAC page...again, I note, and update them as to what has been addressed and what is outstanding. The last FAC was/is so godwafully long I can see how Raul felt it may be better to just restart it and see what arises. As there were a few supports, he figured the article has a good chance of passing once issues are addressed and the nominator has certainly been busy on the last FAC page replying. Restarting is common if an FAC swells to this size. Don't worry, but pelase give an up to date status report on the latest one. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The fucking MoS: a question

OK friends, sorry for the dreadful headline (I thought it would attract more comments). I've just had (again) one of those lengthy debates about the relationship between the fucking MoS and FA criteria. You know: "FACs are terrible because it's all about dashes."

I don't agree with that analysis and I have question:

  • Can anyone identify an article that was denied FA status solely because of MoS issues?

I would be interested to see it. Marskell (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I think you already said, I'd be very surprised to find that any article had ever failed FAC just because of MOS issues. Copyediting yes, but MOS, no. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict)In my experience, most of the nominators fix the MOS issues pretty quickly because it's easier to figure out what the reviewer wants them to change (although sometimes they need coaching on how to implement something). Those that have outstanding MOS issues and fail usually also have something else wrong, either poor prose or issues of comprehensiveness, reliable sources, or structure. Karanacs (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but what did you think of the William Claiborne FAC? In any case I agree that fixing MOS is a hack of alot easier than prose. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I really need to stay away from the F-word right now, lest I use it myself, but it looks to me like that one failed not because of MOS, but because it failed to garner sufficient Support. I know I wouldn't fail an article only because of MOS issues, and I doubt Raul ever has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The other issue was the nominator stopped editing midway through the FAC I recall. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, since Claiborne is up again, can we please get some review this time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've certainly never seen a nomination fail solely because of MOS issues. But I certainly have seen nominators get upset/overwhelmed by the MOS (does anyone dispute this?), and I think it shrinks the FAC community. By driving away valuable contributors, it decreases the quality of FAs, because we have less participants than we could have vetting our articles. I really think the issue is presentation. Very few people object to Wikipedia having a house style. But sometimes it's raised in extremely hostile terms. I really think it's the extreme lack of friendliness -- the "how dare you come here without having memorized all 61 pages of the MOS" attitude -- rather than the guide itself, that is the source of frustration for people who rail against the MOS. Savagery (and savagery is not too strong a word for how first-time nominators are often treated) against hard-working editors, even if they're bad (or more likely, inexperienced) writers, never improves content. And in the long run, it degrades the quality of the entire FA process. --JayHenry (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Very well put, Jay. I think this is very accurate. --Melty girl (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I also think this an accurate comment. To it I would add that the criteria for a FA is that a professional standard of prose is required. I think it is equally important for wikipedia to require the reviewers' comments to be of a similar professional standard. Sadly, some of the comments made by reviewers of quite high standing in some of the nominations I have seen fall far short of that. These unprofessional comments include a lack of civility, and, when this is pointed out, one has seen a dismissal of the complaint with comments along the line of "Please attend to the FAC in question rather than dealing with side issues.". This behaviour brings the entire FAC process into disrepute, but it seems as if one is not allowed to suggest this at times or point out poor behaviour on the part of reviewers.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, some users are very good at fixing most of those needly MOS issues and do so very quickly and reliably. User:Brighterorange does it, usually within less than a day, and he did two of my FAs very quickly, and without much bugging, just a friendly note on his talk page. The issues are easy to fix if you ask someone nicely... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The FAC regulars usually fix most MoS issues. Some issues can be fixed very quickly, given experience. Gimmetrow 04:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New FA essay

Giano is currently writing an insightful (IMO) essay on the FA process here. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tripping over a new essay everytime I turn around. Why don't we actually collaborate and write a formal how-to? Marskell (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Amen, Marksell. Newbies won't be able to find these user essays, and they're the ones who need them most. An official WP page(s) giving more detail about the process is sorely needed. --Melty girl (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I sorta found Giano's by mistake. He's still writing it - it would be interesting to combine his and Tony's writing styles -they could do alternate paras, or sentences even. 8) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If only we had Refreshingly Brilliant Prose for essays... bibliomaniac15 04:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, does not conform to WP:MOSDASH. Please consider trying for Good Essay instead. Pagrashtak 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting carried away with article size (ooops) vampire at FAC

OK folks, a couple of us have worked up vampire which ended up at a 100kb (oops) - and as been opposed on size issue. It did have 10 000 words which we've chopped out quite a bit to subarticles. Now article size is 84kb (can't do word count where I am). I need some input into have we chopped out enough? and if not how much more needs to go. Really appreciate some consensus on this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if someone hadn't replaced practically all the natural causes section, by my estimates we could be down to only 75-80K. But noone seems to listen to me... *Sighs long and hard for that particular person* Spawn Man (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen FAs over 80k be passed before. The readable text of this article is only 43k, so I think it is fine. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Over 100

There are FACs here from NOV, including one that's a speedy from about 2 weeks ago. Can we get the coordinators to have some progress on moving these off (decline/promote etc)?Sumoeagle179 (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Raul is planning to do a batch soon. Sandy is on holiday at the moment. Just be patient and they will be cleared. Woody (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think 2.5 months is a bit long. I Sandy has some stuff going on, but Raul's workload is down as he's not a sitting arb anymore. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the first Wikibreak I've taken since last May; I'm on a borrowed connection, and will try to clear out a few tonight before my flight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Who are we to guess what Raul's workload is like, there is a backlog at WP:RFCU for one thing. I am sure that both Sandy and Raul will get round to it when it is convenient. What is another couple of days without a star going to do? If needs be we can remove all   Done templates and we would reduce template load significantly. Woody (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I am in the process of pruning the FAC page as you speak. Raul654 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

While I was away traveling, I only had computer access on a borrowed phone line via a slow dialup. I found the FAC page impossible to load. More importantly, the page surpassed the limit of transcluded templates, causing the pages listed last to drop off. The transcluded template limit was passed because of those pesky green   Done and red   Not done graphics that not only affect the load time, but also split up reviewer commentary and make the pages harder to read. Per this issue, and significant past discussions of this problem, I've boldly updated the FAC instructions to discourage the use of graphics. The most helpful way for nominators to indicate what has been addressed is to correctly thread a comment below the reviewer's signature, without chopping up the reviewer's commentary and without adding graphics that slow down the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I completely agree with your decision. If not just for aesthetic reasons, a done ought to suffice. Woody (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Year's Revolution (2007)

Everything discussed at the FAC was addressed, and the nom was failed, without any explanation. I'd like for someone to clarify. Feedback 14:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in making that decision, but a quick look at the archived FAC show that there were no supports and several opposes. None of the oppose comments were stricken, meaning either that the reviewer didn't agree that the comments were adequately addressed or that they didn't come back to take a look. The next time you nominate an article at FAC, you might want to remind the reviewers to take another look after you have finished addressing their concerns - sometimes they don't watchlist the page. Better luck next time!! Karanacs (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Another note: a "done" checkmark from a nominator has little meaning, and only clogs the FAC page, making it slow to load—I'd be happy to see the practice of adding "done" templates to FAC pages end, particularly after tying to access FAC from a slow dialup connection while I was traveling. An oppose is considered addressed when the reviewer strikes (this is explained at WP:FAC instructions). If reviewers aren't returning to your nomination, you can leave them a talk page reminder, and if they still aren't returning, leave a note on the FAC indicating that you contacted the reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify the above - I *do* like seeing an indicator from the nominator that (s)he thinks a criticism has been addressed. It's the unnecessary use of a template and/or picture to indicate it that's the problem. Raul654 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. I do like to see a note at the end of the reviewer's comments, indicating the nominator has addressed the issues. The interspersed checkmarks cause a page load problem, though, and break up reviewer's comments, and when not threaded correctly, make it harder at times to sort out who's saying what. A correctly threaded comment from the nominator makes for the easiest reading of scores of FACs. LEX, one thing you can do is to re-contact the opposers now and ask them if they think the article is ready to be re-submitted to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this rationale completely ridiculous.

  1. There were several (2) opposes but no supports...
Why would anyone pass to an FAC, if not to leave concerns? If you think the article is perfect, then why would you even go to the FAC page; to leave a comment saying "Awesome! I support!? This would cruft many FACs with unneeded comments saying
  1. Great prose. Awesome lead. Nice images. Good grammar. Tremendous presentation. And splendid sources. Support.
  1. Awesome. Support.
  1. OMG This is like sooooo perfect. Yay!
  1. Wow. You outdid yourself. Cool. Feedback 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You have to admit this is outright ridiculous. MOst don't drop by article noms to support because they would just be cluttering the FAC with unuseful comments. WP:PW even tells their members to not drop by candidate pages to support, becaue they just fill the article with comments like the ones above.
  1. None of the oppose comments were stricken, meaning either that the reviewer didn't agree that the comments were adequately addressed or that they didn't come back to take a look.
So? When you close an FAC, you read the page. You do not close an FAC because you don't see letters with lines all over them. And if the closes did read th page, then (s)he would know that everything was addressed. And I disagree with the person who made the concern having to come back to say "Support". Feedback 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you contact both Opposers and see if they are satisfied; if so, the article can be resubmitted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lex. If no one says "Support", then you don't know if people really liked your article or if no one read it except the people who said "oppose". Look at some of the promoted FACs and you'll notice that they all have "Support" votes. I didn't review your article, but on (many) others I have reviewed sometimes the nominator didn't fully understand my comments, so even though the nominator thought the issue was fixed, I (the reviewer) did not. That's why it's important to have the reviewers come back after you've fixed issues so that they can be sure their issue was addressed in the way they wanted. There's no reason you can't resubmit the article for FAC again, and good luck next time! Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea on merging projects

Given the size and complexity of Vital Articles, these probably lend themselves more to collaborative effort than others, any support for combining/merging/transmorphing Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive somehow with Wikipedia:Vital articles into a Vital Article Collaboration? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Wrad (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like there's something like this already [2]. Wrad (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, someone just pointed it out to me. Bit patchy but better putting work in here than setting up yet another collab. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia dispatches

Please see my comment here (and Ral's response here). I'd like someone - preferably a FAC regular - to write a weekly column for the signpost describing some of the issues that occur on the FAC and related pages - particularly as pertains to quality editing. Is anyone interested? Raul654 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul, given that I have just started military training, I don't think I'll be able to do so on a regular basis, but I could write a one-time article or be a regular contributor. What are the criteria? length? topic? etc. Let me know on my talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 02:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For the topic, I'm thinking that stories will be about (but not limited to):
  • Interesting goings-on and decisions on the FAC, GA, DYK, featured pics/sounds/portals/portals
  • Good quality editing by individuals or groups
Beyond that, I don't want to be more specific than that because I'd prefer to let the writers decide, and find their niche organically as they get more experience. Raul654 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Two suggestions: Karanacs (talk · contribs), Qp10qp (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I dropped a note on their talk pages, pointing them here (as well as Giano's and Geogre's talk pages, whom I thought might also be interested). Raul654 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If no takers, also DrKiernan (talk · contribs) (also active at FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Also Mike Christie (talk · contribs), but he'd haved to toot his own horn a lot :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's nice to be asked, but I can't multitask and tend to think about just one article or review at a time. Also I am very narrow (I'm ashamed to say) in the FACs I look at and don't really have an overview of the whole process. qp10qp (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Would the time taken to write this column (and not be reviewing) be balanced by the increased input at FAC that this might generate? What specific type of review skills are under-represented at FAC? (2nd edit) Oh, and "FAC, GA, DYK, featured pics/sounds/portals/portals" is a rather broad area. Is there anyone who participates in all those discussions? (3rd edit) Hang on, I think I've misunderstood this (and maybe others as well?). I thought this was more like the current Signpost featured content column, but it seems to be some sort of "award" listing for those doing good work. Might that not be a bit contentious? Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'd be happy to be part of a rotation to write articles about FAC goings on. I'm not entirely clear what Raul has in mind, though, and if this is supposed to be very broad I'm probably not qualified. I usually review less than half of the FACs, and I don't participate on GA or the other featured areas. Would this be more of a tips and tricks type-column? I'm confused! Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It would have helped if I had noticed that Raul had responded again above. I'll volunteer to be part of the team, and thank you very much for the invitation. Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit would be good person to ping about this. Anyway whatever, I think a feature on the issues FAC/FAR are experiencing would be interseting to the majority of wikipedians. The conversations here and there are repeditive, after all. We despratly need more reviewers, this could be a good hook.

Also, as an aside, it would be interesting to keep track of the subject matter at FAC at at any one 30 games, 20 sportsmen, 15 bands, 10 towns, 5 politicians, 3 writers, 2 artists, 1 novel, etc.Ceoil (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I can help as well. I'm involved in GA/FA and DYK. Wrad (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've let Ral know people are interested in writing it, and pointed him here. Raul654 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As a stray though people read WR to find out the goings on on wiki, if the signpost was more substantial through features like this, maybe we could make that site redundant. Please don't shoot me for saying this! Ceoil (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
What's WR? Wrad (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
WikipediaReview - A website for banned users and trolls. It's generally one part useful information to twenty parts misinformation/baseless speculation/conspiracy theory crackpottery. Raul654 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC) (And oh yea, it was founded by a neo-nazi)
I agree it is a usless, septic and bitter site, and I respect little of the commentry there; but we do not yet have a function that gives overviews of the goings on within the community. A move like this is a step in the right direction, thats all. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
but we do not yet have a function that gives overviews of the goings on within the community - what about IRC? Raul654 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Frankly I dont know what IRC is or means, but I suspect its suspect, and the place where you get talked about before you are blocked. I mean an on-wiki forum, a place here; the average editor will never find thoes kinds of venues. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the most important thing would be that it is a non-statistical report; the "features and admins" report, which would probably remain intact, is mainly statistical, and the dispatches would be a contrast to F&A. I've started a draft in my userspace; anyone interested in writing the report, contributing to the report, or merely interested in helping us develop the report, is welcomed to help generate a rough outline for the first issue. Ral315 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see it as a paragraph each for current FA/GA and DYK discussions, give or take depending on what issues there are. Wrad (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Rather than the weekly sampler your describe, I was visualizing it was more of a weekly column focusing on one aspect of one of those processes. For example, the inagural issue could be about Marskell's FAR issues concerning otherwise good articles that are not well referenced - holdovers from the mid-2005 decision to require inline citations. A subsequent issue could focus on the godo work done by the milhist project; maybe something pertaining to GA (I can't suggest anything because I don't really follow it that closely). Raul654 (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The weakness with the current state is that it reports matters of fact, briefly, and in a dry way. Insight and context would help gather souls. Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How much space would a description of Marksell's debate really take? I only see about a paragraph there, with a link to the relevant discussion. I could be wrong... The big thing with GA now is automation. New processes are being introduced that will make it easier to do reviews. Last I checked, DYK was working on making tighter restrictions on what could be nominated due to backlogs. Wrad (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Godo work? You meant good work, right? :-) The draft looks a bit skimpy at the moment. I'm afraid I drew a blank when trying to think of anything to add. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We could all take turns. I have something nearly ready for a first one in my sandbox. Marskell (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your draft, Marskell. I think it would be a very nice first dispatch, and then maybe the second one could focus on the GA process. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So the "done" tickmarks are deprecated..

