Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, April Fools 2005, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,25

FACs needing feedback view •
Blackrocks Brewery	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now
2023 World Snooker Championship	Review it now
George Floyd (American football)	Review it now
KNXV-TV	Review it now

Introducing User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured article candidates

So I stumbled across User:VeblenBot/C/Requests_for_peer_review, which is a product of the revamped peer review process. I figured that FAC and FAR could use a similar page, so I dropped a note on VeblenBot's operator User:CBM, and he kindly set up User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured article review candidates and User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured article candidates. So for those of you who dislike wading through the 1 MB monstrosity that is the FAC page, enjoy! (and don't forget to thank CBM!). BuddingJournalist 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice!! I'm really glad that the category listing bot is being put to further use. Note that if you want to change the format of the page, you just have to change {{CF/Wikipedia featured article candidates}} etc.. Also, it is possible to transclude VeblenBot's data onto different pages, and use different formats for different pages: see {{CF/Requests for peer review}}, which uses VeblenBot's data to generate WP:Peer review, WP:Peer review list and {{Recently listed peer reviews}}. Feel free to contact CBM or myself for further info. Geometry guy 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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 talk • edits 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.

Method:

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.
2. 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.)
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The FAC director would promote or archive as they do now; perhaps to a parallel set of archive pages.

Pros:

• 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.

Cons:

• 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)
    • I'm going to start revamping the Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles page to create a project dedicated to making FAs easier to produce without decreasing quality. Please join in. Wrad (talk) 02:42, 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. 131.44.121.252 (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? 76.10.142.243 (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? 76.10.142.243 (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. Amerique^dialectics 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The article only had five days at FAC. Amerique^dialectics 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. Amerique^dialectics 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 then.....here...cheers, 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 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Way too overlinked...please read WP:MOSLINK :-) 131.44.121.252 (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. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 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.
2. Awesome. Support.
3. OMG This is like sooooo perfect. Yay!
4. Wow. You outdid yourself. Cool. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 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". Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 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)

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". Yomangani^talk 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)

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 time...ie 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? Wikback.com? 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)

Sign-up

[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)
2. Woody (talk)
3. Mike Christie (talk)
4. The Rambling Man (talk)
5. Wrad (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
6. JayHenry (talk)
7. Epbr123 (talk)
8. Awadewit | talk —Preceding comment was added at 06:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
9. 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)

NBSP at MOS

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. 42, pp. 409–13 and Vol. 1, No. 5, Fig. 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)

Comprehensive

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)

Re-nominations

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)

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 (talk • contribs)

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)