Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FAR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article removal candidates
view edit
New Jersey Devils Review it now
Marian Rejewski Review it now
See also: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination, Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and the Toolserver listing of featured articles with cleanup tags.

Two-step process? Is it necessary or does it just confuse or complicate things unnecessarily?[edit]

See related discussion at FAC

Do folks feel this is helpful or unnecessarily complex? I am not sure of the need for it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the inactivity here, I think it's time to simplify. DrKiernan (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I am thinking similarly - it'd be different if the turnover time was short and the idea was to give folks time to prepare, but they are long. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
My thought is that decisions about any modifications that might be needed to this process should be deferred until we can see full lists of how many very old FAs are on the books (per the discussion at WT:FAC). Whether and how to modify this process depends on how many FAs need to be evaluated, and how we will decide to process those. Without a full list of how bad the problem is, decisions may be premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Stalled again: nothing moving at WT:FAC. Casliber and DrKiernan, it seems that the three of us may be the only ones who care about reviewing and maintaining the quality of FAs; conversation has gone nowhere, although Hawkeye7 has also been involved in the discussions. I'm not sure what has caused such a dramatic cultural shift relative to the pride once associated with that bronze star. I'm wondering if today it's less about the integrity that was once associated with the bronze star than it is about google hits. If google hits are the name of the new game, then maybe just getting an article on the mainpage is what today's editors care more about ? There doesn't seem to be much interest in re-vitalizing what was once one a very active process and where many FAs were restored to status. It's unclear to me if today's FA writers understand what standards of review once were, or even care if many FAs are now deficient. No Signpost Dispatches, no reviewer awards, no talk page discussions to encourage reviewers ... just folks accepting the new non-review status of FAs.

So, yes, something new is needed to deal with the deficient FAs on the books. Maybe it is time to initiate some sort of up-or-down vote process. Maybe those with clear consensus to demote lose the star after a month-long voting period, those with clear consensus to keep are not reviewed, and those in between are put through FAR. But FAR is dead, so what form should a new FAR take? Without an FA director to prompt changes to get FAs back into shape, who will take charge? Should we put our heads together on a sandbox RFC to address all of this? I think the numbers will be unprecedented relative to the 500 FAs we reviewed between 2007 and 2009-- I am thinking there are thousands of FAs out of compliance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be very hesitant to move to a more vote-based process: most likely outcomes are either we would continue to have few participants (in which case no reasonable consensus could be discerned, in most cases), or we would have an influx of votes based on things other than the FA criteria. But I'm open to being persuaded by an RFC or other discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't need to change the process but interpret it more like FAC - FAC has an element of blackballing in it by necessity. In other words, to be FA, an article has to have dealt with all reasonable actionable issues. The same should hold for FARC as FAC. We just need to call time on things sometimes. All this is is the presence or absence of a star and logging at the appropriate assessment level. If someone can't complete it within a given period (we should say six weeks max), then it defaults to being demoted. If someone doesn't have time to fix it in the time frame, it is not a crime, it's not a tragedy, and folks are encouraged to work on something to bring it to FAC later. It should be no big deal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
So to sum up, we don';t have to change the process at all - just our interpretation and default. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
A few thoughts: The process should be gradual, and not try and send everything to FAR at once; that's asking for trouble. But then it can't be too gradual, because if it loses momentum, that's not good, either. Maybe getting a solid core of people willing to see the audit through, and then going systematically - either by chronology (2004, then 2005...) or by worst offenders. And coming up with some sort of way to track progress... --Rschen7754 04:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, it could go faster than it is now. For more attention, would it be worth combining the FAC and FARC pages - like the WP:RPP page has both protection and unprotection. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Rschen, I agree hitting FAR/FARC with loads of articles at once will just create a bottleneck, even if we got Nikki some assistance, but you're right about keeping momentum. I'll admit I didn't realise there were still so many older articles that hadn't hit FAR, as I seemed to recall us working through a list of older unreviewed FAs some time ago, but perhaps my mind's playing tricks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Cas, interesting thought. Candidate and review processes are combined in the MilHist A-Class process, for one, so there's precedent of sorts -- it's essentially the same rules for one as the other, you just declare keep instead of support when reviewing an extant A-Class article. Do I assume that this proposal would involve dropping FAR entirely, since you'd otherwise still have a two-stage process with the second stage being FAC instead FARC? In any case, I'd be quite happy to see an arbitrary time limit on FAR/FARC to help ensure quicker throughput. The FAC community has -- in my experience -- never been in favour of explicit time limits, but the case might be made for doing it at FAR/FARC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the review timescale needs to be set in stone - I'd think about six weeks unless there is ongoing activity addressing concerns (much like FAC but a bit longer as these can be fiddly). But I really don't think we need to leave articles open for six months such as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Planetary nebula/archive2.
The more I think about it, the more I think it makes sense to keep FAC and FARC on the same page - this will highlight that it is a core part of the FA process (the FAC page being one where articles are judged against FA criteria, whether they be gaining or losing status) as it will cement it as a core part of the process and attract more eyes on it. I suspect folks scanning up and down the page will also review there more often than is happening now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If we are to keep this process, which it looks like we are (though modified), then we need to replace Dana, who has not edited since June.
I think we should also remind ourselves that "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks": it is only "longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process". Yes Minister has been open since September, nothing has happened and no-one is working on it. We should have moved it to FARC in mid-October and removed it in late October, but we collectively failed to do so through our own inactivity. DrKiernan (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay then, as far as time limits go, we don't need to introduce anything, we already have guidance in the instructions, let's apply it more strictly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, the time limit is not "arbitrary"; the two weeks in each phase (codified in the FAR instructions, but which somewhere along the line in the last few years got upped to three) was always respected historically. It was extremely rare for a FAR to go beyond a month. When they did, and if just a bit of cleanup work was needed, Marskell and others active here dug in to do the work themselves (DrKiernan was part of the old team here that was very active in saving stars), or the article was demoted.

