Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
| FACs needing feedback view • |
|
|---|---|
| Golding Bird | Review it now |
| Glen P. Robinson | Review it now |
| Noisy Miner | Review it now |
 Archives |
|---|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 |
|
|
| Threads older than 2 weeks may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
[edit] Missing link (FAC RFC still open)
The link to the RFC has disappeared from this page as a result of bot archiving. Is the RFC closed? If not, maybe someone will reinstate it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It closes tomorrow--you can find a link at the top of the archive identified as RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)- I don't need it myself – but you know how conspiracy theories begin... Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, here we go: Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't need it myself – but you know how conspiracy theories begin... Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I corrected the info above-- no closing date in sight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Rule of thumb for consensus on promotion?
I assume Raul and his delegates exercise some discretion to not promote if they see real problems even in a nomination with only supports, but I also take it they will not promote even the finest content without some supports on which to base a finding of consensus. Is there a rule of thumb on the number of supports that is considered sufficient for consensus at FAC?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've never promoted articles with fewer than three supports. Of course, three supports are not a guarantee for promotion if there are issues that the supporters did not address; for most articles I'll also want to see an explicit image review, source review, and spotcheck. Before promoting an article, I'll read over it and see whether I can find any glaring issues that the reviewers missed. Ucucha (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just to expand on what Ucucha has said, another thing delegates generally like to see is that the supports don't all come from members of the same wikiproject as the nominator, e.g. (to take an example close to my heart!) MilHist articles aren't supported purely by MilHist people. This isn't so much that bias is suspected, but simply recognising that it's good to have fresh eyes to pick up jargon and so on. Delegates giving a nom the once-over can accomplish the same thing, of course, but best it comes from someone else again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- The other reason for wikiproject and non-wikiproject is how it reads to those familiar and unfamiliar with article material I'd think. As a wikiproject member I'll support a bird or fungus article but expect it not to be counted as much as an entirely new set of eyes...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just to expand on what Ucucha has said, another thing delegates generally like to see is that the supports don't all come from members of the same wikiproject as the nominator, e.g. (to take an example close to my heart!) MilHist articles aren't supported purely by MilHist people. This isn't so much that bias is suspected, but simply recognising that it's good to have fresh eyes to pick up jargon and so on. Delegates giving a nom the once-over can accomplish the same thing, of course, but best it comes from someone else again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- FAC is not a !vote, meaning the number of Supports is not entirely relevant; the question is, has every aspect of WP:WIAFA been examined, by both content experts and uninvolved editors. There is no set number of Supports to assure promotion, but on the other hand, articles are not promoted with less than three Supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks all. I was really looking for the minimum support threshold only. Three it is. I am certainly aware we are not counting heads nor conducting a straight straw poll.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
-
[edit] FAC workshop, panels or talks at Wikimania?
In case you don't follow the signpost or village pump closely, I want to make sure FAC people know about Wikimania 2012. It's in Washington, DC this year, in July and hope to see a good number of content people there. The call for participation is open (and travel scholarships) and I think hearing about aspects of the FAC process and content issues at Wikimania would be fabulous. Types of sessions can be panels, talks, workshops, etc. and there will be an unconference day which is more suited for working sessions, discussions, workshops, or whatever. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Moving forward
The pre-RFC discussion brought up some areas that bear discussing. In particular:
- Increasing the quantity and quality of reviews and reviewers (including ways of giving reviewers feedback)
- Whether or not it would be worthwhile to clerks for FA-related processes (and what they would do if the position existed)
- Emergency FA blurbs which could be used in case of a snafu. (Creating the blurbs is no problem. I'd be more concerned about defining the circumstances under which someone is allowed to 'break the glass' and make the switch, and who that person or persons will be)
Now, given that we've spent most of the last two months discussing/arguing about FA, first on this page and then later on the RFC, I know that everyone is probably more-than-a-little tired of this conversation. I agree. So we're not going to talk about them just yet. Everyone relax, take the time to think about them, and them I'll kick off a new discussion in a few weeks.
Second, as promised, now that the RFC is concluded, I'm going to appoint some new FA delegates. They are user:GrahamColm and user:Ian Rose. I'm confident they'll do a fine job. Raul654 (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- One: congrats to Raul654 for the RFC's expression confidence in their position as Director. Two: congrats to GrahamColm and Ian Rose. Three: thank goodness for a break to go away and think in. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I second Fifelfoo.--WillC 05:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Eminently sensible choices as delegates - maybe any delegate can place an emergency blurb? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I second Fifelfoo.--WillC 05:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- As for the last point that Raul brought up (the emergency blurbs): If it is 23:50 and a) there is no featured article scheduled for the upcoming TFA slot, and b) there has been no response from Raul or Dabomb to the inevitable questions about the problem, I'd propose that any admin in good standing can select one of the pre-made emergency blurbs as the next day's TFA. I'd be wary of making it any more complicated than that to prevent instruction creep. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] What happened to George W. Romney nomination?
It's unclear to me what happened to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Romney/archive2. It was on the nominations list from January 15 until this Raul654 edit yesterday which had the comment "promoting some and restarting one". But the nomination article itself was not updated at all, so I'm not sure what the status is. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was added to Wikipedia:Featured articles, so as far as I know, User:Gimmebot will close the nomination page based on this and update the article history with the promotion. Not sure how often it runs, though. GRAPPLE X 17:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There was a template we used to place at the bottom of nominations ({{FACClosed}}) explaining that it was archived or promoted, and was waiting for the bot. It looks like Raul and Ucucha are not using it, but it might be a good idea to head off any confusion like this. --Laser brain (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the info, GimmeBot has now run and done the updates. It's been a while since my last nomination so I'd lost track of how it worked ... Wasted Time R (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There was a template we used to place at the bottom of nominations ({{FACClosed}}) explaining that it was archived or promoted, and was waiting for the bot. It looks like Raul and Ucucha are not using it, but it might be a good idea to head off any confusion like this. --Laser brain (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] For info
Most editors will have seen it already, but for info, Jimbo has started a very FA-relevant thread at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22Not_the_kind_we_want.22_to_attract. Geometry guy 21:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Rlevse request to return to editing
This was posted to DYK, so it should be posted here: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Image or source checks pending
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II/archive2-- source spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2 -- ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birth control movement in the United States/archive1-- ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prosperity theology/archive1-- ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Faryl/archive1-- Source spotcheck needed. J Milburn (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:Featured article candidates/James Tod/archive1– spotcheck needed. Ucucha (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Done and promoted. Graham Colm (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary/archive1 - image review needed please, with particular regard to Russian Freedom of panorama. Graham Colm (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] self-archived FAC
Just a note in case something wasn't done properly ... User:Khanassassin apparently archived his own FAC (the most recent one). - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed it too and added the FAC to the log and reverted a few things that are better left to Gimmebot. Ucucha (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] April Fools
- Main page discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