OK, so I see the "done" tickmarks are deprecated (officially, at least, although WP:FAC has a bunch of them at the moment and that's the only place I've ever seen them). And also, you "should not alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors". So what should you do if an opposer lists off 30+ issues with an article, and you fix, say, a dozen of them? The process doesn't seem to consider that producing a Wikipedia article is a collaborative affair, and it's not always one doughty nominator addressing the issues, but sometimes various people all making an effort to bring an article up to Featured quality, any one of whom might address some but not all of an opposer's issues. --Stormie (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a problem (and I'm guilty of adding the comprehensive list of issues) - I usually "hide" comments when complete so that's a start. The alternative is to encourage comments on article talk pages rather than at the FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comprehensive lists of issues are fantastic! I'd just like to know how to respond to them in a way that won't get multiple FAC regulars snapping at me for my flagrant breach of their processes. --Stormie (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest we encourage those comments to go to the talk page, with an oppose until they're resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the tick marks was that it was bringing the page upto Wikipedia:Template limits. Don't worry about riling the regulars, they are a friendly bunch for the most part, and will try and tell you what to do. You can still add a Done to the end the sentence.
If the commenter thinks they have been done, then they will strike them. Only the original person who commented can strike them out. Woody (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't add done comments to the end of someone else's text over their sig, because that is exactly the kind of thing I have a hard time sorting out. In order to find out who added the done (the reviewer or the nominator), I have to step back through the diffs. Please don't alter someone else's text. Each editor's text needs a sig. If you feel compelled to tick off list items, please thread and indent your comments per WP:TALK guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I just wonder if these comments are turning FAC into Peer Review Mark II. Often I'll either miss a PR or there won't be one and I end up with 30 comments on a FAC when really it should just be Support, Oppose or Comment (and I'm not sure if Comment is really supposed to encompass all the guff I come out with)... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No, don't get me wrong, I hate it when they turn into peer reviews. I close the FLCs when that happens. I agree that really long ones should go onto the talkpage, and then put your comment on the FAC. I also think hiding the big comments, if you choose to leave them on the FAC is another option. We don't want to start discouraging those people who do really thorough, in-depth reviews. Quite the opposite really. Woody (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
How would it be if nominators were encouraged to move the long comments to article talk, and commenters were encouraged to post there in the first place? I've had commenters go to article talk, and I've done it myself, but not consistently. Do the FA closers want to see all the gory details? Or just the Support or Oppose at the end? Perhaps moving anything more than ten lines to article talk would reduce the chances of restarts being needed. On the other hand it might discourage interaction with the commentary -- e.g. the current FAC for Emma Watson has had quite a bit of back and forth among the commenters, some of it quite productive. Would that be less likely to happen on article talk? Mike Christie (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, comments made prior to supporting or opposing should go on the FAC page, no matter how lengthy, as they demonstrate the process of addressing issues. On the other hand, if someone definitively opposes or supports, I believe that any issues they raise after that (beyond an explanation of their decision) should go on the talk page. Unless they are open to changing their decision, their comments are purely an editing matter, for the talk page, and not part of the process of coming to a decision. qp10qp (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Qp; I like to read the comments as they help me determine the strength of the review and significance of issues raised. I really dislike it when the comments are chopped up, since that makes for tedious reading and make it hard to sort out who said what if each doesn't sign, but I deal with it :-) On the other hand, a long string of comments like "you have two thes", "you have a typo here", etc. aren't helpful. Those can be summarized to "there are copyedit needs" with a couple of samples given, and a note that a longer list is posted on talk. I also believe the article's FAC talk page (not the article talk page) should be used, to keep everything in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC help volunteers

Per discussion at the Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop, veteran FA writers are being sought to link with up with first time nominators. One logical place is the now three month old PR volunteers list. I started a thread on its talk for people to sign-up: Wikipedia talk:Peer review/volunteers. The list has enjoyed some success, as Jayron noted here.

Perhaps we can extend it by mentioning in the FAC instructions that first time nominators should seek a helper and/or by putting the volunteers list in the FA template. Marskell (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll move it here, per Mike's suggestion. Marskell (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


[Note: this will be moved to Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers or another suitable location after it attracts sufficient sigs]

The following is a list of editors who have volunteered to help with articles on the way to a Featured article candidacy. It is meant to link first time FAC nominators with those who have already been through the process. The list is not broken down by subject matter (for that, consult the ten general categories). Instead, the helpers will focus on small issues that often affect a candidacy, including formatting and Manual of Style concerns, and provide general advice on current FAC expectations.

  1. Marskell (talk)
  1. Woody (talk)
  1. Mike Christie (talk)
  1. The Rambling Man (talk)
  1. Wrad (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. JayHenry (talk)
  1. Epbr123 (talk)
  1. Awadewit | talk —Preceding comment was added at 06:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I will sign up for this, but not until March (holiday and other commitments) Jimfbleak (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Having recently noticed WP:NBSP on page numbers in citations at FAC, I've starting a discussion about overkill at MOSDATE.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed WP:NBSP guidelines, recently added, expect us to write citations as in this example:
  • p.&nbsp;42, pp.&nbsp;409–13 and Vol.&nbsp;1, No.&nbsp;5, Fig.&nbsp;2a SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Next dispatch

Since no one else has mentioned the dispatches again after Marskell's very nice initial entry, I thought I ought to bring it up. I'd love to write one (or see one written) about FAC resources and bring up WP:1FAPQ (which I just found yesterday) and the new individual mentor/preFACreview process that is currently gathering volunteers (and possibly also the new Peer Review volunteer process). However, since we haven't officially launched the volunteer process yet, that might need to wait a few weeks. I'd also be willing to draft an article on FAC etiquette for reviewers and nominators or a basic overview of how the FAC process works from a nominator perspective (how do you know your article is ready?, how do reviewers find you?, what are the basic criteria for an article to be promoted? what do i do if it doesn't get promoted?). If someone else would like to write this one, that's fine too. Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional question: Do we want to discuss dispatches on this page? need to set up a subpage on this talk page, or should the people who've volunteered to help coordinate on their own talk pages? Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've put together a draft of the next dispatch at User:Karanacs/ActiveDispatch. This covers the new methods to find FAC/FAR articles to review. Feel free to edit. Pending any objections, I'm going to list this for the next issue of the Signpost. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The featured article candidate page usually has between 50 and 100 nominations. The times it has reached 100 are rare; now that I'm watching it daily, 40 to 60 should become more the norm. The idea that 100 is the norm may scare people off ?? Also, I'm hoping the urgents will become less and less needed over time, as more reviewers understand that lack of reviews is what makes the page long, and pitch in to give enough feedback to either promote or archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've updated those numbers and rewritten this a bit. The urgent FAC bit is now explained as finding "which FACs need more attention to clearly determine consensus." That could cover lack of reviews, but also instances where FACs get more heated and neutral opinions are needed to determine what to do with it. I suspect we'll need the tool for quite a while, unless we find a cache of reviewers hiding somewhere ;) Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If I turn over enough stones, I'm sure I'll find that cache and scare them into participation :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that's the problem...Sandy isn't scary enough ;) Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


What do others thinks of short articles about individual episodes in a TV series (8KB prose) and video game sub-pages (6KB prose) in terms of comprehensiveness? We have other TV episode FAs that offer more content, such as The Joy of Sect, Through the Looking Glass (Lost) and Doomsday (Doctor Who). I can't recall a recent FA about a piece of a video game, so I'm not sure what to compare that to; since these are topics I'm unfamiliar with, I'd like other views on comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Precedents have to start somewhere. Let'em through if they pass. Size matters not to me, as long as it merits a separate article. Wrad (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I'll maybe need to think about that for a bit longer, because my first impression is that it would be an insult to articles that really deserve to be FAs. Properly researched and lovingly crafted. Not something thrown together about a single TV episode. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but wasn't that one of the reasons that the good article process was started in the first place- to recognize good, well-cited articles that were too short to, say, be featured on the front page? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think an article can be too short to be an FA. As long as it is comprehensive as to cover basically everything about the subject, it should be an FA. bibliomaniac15 04:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I will simply repeat what I earlier. That seems to me to be an insult. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're insulting the efforts of the author of the above mentioned articles. If it's not comprehensive, then suggest what is missing. If you can't, then maybe you should ask to have the FA criteria include either an XKB or less is not comprehensive statement or an insult test of some sort. Ben (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You may think whatever you like, as may I. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on our definition of comprehensive; does it mean an article is a thorough review of the topic, or does it mean that all available sources have been exhausted. Epbr123 (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be thorough. "All available sources have been exhausted" could be misinterpreted as "Exhaustive", and as a definition could create a minefield of trivia. I don't think there should be such a thing as "too short" for FA. I think the whole point should be about the quality of the article, and it's comprehensiveness is going to depend somewhat on the subject matter. Maybe a season finale of Lost merits a longer article than a mid-season episode in order to be comprehensive, but both articles can be comprehensive and both can be excellent. Taking Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/200 (Stargate SG-1) as an example - if there is nothing more that can or should be said about it, why shouldn't it be considered? Otherwise we are saying that this, and a whole range of articles, on every conceivable topic, can never be FA. I think that's a bad thing because it limits our definition of excellence. To me it's like saying the Mona Lisa is less of a work of art than the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel only because it's smaller. (a better example - Emma Watson's 7 year career requires less space to cover than Bette Davis's 50+ year career. Both are FAs. I would apply the same logic to TV episodes etc) Also, I think a short but comprehensive article can be just as difficult to create as a longer article, and its creation does not necessarily require more or less devotion or attention. I've had several fairly long FAs, and I think they needed to be that length, but I certainly don't feel insulted when a smaller/shorter article makes FA - as long as all the boxes are ticked. Rossrs (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, obviously since those are articles I have/will nominate I have a certain vested interest, but I think Ross brings up a good point- before I got to "200", it was certainly 'comprehensive' in explaining every single inside joke and reference- which I pared down to two paragraphs. Enforcing a KB limit would only encourage bloated articles. David Fuchs (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I should also point out that sometimes comprehensive doesn't mean long articles, e.g. Iridion 3D. In slightly over 1000 words it describes the gameplay, development, and critical reception. Bam, done. David Fuchs (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And that article would include every important aspect (comprehensive) of Iridion 3D? Don't believe you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Without going into gamecrufty detail, yes. There shouldn't be some sort of 'elitist' theory about Featured Content, Malleus. But, in the words of one opposer for Halo 2: "Oppose- not another video game FA." David Fuchs (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
People tend to focus more on the Lost episode with the massive twist or the Doctor Who episode equivalent of AvP more than they will about the mid-season episodes - though milestone episodes such as "200" or "Trash of the Titans" do tend to get a lot more coverage. Personally, I don't think "comprehensive" means "40kb long", I think it means "doesn't miss out the important stuff". If you seriously can't write any more on a topic without meandering into irrelevancy, you shouldn't be punished for it. Will (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly two different ideals of what the Featured Article system should be. One ideal would be recognizing only those articles which are brilliantly done, would be interesting on the main page, have been subject of meaningful outside examination, and so on. The other ideal would be recognizing all those articles which are near-perfect to what they would be in an ideal English Wikipedia, even if they're not terribly interesting, sweeping in scope, or examined by the outside world. Personally I'd probably prefer the former system, leaving less significant articles (individual and routine TV episodes, minor rivers, notable but perhaps unexceptional people, etc.) to a GA-type process that could even recognize a four paragraph article about, oh say, the kenyapotamus as complete. But the standard that's evolved at Wikipedia is essentially the latter system. I don't find one system to be logically superior to the other. It's essentially an arbitrary preference. --JayHenry (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not really what GA does, though. Wrad (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
... Yes, clearly. That's what I mean by "a GA-type process" and "the standard that's evolved is the latter system". --JayHenry (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I see what you're saying now. Wrad (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess my point, which maybe wasn't terribly clear, is that in an alternate universe, we could have had a logical system where GA and FA were for different types of articles. Such a system would have had merit. But our system has merit too, and it's the system we ended up with so we may as well run with it :) --JayHenry (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-nationalism/national bloc voting

Am I the only one here who thinks that sometimes people show a bit of a wiki-nationalist bias at FAC in that apply softer standards (probably subconsciously) and support articles about their own country more liberally, perhaps due to a bit of subconcious wiki-nationalism? In my opinion, in a minority of cases, the voting can be a bit Eurovision like. I was wondering what goes through the mind of Raul and Sandy, eg, if there is a FAC where among users of the same country as the article topic, there is seven supporters and no objections, whereas among commenters outside the country, there is say, two supporters and maybe five opposers citing things like bad sources, no sources, 1a etc. 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blnguyen (talkcontribs)

Supports always help a candidacy, but ultimately if there are notable and reasonable opposes or comments which are not responded to, it will either prolong or fail the FAC. It's not a vote. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It is likely that reviewers who are unfamiliar with a location or a topic may also be unfamiliar with the sources used and may be skeptical of some. In that case, it is the nominator's responsiblity to explain why those sources were chosen and what makes them reliable. With more information, the reviewer can then strike their comments if necessary. In general, though, I don't see this as a nationalistic issue, but an "interest" issue—sometimes it's easier for people who have not been previously involved in an article to identify issues. Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If uninvolved reviewers would look at those articles, consensus could be more quickly reached. It doesn't only happen with "nationalistic" articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to have the list shorter

I must say that it's a psychological downer to have a huge list—it was more than a hundred a while ago, then seventy. Things feel less daunting for reviewers when there are forty or so nominations. Tony (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but how do you say "This isn't going to make it, no consensus" without hurt egos? As it is, people get hurt, but that could make people get justifiably upset. WP:SNOW doesn't apply in FAC, simply because people often use the reviews as the opportunity to learn where article need improvement. I think, however, that it can be daunting and would encourage the use of segmentation like on GAC. Maybe even reducing the size of text in the FACs to make the page seem generally shorter might de-daunt it. --rm 'w avu 09:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We have re-nominations appearing within one or two days after archiving (currently at least five of them), without addressing issues (see two sections just above this one). Unless this is dealt with, and unless more reviewers follow the Urgents list, it's not possible for me to shorten the list. I archive regularly everything that has consensus. Every article listed at Urgents needs review, and nominations are re-appearing before they're ready. FAC should not be a revolving door peer review. Nothing besides additional reviews can shorten the list at this point. I am strongly opposed to segmenting or fiddling with text size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the two stalled FACs at the bottom of the list, it's apparent why nominators should not add a second nom until the first has gained support. In summary, three factors contribute to the length of the FAC page: lack of reviewers on urgents and stalled FACs (including the "nationalist" issue raised by BInguyen), re-noms too soon and before issues are addressed, and multiple noms before support is gained on the first nom. I hope to manage these factors so that the list doesn't grow to 100 again and FAC doesn't become a revolving peer review door. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User ranking for FAs