Yes, we need another FAR delegate to help Nikki, but unfortunately, we are first going to have to have an RFC about how delegates are nominated/appointed/elected/whatever, since we now have a discussion running to appoint new TFAR delegates whose nomination was based on an email miscommunication, and those issues have not been addressed or even responded to in committee. As of now, we have no process for nominating or selecting a new delegate. If we did, I would have already proposed Cas and DrK and gotten this moving. I know Dr was involved when this was an active page, and I know he can and will set up and systematically follow a new version of WP:URFA, starting on the work we've begun to identify in the WT:FAC discussions. For those lists, we need scripts or bots.

Nikki, my statement about a straight up-or-down vote was perhaps too broad or interpreted too literally. What I would propose is not really "straight up or down". When I'm home this afternoon, I'll take the time to lay it out more clearly, now that we appear to have more people paying attention. Because the magnitude of the problem is unprecedented, I was thinking/hoping we could come up with a hybrid to process more quickly the worst of the worst (take the Germany example I gave at WT:FAC), while letting us run the majority through normal FAR processes.

I would not support running FAC and FAR together. Right now, we have two moribund pages, with declining standards of review (most FACR items are no longer even looked at by the new crop of reviewers), so combining them will not give us one better process. We need re-invigoration, education, examples, leadership. Also, FAC processing has declined to a dribble, while FAR needs to crank up to potentially process thousands of deficient FAs. We need training of reviewers, we need Signpost dispatches, we need accurate records, stats and archives to be kept with talk page discussions initiated to highlight trends and issues, we need what our defunct directorship used to be charged with to keep the process vigorous. FAR can be reinvigorated, or FAC can be reinvigorated, depending on who leads. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said somewhere else: I'm not sure lack of participation at FAR is the problem per se. The problem is that most articles that end up here only ever had one involved editor who knew or cared about it. So it was doomed from the start, and it's only here because the editor stopped curating and no one picked up the baton. Reforms start at a train depot long before this last one. Once we agree on the cutoff point and understand the scope of deficient articles, we should initiate a high-level sweeps process to efficiently remove the star from stale, deficient articles where the author is absent and no one has been taking care. Only articles that show some sign of an engaged review process where editors are interested in saving the star should end up here. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@Laser brain:, @DrKiernan:, @Casliber:: I promised to come back with my ideas, and then got sidetracked. Proposal below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed way forward[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive63
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FA scripts

Hawkeye7 is looking at lists and scripts over at WT:FAC, and The ed17 maintains lists of FAs by length.

  • 1. Start with a list of all FAs that haven't been reviewed since 2010 (including 2010-- that is four years old). If possible, Hawkeye or Rick Block adds to that list a) the nominator names (see Rick Bot operated by Rick Block for example at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2014), and b) a link to the last FAC or FAR in articlehistory (not sure that is doable by script).
  • 2. From the list maintained by The ed17, add in any very long FAs that have grown significantly since review (that is, they have lots of unvetted text).
  • 3. Also add in all of ColonelHenry's FAs, per the ANI thread.
  • 4. Add in anything else ?

So, at this point, we will have several thousand articles-- pruning starts:

  • 5. Based on a spot check, and going through WP:WBFAN, remove those that are still being maintained. Just looking at WBFAN, there are big chunks that can be removed, eg Brianboulton, and some chunks that will stay, eg, YellowMonkey).
  • 6. Based on a spot check, remove anything reviewed recently at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page.
  • 7. Any other criteria for removing?

After pruning, we look at how many unreviewed FAs remain. When the FAC and FAR pages were very active, we processed over 500 previously uncited FARs in a few years (in addition to FARs not from the WP:URFA list). It's unlikely FAR can process that same amount in an environment of declining editorship and a cultural shift away from concern about the quality of the FA list. So, based on how many FAs remain, discussion is initiated about a higher-level sweeps process.

  • 8. If it is decided that some sort of high-level sweep is the only way through the number of unreviewed FAs, it wouldn't just be a straight up-or-down vote; we'd notify article talk and nominator talk, we'd wait a few weeks for discussion/improvements, then have the !vote, and only those with clear demote consensus would lose the star immediately, while the rest would just remain on the list needing review. (This step needs Coordinator/Delegate measure of consensus, and FAR or FAR-like pages that can be added to articlehistory.)
  • 9. Then we're left with a list, still, that needs to be systematically processed through FAR.

FAR is short one coordinator now, and all of this would require two more active, experienced, hands-on coordinators or delegates. But, we have no process for nominating or appointing new people, and need an RFC. To not be stalled longer than necessary, we could still begin generating the lists and discussing the process.

