Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recruiting French speakers!

Are you interested in checking a translation and/or copyediting? Félix Houphouët-Boigny has been translated and we are looking for French-speakers to help us check the translation! Please sign up here! Merci beaucoup! Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay I speak French. Responded. Gary King (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing accessdates

For those using Harvnbs and the {{citation}} template (not cite journal, cite web, cite book, cite news, etc.), as of yesterday, accessdates have gone missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit that did this is here. This should only be temporary; it should be returned back to what it was before. Gary King (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it will eventually be fixed, but there are some current FACs that are affected, so I wanted to alert reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't really want to delve into that whole mess, but if it's urgent, feel free to use {{editprotected}} to get an administrator's attention to revert it. Gary King (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going there either; my only concern is to alert reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Technical problem

When GimmeBot archives a promoted article, it adds <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd"> to the header of the archived FAC. Unfortunately, this syntax apparently is unrecognized by IE5 browser, resulting in blanking of the entire page. Can someone remove or modify this unneccesary div class, so that the archived discussion is available on all browsers? JGHowes talk - 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This question should be directed to User:Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Posting system

This may not be the place to ask, but I'll be quick. I am a bit unfamiliar with the specific criteria which qualifies an article to be eligible for Featured Article or Featured List status, so I am hoping a post here will help me clear up my questions. I have been working on the article Posting system for awhile now and have been curious to know what is needed to make it featured. The problem is that the article is about half article/half list. Would I be able to pursue Featured Article status with this particular article or no? Would I be better off trying for a Featured List if possible? (Disclaimer: I know the article is not near featured quality currently, I am just curious to know what direction I should be headed before I start.) --TorsodogTalk 17:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence on this page links to the criteria - Wikipedia:Featured article criteria Raul654 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you thought about splitting the article into two - an "article" on posting system (with history, process, and a summarized version of the list) and a List of past baseball postings (which could summarize part of the process and history in its lead)? Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You seemed to misunderstand my predicament, Raul. It isn't that I don't know the criteria to become featured, it is that I don't know what criteria must be met to make an article fall into the "article" category or "list" category. And since this article is half and half, I don't know where the line is drawn. And to Karanacs, yes, I did think about that, but I think splitting the article would be detrimental to the subject overall. That is just my opinion, however. --TorsodogTalk 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh - another half-list-half-article conundrum. We really do need to figure out what to do with these things. This is the third or fourth in as the last few months. Ok folks, suggestions? Raul654 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've never really seen the point of having a separate process for lists and articles anyway, but... why not make them go through both? The FAC evaluates the article part, and the FLC evaluates the list part. It would be more time-consuming, but if we require that FAC comes first, the prose should be pretty solid (at least in theory) and the sources should have been checked, etc, so the FLC process should be able to focus on the list formatting and such, which should be relatively quick and painless. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It's predominantly prose, so if anything, it should be an FAC (if it meets criteria, obviously). Although Tuf-Kat's suggestion is a perfectly reasonable solution, too. Calor (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't even see why the question is being asked. It's a prose article with a couple of tables, doesn't make it a list by any stretch of the imagination. Although nuthatch, for example, had a tortuous passage through FAC, there was never any suggestion that, because it had a table, that made it a list jimfbleak (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jim and Calor; it's an article, not a list. To answer Raul's question about the general case, I think it's enough to do just what Torsodog did here -- ask a few people here or at WP:FLC and get consensus. The price is the rare occasion where a featured candidacy runs into trouble because the reviewers feel it's the "other" type. I think that's better than trying to formalize the distinction beyond "primarily a list" vs. "primarily prose". Mike Christie (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses everyone. It looks like the consensus is that it is primarily an article and not a list and I will be treating it as such. --TorsodogTalk 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like Mike's idea and think it is probably the practice to follow. I doubt we'll be able to establish anything more concrete. But just to try to cover all basis, what about a case when a half prose half list article goes to FAC or FLC without checking with reviewers beforehand? Should that just be handled on a case by case basis too; like the List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow FAC? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Maybe that's the arguing point: maybe its that FLC are those pages where the most important or significant portion of the material is presented in a non-prose but regularly formatted matter (eg a table, but doesn't rule out other list formats), the focus being on the providing of equivalent date points for a number of related items; FAC are those where prose is the most important part, and converting the information into a repeatable table or list format would be extremely difficult. This would make things like "List of characters" FAC, while episode lists more as FLCs. --MASEM 17:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