A few days ago I stumbled across a ranking of users with the number of FAs they had helped achieve. I thought it was here on this page but for the life of me I can't re-find that list/ranking here or anywhere else. I *think* the list was a relatively recent compilation/posting. Can anyone help? Thanks! Kmzundel (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Epbr123 (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/2007 and Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations. –thedemonhog talkedits 12:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And for "helped achieve" substitute "nominated". If you'd like to feature on the chart, there are some handy tips here. Yomanganitalk 12:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That essay was very funny. –thedemonhog talkedits 21:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not really a good indicator, however, since it counts all featured article nominations (and as evidenced, even if those FAs have since been demoted, the ranking stays.) David Fuchs (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS proposal

To consolidate, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


The FAC instructions don't say anything explicit about the length of time between noms, although taking several weeks to address the issues raised in the previous FAC has always been the norm, unless Raul indicated to the nominator that the FAC could be re-submitted earlier. Do we need to formalize something in the FAC instructions to avoid re-noms shortly after archiving? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the standard length of time is "deal with the issues raised in the previous nom". I don't see any reason to be more specific than that. --Carnildo (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not exactly a FA regular, but I agree with the above. If a nomination is closed with only a few issues and those issues can be responded to quickly, then why not allow it to be re-nominated? SorryGuy  Talk  19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
When there are no article edits between the oppose, archive, and re-nomination, it's hard to see how issues can be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand where Sandy is coming from, though, because several articles I've opposed have been renominated almost immediately, without the issues having been addressed. In most of the cases, however, the nominators appear convinced that they have in fact fixed the issues, so I am afraid that making them wait a few weeks would only mean they'd renominate without any changes at a later date. At least if they do it right away I can remember to oppose again right away. Karanacs (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So, for those who like to follow stats, my fail rate will be higher than Raul's because I'm having to fail the same articles multiple times per month because noms are coming back only a few days after archiving, before they're ready. Just a note for those who follow stats, not a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

Earlier today, I provided a review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Odyssey Number Five. No one responded yet, and suddenly GimmeBot tagged the page as "not promoted" and archived it. Did a human editor trigger this action somehow? If so, why did the page fail without giving anyone the chance to respond to my review? --Laser brain (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Pls see WP:FAC/ar for an explanation of how GimmeBot works. Odyssey had run since 30 Jan without gaining Support. I'm trying to let noms run longer than the earlier seven days when they have no feedback. As soon as the nominator has satisfied your Oppose, it can be re-nominated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sea Otter

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sea Otter

Article stats:

  • Clayoquot 490
  • Bobak 32
  • Samsara noadmin 20 Samsara 11
  • ArthurWeasley 29
  • Ec5618 26
  • VigilancePrime 11
  • Benjiwolf 11

I'm not in favor of continuing a FAC whenever there is a significantly principle editor who says it's not yet ready. I had a similar experience with Tourette syndrome; other editors kept encouraging me to bring it to FAC, and I caught two FACs just before they were submitted by other editors. I knew it wasn't ready, and only I knew it wasn't ready, no matter how ready it looked. Purely based on my personal experience with other editors wanting to bring TS to FAC, I'm in favor of closing this nom until Clayoquot says it's ready. It has the potential to put the principle editor under pressure at a time when that editor might not be able to finish up the article optimally (that's what would have happened to me twice on TS had I not been able to convince the nominators to hold off). Thoughts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If the principle editor says it isn't comprehensive and they are intending to make it so then it obviously fails 1(b), 1(e) and 4. What more reason do you want? Shall I go in and muck the prose up a little? "Sea Otters are teh cool". Yomanganitalk 01:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the principal author will feel more deserved with their efforts when an article they feel is complete is offered up for criticism. If its nomed before that, they are likely to react to comments with "yeah I know that, I was going to get around to that". Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree it should be closed, but only because Clayoquot is still actively working on it.-Ravedave (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. If the principal editor doesn't think it's ready, then it's not. I've been dumped in that situation before, in some kind of petty retaliation for a perceived slight to another editor, and it's unnecessarily stressful. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SG about the comprehensiveness issue - oftentimes I have had in my head what is needed to do, sometimes requiring some library visits etc, and it isn't immediately obvious to others looking in on the article.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sandy and several other comments above. It feels nice to have your work be nominated, however for the near future I would have less stress if the nom were either closed or put on hold. Also please do not refer this article to Peer Review because it's not ready for that either. Thanks! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fight Club (film)

Similar issue at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fight Club (film), checking that consensus on closing under these circumstances exists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Are FA reviewers getting lazy or something?

How did Bath, Somerset actually pass this process. I just took a look at this and found some significant issues with the article, especially lots of very short sections. If this represents Wikipedia's best work, then I think our standards are seriously slipping,... Dr. Cash (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The solution, Dr. Cash, is to pitch in and review more articles. I *used* to review them all; more help is always appreciated. There is an urgents template linked at the top of this page; please consider adding it to your talk page, and reviewing those articles. They all need more review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It only has two supports, but as Sandy notes, there are is a severe lack of reviewers. I try to review some as I can, since I send some here, but I tend to stick to areas where I can speak to the MOS and stuff. I agree, we certainly can use more willing to give articles a hard look. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it had three supports, no opposes, ran twelve days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I've started to take a look at some of the articles in some topics that I feel more comfortable with, like geography & natural sciences. But I got here too late to make any contents on the Bath article. I might review more if it were easier to spot the topics I like in the list, like if the list was sorted by category, like WP:GAN, and not all-in-one-list. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Although I've helped bring two articles to FA, I still consider myself a newbie. That said, as a newbie, I agree with Dr. Cash's suggestion that the FACs be categorized. IMHO, there's a big difference between *reviewing* an article and *writing* an article. I simply would not feel comfortable reviewing a topic that I know nothing about. Yes, I can check for grammar, style, the 5 pillars, etc. but I couldn't add my support or oppose based solely on those elements. How can I know if the WWII article is comprehensive? (OK...maybe that's a bad example.) :-) My point is, only someone with a broad knowledge of a subject can determine if an article lacks completeness (or not). Sandy, I'd love to hear your other reasons for opposing the segmented list. I'm always willing to change my perspective on things. :-) Kmzundel (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
One type of review (content, comprehensive) from reviewers knowledgeable in the content area doesn't /shouldn't prevent other reviewers from looking at prose, citation, flow, MOS issues, etc. Other reasons to oppose segmentation of the page: most importantly, the one I already stated (encourage review by a broad patch of editors), the page isn't large enough to warrant it (typically 40 to 50 FACs at a time, would be around 30 if we just had more reviewers), extra work to maintain a segmented page, and don't want the unmanageable complexity that typifies the segmentation the GA pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, to give an example of why/where broad review would help. A recent FAC sat here for several weeks, mired in nationalist dispute, split between supports and opposes. I looked at the article and found the English unintelligible. Any reviewer could have said that, yet it was weeks before independent reviewers weighed in and cut through the nationalist debate with straightforward issues about the quality of the prose. If others had reviewed sooner, it could have closed sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As the nominator of the article in question can I point out 3 supports + me & no opposes. Along with others, I responded to all actionable comments and criticisms & I have responded to your criticisms (some of which could be considered personal opinion rather than criteria) on Talk:Bath, Somerset and would be delighted to work with you there to resolve them.— Rod talk 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are reviewers tied to the idea they aren't qualified to review certain topics? Anyone can pick out prose, MOS, citation, etc. issues. It's good for uninvolved reviewers to look at articles outside of their usual realm, which is one reason I oppose segmenting the list (I have many reasons for opposing that idea). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you there Sandy. In fact, paradoxically, in many cases I think it can be better for the reviewer to be approaching the subject without knowing too much about it. For instance, I much enjoyed reviewing the Jim Bowie article recently, not a subject that I would naturally be drawn to. We're not writing scholarly articles, we're writing an encyclopedia for the general reader. And we're all general readers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Further, many of the FACs that are stalled and adding to the backlog can benefit from impartial review. That's what I used to do in my role as reviewer; because of the recent shortage of reviewers, I'm finding that I'm having to jumpstart too many stalled reviews by adding my own input, which is not good from a COI point of view. Reviews from uninvolved parties are welcome, helpful and needed !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
How can you find the ones that are stalled? I know FLC puts a list at the top of ones getting to the end of the time that need attention. Is there such a list for the FAs? AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The urgent list of FACs at the top of this page has those that are stalled. Sandy's been updating that pretty regularly. Karanacs (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
doh! ~goes to clean glasses~ :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • While Sandy's reasoning for not having a FAC page separated by topics makes sense, why can't we have an alternate listing that is separated by topic? Heck, even a bot could probably do it... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
On the desire from some to have the list segmented, if you get in the habit of coming here every couple or 3 days, it's very easy to spot the new additions and pick out those that interest you - FAC doesn't get the number of new nominations every day that GAN does; watchlisting the FAC page would also make it easy to spot the additions. Your own mileage may vary, of course, but that works for me.
On the discomfort in reviewing things you aren't knowledgeable about, all I do is look at the articles that seem interesting to me. As others have said, if I don't know the subject, I'll just look at prose, MOS, style and things like that. Of course, if anyone other than me brings a Peninsular War article here, my copies of Oman will the off the shelf like a shot ;) I absolutely won't review articles that don't interest me, for the simple reason I get bored before I've got past the lede :D Carre (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe in those cases where your eyes glaze over at the lead, I can at least encourage you and others to scan to the bottom and make sure reliable sources are used, as that is a particular weakness on FAC reviews. Few reviewers check reliability of sources, and that is sorely needed. WP:V is policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the comment raised by Kmzundel. I generally review only music-related articles, as that's the topic I'm most knowledgeable in. If I isolate an article that is poorly written or blatantly not FA material I'll step in, but most of the time people stick to their "corner" of Wikipedia. The idea of splitting up FAC into general topics is rather interesting, to tell you the truth. Sometimes I'll miss music-related articles that desperately need reviewing (WesleyDodds and I were recently talking about U2's premature promotion since we both had comments). It'd help to not only categorize things, but guide interested reviewers into the respective FACs they're educated in. NSR77 TC 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
U2 still hasn't been cleaned up; I guess I'll start on it myself again. Since I have to correct so many malformed noms, I'm really opposed to anything that adds another layer of complexity to nominations, and don't want to see the page segmented. I suspect you all may have missed U2 because the page grew to 100 noms while I was traveling; I try hard to keep the list number reasonable now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not penalizing you, Sandy. If anything there should be several FA directors. I'm not informed on the reason you took over Raul's job, but you seem to be doing great. Maybe two, or even three, directors would be able to divide the work load into promoting/archiving, formatting, and prose review. Or something along those lines. NSR77 TC 02:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't promote U2, but Raul promoted it entirely within reason based on the reviews given (10 supports, one oppose, no one apparently looked at the sourcing); it's not his fault no one reviewed MOS or citations in my absence. An additional director won't solve that problem, since I'm often still the only person reviewing those issues. More reviewers doing comprehensive reviews will solve that problem, and for that, I repeat again, you don't have to be a content expert to review for citations, MOS, etc. which is why I'm opposed to segmenting the list. Anyone could have/should have seen the deficiencies in U2; no one did, so Raul rightly promoted. Now I'll go work on fixing them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been busy; I'll work on it so don't worry Sandy. My main issue with the U2 FAC was that it was open for only four days, and the day I found time to list comments, I noticed it had been promoted. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Including the work I did a few weeks ago and last night, I've spent about four hours cleaning it up; tedious, horrid work cleaning up refs after promotion, when regular editors should have been instructed to do that during FAC. There are still a lot of referencing inconsistencies, but I got it to where you should at least be able to identify now the non-reliable sources and possible copyvios. Have fun! (Should I BEG again for impartial uninvolved reviewers to PLEASE begin looking at sources, even in content areas you're not familiar with? :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I may return to help review FACs if someone offers an incentive :) — Deckiller 02:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The check is in the mail; how much do you want? :-) On the other hand, you can have my first born if you want. Or take your pick of several dogs. Would a barnstar do the trick? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure many editors, myself include, would be happy and grateful for Deckiller to return in any capacity. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC))
Thanks -- I'm not sure if I'm quite ready to return completely; I still have a lot going on. — Deckiller 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean we have to escalate to major bribery? What's the price ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Give me free reign over the WP:FICT guideline :) Just playing; I'll come back on my own free will. — Deckiller 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to help out lately. In the scheme of things, I guess my habit of leaping right into an article with an extensive copyedit isn't terribly productive, given the volume of urgent FACs. I'll try to redirect my efforts toward listing representative copyedit issues and briefly assessing the rest (especially reference formatting & sources) so I can participate in more reviews. Maralia (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I'm not really saving myself any time when it comes out like this. Must try to limit myself somehow, but it seems the only way to convincingly communicate 'this really needs a complete copyedit' is to give enough examples to sink a battleship. Maralia (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You may save yourself time in the long run, Maralia, by leaving a record of the kinds of issues nominators should think about next time. When an article is almost there, your copyedits have been very helpful. When an article is a long ways from ready, time spent instructing may only pay out over the longer run, if not in a nom that is currently running, but for future editors who may read the FAC before re-approaching. Thanks for all the helpful reviews lately! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Question of FA candidates

If something passes this phase, what happens next? And is there a page that oultines the whole FA process? Sethie (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Once it is closed as being passed, then it will be marked as a Featured Article by a bot within 24 hours with the talk page updated to reflect the new status and a star appearing in the top right corner of the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a bot does not add the small bronze star; this is done by the primary contributor. –thedemonhog talkedits 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure? I was primary contributer for a recent FA, and I didn't add the star GimmeBot bot did.AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a recent change; traditionally, the editor added the star. Featured Lists asked GimmeBot to start adding them. WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I rather like it, myself. It looks more "official" than if its just added by a contributer (and I'd have never know I needed to add it if GimmeBot hadn't). AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A light-hearted look at the process is at User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article. Pass the chocolate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See also at GTL

Proposed change[4] in See also sections discussed at WP:GTL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Too fast?

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuil of Bulgaria was only up for eight days. I don't think it's at FA standard, but that's my opinion; I was going to ask Andrew Dalby for his. It's going to be a long haul; but progress was being made.