And speaking of delegate/coordinator selection process, none of this is doable at all without experienced, hands-on people (I lean towards editors who were active in the process when FAC and FAR were processing significantly more articles than they are today, and who were familiar with the systematic, hands-on, record-keeping, stat-based approach used). So, in the event a delegate/coordinator selection process is identified, are DrKiernan, Cas liber, Laser brain, anyone else active in this thread even interested in being a FAR Coordinator, or a FAR delegate for this part of the process?

We have hundreds, if not thousands, of FAs on the books that are below GA level. If we have no candidates to oversee the years-long cleanup that is needed, we may as well give up and consider FA to be the equivalent of GA. So, who is willing and able to lead this review for a few years? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Aayyyeeee - err. a sizeable job. If we are going to keep this manageable we need to keep track of this in as few places as possible. I see Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and maybe this is the best place to update. I'd maybe make it to end of 2008 to make it a bit less ambitious....why are we selecting end of 2009 anyway?
Thinking about it on this scale makes me more sure that it needs to be combined with FAC page. Reasoning is this, when I nominate an article at FAC, a rough combination of maths plus etiquette leads me to the conclusion that it is only fair if I review at least three other FA nominees to make up for the minimum of three that I need for my nomination to pass. Now I'll scan up and down for something interesting. I generally forget about FARC for months at a time, and I am sure many other well-meaning folks do to. I sometimes get a sense that by separating them we give the idea that an FA star is permanent and its loss represents some ZOMG debacle. I feel if FAC and FARC are on the same page, it will emphasise that the process is fluid (not quite "easy come easy go" but you get the picture!) and that hopefully FA status will more come to more closely align with FA=best current content. As a nominator, when it comes time to scan articles to review, I'd also take a look at FARCs that pique my interest. This might also help throughput. In the same way that FA candidates are sometimes speedily withdrawn, if we had FARCs that were nominated, the original improving editor(s) are inactive, and several folks point out a large number of significant errors, these could be demoted fairly quickly (say, after 7-10 days even). The good thing here is that the FAR itself can function as a future Peer Review of sorts.
So, what I'd do is make the 3 FA coordinators and 1 active FAR coordinator combine as 4 FA/FAR coordinators of a combined page with the FARs at the bottom. I'd also make FAR a one-step process. It's easy - an FAR gets opened, gets discussed and closed one way or the other, like an FAC - the more I think about it, we don't need two steps.
And as far as generating a cohort of articles to sweep through, I think this is prudent and can proceed concurrently. It will go alot quicker with the combining of pages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec)I think this is ambitious and runs the risk of creating another moribund process where not many people are active. Is it better to replace or reform the current processes rather than run them in parallel with a new one? Points 1 to 7 are a modified form (phase 3 if you like) of WP:URFA. Point 8 is in essence a modified form of stages 1 and 3 of FAR. Can we adopt your ideas or modifications of them as part of FAR in the case of point 8 and as part of URFA in the case of points 1-7 and 9?
FAC can handle up to 50 articles a month, so FAR should be able to handle a similar number in theory. To do so, what we need is faster through-put and more nominations.
On the first of these needs, Cas, if I read it correctly, suggested a default demote for articles with no keep comments and stricter, but not rigid, time keeping.
On the second need, more nominations should also draw more people to this page, thus increasing the number of potential reviewers. Could we scrap or loosen the "only one nomination at a time" rule for FAR?
I am willing to serve as a co-ordinator here and have no problem with Cas doing so either, but perhaps one way around the "how do we appoint?" problem is to simply re-appoint the former FA delegates: Sandy, User:Laser brain and User:Karanacs, or the current ones: User:Ucucha, User:Graham Beards and User:Ian Rose. DrKiernan (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, default demote if no keeps - and yes, but not rigid, time keeping. I worry that more noms will not draw more people. There are too many pages to look at (I almost never get to FLC and PR), which is why (among other reasons) I am thnking amalgamtion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm open to all ideas, but further thoughts.
a) Without an updated WP:URFA list, we've got nowhere to start-- no idea of how bad the problem is. My first steps were for generating a new version of URFA.
b) The last update to WP:URFA was done by Dr Pda me in 2008, listing articles not reviewed since 2006. In the SIX YEARS SINCE, the need to systematically review FAs went dormant. That's why we are now so far behind, need leaders to take charge of this (Cas, DrK, Maralia, Laser, anyone else ???), and why I am suggesting both the 2009 or 2010 date, and the need for a higher-level sweep (we have fallen years behind).
c) Don't get discouraged! When the citation requirements changed in 2005, the 523 FAs that needed processing seemed daunting. That was half of the FAs at the time. And we did it.