too long difficult to navigate

This project page is too long, making it difficult to get a timely response when navigating it. Suggest some solution in which the discussion for each article is kept in a place that is separate from this project page and the project page just have the table of contents. Hmains (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list Raul654 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Where have you seen difficulty with a timely response? I read through the page every day, and try to respond to any queries or concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The response of which I speak if page-filling responsiveness: how long it takes to get a filled in screen back after I push the Enter key. And it seems that Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list is what I am after. Hmains (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin needed

Can an admin please work with the nominator to figure out what the article name should be and sort out all the moves over redirects needed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak‎ (I left a list)? It was moved once, I started to sort it, got halfway done, and then it was moved again, so I doubt I can fix it all without admin tools, and I'm not sure if the name has been sorted yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the redirects so they point at the current article name. Raul654 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it may still all be in the wrong place, and I can't move it all back over redirects. I think the spaced dash may have been correct (would like to hear from others), but the nom moved it back halfway through the corrections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image review

Images aren't being regularly reviewed, and I can't/shouldn't have to do that myself on every candidate. The few editors who have reviewed images in the past have either given up (because of rudeness) or left the Project because of conflicts over images. My choices are to hold up each nom as I ask you all to locate someone to clear your images, overlook crit 3 of WP:WIAFA and an important policy, or ask nominators and reviewers to be sure that each nomination goes out and finds a qualified image person to do a review. It would be great if people would be nice to the few image reviewers we have. Input? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree, I don't understand picture policy but if there are complaints about any of my pictures that cant be resolved I'm happy to remove them. Picture policy can be frustrating, I write about Mr Jackson, who is a virtual recluse. Free pictures are hard to access. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well you still get album covers for his albums :) Gary King (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Bah, I'll try to help out then... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please give me a shout if such needs to be done on any FAC. --MASEM 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Image review needs to be done on all FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Definitely don't agree with that. Why all the fuss about images anyway? Nominations aren't held up waiting for a subject-matter expert to give his/her blessing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
But unless images are reviewed, it can't be noted that it meets all the FA criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
... just as if a subject-matter expert doesn't review then it can't be noted that it is comprehensive. Why the primacy of images, which to be perfectly honest, seems to me rather a trivial thing to be worrying about in comparison to the other FA criteria? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, would it help if nominators provided rationales for images in their articles (and if so, what info do they need to provide), or is this something you want to be completely independent of the nominator? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC))
Rationales are already provided, when the images are uploaded. I guess what SandyG's asking for is someone to check those rationales. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Correct; we need independent evaluation of the images per WP:WIAFA crit 3, exactly as Elcobbola was doing before he gave up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Bummer. Elcobbola and others gave up because people were rude? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of! (Satire) Was this in FACs or just all over the boards? --Moni3 (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I can volunteer to check images on each nomination. It looked like NE2 was doing it on several noms that I looked at, and I admit to checking them only randomly up until now. To make the task less time-consuming, I will note when a fair use image has a correct rationale but is questionable fair use—I can't commit to debating the point on each nomination that has problems. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I have already started learning the image guidelines, because I noticed we were low on image reviewers (it is important to check for image licensing in particular for legal reasons). It is going to take me awhile, though, to learn all of the guidelines - they are a bit complicated. Happily, I have several good tutors. Awadewit (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Break - Idea for FAC checklist points?