As a procedural note: Sandy reverted comments as post-closing, and they are now, although substantive, difficult to find. Please edit the actual FAC pages when closing, so that good faith effort is not lost. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, ten days, by the way (two opposes, no Support). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I'm curious how this is "difficult to find"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the second time this week that I've gone back to look at an FA candidate (after seeing it on my watchlist) only to find out after I'd done my review that it was closed. I got an edit conflict with Sandy this time as she posted the link to the post-closing comments. If I'd known it was closed I wouldn't have spent the time to go through the article in depth again and would have reviewed another article instead. How long does it take for Gimmebot to run after the promotions? Is there an easy way to tell otherwise that an FAC nomination has been closed, or do I just need to check to see if it is still in the list before I revisit every nom? Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I used to always read through the main FAC page to avoid lag in closings. Also, just keep the main FAC page watchlisted, and you'll know whenever I promote/archive. (P.S. It's possible that GimmeBot was delayed on the last bunch because peer review implemented a change he wasn't told about that affected the bot, requiring re-programming and re-doing a couple of closings.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have FAC watchlisted; but I didn't check before replying to edits in my RecentChanges. All we're asking is, if you're going to remove all comments after a certain time, put a div header (and footer?) at that time, such as {{discussiontop}} and {{discussionbottom}}, so we know not to comment on the FAC page; that way you won't have anything to move. My comments are only a click away from the discussion, but that is a click less visible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
GimmeBot puts the header and footer; only a few editors (Raul, Marskell, Joelr31, Gimmetrow and me) know how time intensive closings are without the assistance of GimmeBot. Adding a step that is already automated makes sense only if there is a large problem. Two instances aren't a large problem, especially considering a bot issue caused by a change at peer review surfaced last night. If it becomes a recurring problem, we should certainly examine the procedure, but for me to manually do a step which is now automated would really be a timesink. It would help if regular FAC reviewers just keep the page watchlisted and be aware when I promote/archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's see if this continues when the bot is fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope Gimmebot feels better soon :) Karanacs (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue caused by a change at peer review is all sorted now, but there will typically still be some lag time between my promote/archive and botification. If you do a review and find the FAC closed, by all means, add it to the article talk page or FAC talk page. Reviewer time is as important as my favorite bot's time :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, would you mind simply not removing comments that are made after "closure" but before the bot actually acts? As Gimmetrow says, this is very rarely going to make the difference between deny and promote (and if it ever does, we can renominate) and it will leave a more complete record. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, we can try that, and if that causes problems, cross that bridge if we come to it. If I notice comments still being made, I'll just add a note. I don't expect this to happen often, though; it was really just dumb luck twice in a row, I think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

More time?

Would a solution be to enter a comment in the nomination to the effect of "performing in-depth review - comments forthcoming" so Sandy knows to leave the nomination open pending the additional input? Obviously, if the input doesn't show up in a day or two, Sandy could go ahead and close it. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No; for one thing, if the lengthy comments Karanacs and I left are not sufficient signs of a in-depth review, no single comment would be (and to do would require Sandy to read through all of every review looking for such a comment. I'm sure she skims sometimes. I would.).
But the actual comments, now largely repeated on the talk page, were not by themselves all that in-depth. We've just wasted our time repeating them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that Awadewit uses leaning towards support before launching into lengthy discussions and comments, so I know that it is likely to become a support in spite of the numerous issues. On a FAC that has been up for ten days with two opposes and no indication it's heading towards support, a close is indicated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure it was heading towards support; although I did strike the strong oppose when the anti-Macedonian rant went away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But this leaves the question, when do we close? And what is the purpose of FAC? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuil of Bulgaria was getting active discussion, and the article was improving; it was not FA, but it could have been. (Similarly, Augustus still had a way to go when it was closed promote; it's not really an embarassment now, but the review process had only started.)

There is a strong temptation to drop an article when it is closed either way. If FAC is still working, should we leave nominations until discussion dies? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy's closing of the article at this time. Some articles come to FAC needing a great deal of work, and it takes a lot of the reviewer's time and energy to try to get them up to the appropriate standard. Our job at FAC is to identify any problems with the article to determine if it is ready for FAC. Things like POV problems, comprehensiveness issues, and reliable sourcing issues cannot be fixed overnight and are pretty good indicators that an article is not currently at FA status. When an article obviously needs a lot of work, even if that work is ongoing, I don't think the nomination should continue for an indeterminate amount of time. MOS issues can be fixed more quickly and easily, and I haven't seen FAs be closed when that work is all that's left and it is ongoing. If an article is closed when there is substantial work remaining, the nominator should contact the opposers and ask for continued help - I don't think any of us would decline a request like that out of hand. Karanacs (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why comments made after closing need to be removed from the page, and if they are removed it would be useful to move them to the talk page of the article where people are likely to see them. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing them to the talk page of the FAC, where they originated, accomplishes same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That would also be better than removing them altogether; and it's still not clear to me why removing them is helpful at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments weren't removed altogether; I removed post-closing comments to the FAC talk page, which is the most appropriate place for them, and then I linked to that page with a note that they had been moved there. Where did you get the idea they were removed altogether? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sandy did not move all of them; but she did remove some of them from the discussion page. As far as I can tell, she did not actually move them anywhere; she provided a diff to the removal here. They were scattered comments, and they might be difficult to put anywhere by themselves and make comprehensible; but they are distinctly less accessible even than the archived discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did and do remove all post-closing comments, not just some of them. Once the FAC is archived, discussion should move elsewhere, for example, to the talk page. This is preferable to just reverting comments made once a FAC is closed; a record should be left somewhere (on talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that once archived the page shouldn't be edited any further, but those comments were made before archiving. How exactly were editors supposed to know that the FAC was over? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the blame for this one. I was busy with something else and didn't notice more closes. Had I noticed it would have been taken care of in the usual 2-6 hour range. Still, when we went to this system a year ago, we talked about the lag "issue" and decided it was worth the automation. A FAC that can be closed as a non-promote is not likely to change to a promote in a day. On the more general concern about closing when discussion is still ongoing, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If the noms that aren't ready are cleared, people complain about not getting enough time, and if they are left to cook, people complain that there are too many active noms. So what do people prefer: the nominations moved through at a reasonable clip, or 200 active FACs? Gimmetrow 04:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo Graphic Novel and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Randall Flagg puts one in two different universes of discourse. One will probably pass; the copyedit demanded has been done. One will fail because the author hasn't consulted the academic literature. Yet the failed article is, as it stands, probably better than the passing one. Is this reasonable? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How are you defining "better"? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In the words of Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. This is not a promote !vote; I ask "what does FA-standard mean, anyway?" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The other concerns are still in the process of being addressed; I feel that AnmaFinotera's issues regarding the accessibility of the plot to a non-Halo related reader is vital to the comprehension of the article, and would hope it doesn't get passed or failed until I can address that. I'm not going to bother with reading the second as I don't see how it has much import on the other nom. David Fuchs (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Steps to FA

In an attempt to honor SandyGeorgia's request for help with FAC (and in appreciation for the support I've received with nominated articles) I did some editing on Astrid Peth and left what I hoped would be constructive criticism. I did not think the article was anywhere near ready to be promoted to FA. In looking at the article's "milestones", I saw that there were none! The article had never been assessed or rated, had not achieved GA, nor gone through Peer Review. It seems to me that if one or more of these steps were *required* before nominating an article for FA, it would save a huge amount of time, energy and disappointment (for the FA nominator). Has there ever been discussion along these lines? In reading "Advice from individual users" provided on WP:FACR, I see that most do advise going through these steps on the way to FA. Kmzundel (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a couple of my FACs go through peer reviews where it got a disappointing or no response, and a GA where I knew more about article components than the reviewer (which says way too much). I have an article up for peer review right now that I predict will get no response. What to do then? --Moni3 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It has been discussed before, though I couldn't point you to the most recent thread. I wouldn't like to see any generally required prerequisites, since there are several experienced article writers who can take an article to FA fairly reliably without the intervening steps. However, it might make sense to have a prerequisite for someone nominating their very first article for FA. That would have prevented the recent multiple nominations from one fairly inexperienced editor, for example. Even then I wouldn't suggest PR as a prerequisite -- it can be valuable but it is very slow. GA is also slow but you don't get through GA without a review, whereas it is possible to get no peer review input. So if we were going to institute a requirement, I think asking a first-time nominator not to nominate articles that have not reached GA would be a reasonable minimum. I'm not sure even this is needed, though; the process does seem to educate editors fairly quickly. Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that what we need is to create a screening process that (gently) turns no-hopers away to other places, but does not become an instruction creep of hoops to jump through for good articles and people who know what they are doing. The first article I nominated here had already been through GA, and I had been encouraged to bring it here by FA regulars. The second time, I felt confident enough to come straight here myself. It's just common sense to ask about before jumping in with your first. What we need to do is to slightly formalise that. Perhaps:
  1. unless you've successfully steered an article through this process already, before nominating an article you MUST read the featured article requirements, AND you must first either 1) have successfully gone through GA or peer review or 2) sought the endorsement someone who has steered an article here before.
  1. I'd also suggest adding a line to the nomination process so that the nominator has to explicitly state that they believe the article meets the criteria.

--Docg 13:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Doc, I mostly agree with what you've proposed. If we go a tad more informally, perhaps we could make a short list of editors on the FA nomination instruction page who are experienced in writing or reviewing FA's. We could say that if this is your first time through the FA process (or your previous noms have been roundly rejected), you should consult someone on the list so they can make a quick assessment of whether the article is ready to be listed. Thoughts? --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This has kind of been discussed above, and I proposed the same thing a few days ago but no one noticed. I'll just copy it down here: We have a list of volunteers above who would be willing to help. Do we want to make it part of the nomination process that if you haven't had an FA passed before you need to ask one of the volunteers to look over your article first? The volunteers could look for the typical "gotchas": lack of citations, improperly formatted references, reliability of sources, major MOS violations, and provide advice to get those things fixed before the official nomination. The volunteer could also check to see that the nomination is properly formatted, saving Sandy time. Reviewers as a whole would benefit because there might be fewer articles that are wholly unready to clog the list. Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Counterexamples (and why I'm not in favor of more "process"): look at reactive attachment disorder and Roman Catholic Church. Stunningly complete peer review for RAD from numerous experienced reviewers and writers (one of the most complete I've ever seen), GA, apparently everything in place pre-FAC, followed all the steps, all the usual "gotchas" as mentioned by Karanacs dealt with pre-FAC, still encountered difficulty at FAC. Almost no peer review input for Roman Catholic Church, GA, would have qualified to come to FAC under this process anyway, which is the first place POV concerns were even raised. The problem here is that GA simply doesn't mean anything at FAC, and more process wouldn't have changed these candidacies. Another example, brand new editor, Brianboulton, bringing several successful FA candidates, bypassing GA. Also, the recent disruptive nominator who put up six failed noms is an exception that can be handled via other processes. I'm not in favor of more "process"; by promoting frequently (instead of once or twice a week, as Raul did), I've been able to hold the list size to something manageable so that reviewers can hopefully give more time to each candidate. I'm concerned that more "process" will drain reviewers from FAC. We can ask editors to jump through other hoops, but those other processes guarantee nothing and may also create false hopes. Frankly, it sounds too much like GAC, where one reviewer determines the status of an article. Would it be helpful to have a pre-FAC MoS check to get the easy stuff addressed? Well, that easy stuff is also easy to fix during FAC, so I'm not sure. But I appreciate any and all efforts and suggestions to make things run more smoothly here. Is my more frequent promotion/archival not helping enough? If the list is held to 40 to 50, without premature promotions or unfair (I hope) archivals, and we can manage any disruptive nominations, is there really a problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

With the current list size, there really isn't an issue with cluttering of the list with unready nominations (and kudos to you, Sandy, for making it manageable). If we do have an initial review, I don't think that it should be binding (i.e., if I say no in an initial review it doesn't mean the nominator can't nominate it anyway), but it might be helpful for those who are unsure what is necessary. Maybe we can make it optional - if this is your first FAC, you might want to contact one of these experienced reviewers to find out if your article is close to being ready. But then if people turn that into a full alternative to peer review then we'll be swamped and won't be of any help either. I think I just talked myself out of this idea. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
But mentioning that Peer Review and LoCE exist, and suggesting that nominators may want to go there first, would be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It (reference to peer review) is currently the second line on the WP:FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Good; I don't recall seeing that before. Perhaps we should also say something about nominators being expected to stick around and improve articles; GA works differently, you can nominate any article you happen to see and like. I see the next paragraph is meant to say that, but it would be easy to read that as boilerplate "be civil". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm surprised at how many FACs I had to archive in the last few weeks after nominators failed to respond. We currently say:

Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections.

Perhaps we could add just a few more words to this about staying on top of it; truth is, when there are problems, it's usually because the instructions aren't read anyway. We shouldn't have to add "be civil" because that is expected everywhere on Wiki (instruction creep). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "It (reference to peer review) is currently the second line on the WP:FAC page." I think there is a big part of the problem. WP:FAC implies that a FAC nomination does not involve review. Consider the abundance of nominations by editors who have not gone through GA review or peer review, who are unpleasantly surprised by what happens at FAC. Say it up front: FAC nomination is a nomination for intense review. --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The solution may be as simple as moving the stuff we want people to read into a clear box with a bold Advice for nominators on top of it. (We could even add some Advice for reviewers too.) I don't have time to do a draft right now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In my experience (that is, with fixing about 20% of the noms), when we have issues it's because people don't read what's there anyway; adding more to it isn't likely to help solve the real problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't want to add more, just move what's there to a clear box and rephrase, to keep eyes from glazing over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(od) A box to divide meaningful and meaningless comments? That would be impossible to codify and police, and it would require person hours we don't have.