d) Don't get discouraged, part 2. When Every Single FA and former FA needed to have articlehistory built (that meant tracking every peer review, Good article nomination, FAC and FAR), Gimmetrow, Maralia and I dug in and did it. This is what a typical talk page looked like before articlehistory, and most of the pieces weren't even complete for conversion. We didn't have so many bots and scripts in those days-- it was months of painstaking manual work. And we did it. If we set up the URFA with the list, showing how big or small the problem is, the path will be more clear and we will see if people are willing to do the work. Recruit people. Write Signpost articles. People may appear. And if they don't, then we know a high-level sweep is needed.
e) On Cas's points about the notion of combining FAC and FAR, is there a way to ... for lack of a better word ... transclude FAR into the bottom of FAC, while maintaining two separate processes?
f) We need leaders to take this on. Maralia would be another good candidate ... she knows all of the ins and outs, and has BTDT. Anyone else?
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Re point e, yes, we could theoretically do that with a small number of FARs - a more significant number would probably make the FAC page hard to load. But I agree that getting a URFA update in place is needed to get an idea of the scope we're dealing with. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm in and available to help with this. --Laser brain (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I was crazy busy from Thanksgiving to yesterday, and consequently wasn't keeping up with the discussion here and at FAC. I've just read through, although there's so much there that it may take a few more passes to process. An initial thought: focusing on one year's worth of FACs at a time would be less daunting. Maralia (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
So, how about for starters we get up FARs right away for everything left from 2006 at WP:URFA? That is, ignore the one-nom rule for that set and get them going ? We are "only" up to 2006 on systematically looking at old FAs. Can we at least go in the next step through 2008? I prefer 2009. And, if we're going to do the work to generate a list, doing the work is the same to generate the list whether we cut it off at 2009 or 2010 ... so ? Most encouraged to see so many good folks coming on board ! The task is less daunting when shared among competent hands ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
oops. never mind. I just checked WP:URFA, and see that the unreviewed FAs through only 2005 and 2006 would be about 50-- too many to run through at once. How about 10 per month? One-nom rule relaxed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I think 10 a month is a manageable amount. I will post a Request for Comment for transcluding the FAR page onto the FAC page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was just going to say before Cas posted that it was great to see Maralia again, and that walking through Sandy's proposals, and DrK's and Cas's responses/suggestions, I didn't see much to disagree with.
Now, on the subject of combing FAC/FAR, as I intimated when Cas first raised the possibility, I'm used to that process at MilHist A-Class Review, so I have no problem with the concept. OTOH it looks to me like Sandy is talking about FAR/FARC remaining essentially separate but the latter transcluded to the end of the FAC page so they hopefully get more eyes on them -- is that right, Sandy?
Well, either way, with fewer reviewers around (a syndrome not confined to FAC/FAR by any means, I see a fair few PRs closing without any comments, and the once-buzzing MilHist A-Class Review process moves a lot slower these days), my first thought was that putting FAC and FAR together in any way might just mean we risk losing FAC reviewers, but OTOH we might well find that FAC reviewing doesn't suffer, and in fact FAC reviewers' eyes get drawn to FARs on top of the FACs they're already reviewing.
Anyway, if we want to proceed with that we'll need to nut out exactly how much the two are integrated, and will the present FAC coordinators also close FARs and vice versa. On that subject, be aware there are only two active FAC coordinators at the moment, Graham and myself. Ucucha became less active some time ago but has been available to step in on the odd occasion Graham or I have had to be away. So if we were to amalgamate the FAC/FAR processes and coord teams as they stand, we'd only have three active coords, not four (Ucucha's been pinged and I've also emailed him about this discussion). Personally I'd be more than happy to see DrK and Cas join the FAR coord team if others agreed, and I've always considered Maralia like an honorary coord.
Lastly, re. Sandy's point 5 at the top, just because a lead editor has left doesn't necessarily mean experienced editors don't have their articles on their watchlist. For instance I still watch several of YellowMonkey's Vietnam articles and revert vandalism or dubious changes. I daresay I could drum up some help at the MilHist project to review older military FAs, perhaps others involved with different projects could do the same. Might even see if we can find people to 'adopt' some 'orphaned' FAs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
On the idea of transclusion to get more eyes, yes, Ian. The reason I suggested something akin to transclusion is that, if we find it doesn't work or if FAR becomes overloaded (meaning FARs overwhelm FACs), then untransclusing (or whatever) is a simple solution. I don't want to run the processes together in a way that will be hard to undo if we find it makes a mess, but think transcluding (or something akin) would give us a good test.