I cannot recall if this has been brought up before but would it make sense to have a templated form that sits at the top of each FAC entry that is filled in to check on the most objective elements of each candidate, such as NFC compliance, reference style, and so forth? This would help those that would routinely check those identify candidates where the objective measures have been tested (yea or nay) so that they can quickly filter out the ones that don't need a recheck immediately? I don't know exactly how this could be done, but before wasting too much effort on the thought process, I'd rather see if it had been offered before as an idea. --MASEM 00:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, nothing you mentioned is objective. --Laser brain (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm very much against a uniform style for FAs. Within the criteria there is great room for variety. Long may this continue: it is one of the secrets of Wikipedia—there's no production line. Of course, it's good for editors and reviewers (preferably editors, but no one's perfect) to have an informal checklist for links, punctuation, or whatever, but too great an emphasis on this stuff in templates and the like might give the impression that FAC is more concerned with trivia than content, which might make some of our more sensitive types (often the best article writers) run a mile with their backsides on fire.qp10qp (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know that feeling. But I have to say that once I dropped the pickle and just trusted the nit-pickers, the article quality did improve as a result. Maury (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
We have the peer reviewer script, a bunch of tools at the top of each FAC. We really shouldn't need to point out at the time of FAC that they still have ambiguous links, dead references, MOS issues, etc. that should have been taken care of before. I suspect that unless written into the instruction that a template will be ignored by many of those who nominate. — Dispenser 05:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Something very wrong with FAC

The way the Frank Zappa FAC was closed shows there is something very wrong with FAC. The main editor spent a great deal of time taking care of complaints that were not considered problems in recent articles such as the one on Frusciante (i.e. Fair use images and inconsistent citations, both of with Frusciante were not seen as a problem). Please read the talk page where I copied some of the last comments on the suddenly archived Frank Zappa FAC. Please note that the last opposing comment is by someone who clearly has no knowledge of Zappa but is comparing him with new, young bands. Further note, the Legacy section was being written as we speak, the only relevant complaint that was not fixed. FAC has become a farce to me, a place to come to get your article fixed up if you are lucky enough to be part of the in-group clique so you have built in Support votes. Otherwise, your article gets ignored until the day before it will be closed, when a flood of irrelevant complaints come in.