The one step that I would support—though it would require some coding—is a compartmentalization of the nomination page based on the criteria. Not all of the criteria. Maybe three: prose, comprehensiveness and focus, and formatting and organization. Thus, you wouldn't up-and-down support or oppose the article. You would support or oppose in these broad categories, and all of the categories would need support for a pass. I rarely add an actual vote on reviews because, with unfamiliar subject matter, I'm generally not sure enough to make a "total call." Marskell (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very hard to implement (but you should know that I'm keeping an eye on this, at times pinging reviewers knowledgeable in the topic area to make sure they've looked, and I'm also not promoting in only four days in spite of past precedent to do so, to allow for more complete review). There were some complaints about U2's promotion in four days in spite of ten supports, so I've slowed down the timing on promotions; I hope that will address any concern that all areas may not be reviewed and allows for review in all areas of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As a followup, I'm far more concerned about premature promotion than premature archival, as the former is more difficult to remedy. I've followed Raul's talk page for over a year, and he always got complaints when he archived; even though I'm archiving according to the same criteria Raul used (at least according to my review of FAC archives), I'm getting the complaints daily because I archive daily, while Raul only had to deal with them once or twice a week :-) Smart man, that Raul :-) But I'm trying to hold down the list size by promoting daily, while slowing down promotion timing to assure more thorough reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But Tim, "total call" needs to be put in context. Nominations need to satisfy all of the criteria, so objecting on the basis of just one criterion is enough to justify an "oppose". I can't see the advantage in sectionalising the reviews/declarations. I guess it would emphasise that nothing has been said about one of the major criteria, but ... so what? Tony (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy closure query

Link to [5]. MikeHobday (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Four objects, no supports in a week is not a "speedy closure"; it's a normal closure. Please review some very old FAC archives. By all means, bring the article back to FAC when concerns have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable close. Keeping things like this open for longer would result in logjam. Work can still continue, and those working on it can confer with the objectors with a view to a re-nomination. Nothing is final here.--Docg 17:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. Make the changes, maybe buzz the previous opposers, and then re-nominate. The candidacy did garner feedback, after all, so it shouldn't be seen as a waste. Not having FAC running above 100 noms has been great. Marskell (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen one close after only six days with people actively commenting. MikeHobday had just told one of the relevant wikiprojects. Can it be re-opened, please, so that people can continue to comment? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I went to the September 2007 archive to find some samples of Raul's closures for you:
I can provide many more examples if needed; it would be helpful if people criticizing my closes would familiarize themselves with the FAC archives. I am very familiar with the FAC archives, having built all the FA articlehistories with Gimmetrow, and I can assure you that six days, four opposes, no supports is much more liberal than many of Raul's closures. A FAC does not need to be open to discuss article improvement; discussion can continue on the article talk page, and the article can be re-nominated once concerns raised in the previous FAC are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is pointless. Sandy did fine. It is a thankless job and we have to trust her judgement (which looks perfectly consistent with precedent to me). If Slim et al think the article has improved and would get a different response at this point, they are free to re-nominate it.--Docg 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur. Bottom line is that articles shouldn't really come to FAC for a peer review. Failed FAC's can be re-nominated any time. Sandy and Raul do a great job. What's the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I’ve only been watching things FA-related for about a month now, but I’ve never seen Sandy act in a way that wasn’t wholly fair and appropriate. Fix concerns, renominate and the only ultimate harm will be that the nomination was delayed a few days. Where’s the fire? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
But Raul didn't comment himself on any of these. I think it's problematic for you to comment negatively, then close early too, just after the relevant wikiproject had been informed about the nomination. If closing it makes no difference because it can easily be nominated, then leaving it open makes no difference either. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please thread your responses correctly. As pointed out, I didn't close early. When there is already consensus to close, and I notice issues that weren't raised by other reviewers, I add those comments, and then I allow extra time beyond what Raul usually gave. Leaving FACs open does make a difference; it clogs the FAC page, and FAC is not peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at the article, and more time to correct the issues is warranted. There are still fundamental MoS issues, publishers aren't identified in citations, there is missing data in citations, and I found an earthlink website among the sources. I hope the editors will take the time needed to re-prepare for FAC, as that will help assure a smoother FAC next time. The lead still looks choppy still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The MoS issues aren't really the problem. The article has some fundamental writing and organizational issues too. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Potential non-reliable sources, not noticed because publishers aren't identified, is always a problem. Publishers still need to be identified and citations cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Articles with "fundamental writing and organizational issues" should not be on FAC anyway, and keeping them hanging on FAC until/if such are sorted is not a sensible option. Why are we having this discussion?--Docg 21:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Tying back to Karanacs' earlier point, this article had a one-day peer review. I wish PR would find a way to emphasize that at least a month is needed there, and that nominators there should seek out commentary from relevant Projects. This reinforces my concern that adding to "process" won't work; even if we ask for articles to be PR'd, some withdraw before they get good or any commentary, so PR value is as variable as GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur with Tim that it's a huge advantage to keep the list short. It seems entirely reasonable that a nomination be archived after week with substantive objections and no or little substantive support. There's nothing wrong with resubmitting after further work and contact with the objectors. Any sense of temporary failure should be discounted by nominators. Being on the FAC list for long periods shouldn't be seen as a right or a norm. Better for that to be reserved for borderline/problematic cases, or where substantial improvement is occurring before our eyes. Tony (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
"Articles with 'fundamental writing and organizational issues' should not be on FAC anyway." Precisely. It makes no sense to argue that it has serious problems on the one hand, but that it should be kept open on the other. As Rambling Man said, you shouldn't come to FAC looking for a PR. I think it's a first time nominator here; this is a normal part of the learning curve. Marskell (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Also as Rambling Man said, "What's the rush?" Failing an FAC is not that big of a deal. To my knowledge, there are no limits on the number of times an article can be nominated for FA. If it didn't pass, that just means it wasn't ready yet. It doesn't mean it'll never make it. There have been plenty of articles that failed FAC, but came back and pass. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC))
As one who has recently had one closed, I agree completely with Sandy and have complete faith in her judgement. Adding a little to Guys comment, Ronald Reagan passed on its sixth attempt. Woody (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this FL or FA?

Jumping off the above discussion on FA vs. FL, I'd like your opinion on what List of Halo characters should be treated as, an article or list. It started out as List of Halo characters, turned to List of Halo series characters, turned into an article, Characters in the Halo series, renamed to Characters of Halo, and eventually reverted back to List of Halo characters after a failed FLC. Your opinions appreciated. David Fuchs (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, that is definitely a list. The FLC failing doesn't seem to be because anyone felt it was not a list.AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally I would prefer to see it treated as an article. The list element (ie, the extent to which the page enumerates or organizes a collection of items) is very minimal. The page will be useful to readers mainly becuase its prose content is accurate and comprehensive, so it belongs at FAC. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly got a couple KB more out of universe info on stuff like reception and merchandise, but a good deal of it is just a list of characters. I can see how you might treat it as an article with a list embedded, but I think it's primary function is pure list. But either way, I'm not sure. David Fuchs (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is a long stretch of the article which describes individual characters, but the long paragraphs make it less list-like and more article-like. If I wanted a list of Halo characters all that content would actually detract from the page, in the same way that if you ask your spouse for a list of groceries to pick up on the way home, it is unhelpful for her to begin: "Apples. They are red, ripe, delicious fruits which are high in sugar. They grow on trees, which you might find in temperate zones...". From the perspective of an article, that extra content is helpful, from the perspective of a list it generally is not. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree with Parham. A true "list of characters" would just have a couple bulleted tidbits of information for each character. There's no need to degrade the article as a "list" when it meets the general standards of an article. — Deckiller 02:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I get your drift (love the grocery list example :P) Thanks for the help! David Fuchs (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Footnote placement

After this version of Economy of Ohio appeared at WP:FAC (something not seen in months), discussion of a return to the previous long-standing wording at WP:FN and WP:CITE about footnote placement was initiated here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to Raul's essay on FAC

Does anyone have a link to Raul's essay on the FAC process? I can't find it, and I recall he said something about images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This one? Yomanganitalk 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts is the one I came up with. Woody (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks; I was looking for this. Fair Use is a weakness for me (as I said when I accepted the position as Raul's delegate) and there are Fair Use issues on two FACs now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Weaknesses are unacceptable. Perfection or nothing, please. Yomanganitalk 16:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? Then you had better work on getting Giano's behind back in here to change that waistline at User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yomangani: your statement would have been stronger had you said simply that "weakness is unacceptable". Your version only adds syllables and loses a little in rhetoric; the angry father talking to his game-losing son wouldn't say "your weaknesses are unacceptable", would he? You might also have said "Give me perfection or give me nothing"—a construct with which everyone is familiar—and avoided the "please", which concluded your sardonic point so unspectacularly that I had to pinch myself to go on reading. Your lack of exactitude in rendering these two sentences is unacceptable. It may be best that you refrain from featured article endeavors. There are some backlogged cleanup tasks that might suit you, son! The Fat Man alone is quite backed up, and is willing to meet you at a suitable time to clean out his Tickle Trunk. –Outriggr § 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
tl;dr Yomanganitalk 09:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinions requested

I posted a question about our FA criteria here and would appreciate any comments. --Laser brain (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch encore

A week passes quickly; we need a new dispatch over the next day-and-a-half. I whipped the last one together quickly last week and I think we need a small list of people who will volunteer, so it isn't always a scramble. I don't mind doing every second or third. In general, Raul's idea was a good one and we should carry it on.

A piece on PR reforms would be a logical choice for next. Marskell (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Per some of the discussion above, it would be good to highlight that PR takes more than a few days, seek out editors who will contribute to PR, give it a month, and appearing at FAC the minute an article passed GAC doesn't bode well (GA does not an FA make). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Remember, as I envisioned it, it doesn't have to always be about the FA process as a whole. (That's just one aspect) Another approach, as I envisioned it, would be to focus on one person's efforts on particularly difficult articles and getting them up to FA status. Just to throw out two really obvious examples - Happyme22's efforts to get Ronald Reagan up to FA status, or ChrisO's excellent work on Arab/Israeli conflict articles. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
What a nice idea; Happy went through the wringer, and early on, I doubted he would ever make it with those articles. Can we ask Tvoz to write that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, go for it. Highlighting individual work will make sure we don't run out of topics. Marskell (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this thought is a bit premature (I'd rather see it wait a number of months), but a year and a half ago, after new citation requirements were added, fully half of our then-existing FAs had potential citation issues. Thanks to Marskell's reform of WP:FAR, to slow the process down to allow time for citations to be added, now less than 9% of our FAs have possible citation issues, with a substantial portion of those FAs being brought to current standards. A dispatch should be written about the fine job Marskell and Joelr31 have done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And you ;). But we just did FAR, so yes, we can wait a month or two. I was thinking we might ping G'Guy to do a write-up on PR because he understands the technical issues as well as the volunteer list. Marskell (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll tell you right now I prefer low profile, thank you very much, and would be most happy to never appear in the Signpost again for anything. Can someone ping Gguy? I haven't gotten through my morning watchlist yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been pinged, but I'm not yet completely sure why. A piece on PR may be premature, given that it is still undergoing some changes. Of course, as usual, I'm happy to help if I can, but I'm also quite busy these days! :-) Geometry guy 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Plan B: see below (Gimmetrow and Dr pda, unless Tvoz can churn out something on Happy in a day). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a future issue could also look at Gimmetrow and Dr pda wrt {{articlehistory}}, GimmeBot, and Dr pda's articlehistory script. The two of them made a dedicated effort, Gimmetrow has a daily commitment, and ah went a long way towards cleaning up talk pages as well as archives, not to mention simplifying life for Raul, Marskell, Joelr31 and me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The upshot is that we don't have anyone for the next dispatch. I'll try to do something on PR tomorrow. Marskell (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I can't help; we know how great my prose is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I will help if I get time: which page should I watchlist? Geometry guy 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Haven't heard from Tvoz, so left a message for Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) about Happy article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
A three sentence summary of the technical changes at PR (done or on-going) would be all that's needed to get this dispatch done, at least. I could try the three sentences myself, but I don't think I'd sum it up properly. Marskell (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If that was unclear, a three sentence summary of the technical changes at PR would be enough for me to finish the dispatch myself. Marskell (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what "dispatch" is, and I'm not sure what Sandy is asking about here — I have no knowledge of the Ronald Reagan FA at all, only some of the Nancy Reagan one — and in any case, I can't volunteer time to write up anything for any publication ... I'm already playing catch-up on the Hillary and McCain articles, and I spend enough time on these already that my wife gives me a scornful look whenever she walks by and sees the tell-tale WP logo on the upper left of the computer screen ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Dispatches" is a new section for the Wikipedia:Signpost I suggested recently. It's a weekly feature discussing interesting goings-on related to the FA process, or recognizing someone for doing good FA-related work, etc. What Marskell is saying is that he doesn't want to write it every week - we'd like someone else involved here to contribute to it. Raul654 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I usually read Signpost and I now realize I saw the first "Dispatches" thing a couple of weeks ago, but then forgot what it was called. I might be able to write something for it in the future, but not right at the moment. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Afraid I have to beg off too from writing anything from scratch - I'm kind of stretched at the moment. Sorry! Tvoz |talk 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, we struck out. Marskell, if you want me to write up something first thing tomorrow about either articlehistory or Happyme22, let me know. Someone will have to copyedit it, because my prose stinks. Or, you can do PR, and I'll do one of those next week, when I have more time for help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is about PR changes I can probably help, as I've been pretty much immersed in them all weekend. I'm going to sleep now though! Geometry guy 00:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't edit much on the weekends and missed this discussion. I threw together a quick version of praise for HappyMe and DrKiernan: User:Karanacs/DispatchHappyMe since it didn't appear that Sandy had had time to write anything yet. I haven't linked to it yet, so if someone else has written something feel free to disregard this. Karanacs (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, there's a time zone issue with Marskell; would you mind pinging his talk page? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I just had a quick look. The bigger issue was that it took him seven (or eight, one was withdrawn, don't remember) FACs for Ronald Reagan, and how he grew as an editor during the process (early on, I didn't think he'd get there), and how he worked to incorporate criticisms. He had a very long haul with Ronald Reagan, and was patient, polite and persistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know about the Ronald Reagan article, so I looked through those archives and have updated this. I also left a comment at Marskell's talk page. Please update this as you think appropriate. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This looks good. I don't know the story on ChrisO, so I'll ping Raul to see if he can add a paragraph. We need a place to coordinate these dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Whew, that one's done. So we don't get caught with our pants down next week, we need a place to meet on these, and probably a list of suggestions/ideas, maybe a timeline, at minimum what is on for next week, and who's doing what each week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pending (please add suggestions):

  • Peer review
  • Articlehistory
  • ChrisO Arab/Israeli articles
  • Redesign of FAR to handle citation issues

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be doing this work in userspace, since technically, other editors shouldn't edit someone's userspace. How about if we set up shop at Wikipedia:Featured article dispatch workshop, where we can keep a list, do our weekly work, and coordinate who's writing next week? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I second the motion to move this to WP:FADW (please don't make me have to remember the long name). 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talkcontribs)
Before we set it up, we have to make sure we get the GFDL requirements right. When the final version is put into the Signpost, it has to be a move that respects the article history, per GFDL. So, would we write each week at WP:FADW/February 25, 2008, WP:FADW/March 3, 2008, and so on, and use WP:FADW as the main page to coordinate our work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The Signpost Tutorial Series is doing theirs in userspace, but they are following a similar format. The main page is for coordination, and there is a subpage for each article. Their titles are given more descriptive names, but I think for us it makes more sense to have a date-based title, so that we can easily change the topic if someone does something very awesome that we want to recognize them for quickly. Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I went with the date idea because that's how the main SignPost is set up, and I'm used to archiving Wikipedia:Goings on each week by date now. If a few others agree, we'll set it up? Is Gguy doing PR for next week ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives and {{Goings-on}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Silence: I'm going to go ahead and set these up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing Raul's original post on the topic, I've moved it to WP:FCDW, Featured content dispatch workshop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Centralizing FA talk

Carcharoth posted on WT:FAR a concern that probably took more than a few minutes to draft yesterday. Not getting many replies, he or she pinged me for a comment today. I watch the page, of course, but often miss FAR talk comments because the page is generally slow. Nothing worse than taking the time for a longish comment and receiving few replies!

I had a thought I've had a few times before. Posts re FAs relate to each other regardless of which particular process talk page is chosen (e.g., Carcharoth had a comment on FAs being up-to-date, which applies here as much as at FAR). I've often paused over a planned post wondering if FA, FAC, or FAR is the best talk page.