The other reason I'm not suggesting a permanent change is that we can avoid issues of who coordinates what: we still have separate FAC and FAR coordinators, even if one page. We can separately deal with the need for new coordinators, but there are also COI issues if FAC and FAR coordinators overlap (I always declined to declare on FARs for FACs I had promoted). I disagree with combined FAC/FAR coords, by the way. First, for the COI I mention. Second, because that gets us even further away from accountability in the absence of an FA director (who is tasked with leadership on these pages, as in the old job description Raul had? The two different pages require different kinds of leadership and accountability). Also, FAC and FAR coordinators should be working in conjuction already (that is, all should be intimately involved with the both processes, at least in the sense of following closely enough to understand where issues are occurring). That was the role of the FA director, which we no longer have. We need accountability in each process when they are lagging, records aren't kept updated or accurate, etc. If we throw five people at two very big jobs (which used to be full-time "jobs"), we end up with no place where the buck stops, no clear person in charge, no leader, which is the opposite of the direction we should be going, IMNSHO.

Separately, should we just move forward with a proposal at FAC and FAR talk pages to get Cas, DrK and Maralia, maybe Laser on board with this new FAR issue, or should we let it run a bit? Or bring Laser back to FAC, to make up for the loss of Ucucha?

On point 5, we agree-- that's why I said based on spotchecks. A bit of history about how URFA worked: if three knowledgeable reviewers (and we all know who those are) said an article should be moved off of (or in this case, moved down to resolved) the URFA list, that was done (delegate/coordinator decision) without a FAR. Being on the list only means someone needs to look at it according to a pre-defined set of criteria-- nothing set in stone that any article on the list has to go to FAR. Absolutely on the "adoption" (I think DrK took over a lot of Lord Emsworth's old royalty FAs post-FAR, for example.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sample, transclude FAR to FAC[edit]

I fiddled with transcluding FAR to FAC, and there is a missing step that someone would have to sort out (getting the Template:FAR-instructions to come in as well, maybe related to include/noinclude or something). But here's what it looks like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

When I look at that I see the FAR-instructions. They are above the second-level "Featured article reviews" heading, just as on the FAR page. It is possible to remove sections from transclusions by using noinclude, so that only removal candidates would be shown, for example. DrKiernan (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I see; yes, it does! So, why don't we just give it a trial? The only issue I suspect may happen is that people may start declaring delist in the FAR phase, so someone will have to monitor and deliver the standard message that declarations of Keep or Delist are not made until the FARC phase, blah, blah, blah. Then if we had some more delegates to kick things up (move from FAR to FARC in two weeks, unless there are exceptional reasons not to), we'd be in better shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: transclude FAR to FAC[edit]

Split from ongoing discussion above.

Transclude FAR to FAC for a one-month trial period (see sample) to facilitate additional reviews at FAR (see discussion above as well as on the FAC talk page). At the end of one month, re-evaluate, and untransclude if unsuccessful, but keep the two processes separate, with separate coordinators.

The FAC and FAR coordinators launch a Signpost article make a post at WT:FAC explaining the transclusion, and educating reviewers on the differences at FAR relative to FAC (eg, support or delist are not declared in the FAR phase, article talk page must be noticed in advance, notifications must be done on the FAR, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support trial. As things stand now, FAR is straining under declining review, and we have hundreds if not thousands of deficient FAs on the books, to the point that FA might as well be GA (see discussion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Per Ian Rose's comments below, I have removed the last sentence of the first para from the proposal, and added it as a comment from me here.
  • The additional volume on the FAC page will mean that FAC coordinators may need to resume the old practice of archiving FACs that have received no support after a given time period (the page now has FACs running for months with no support). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. Comment. The idea of generating data is a good idea, though. I can imagine this going wrong or going right ... but that's all it is for the moment, imagining. Experiments are for gathering data so we can make an informed decision. Making a lot of announcements about the new system and trying to retrain people to see FAR as part of FAC contradicts the idea that this is an experiment; we don't want to present it as a fait accompli if we don't even have the data yet to tell us whether it will work as intended, and if it doesn't work, then all we'll succeed in doing is making a system that's still bewildering for most Wikipedians even more bewildering. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • So, Dank would you support a trial (only) now that I have eliminated the Signpost suggestion, and we just put an explanatory post WT:FAC ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll think about it ... I'd like to see what others think. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Dank, I've removed another sentence per Ian's feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks ... I promise I won't hold this up if there's support for it, but I'd still like to see more comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Striking my oppose, per you and DrKiernan. That deals with my main concerns ... on the details, I'm not the best person to ask. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Support basic concept of integrating FAR with FAC to try and generate more interest in the latter off the coattails of the former. Admittedly my initial thought was just FARCs transcluded but obviously it takes FAR to get to FARC so not quibbling about making it the whole caboodle. However I don't see the need for the last sentence of the proposal's first para, in fact I think it's confusing because to my knowledge there's never been a set period of inactivity or lack of support for archiving FACs; FWIW my rule of thumb has been to let no nom go beyond a couple of weeks without comment or a month without some serious support -- a few have certainly gone beyond that lately but we have had the odd distraction, one of which at least now seems to have been put to bed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've removed that sentence from the proposal (it's not crucial to the success of the trial, and FAC coords can decide if they want the page to routinely run to 50 or 60 stalled noms), but "never been a set period" in your statement needs clarification. Whenever the page was backlogged (my definition was more than 24 or 30 noms on the page), I archived FACs that didn't have support, were lengthy and going nowhere, or could be better served off-FAC. We are seeing lately the mistaken notion that FACs are magically promoted on 3 Supports, even when the FAC is a lengthy peer review and there's no consensus to promote. [1] The old idea that "FAC is not a vote" might be revisited on FAC talk. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If the decision is to not transclude both the review and removal candidates, then I strongly support transclusion of the removal candidates only. I can see how the review phase could be bewildering for new people, but I think editors will rapidly grasp the purpose of and process in the declaration phase. DrKiernan (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - not fussed whether we have one or both segments from FARC there. Either option ok by me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, shall we do it ? Proposed blurb at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