The Frusciante article was held up by at least two editors as the ideal for Zappa - some one 30 years younger who played one instrument, whose career was 10 years long so far, and who was primarily a member of a band; a third of his article was on his drug problems to take care of the requirement of a Personal life section. If Zappa must be shoe horned into this kind of format, there is no hope. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The best solution to this is to get more reviewers. We don't have enough reviewers who know about the image policy (I certainly don't), so it's possible that some articles are sliding through with image issues. We don't have enough reviewers in general (and the problem is worse in the summer), so some articles take longer to get feedback. And yes, I do often review the articles of other FAC reviewers first. That is common courtesy - they've already put a great deal of effort into reviewing articles that I've written, and it's only fair that I return the reviewing favor. This FAC in particular had several unstruck opposes, not all from the last minute. The editor can fix those issues and bring the article back to FAC in a few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree we need more reviewers. Quite a few FACs are failing because of inactivity, quite a bit more than before. Sceptre (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the reason at the moment why there are not many users at FAC is because a lot of them are on vacation compared to other parts of the year. Some of them seem to have quite a few comments (the two that I've worked with have had a fair few comments); at the same time some stand out with 4-5 opposes and should probably be archived. D.M.N. (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else think there has been a large turnover of reviewers lately? I was thinking recently that we have gone through two or so waves of reviewers and that there is some instability in the reviewing crowd (for good or ill). I was just wondering if anyone else has had this sense. Awadewit (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I can see the light at the end of the tunnel on my diss.. unless the virus I'm trying to clean at this very moment (trojan.win32.vaklik.cfx, apparently) eats everything (a distinct possibility), I can help again relatively soon. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to be in some kind of turbo reviewing mood to tackle a bunch of FACs at once. I haven't had the turbo lately, and in fact, my FAC engine has been backfiring. It's making me feel really guilty, too. How does one get all re-energized to do FAC comments? I need a mental retreat or something. --Moni3 (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You can take my place copy editing. I have been reprimanded for criticizing FAC. I have been warned that if I work on an article, it will be sabatoged in revenge for my criticism. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Either there's more to the story than that, or someone is psychotic. There's no reason anyone should criticize anything during an FAC review. All comments should be entertained, no matter how nutty and unfact based they are (I make up words). --Moni3 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not explain myself clearly. I commented on another editor's talk page in a discussion about problems with FAC and made some general criticisms. A third editor read my comments, took something personally, and reprimanded me on my talk page and warned me he/she would consider exacting revenge by opposing (I am gathering) any article I worked on -- since I mostly copy edit and gave me a civilty warning. I gather it is not O.K. to criticize FAC. Read my talk page, if I am not being clear or misunderstanding it. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading the right section, no one said anything about exacting revenge by opposing. I see something about not reviewing certain articles, but there's certainly nothing wrong with that. Pagrashtak 20:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to Karanacs' comment? All I got from that is that she's going to avoid your articles, not oppose them. That happens, and that's ok. If it's someone else's comments on your talk page, I didn't find them. --Moni3 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have never nominated an article and never will, although I write them. I only help others. So she must be referring to those I help or those that I comment on. The discussion that she took offense to was on an article I copy edited. I did not write it or nominate it. Draw your own conclusions. She will not review any article I copy edit or comment on? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(Un-indent) Mattisse, I believe Karanac was referring to your general comments about FAC reviewers. I think she was just trying to give you some unsolicited advice to avoid causing ill will between yourself and reviewers. I don't believe any ill will was intended towards you. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC))
I beg to disagree. It was quite nasty to have a conversation with another editor who was understanding of what I said, and who was helping me, interrupted by a nasty note from Karanac on my talk page. I have a choice now of commenting and/or copy editing every article to see if she was just being threatening or whether she meant what she said and will torpedo anything I do. We will see. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
As you have pointed out, you do have a choice in this matter. I'm sure we all hope you choose to continue to help articles improve in whatever manner you are capable of. I still believe Karanacs meant no ill will. Just as I believe you mean no ill will towards other FAC reviewers; you're simply fed up with some of Wikipedia's regularly occurring faults.
Perhaps it's best to disengage and let this issue with Karanac rest for a while. I seriously doubt she would enact any kind of revenge on your articles, and even if she or anybody else did, Raul and Sandy aren't robots. They can assess situations and exercise good judgment in dealing with them. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC))
Mattisse, my warning to you was meant to convey that you are not assuming good faith and that you are verging on incivility with baseless accusations against reviewers. I am disappointed to see that you have refused to listen to explanations of how the FAC process works and that you are continuing to level attacks. Karanacs (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, you can feel free to drop the personal attacks at any time. Because you do not understand something does not mean you need to regard it as a personal attack. I urge you to drop the incivility. Your support of the "clueless" is not the only view, and if you are "clueless" yourself, that does not allow you to suppress alternative views. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I dont know who wrote this article, but I 100% agree with this. This Zappa article is by far one of the best articles I have seen in a while. Everything is so nicely placed and the content looks to follow all the criteria. I would highly reccomend that this be nominated again. If so, you can leave me a message on my talk and I will ensure I am there to support this nomination. I have absolutely no interest in the person or his music, but just skimming over this article made it sound so good and comprehensive. I mean, the wording really caught me and I truly was enticed. Well done. Again, I reccomend you nominate this again, just try your best to satisfy the clueless 'reviewers' who pointed out some very minor issues. Domiy (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I have gotten so much criticism for defending this excellent article. The critics I believe are just immature. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Rather ironic, given that Karanacs noted that you "have refused to listen to explanations of how the FAC process works and that you are continuing to level attacks" just above. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A lesson that everyone has to learn is that chucking stones just results in stones being chucked back. The critics expressed an opinion. It's those opinions that need to be addressed, not the alleged immaturity of the individuals expressing them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you once again, Malleus Fatuorum, for being level headed and not taking a side in this situation. Interacting with you on your talk page was of great benefit to me. I certainly will be more careful, though, what I post to you in the future! I appreciate your maturity. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It's as well to be cautious about what you post on my talk page. In spite of your suspicions I am not one of the FA "in crowd", and to be honest I don't think such a thing exists. But I do have a habit of saying it like I see it, so there are likely many I've upset in the past who've watchlisted my page. Getting back to the topic though, I'd be surprised if you didn't agree that the article wasn't quite ready when the nomination was archived. Close, but no cigar. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility reminder

Per several past pleas from Rick Block (talk · contribs), just a reminder to review for WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:LAYOUT:

As explained in more detail at WP:Accessibility, items in the lead should be presented in the following order:
disambiguation links,
maintenance tags,
introductory text, and
navigational boxes, moving to the heading of the first section.