Why don't we simply redirect WT:FA, WT:FAC, WT:FAR, and WT:WIAFA to a single page? (I think WT:FA would be retained as the obvious target.) There's also featured lists, portals, etc. How many people watch their talk pages? The target chosen would be a busy one—but that would be the point. Many eyes. A single page to watch. It makes a lot of sense to me. Marskell (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with a central forum is, like you mentioned, size. I think we'd have too many eyes and comments; some arguments or threads may not get addressed, and they may even get lost in the archives. People who are busy or are poorly connected to the internet may find it difficult to navigate the talkpage. However, I do think we should merge WP:WIAFA into WP:FA (including the talkpage); the criteria are central to the basics of the Featured Article system, so that seems like a logical merge; it would also be a compromise, since we'd be down to three talkpages (General talk, candidate-related discussion, and review-related chat). We would just have to stress what is to be discussed at each talkpage; someone like Sandy or Raul could move threads to the appropriate talkpage like a message board moderator. — Deckiller 19:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think multiple pages increase rather than decrease the likelihood of something going unaddressed. It's hard to prove, one way or the other, but I've seen things go unaddressed at WT:FAR. If there's one merge that I think very logical, it's WT:FA into WT:FAC.
I see you're actually advocating the body of WIAFA into FAC. That would be hard to rationalize, but there might be something to it. Nominators would see the criteria immediately. Marskell (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely hard to prove either way, and I can see plenty of arguments for both sides. But I still think merging the criteria into the main page for FA would be a good idea. It wouldn't extend the page by a lot, and we can still have a "essays" link section in the right-hand box (perhaps below the "path to a featured article" box). — Deckiller 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You could transclude, instead of merging, to retain some separate identity. See how this is done at WP:NFC. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind the talk pages being separate. As long as they are on watchlists, people should be able to keep up. And I'm a he, like my lupine namesake. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If anything, WP:FA? and WP:FA would make the most sense to merge, but like Carcharoth I don't really care either way. David Fuchs (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm against merging any of them; to me, they're all distinct places/functions, the issues raised on each are different, bringing too much together can create a mess where things are more likely to get missed or jumbled, very little is ever missed on any of these pages, and the only reason I didn't respond immediately to Carcharoth's question at WT:FAR was because the answer seemed so simple that I was sure I was missing the question (I think I still am). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the distinct functions of WT:FA and WT:FAC? I've never made a post on one that couldn't logically be made on the other (I started this thread here, because I know the page is busier). Marskell (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you need another page entirely? A FA noticeboard (like the bureaucrats or administrators noticeboard) where general notes and questions can be posted, with longer discussions at the various talk pages? Depending on how much traffic WT:FA gets, and how much discussion takes place there of the long-term strategies, the noticeboard could be there or somewhere else. The idea is that people could watch just that one page or all the talk pages or specific talk pages, depending on their inclinations. Several WikiProjects have nice noticeboards, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board. There are also "announce" templates, such as the (inactive) Template:ME-Announce, which people can transclude on their user pages if they want. The layout at Template:MCB Discussion Menu is also nice. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to say that where a particular post is posted (either WT:FAC or WT:FA) seems pretty arbitrary sometimes as many have issues which overlap several venues. I'd prefer one place, but not strongly. I definitely think WIAFA 's talk page should go to WP:FA...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talkcontribs)
What is the distinct functions of WT:FA and WT:FAC? The posts that make sense at FA have to do with how that page is organized and presented; I usually redirect any other queries there to another page. FA is just a list (no different than FFA); FAC and FAR deal with the business of getting articles added to or removed from those lists. I don't see any overlap between the four pages and lists: four people can add and subtract from the FA and FFA lists, and any other discussion there is usually about how the pages are presented, whether they're accurate, whether we should add more precision on the rounding of the stats -- things that don't affect the process of gaining consensus to add or remove, which happens separately at FAC and FAR. Very different in my mind, but maybe my mind is atypical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, with one caveat. It is clear when a post should go at FAC or FAR, but there needs to be a page for "meta" issues involving both FAC and FAR, and for general discussions about the FA process as a whole. I was under the impression that WT:FA fulfilled that role, even though, as Sandy says, the front page is just a list. In general, though, the organisation of talk pages should flow naturally from a well-organised set of pages. As long as the main areas of discussion are identified, and inactive talk pages are redirected to more active ones, and talk pages that are too active or trying to cover too much, are managed to direct discussion to the right places, then things work fine. I would urge people to look at the examples I gave, in particular Template:MCB Discussion Menu - clear, succint directions on what is discussed where, in a notice that appears at the top of a set of four pages. It is a very powerful way for a set of pages to be presented in a unified way (especially for newcomers), in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think of this page as "FA central", because you don't get to FA without going through here. I redirect most queries from FA to here, and queries from WIAFA that aren't specifically related to WIAFA to here as well. Queries about what's on the lists (FA and FFA) and how they are presented/formatted go there. I'm not in favor of adding yet another page to all of this, but perhaps my view of these clear divisions is atypical, as is my view of this page as "FA central". I've not seen many noticeboards that work well; perhaps just my experience. I guess I'm just against more process, more pages, more complexity, because my head spins whenever I peek into GA. If the way I view these pages is typical, a template like the example above might be a good addition to the top of each talk page to explain the distinction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Something like that discussion menu wouldn't be a terrible idea.
"I don't see any overlap between the four pages." Really? If someone wants to make a general point about what FAs are, the criteria involved, the direction of the process etc., then there's overlap between all of them. That queries need to be redirected sort of proves the point. If people are being redirected from WT:WIAFA (as here) then why have a distinct talk page for it? Marskell (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought that conversation belonged here because it wasn't about "what" WIAFA is or how it's written, rather about how we interpret it, which is a FAC issue. How about if we do a template like the MCB template above, and see if that solves any issues, before we add any new pages? I see the direction of the process and other issues you raise as mostly happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
(I'm working on a mockup now, so we don't duplicate effort.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly no new pages. I was suggesting reducing what we have. You wouldn't need to redirect anyone, anywhere. Marskell (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Then I'm not following what you're proposing vs. what Carcharoth is proposing (a noticeboard, FA central, etc.) Here's a {{FA discussion menu}} mockup, in case that will help us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that, for instance, if people shouldn't post to WT:WIAFA with criteria considerations, but rather here, then it doesn't make sense to keep WT:WIAFA as a separate target. Or, if people have a general concern ("How long should FAs be?") that may have sprung from a FAR, a FAC, or off the top of their head, then it makes sense to have one page to ask the question. Less process, less pages, less complexity. I am not proposing an extra page.
I like the mock-up for its simplicity; it's an inviting interface. If it links to pages that remain distinct anyway, however, it only adds a step. Perhaps we could better isolate what distinct subjects there are and reduce it two or, at most, three pages. For instance, specific questions over candidacies/reviews versus general questions over structure. Marskell (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean organize the mockup by theme/topic rather than by page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but just as something to think about. (But it might invite more people to complain about specific nominations, which would be bad.) More generally, I don't see above any conceptual difference presented for the main FA talk pages. Particularly, as others note, WIAFA and FAC are bound to one another. Marskell (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

List articles as FA versus FL again

This may not be the best place to discuss this, but the first discussion originate here. So it seems appropriate to continue the discussion here as well. I know the two FAC were moved over to FLC, but there were a few pages that were already and still are FA that seem to still be up in the air. Some of those mentioned were Characters of Kingdom Hearts, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, and €2 commemorative coins.

The main reason I bring this up is because the VG Project used Characters of Final Fantasy VIII as an example and has structured several articles after it, some of which have become GA. There may also be some other projects that I am unaware of which follow a similar practice. If these articles are in fact lists, then I assume they are not even eligible for their GA status. I guess it just seems a bit odd for List of characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series to be FL and Characters of Kingdom Hearts and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII to be FA when they are written and structured in a similar manner.

My question is will anything be done with the articles that are currently FA, and will future character articles have to go the FL route? And if so, what will happen to the current character articles that are currently GA, will they lose their GA status and have to go for FL as well? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

If it is decreed that these are list articles then yes, they will lose GA status. I agree that we need to have some sort of consensus on the issue and whether they are indeed lists. I don't think there will be any dissenters regarding expediting the switchover (ie simply changing FA to FL. Woody (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Do I have a counterpart in the featured list process that I could discuss this with? That is to say, is there anyone over there who makes executive decisions? Raul654 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Scorpion0422. Alientraveller (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Most people see him as the de facto director as it were though he has refused the role in the past. There are 2 or 3 regular particpants at FLC who comment on these discussions. Woody (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I also suggest Colin (talk · contribs) who used to be very active there, and weighed in on the first discussion. (And if they are moved, we need to bring Gimmetrow in and decide how to record the event in articlehistory.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why those three FAs wouldn't meet the FL entry-criteria and I think they would almost certainly pass FL requirements. I've asked Scorpion to give his opinion. Are you thinking you could short-circuit a FLC nomination and just move them? Personally, I've no objection to that since IMO all three meet the grade. A bigger problem may be with the nominators/editors of those FAs accepting the move to FL. I know Nightstallion objected the last time it was nominated at FLC. Deckiller isn't very active at the moment. Guyinblack25, what's your opinion? Colin°Talk 19:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Deckiller has been around lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer to see them go through an FLC just to make it 100% official, because like Colin says, there may be some objections from the articles normal editors. However, I would have no problem if they were just moved. -- Scorpion0422 20:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for the rest of the editors of the KH character page, but I'm personally indifferent. Featured content is featured content. I honestly don't see a switch being a problem so long as more distinction is made as to what falls under FA and FL. That's really what I'm after, clarifying the issue to avoid another incident like the Sorrow characters page. If they are articles, then great. If they are lists, that's fine too. I'd like to know so the GAs possibly affected by the decision can be worked on to get them to FL if need be. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

As far as I could see (and as far as I stressed a year ago), those three articles are not lists. According to WP:LIST: "Lists are commonly used to organize information in Wikipedia articles...Stand-alone lists are articles consisting of a lead section followed by a list. The items on these lists include (but are only rarely exclusively) links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places, or a timeline of events." I believe those three articles only have 1-2 subarticles, and every section has several paragraphs of text -- just like regular articles. They also contain more than just sections on individual characters; there are whole sections on development, merchandise, etc. They aren't just organizational tools, and I structured Characters of Final Fantasy VIII to be read like an actual article by minimizing redundancy. It's like calling the World War II article a list and naming it "Timeline of World War II". — Deckiller 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LIST is just a style guideline and is merely being descriptive here. The FL criteria long ago dropped the requirement that a list be composed of links to articles. Actually, there is a Timeline of World War II. The sections in World War II, although somewhat chronological, also jump between different continents and deal with particular campaigns rather than following some formulaic month-by-month sequence. Colin°Talk 22:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A vaguely related comment. "If it is decreed that these are list articles then yes, they will lose GA status." If a GA becomes featured content (FA or FL), fine. What if a page is rated GA but fails a FL nomination? People have been tempted to create a "Good lists" project before, but it's been argued that a list either "works" or it doesn't, so there is little room for a "good list" other than FL, and the GA process avoids lists. However, the pages in the grey area between FA and FL have both significant list and prose content. I've occasionally seen requests here for someone to review a FL candidate with a lot of prose. So maybe, a GA review is one way to review the prose part of these grey-area lists? GA even references Wikipedia:Embedded list in its criteria. Gimmetrow 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't even see a gray area. When I look at articles like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, I see complete articles. They contain more than just "lists of characters"; they contain full sections on merchandise, development, reception, etc. Therefore, they couldn't be lists of characters. Is there a rationale behind deeming them lists? — Deckiller 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
See, when I look at those, I see a list of characters that includes more real world info than most. It is still, primarily, a list of the characters in the work, just with proper sourcing and details usually not found in a character list, and without helpful links to each character's section. I don't see why their having good info automatically discounts them as being lists. Since individual character articles rarely meet WP:FICT, it would stand to reason that the lists not have links off to individual character articles. In a way, I guess they are a combination of lists and articles, but I think for FA/FL purposes, they should be considered lists. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Is United States Navy enlisted rates a list or an article? "[E]very section has several paragraphs of text -- just like regular articles." That people view these articles differently should be an indication there's some overlap between FA and FL. Gimmetrow 21:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
So how should Wikipedia view them? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
The last time this was discussed, I proposed (after only a little thought) the suggestion that it be considered for FL rather than FA "If the subject is plural and the article contains more content on the (distinct but similar) topic elements than the topic as a whole." These "lists" have a significantly repetitive structure, as opposed to an article whose structure involves covering dissimilar aspects of a topic. Colin°Talk 22:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Colin. First thought when I looked was "nice list" not "nice article" AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In regard to Colin's suggestion, should it be like that even if the list-like component only covers one aspect of the subject? I realize the character sections take up a good chunk of the page, but I see that as only one aspect of the subject that is necessary for comprehensiveness. Like with the Final Fantasy VIII and Kingdom Hearts character pages, aside from the character sections, the rest of the page is written in a way that talks about the subject as a whole. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
Well, the subject is "characters of ..." so the list is really the core aspect. Both of those are 90% list. There's a good-sized lead (which isn't at all uncommon on FL). The other two sections (creation & influence; reception & criticism) are the exceptions to the "repetitive" character list, but still form a small minority of the article. Having paragraphs of prose at points throughout a "list" isn't unknown. Colin°Talk 09:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
When I put Netherlandish Proverbs up for FL, it was rejected on that concern. I didn't bother developing it for FA as I figured that with the big list element it would never pass, and splitting it seemed like it would rather ruin it. Some things just don't fit into either category, but that doesn't mean they are any the worse for it. Yomanganitalk 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Only two people commented on that FLC: Circeus and me. I must have got distracted and didn't continue the debate. Only Circeus thought it was an article, and I can't for the life of me think why. His view certainly doesn't reflect any consensus opinion. I think you suffered a bit from lack of reviewers and having one start off on a negative. You'd be very welcome to resubmit. Colin°Talk 09:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I had to assume that the reason it was rejected was, at least in part, the view that it was more of an article than a list -since there's no rationale to accompany the closing one has to work with the available information. I mentioned it here as an example of an article that had the potential to go to either way or no way, rather than as a plea to have it re-examined. I won't resubmit it as I'm not nominating anything for featured content any more, but I've no objection to anybody else submitting it (or anything else I write) if it is up to snuff. Yomanganitalk 10:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
ah, ha! Yomangani submissions are fair game !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DecKiller. I tend to think of lists as pages that contain short summaries or no summaries at all that were easier to write than FAs and not main page worthy. These character articles are the opposite of that: they have huge descriptions and tons of sources to back up these claims and more closely resemble articles. –thedemonhog talkedits 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
List of Metal Gear Solid characters has always been an FL and is very similar to two being discussed here. United States Navy enlisted rates contains a lot of prose, but is an FL. My own Timeline of tuberous sclerosis is not a bare list and certainly wasn't knocked up in five minutes. Let's not start some "that's too good for FL" threshold. As for "tons of sources", well, there are quite a few lists with number of sources in three digits. Colin°Talk 09:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(un-indent) I do see the similarities to the Metal Gear Solid list, but I also see similarities to other articles. So Colin, I hope you don't mind if I keep pressing your suggestion as I'd like whatever is decided here to be more definitive and ironclad than what we have now.
I agree that the Kingdom Hearts character page is about 90% characters, but others like Final Fantasy VIII have fewer characters and would fill a smaller percentage of the content. List of characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series has an even smaller percentage than either KH and FFVIII, though it still is obviously the majority.
I guess what I'm asking is whether or not the size of the character list component is going to be a major deciding factor in this list vs article debate? I know hypothetical questions are frowned upon in discussions, but what if a character page came up with an embedded list of characters that was less than 50% of the article. Or what if the current character pages had content added that shrunk the percentage of the character portion? The last one is unlikely, but I'm sure editors a couple of years ago did not plan on character pages like these popping up either. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
I have striked out "tons of sources" because that is not a fair argument. I know that FLs do not take five minutes – I have written three, but I know that it was harder for Bignole to write the GA Smallville (season 1) than it was for me to write the FL Lost (season 3). When I said that FLs are not main page worthy, I mean that the community has decided against them appearing on the main page three times (I supported). And I see the Metal Gear Solid characters page as an article. –thedemonhog talkedits 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Demonhog brings up another interesting example, Smallville (season 1) looks to attempt to do what was attempted to be done with the VG character FAs (admittedly more successfully). That is a page where the list component is certainly a much smaller percentage of the content. Where would this go to be promoted to featured content? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
The way content is distributed in TV series articles is not something I've been involved in. As an outsider, it looks like you've made a problem for yourself in having this two-tier episode list approach (one terse list for the series [List of XXX episodes] and one fuller list for the season [XXX (season N)]). It mostly works fine and almost all examples are definitely lists. But, on the very odd occasion (like Smallville (season 1)) someone wants to write a lot about the season, he's got nowhere else to put it other than alongside the episode list. Compare with the other Smallville or Simpsons season lists. Colin°Talk 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So Smallville (season 1) would still be a list, even though the subject is the season as a whole and the content is written as such? That's a bit of a stretch in my mind. The VG characters pages are a mix of a list and article. But Smallville (season 1) looks like an article in my opinion, though this particular one may be an exception among the various XXX (season N) pages. What does everyone else think? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
Well, yes, I'd like to hear other opinions now. But to clarify: I don't think Smallville (season 1) is definitely a list and not an article. It is half list half article. My point is that is due to a choice in arrangement of content, and that could be changed. Colin°Talk 08:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A similar character "list" example is Characters of Carnivàle, currently GA. When I developed the article, I intended to go for something like what AnmaFinotera is currently attempting with List of Meerkat Manor meerkats (an obvious list), but I found after a while that the few available real-world bits are better presented in their own thematic sections than thinly spread across the article in each character's section. FL status is easier to achieve than FA, so does the presentation really decide whether a page gets its star or not? (I have been holding off with an F* nomination until the answers are clearer.) – sgeureka t•c 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Guyinblack may have touched on it, but the general consensus (although a narrow distinction) is that, quite simply, List of Halo characters is a list because of its article structure, and "Characters of/in..." are layed out as more of articles. (this was brought up at the Halo characters FLC, which resulted in the current name). I think they can coexists as different styles (after all, that's why there's the Metal Gear Solid characters list.) --David Fuchs (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to believe that the Halo page, as well as most of the others under discussion, should be treated as articles. The principle virtue of a list is that it organizes the elements of some group into a coherent form, for instance a chronological presentation, a table, etc. These articles present so much content (much of it not replicated anywhere else) that they have very little organizational value. They are bad lists for the same reason that a grocery list shouldn't contain a detailed description of each food item that you plan to buy. Someone who is finding out detail about a particular video game character doesn't want a list of the characters in the game; he wants an article about the character. The fact that this article happens to be on the same page as a lot of other articles doesn't change this basic fact. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hate to keep pushing this, but I think some kind of consensus would really benefit everybody in the long run. Raul654 and Scorpion0422, could you two give your thoughts on the discussion? (Hopefully they'll see this, if not then I'll leave a note on their talk pages.) (Guyinblack25 talk 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