See the blurb proposed in my sandbox; Ian Rose, Laser brain, Graham Beards, Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKiernan, Maralia, does anyone have any objection to me going ahead and transcluding FAR at FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I remain to be convinced that this is a good idea. The FAC page can be slow to load, at times because of all the transclusions. I am willing to see how it goes, but would like to see it removed at the end of the trial, and then have a discussion on making it permanent. Graham Beards (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
That's reasonable (the proposal is for a one-month trial). But Graham Beards, have a look at the bottom of this page at the Anarcho-capitalism issue. That FAR sat on this page for six months with little feedback. If it had been transcluded to FAC for more eyes, any competent FA reviewer would have quickly noted the deficiencies and entered a declaration. We have hundreds to thousands of deficient FAs on the books, devaluing the decent FAs they stand next to, and they aren't going to be processed without getting more eyes on them. And the Anarcho-cap folks seem to think they can get the FA reinstated, so the work may be coming FAC's direction :)

Separately, on the slow to load because of transclusions, we need to get back to reminding people at FAC not to use done, not done, other templates that slow down the page (that's why they are mentioned in the instructions, but I'm noticing lax enforcement.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already read the Anarcho-capitalism discussion and have the Talk Page watchlisted. I don't question your reasons at all, just the practicalities. WRT to "lax enforcement" , I have lost count of how many times I replaced those {{done}} templates with "Done". Please do not make accusations of laxity without evidence. Graham Beards (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for watching A-C (and for those pesky checkmarks). Not intended as an "accusation"; I just ran through FAC and moved two of (my) transcluded templates to talk, and put out reminders to two other editors to try to avoid templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy for this to happen (transclusion that is). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Relax one-nom rule[edit]

Clear support for this and already happening in practice, so I will update {{FAR-instructions}} to reflect the new reality; please improve upon my wording! BencherliteTalk 09:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See ongoing discussion above.

Allow 12 noms per month (paced at 3 per week, so as not to overwhelm FAR all at once) from the Unreviewed Featured Articles (URFA) list. This relaxation would not apply to regular FAR noms (those not on the URFA list), which would be subject to one at a time, and independent of any non-URFA noms by the same editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    DrKiernan and Casliber, I should clarify that I'm not proposing that we relax the notification rule, so folks might want to start going through WP:URFA to see which articles on that list actually are deficient and which need talk page notification; if we don't notify, we'll be stalled on even getting through three noms a week. On those that don't appear to need a FAR, we might put our heads together at the talk page of URFA as to whether some of them can be moved off the list (moved down) as resolved without a FAR. In the past, three knowledgeable reviewers concurring was enough to resolve and move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, the clarification is fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No issue, especially if Nikki's comfortable with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like a sensible way to go. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I like the way this avoids the risks of unrestricted bulk nominations while working through the list in a measured way. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. --Rschen7754 05:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - GamerPro64 05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Sock (tock talk) 13:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for the vigilance, Bencherlite! I have rejigged your wording, based on my understanding of what I wrote in the proposal, which I now see may have been less than clear. The idea was three per week overall, not per nominator-- three per week per person could overwhelm the process! I see the lack of clarity in wording was mine, but that was what I meant ... so if anyone disagrees with the rejigged wording, we may need to revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. BencherliteTalk 14:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

Is there a FAR coordination page to keep track of, for example, FARs on hold? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There is not - we have typically had nominators report whether their concerns were addressed or not. Not all on-hold reviews end up being reopened, because in some cases the nominators are happy with the improvements made. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nikki, could you start a page where you list them, and that can be used for other general FAR Coordination (since there may soon be four of you needing to keep track of on holds)? What do you do with those that aren't reopened, in terms of articlehistory? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Coordination. We generally have not included such reviews in articlehistory. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Can those reviews on hold come back now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Nine Inch Nails has had some work done and some discussion on talk since it was put on hold - MusikAnimal, there are still inconsistencies in reference formatting. Laurent, do you wish to resume the review as nominator? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Bot processing[edit]

Also, who or what bot is handling closings? Both Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Planetary nebula/archive2 were closed five days ago, but haven't been processed, are still in the Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates, and still have the star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
May still be manual given the loss of GimmeBot a while back. @Hawkeye7: can't remember offhand, have you had an official request to incorporate FAR closures into FACBot (or create a similar bot separately)? I know we've been piling on the requests but when you get a rep for doing stuff so well... ;-) Even if you can just let us know status that'd be great so we know whether to close FARs manually for a while or wait for the automation... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, let's get it sorted.[2] There were many times when we had to do this manually, and I'll be glad to help if someone clarifies. Maralia also knows how to do it. I'll go finish up those two manually now. Dredging up User:SandyGeorgia/FA work and Gimmebot steps from my old Sandbox (I believe Maralia copied that somewhere?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, well, apparently the old templates no longer work, and I don't know how to help manually close out the FARs. What happened to the FAR top template? Maralia? I can do articlehistory, but not the FAR top and bottom templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. But the FAR top and bottom templates don't work anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This stuff should be done on a timely basis: [3] [4] [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, was out at a party this evening! Nikki and Hawkeye talked about a FAR bot last month and I chimed in with some info then. Not sure if he's had a chance to work something up yet. My subpage with FAC/FAR closing steps is at User:Maralia/FA bot. I will close the other one if you haven't already beaten me to it. Maralia (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Where would we be without you :) But I couldn't make the FAR top template work. I did them both, but my closings are being reverted at Anarcho-capitalism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, had noticed that and watchlisted it already. Looks like the FAR top template was the problem; think I have fixed it. Maralia (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again! I also noticed that manual FAR closings in recent months are missing the closing diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Maralia, I tested your fix, and it's working now: [6] thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Great. BTW Nikki learned how to manually close FARs, and has been doing them ALL this year, bless her. We can catch up on those missing diffs later, or let it go since we're only talking about maybe 30 FAR pages. Maralia (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FACBot 2 (FAR closing) was approved for trial a few weeks ago but Hawkeye asked a few days ago for the trial to be suspended over the holiday period because of his temporary inability to access the server and his reluctance to run FAR closing remotely during this time. BencherliteTalk 06:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, there we go -- tks Bench. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! The Anarcho-capitalism situation needs to be watched: [7] It's unfortunate that I did the manual closing five days late, considering I was also the final editor who opined to Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: There are still several FARs on hold that could be brought back here now for resolution, and there are several FARs that can be closed or moved. I could nominate three more WP:URFA noms for this week, but I don't want to overwhelm the page. Could we keep things moving? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, done one. Looking at others. But time patchy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Bot processing again[edit]