This is for the benefit of readers who use screen readers.

Another one that comes up often is:

Note also that the image should be inside the section it belongs to (after the header and after any link to other article), and not just before the header for similar reasons.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I move images from "just before the header" to after the header whenever I see them; I was not aware they also needed to be below "any link to other article" (I assume by this you mean {{main}} etc; not just inline links in text). --Random832 (contribs) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image reviews of FACs

We really need help reviewing images in FACs! There is no way that I am going to be able to review all FACs, especially since the semester is beginning in a couple of weeks. Please help! (Article writers, please get into the habit of giving images a cursory review before submitting articles to FAC - thank you!) Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading this suggestion, and previous discussion about the load on the FAC article review. Perhaps it might be an idea to provide a checklist (like that in the B-class of the Milhist project) to the process of FAC submission; with the remark that if one or more checks fail, the article is not yet ready for FAC and should be further improved by the current editors. Your cursory review (e.g. Are all images relevant, needed and have a valid copyright statement for the use) could be one of these checks. Arnoutf (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Images reviews needed

On a quick glance tonight (I may have missed some), there are several FACs that have sourcing and prose issues resolved, have garnered some level of support, but are lacking image reviews, per crit. 3 of WP:WIAFA. I'm in a spot when I have to keep imploring editors to review images, and then watching as nominators are rude or insulting to image reviewers, so they won't come back. Someone above suggested a checklist; I don't think we need a checklist (I have one), we need reviewers. I noticed at least the following FACs are moving along on other fronts, but have had no image checks (there may be others):

Just to add here, a note of appreciation to User:Ealdgyth for checking sources on every single FAC; I'm a big believer in cross-training, and would love to see others help lighten her load, as well as encouraging our excellent image reviewers and supporting them when they are treated rudely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Julian's been picking up some of the slack, as has Giggy, which helps a bunch! Thanks! I might actually get some of my own articles headed towards FAC now... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I see these image reviews have been taken care of. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Awadewit; because of the shortage of image reviewers, I may need to continue to highlight those that are outstanding. By the way, Elcobbola is working up a much-needed image review tutorial for a future WP:SIGNPOST Dispatch (there's a template of Dispatches at the top of this page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Both your lists and Elcobbola's dispatch should help us fledgling image reviewers. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I figure if Elcobbola can teach me to review images, he can teach anyone :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Elcobbola (talk · contribs), with help from Jbmurray (talk · contribs) and Awadewit (talk · contribs), for the upcoming Signpost Dispatch article on Free images in content review processes. Elcobbola has plans for a Part 2 on non-free images. It's a bit long, but worth it because it covers all the basics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a bot that runs on WP and Commons that checks on the status of the images and throws up a summary on the FAC nom? I concede that it's no substitute for human intervention, but at least it could flag off potential issues. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image review needed:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Masem and I got the above two squared away. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you ! (Posting these reminders is kind of awkward :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Scolding us into action seems to work though :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? Wow, don't say that twice, or I could let loose a stream :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Both FAC images have been commented on (there needs to be followup work). I really wish there was a way to set up "Hey, these things need attention" using various translucsions on the top of the watchlist page, I'd be all over these sooner... --MASEM 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
We have the Wikipedia:Template limits issue in FAC archives; I already have to go through closed FACs and remove hide templates so the FAC archives won't bomb. I suspect that as more reviewers come up to speed on image issues (for example, per Elcobbola's Dispatch), the reminders won't be necessary, so I'm hesitant to set up an entire beaurocratic mechanism for this. In general, it would be helpful if more reviewers double-checked that images and reliable sources had been reviewed, rather than leaving it all to Ealdgyth and Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm reading and re-reading Elcobolla's dispatch and trying to get it fixed in my head. Before this week, I was careful about licensing my own images, but I wasn't good at evaluating other editors' licenses. My aim is to get better and to spot licensing problems and to suggest solutions before an article heads to FAC. Finetooth (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image review subpage