One point that I didn't see above (sorry if I missed it; this is a long thread) is that I think the boundary between FL and FA should be defined in such a way that any given article qualifies for consideration under one or the other. There should be no "no-man's land" in the middle. I don't think we should spend much time defining the boundary in great detail, but it would be good if we could agree that the goal of a discussion on a given article's status would always be to assign it to one or other candidacy process, and would not ever lead to it being considered simultaneously invalid for both. Mike Christie (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Driveby noms

Glitter1959 (talk · contribs) and Gabriellerosey (talk · contribs) (who edit similar articles and have the same double signature lacking a space[6][7]), have nominated 6 articles that they've never edited, taken to peer review, taken to GAC, and that are nowhere close to FA material. Gabriellerosey never returned to the nom. Extensive discussions with Glitter1959 on talk page, to no avail. Would it be appropriate to remove future noms from these editors on sight (unless there is evidence of a change in this pattern)? Is a checkuser warranted for disruption of FAC?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say so along with a note on their talk page the first time explaining why the action was taken. Cla68 (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, to both. I can see making a mistake once, or maybe even twice, but this seems to be an ongoing pattern. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. You can assume good faith only so long before you have to call a spade a spade. I don't think they are trying to be disruptive, but it's pointless to have FAC's with no chance of passing. - Shudde talk 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If consensus develops on this, can an admin please handle it? I don't want to keep failing these articles, as they are distorting the statistics (high fail rate) and creating work for Gimmetrow and me. Is it possible for an admin to remove the noms and maintenance-delete the FAC pages so they don't have to show as fails in articlehistory (assuming consensus develops)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And they have to be corrected each time, even after five previous noms; for example, Thomas Jefferson isn't tagged on the talk page ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on them. Deleting the discussion page outright will stop the bot from updating the history, correct? David Fuchs (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I can understand the frustration you politely express here. As far as I can see any person can nominate an article for FAC - BUT constant inappropriate nominations by a new editor/s is in my opinion a form of WP:Disrupt insofar that such editors especially when more experienced editors attempt to assist time and time again, Reject community input: [by] resist[ing] moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point (in this case FAC nominations) despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators to not do so. I therefore agree with the action of removal of the nomination, coupled with a polite note - and then if that continues a warning (with escalation as necessary to block and check user). As an admin I will be happy to post a link to this discussion on their talk page and ask them politely to withdraw it. If that fails and a consensus develops I will be happy to take the action required.--VS talk 03:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And previous talk page discussions deleted. Thanks, David and Steve. The bot is only triggered when I move a FAC to the featured log or archived files; if the FAC is removed from WP:FAC, the fac tag is removed from the article talk page, and the actual article FAC page is deleted, there's no bot involvement. It's a shame to keep failing these articles and having them chunk up FAC and take up reviewer and bot time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, David; don't delete those that are already botified/archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
David, I Wonder if it is worth leaving the Thomas Jefferson one up until we know that Glitter either rejects or accepts our request - I have put request on her page and linked a comment to this discussion at the nom page.--VS talk 03:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you all don't want me to nominate articles, then I won't do it anymore. I'm sorry if I caused any trouble.

Glitter1959 (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

  • Thanks Glitter - I appreciate your prompt return. We want you to be a part of Wikipedia - but we suggest that you edit for a good bit of time so that you get a really good understanding of the general process before you even consider nominating anything for FA or GA. Can I also suggest that you come to an experienced editor before such a nomination or to an articles talk page to see what the consensus is - when in the future - you again consider an article to be FA or GA quality.--VS talk 04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Given this thread, it's probably time to revist our disccusion of a group of FA volunteers to help all new users determine if their article is ready. We have a list of volunteers above who would be willing to help. Do we want to make it part of the nomination process that if you haven't had an FA passed before you need to ask one of the volunteers to look over your article first? The volunteers could look for the typical "gotchas": lack of citations, improperly formatted references, reliability of sources, major MOS violations, and provide advice to get those things fixed before the official nomination. The volunteer could also check to see that the nomination is properly formatted, saving Sandy time. Reviewers as a whole would benefit because there might be fewer articles that are wholly unready to clog the list. Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Left a note for Steve regarding Wicca nom, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wicca [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion

People are unhappy about their articles never appearing on the main page so how about changing Portal:Featured content? Currently it displays (randomly) a featured article that has already been on the main page. How about with each FAC a blurb (like the one that would appear on the main page) is also submitted. Then when that article is promoted Raul or Sandy adds the blurb to the end of a queue (similar to the FAC queue except this one has no date requests, they just add it to the end). The quality of the blurb can be handled in the candidacy although I would hate to see an opposition based on a bad blurb. That way each new FA is guaranteed a place on Portal:Featured content (still fairly prominent) and we aren't recycling old FAs to a prominent part of the encyclopedia when there are new ones going unseen. If this isn't the appropriate venue I'll move the suggestion but I thought that this would be viewed by more people interested in the FA related part of the encyclopedia. Does anyone think it's a good/terrible idea? James086Talk | Email 10:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Submitting a blurb with FAC is an unnecessary hurdle, complication, and adds to "process" creep, beyond the purpose of FAC, which is to determine if articles meet WP:WIAFA. First, about 45% of articles fail at FAC, so considering those articles will change, submitting a blurb is premature. Second, even articles that pass may change. Third, choosing mainpage articles and blurbs is a somewhat separate process from FAC; let's not mix the two. FAC doesn't need to get into discussing mainpage blurbs, when Raul handles that separately. The task at FAC is to focus on the article, not the blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
But James' general idea isn't necessarily a bad one. It was suggested once before and never acted on. If someone were to create their own blurb after an FAC, it might work. But I never go to Portal:Featured content (in fact, I think the last time I looked at it was the last time this was suggested.) People waiting for TFAs may not find it really gives the article the exposure they'd like. Marskell (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The blurb isn't that important, it could be handled after a successful FAC, the idea is more about guarantee-ing the article a display somewhere prominent. I had thought Portal:Featured content was fairly high traffic, but perhaps not? James086Talk | Email 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I never go to that portal either, but maybe you can submit your idea there, and if FAs want to submit blurbs there, they can do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like P:FC actually gets a pretty decent click through rate: 20,000 views a day. Not much compared to the Main Page, but certainly nothing at which to sneeze. --JayHenry (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, not bad. Didn't expect that the portal was that well hit; it would guarantee some exposure. James, why don't you flesh out the idea, post it there, and notify again here? Marskell (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Erk, the Portal talk is not especially active, so we could probably do it here. I'm thinking James' idea is basically a good one, if the proposal is better filled out re how to do blurbs after an FAC. Marskell (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If portal talk isn't very active, who's going to handle the work involved in adding and rotating this content there and making sure there are no Fair Use, etc. issues in the blurbs, and all that other work that Raul does for the main page? Who will manage this once it's in place, if that page isn't active ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No one's doing that anyway, I think. It's randomly rotating old ones now, correct? There would be no more work involved than what is (isn't) going on right now. Marskell (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

←The work necessary would be organising the blurbs. That would require a page where blurbs are submitted (to ensure they are up to standard) and then someone to feed them into a queue which would be nearly identical to the way the TFA queue works. The articles don't have to be selected for a specific date because every article is going up fairly soon after promotion (but the time will grow as there is more than 1 article promoted per day). I would be willing to do this and I think I would be able to keep on top of it (I don't have a huge amount of free time but I feel that I could do it). The other problem is, am I trusted for the quality audit? I don't exactly have a huge history of FA writing/FA process participation. James086Talk | Email 04:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thought; Gimmebot could leave a message on the nominator's talk page to remind them to make a blurb at the same time as adding the star & updating the article's talk page upon promotion. James086Talk | Email 09:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot doesn't parse out who the nominator is, and participation at the portal should probably be something FA nominators elect to pursue independently. I like your idea to add more to the portal, and think you should just go ahead and set something up over there, but again, I'm concerned that FAC not become the vehicle for writing the blurbs, which is a separate process handled elsewhere for the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Does a person being in the presidential race make their article too unstable to be a FA?

Barack Obama for example :) 8thstar 02:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As already pointed out on the John McCain FAC, and in this past talk page thread, the stability criterion is:

1 (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.

The changes since McCain was nominated at FAC are these: the sort of copyediting and reference formatting cleanup typical of a FAC. Opposes based on instability must should demonstrate either that the content is significantly changing day to day (not in response to the featured article process), or that the article is the subject of ongoing edit wars. For either Obama or McCain to be considered unstable, one of these two would have to be demonstrated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Just curious here. Words like "must" and "have to" jumped out in the above comment. Does this mean that consensus is not required to approve a FAC but rather some sort of opinion validation criteria that the "opposes" must meet in order to have their oppositon count? I assume not and if not then the comment above is a personal opinion and nothing more than that. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Changing "must" to "should", although refer to WP:FAC instructions, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, SandyGeorgia, and your point about the instructions is well taken (although I'd argue that there may be rationales for stability opposition other than the 2 you identify). I also note that at the top of the WP:FAC page it does specifically require consensus "must be reached" for a nomination to be promoted to FA status and that "a nomination will be removed from the list and archived" when a consensus has not been reached. Therefore, it seems the universe is unfolding as it should. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
One clarification, in case you're not aware (and Sandy/Raul: please correct me if am wrong here); the consensus is determined by the FA director, who may decide that an oppose or support vote is invalid or not to be considered. Hence it would be possible for the FA director to decide that opposes based on stability are not valid since they do not correctly interpret the stability criterion. This does mean that the opinion of the FA director (Raul654 or his delegate at FAC, SandyGeorgia) has more force than "personal opinion", to use your term from above. Mike Christie (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1 (I lost count, but I believe it ended at 25 Supports and 10 Opposes, and yet was not promoted). Well reasoned and thorough Supports and Opposes are helpful in determining consensus vis-a-vis WP:WIAFA, particularly when "popularity" issues surface as they did on the first Preity Zinta FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

FA = Omphaloskepsis

Why do editors want to get awards for their voluntary efforts here? Isn't that like giving a gift and asking for something in return? Are these awards being put on resumes or being persued as classroom assignments? Is it for some kind of personal recognition? Obviously, all of the articles should meet the same criteria so isn't this FA concept silly and nonsensical Omphaloskepsis? I think so. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is for the same reason that any volunteer should be awarded for a job well done. Those people who make certain articles become featured are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and they should be nurtured. See WP:RAUL, rule 1. JFW | T@lk 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can't speak for other editors, but in my case I feel that external validation of whether I've done a good job is more apt to be rigorous than self-assessment. That's why I submit the articles I work on to FAC. And yes, all articles should eventually be high quality, but in the meantime determining which ones are and which aren't seems a useful step. Mike Christie (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see FAC as anything to do with rewards. It's about establishing a range of articles that are the best we can do and signalling to the readers which ones they are. We can't say that about most of our articles; but of course it would be good if they all reached that standard. In all aspects of society, standards improve from a progressive core, so that what may seem special now will be accepted as the standard in future (or may even need review to reach future improved standards). qp10qp (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you ever saw Category:Wikipedia essays? That is navel-gazing. Seriously though, non-profit organizations, like Wikipedia, need to constantly attract and motivate volunteers/donors. If you are actually interested in what is going on here, then review Recognition Principles & Retention and Recognition. The FA system is an attempt at highlighting quality to newcomers (WP:TFA), training volunteer article researchers/writers, and rewarding effort. Its also about pushing the standard for content improvement and innovations. --maclean 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The other important point is that it is the past thing we have for a 'stable version' as it were, it is a reference point that is widely recognized and easily referred to within WP when the article is later degraded or whatever. That was the main motivation for me intially. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
PS:It is a great way to polish writing and composition skills, the feedback provides a great learning tool generally. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talkcontribs)