Nikki closed several FARs three days ago that still haven't been bot processed. Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2015. I've put out several queries about the status of bot processing to Hawkeye7 and the FAR coordinators @WP:FAR coordinators: that have not been answered. What's up with bot processing of closed FARs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any pings about bot processing other than this one. I was online when she closed those 2 FARs, and had opened all the pages to manually botify them, but stopped when I remembered Hawk said the bot was ready to start closing them. I did see your query on Hawk's page, but I don't have any more information that you do. I do wonder, though, if the change to the FAR archive process (using the current month subpage now) might have thrown the bot for a loop, since the process I laid out for him specified that current month closes would be on the main log page. Maralia (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
And while we're on the subject, I suppose we need to tell him about the rare situation where we don't need articlehistory (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pedro I of Brazil/archive1 being the latest example). Maralia (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that non-archived/non-completed FARs like this should not be written in to article history (I overwrote that one). But when there is talk page notification, extensive discussion and transclusion at FAR, as in Pedro I, I think it best to archive it and document it in article history. DrKiernan (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Maralia, have you not seen my long posts and queries at the FAR coordination page (which have not gotten a single response)? Which page the archives are on should not affect bot processing as far as I know. FACs are processed from monthly archives, so doing FAR the same should be easier.

Separately, why would Pedro I of Brazil not be added to articlehistory? I don't understand why it would not. The more we can add to articlehistory, the better off we'll be five years down the road when we're trying to sort out a mess like we have now. A FAR is a FAR, and not adding them to ah will just create confusion down the road. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. Yes I saw your posts at Wikipedia talk:Coordination. Your questions there seemed to be for Hawkeye, though on re-reading I can see now that there were others.
  2. Which page the archives are on might affect bot processing because Nikki and I had outlined the process way back in November/December, so the bot could be looking in the wrong place for 'current' closes. I only mention it in case Hawk needs to make an adjustment at his end; I don't mind the change itself.
  3. My reasoning for not articlehistorifying Pedro is that the FAR was closed without FARC, as a procedural keep, and no one aside from the nominator saw any actionable concern with regard to the criteria. I had in mind as precedent the first Natalee Holloway FAR and one of the Obama FARs, both intentionally not articlehistorified. I see that the Obama FAR has since been added to articlehistory, but I found the discussion I remembered here, where you argued against articlehistory given that the issues raised in the FAR did not engage the criteria and instead were better suited for dispute resolution. I realize that both of these took place quite some time ago, but that's what I was thinking of. Maralia (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
FAR is a process that doesn't require FARC, but not going to the FARC phase doesn't mean those pages shouldn't be entered in articlehistory. Multiple Obama FARs were started by a prolific sock ... a whole 'nother problem there! Withdrawn FARS don't need to be entered in AH, but anything that gets reviewed should be/could be ... it will help us down the road. That no one mentioned anything wrong with Pedro may indicate ... something. I don't want to find us in the future in the same position we're in now ... going through lists of unreviewed FAs, and finding they were reviewed on talk, or somewhere, with no record left.

Thanks for the link to the FACbot page ... one of my queries on the FAR Coordination page was if we can get comprehensive instructions in one place, since many steps have been missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The first Holloway one is not in articlehistory. The Obama discussion doesn't mention a sock at all—only disputes considered outside the realm of the criteria, which was (to my understanding) why you argued against articlehistory there. Statements you made there like "It never should have been at FAR, it doesn't belong in articlehistory any more than any other dispute resolution does" and "that Keep probably shouldn't have gone in articlehistory as a Keep, because the purpose of FAR wasn't really engaged" are what I'm referring to here. If we want to take a different approach now, that's fine, but you seemed baffled by my logic, so I wanted to explain where I'm coming from. Maralia (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
THanks, Maralia! Many different things going on. I can't see any valid reason for Holloway not to be in articlehistory, but most likely it was an out-of-process nomination, since comments indicate it was right after TFA (articles aren't supposed to be nommed at FAR within days of TFA, per instructions, and I believe that was true back then as well).

On Obama, there were too many to remember disruptive FARs, and long-standing disruption the article from socks.

But, to the extent you point out my arguments then, things have changed significantly in how FAR functions now vs. then. In 2008, an out-of-process FAR would have been closed very quickly (within a day, if not within an hour)-- no reason for articlehistory, no real FAR. Pedro has been at FAR for weeks ... so it has had a real FAR, or a chance at one, and no one has brought forward issues. Since noms that are out-of-process, or not engaging WIAFA, are still getting a FAR these days, why not record the event for posterity? I don't know why Pedro is still there, but I don't see any harm in botifying the event. I also would have botified Holloway, since most of those are valid arguments, but I wouldn't have said that then for COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not worried about non-inclusion of either the Holloway or Obama examples: the Holloway review was out-of-process because the article was on the main page the previous day and the Obama review was the day after an earlier review closed, or clearly disruptive. I don't think the Pedro review can fall into those categories though, at least not clearly. DrKiernan (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep on all counts. If we get back to out-of-process reviews being closed immediately, then I would agree those wouldn't need to be botified. Whether Pedro could have/should have fallen into that category is armchair quarterbacking at this late stage ... but good for future discussion. Should a run-of-the-mill content dispute be brought to FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The bot has just run correctly for the most part. Thanks, User:Hawkeye7! The only thing I see missing is that the FAR notice at the top of the talk page hasn't been removed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. The Bot will now run daily. Let me know if there are any problems, however minor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7:, wonderful! Botifying KEPT is easier than REMOVED, so let's keep our eyes out for a successful remove. There are a couple of small adjustments needed: Not "Promoted", but "kept" or "delisted" (in both the edit summary and the closing template) and can you make the events in order, followed by currentstatus? [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Bot processing 3[edit]

A removal worked, thanks Hawkeye~! But Hawkeye7, I'm wondering why you are assessing FFAs as B class? Historically, the bot has removed the class (leaving it blank) so that Projects can re-assess. [9] As an example, I'm not sure we can assess this article as B-class, since it's a content fork. The historical argument has always been that FAR does not assess-- we just remove the assessment and leave it for WikiProjects to re-assess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Has this glitch been fixed? Thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7:, the FACBot bombed on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nine Inch Nails/archive1 ... wrong date in articlehistory, wrong Coord ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's because the bot recognized my edit rather than Maralia's. The bot's actions are understandable in the circumstances. DrKiernan (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah ha! Sorry, and thanks. (And thanks for jogging my memory ... we lost an editor today, who was working on a FAR, because of some nastiness with a bot operator ... I got busy on something else and had forgotten. Off to investigate.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Colonel Henry articles[edit]

See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paulins Kill/archive1 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Checkuser block of ColonelHenry and socks

We've discussed previously the problems with sockmaster Colonel Henry's FAs. I propose those are not typical FAs, should not require talk page notification for FAR, or to be put on hold: they will all need a new vetting process. All of Colonel Henry's FAs (see WP:WBFAN) should be checked, and in fact, all FAs s/he supported should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll run off a list of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Did his socks nominate any articles? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Not sure. All I know is at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ColonelHenry. For example, User:ExplorerCDT is now a redirect to a vanished user ... so sorting it all could be fun! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Alcohol laws of New Jersey
  2. Geology Hall
  3. Finn M. W. Caspersen
  4. Duino Elegies
  5. A Song for Simeon
  6. Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey
  7. Samuel Merrill Woodbridge
Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Lookin' good !![edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive
Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2015

We haven't had this many Keeps in a month since 2010, and we're only part way through the month. Even better, there have been only a few Removes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Jay Chou[edit]

Talk:Jay Chou#Unsourced content / Featured article? --Oldnewnew (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oldnewnew, please nominate the article at WP:FAR if you so desire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Frustrated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that highlights an ambiguity in the instructions. The time limit is not absolute. I think we can afford to be strict with putting nominations on hold if the talk page notification was responded to, or if work or debate is ongoing, or the time between notification and nomination is hours, or the FA nominator is still around, but in this case I'm inclined to let it pass. We might consider strengthening the wording somehow. DrKiernan (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, DrK. I'm not fussed one way or another, but am frustrated at the need for pinging, and wish the Coords would watch and respond so I'm not the only one doing it ... in that example, and on the talk page post above that went unanswered :) So, if we're relaxing the "typically two to three weeks", why do we have multiple noms hanging around the page that most clearly can be moved or can be closed? Let's please keep the page moving; I hesitate to nom further from WP:URFA when the page is getting full, and there are noms that are stalled, yet we have so many FAs that still need review. And we haven't even begun work on the next round of URFA that is sorely needed !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
ON closer review, there's a problem there with IDontLikeIt, since there has been nothing actionable specified anywhere. Four days isn't enough notice, particularly when the talk page notice said ... nothing. [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Next. We have four FAR coordinators. The nominator did not do the notifications. Must I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
And on my closer review, I'm inclined to agree with you now. Let's not do notifications until we have substantive comments to address. (It is automatically listed at the Greater Manchester, Musicians, and Pop and Rock music wikiprojects at the moment.) DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I have placed it on hold pending completion of the nom process (notifications and providing specific deficiencies to be addressed). FWIW, I saw the nom last night, but Sandy had already responded within 5 minutes of it going up. I didn't need a ping; I just didn't see any harm in giving the nom a day to respond. Maralia (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)