Could someone give me a reward? Any reward, for anything. I'm willing to be paid in chocolate bars, if it comes to that. Marskell (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep your mitts out of my box of chocolates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, when you're not watching, I am unconscienceable in getting my mitts into your box of chocolates. People freely offer you chocolate so often that I find your lack of reward-sharing scandalous. Marskell (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wha? (Going to check on the chocolate box lock). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you kids can have the chocolates, it's Jim Beam for me. Seriously though, isn't the Academy Awards coming up in a couple of hours? Maybe if we all watch real close we'll pick up some fresh ideas. Can I be Wikipedia Awards first host? or at least design the FACSCAR?:) and the winner is .......? Do we really need a carrot hanging in front of our noses to get us to do a great job? Citizen Kane did not win best picture nor any of the major awards for 1941. I think many of these FAs will be seen in retrospect as shallow,censored and pov by omission. They're just being too micro-managed and owned by a few. This weakens and perverts the conceptual foundation of Wikipedia. How many FAs have been primarily contributed to by anons? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) For some background to this thread, see Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#.22Featured_Article.22_mission and other comments on that talk page. Geometry guy 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I try to develop articles to FA status for one very concrete reason: Featured articles are displayed on the Main Page. Obviously there's a bit of pride involved there, in that I am asking lots of people to read my work, but frankly if you don't want readers, what are you doing editing Wikipedia? And this goal also serves the project as a whole, as it can direct attention and effort towards areas of the encyclopedia that people wouldn't otherwise have visited or even been aware of.

If FA were really just an award, I wouldn't bother. Fortunately there's a lot more to it. Melchoir (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the pro-FA crowd. I've been lurking since I signed up for an account. I've got three good articles (not Good Articles) that I think stand a chance here, and I'm excited to get them into shape and to present them (one is in peer review here). While the "carrot" of main page exposure and a bronze star in the article corner are enticing, the real purpose as I see it is to expose my stuff to a group whom I view as Wikipedia's most discerning reviewers. What better ringer to run articles through than one that results in a statement that "this is one of our best"? It's quite an incentive. — Dulcem (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the recent Signpost article on the FA list

For anyone interested: User:VanTucky/Featured Article categories to be filled. VanTucky 20:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think I can help with the categories you mentioned too much, but I'll keep an eye out. A nifty idea though. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Informal proposal for comment

In theory, someone who has brought an article up to a standard to even be considered for featured-status should be able to review an article to a similar standard, so is there any merit in adding a line or two to {{FAC-instructions}}, asking nominators to review an article once their own nomination has been completed, "paying it forward" for other nominators (and perhaps themselves in the future)? This request could take a stronger form:

Once a review has been completed, it is considered good practise for FA nominators to review one other editor's nomination. This will help to keep the review backlog to a manageable level and ensure any future nominations of your own are dealt with more promptly.

Or it could be a little less prescriptive:

Once a review has been completed, if you are able, please take the time to review one other nomination on this page. This will [...]

I'm told that this has been brought up here before, but worded carefully, I feel the pitfalls can be avoided. If it prompts only a few editors to take part, this would be worth the effort. All the best, Steve TC 08:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be against anything worded as strongly as the first point. I know some users who have managed to get an article up to FA but are still essentially clueless as to how to evaluate whether a different article meets FA standards, and I'd really rather not encourage them to come review my articles ;) Karanacs (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Image misunderstanding at GA

Just so reviewers are aware, there has been some incorrect information about featured article images at a good article page, WP:GVF, for about a month. That page said:

Featured articles must have images, Good articles should.

Featured article criterion state:

It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

I removed the incorrect statement, but the perception may persist, since it was up there for a while.[9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Two sources questions for a current FAC

Awadewit has raised concerns about two sources used in If (magazine), which is currently a featured article candidate. Sandy suggested I post the question at WP:RSN or here; I tried RSN yesterday and have no responses so far so I thought I'd post here too. Here are the questions.

  • Internet Speculative Fiction Database. This is a database which allows open data entry, but the data entry is moderated by administrators. Hence it's not quite clear if it is subject to the restriction on sites anyone can edit. An additional point is that the reference is not being used to source anything that is not also sourced from the magazine issues themselves; the value of this source is that the ISFDB provides an online index that is useful to readers who don't have access to the magazine itself (as of course most won't). So it's a convenience, and is not the sole source.
  • Magazine Datafile. This is definitely self-published, by a bibliographer, Phil Stephenson-Payne. It is used only for one fact: the name "Clifford Hong", who is the editor of an issue of the magazine. The only other source I know for this information would be to go to Addall, put in "Clifford Hong" in the author field, and search. You'll find one copy of the magazine for sale, confirming that Hong was the editor. Is either of these a reliable source? Stephenson-Payne's site is widely used as a reference work, and in fact he is now hosting a major index of anthologies put together by William Contento. (I am also citing that index, but Contento is an acknowledged expert in the field, and his indexes are regarded as critical references; Stephenson-Payne is not self-publishing those -- he's publishing Contento's work -- so I feel those are OK.) Stephenson-Payne doesn't have independent reference works referring to him as an expert, though, as Contento does.

Just yesterday I found that I can use the first source, the ISFDB, to source Hong's name, so if that one's OK I don't need the second one. Thanks for any help on these. Mike Christie (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always understood that a magazine can be used as a source for itself. So, for the non-exceptional fact about the editor, it is enough to ref it to an issue of the magazine. When it comes to convenience links, I try to make it clear that the ref doesn't depend on it, by using such language as "a list of so and so can be found online here", or whatever. qp10qp (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was able to eliminate the second source; the first one I made acceptable as you suggested, by adding a note about convenience. I'd still be interested to know if the first one is a reliable source that can stand on its own, but that can wait for another day. Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


I am not sure wheather this is allready happening, but: bor the 'close call' nominations (# supports barely goes above treshold) I believe the votes should be double-checked, and if a supporter has less than x edits (say 300) the vote would be disregarded. A bot could check counts and add it to the signatures. Nergaal (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pls don't presume I don't watch closely. I am also assuring there is time for editors to lodge opposes before promotion. Do you assume a high edit count necessarily equates to a support or oppose better grounded in WP:WIAFA than a low edit count does? Do you have an example of a promotion that concerns you? The best way to address concerns is to enter a comment or an oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments should always be evaluated based upon the merits of the arguments therein. Summary rejection of opinions solely on the basis of an arbitrary edit count threshold – especially as high as 300 – would be inappropriate. A comment well-founded in regards to the FA criteria ought not to be disregarded. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Would anyone object if I set up MiszaBot II to archive this talk page? I'd set it to archive any threads with 21 days of inactivity. Mike Christie (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we start with 30 days, and lower it to 21 if needed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. The bot should create a fresh archive every time the archive page reaches 250k. If there are any problems I'll clean them up. Mike Christie (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, now it really is done. Took me a couple of tweaks to get the code right. We'll have to add links to new archive pages as MiszaBot creates them. The first archive pass was done today; I still think 21 days would be OK as the cutoff, but there's no hurry to change it. Mike Christie (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For consideration

Articles meeting the featured article criteria and passing WP:FAC in time can be considered for the April Fools' mainpage, as discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding mainpage dates to articlehistory

Epbr123 (talk · contribs) was adding the mainpage dates to articlehistory as Raul scheduled the mainpage (along with a lot of other things), but ... um ... he's unfortunately semi-retired now. Is anyone interested in picking up this task? You just watch for Raul to schedule the mainpage, and add the |maindate = parameter to the article history.[10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll pick it up, if it hasn't already been claimed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
SOLD to the Cobbola in red !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool beans; I assume wait until the article actually appears (as is the case with DYK)? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No. When you add the maindate parameter, the template wording adjusts automatically from future, current to past tense. Watch the archive daily so you'll know when Raul schedules, and add them as soon as he does; that gives the editors time to tidy up. You can watch Raul's contribs, or you can click daily on the archive, accessible from the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Entiendo. You crazy kids with your fancy templates. Let me know if there are other tasks that need doin'. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You wanna list? FACs that have previous FACs don't get an automated preload of the external link checker, so I have to add them manually. I can keep going ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, keep me busy so I stay out of trouble. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's another. When an article reaches, say, three supports, check the external links and leave a note if there are dead links (or leave a note that they're clear, so I don't have to check ... I've been checking all before promoting). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Village Pump craziness

Just FYI, there is a discussion going on at the Village Pump about revamping the FAC process. The people who are discussing for the most part seem to have no idea how the process works. Karanacs (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also here. It's always intriguing to read people's complaints about FAs (a community process) when those same people don't come over here and do the work of lodging opposes on articles they don't think should be featured. Specifically: regular FA writers need Support for their articles to pass. That means around five other editors need to donate their time to review someone else's nomination. Those same editors who enjoy FAC supports should be in here reviewing other FACs to assure the same quality of review they want for their own FAs; criticizing an FA you didn't bother to review is ... an interesting position to take. It would almost be funny to see anyone else try to juggle and schedule the main page as well as Raul does—that is, until the first edit war erupted on the main page and we had no daily featured article :-) Anyway, to repeat my mantra if anyone's paying attention: if you want to get quality reviews on FACs, you need to give quality reviews. If you don't like what's getting through FAC, participate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't have a go at articles that have passed FAC, but otherwise, guilty as charged. I begin to think I'm getting the hang of it - having put forward two - but then the process seems very different each time. I'd like to do one more and then I think I would be able to provide input to the review process. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That's how I started. After my second FA I started reviewing other articles similar to mine, and as I got more practice (and confidence), I started looking at more topics and looking for more things. It's perfectly okay to pick one specific thing that you are comfortable with (like reliable sources, or images, or date formatting) and just look for that across a lot of FACs at first. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Anyone can spot certain deficiencies; you don't need to know the territory. It is disappointing when I have to run through all of FAC and highlight obvious corrections needed in FACs that have received multiple supports. Other editors should be doing that; otherwise, we'll continue to be criticized for letting anything through. You don't have to be a content reviewer; for example, Elcobbola does a great job reviewing images, Epbr123 was reviewing for MoS, but he's gone, someone should be spot checking sources for reliability, someone could be checking for dead links (why do I have to do that?), etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, KB, the more the merrier. I've found it helpful having GA review experience, as they have less strict requirements and the stakes weren’t as high. That being said, however, by all means review at your own pace and/or just based on one or several criteria if that’s your initial comfort level. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The concerns were brought by NTK whose only contribution to any featured process has been this. FAC is accessible and welcoming to every editor. Non-participation is a choice which carries a subsequent waiver of all validity of complaints. This is akin to complaining about politics when you don’t bother to vote. The system isn’t perfect and I’m the first to agree that there is a lack of truly skeptical commentors (we need more folks reviewing!) That notwithstanding, FA is still highly respected (rightfully so) and a benchmark for Wikipedia thanks, in no small part, to the oft-unappreciated efforts of Sandy, Raul and others. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, people outside of the process will always armchair quarterback, but they need to be reminded that doing what Raul does isn't as easy as it may look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
And, we do need to pay closer attention to the video game FACs; they do seem to slide through much easier than other articles, and I do wish reviewers would pay more attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I resemble that remark. Seriously though, there has been some discussion about getting VG members to participate in more FACs, not just VG articles, to help sharpen our editing skills. So you should hopefully be seeing more participants from the VG Project. Though it may be a slow process because gaining experience like that isn't something that'll happen overnight. But with Sandy overseeing the process, things should work out in the long run. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
Well reasoned support and oppose is always good; a string of member and fan supports (in any article, not just video games) followed by a list of obvious deficiencies from an independent reviewer contributes to unnecessary backlog at FAC. Theoretically, editors wouldn't be slapping supports on FACs where others will easily find issues that need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I contribute regularly to videogame FACs now as a reviewer. I hate to stick my neck out, but maybe there's some mixed signals around the FAC process. Maybe it's me, but I regularly hear that there's a deficiency in the number of reviewers, thus more users are required to give their opinion. However, at the same time, there's seems to be a level of pressure surrounding the role of an FAC reviewer. Anybody's encouraged to "support" or "oppose", yet a supporting editor should pick out all the MoS errors and flaws of the article. It reflects poorly on the supporting voters if they support while another proceeds to ouline numerous errors. It's like anybody should give a judgement, but they may be bemoaned if they support while missing errors in the article. I don't know, it seems to promote the idea that one needs to be "qualified" to review an article at FAC. I don't know, and I'm unsure about posting such a comment at the risk of sounding stupid. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, Ashnard, but some of the recent FACs indicate a need for Supporters to be a bit more discerning, judicious and thorough in reviewing, lest we just rubberstamp everything that comes up through here. Perhaps holding off until an independent reviewer has had a look would be wise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to stress that it really is a learning process. I'm sure I looked stupid in the beginning, but Raul and Sandy are aware of who's new and who's not, and it isn't expected that a new reviewer is perfect. I've been reviewing a lot lately but I still miss things, and that's okay too. The more reviewers we have, the more chance we have of catching all of the flaws and not just a subset. If you support an article and then see a list of issues with it, it's okay to change your !vote too. Karanacs (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I can sympathise with your (Ashnard's) point, as it happens. I've been looking to get more involved in the FAC review process, so I've been watching these pages for a few weeks in order to pick up the knack before diving in. I recently reviewed Soprano Home Movies, and the editor has addressed my concerns over the content, but I'm finding myself reluctant to support the nomination until someone with more experience comes in and checks it for prose and MOS-compliance. And I really shouldn't be so hesitant, but to be honest, I just didn't want to look like one of those people who drive-by with a "Support, great article dude!" for articles which are still complete bomb-sites. Does this mean I shouldn't be reviewing articles yet, until I'm fully au fait with the MOS and various excellent prose guides? Maybe so. Or maybe we shouldn't expect reviewers to be "Jacks of all trades". I just don't know. Steve TC 08:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Although, there's certainly room for disagreement on what "needs to be addressed." Christopher Parham (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Steve's assessment. On most FACs I just offer minor comments or do some grammar fixes, because I'm not usually confident it outright supporting, especially if it's a topic I'm unfamiliar with or there's no "model" FA to compare the FAC to. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Featured article candidates/archive26".