Sandy, I think it might be helpful if we create WT:FAC/Image Review (or a similarly named page) for you to drop requests like the above section on, make sure that you have editors watchlisting it (and possibly link to it at the top of this page), such that 1) this section can actually be archived) and 2) it will be easier to track when an image review is needed without spamming this talk page. --MASEM 22:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. I didn't even see these comments up here. I thought this section was "over". :) Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I support this idea. Criterion three, although important, should not really be separated out like this; it is but one of four (more when counting sub-criteria) criteria. Will there be concern that all other criteria need explicit assertions and, thus, their own such pages? Explicit declarations of "length checks out", for instance, are relatively uncommon. More concerning to me, however, is that it could exacerbate the current problem of reliance on just one image review (i.e. first person to see/heed the notice enters a review, checks the notice as "done" and all subsequent reviewers rely solely on that assessment without checking images themselves). I, obviously, like the idea of having "specialties" at FAC (a jack of all trades is a master of none), but everyone misses things from time to time and everyone makes mistakes.  !Voters, consequently, need to be engaging all criteria when making declarations and, in so doing, ensuring that the system has a "double check". ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm not clear - all I'm suggesting is that for FAC's where an image check has not been done after, say, a week of being FAC'd, we should just have a page just like the above topic is doing to shout out for an image review. This is not to separate the actual image review from the FAC on the FAC page, but just to allow Sandy or whomever to give a shout that no image review has been done in a reasonable amount of time; the image review should still be done on the FAC page. (If those that are trying to take up the task left by the dedicated reviewers of the past who have left WP due to recent events are like myself, it is hard to monitor the FAC and every candidate among other things we're dealing with, so a little flag for help from Sandy is sufficient when an article slips through the cracks). --MASEM 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the format is clear (basically an urgents-esque list to prompt image comments at a given FAC). The issues I'm concerned about are A) if such a list will be maintained for criterion three, will the other criteria also need lists to bring attention to candidates lacking explicit declarations that a given criterion is satisfied and B) such a list, as has been the case with the FACs listed above, seems to have the propensity to prompt only one (often incomplete) review. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, maybe this is more a temporary solution; we have lost some of the dedicated image reviewers due to recent events, and while there are those that have stepped up to help out, no one has appeared to become as dedicated as those past reviewers; it could be simply a period of transition until we have two or three people that always look at every FAC. I agree we don't want this to be a simple one-person "check the box" for Crit 3, however, so I agree that not having this permanent is a good idea. I just don't know how long it will take for dedicated reviews to come in, so while we could leave it here on this talk page, it might start getting in the way if this goes on for more than a few months. --MASEM 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Elcobbola, and prompting for one specific part of WIAFA wouldn't work any better than the Urgents list, which is a maintenance chore for me that is ignored by all but a few. I've been prompting recently on images only because we lost a lot of image reviewers all at once, as they all got tired of being attacked. At some point, I stop nagging and it's up to reviewers to decide what to review, without my prompts. I try to keep the list size manageable, and when only one thing is holding up promotion, a prompt will allow me to close the FAC. An option is to let the list grow to 100 and hope others will notice :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting change

Dear nominators and reviewers

Extended debate at MOSNUM and elsewhere over the advantages and disadvantages of WikiMedia's date-autoformatting (DA) functionality, culminating here, has seen clear consensus emerge to add this italicised sentence to MOSNUM's section "Date autoformatting" section.

[Date autoformatting] should not generally be used unless there is a particular reason to do so.

Accordingly, the sentence has been added. Nominators and reviewers are asked to take this into account in relation to FA Criterion 2 (style guidelines). We draw your attention to the well-established "three simple guidelines" for the use of either international or US format, which are set out here, and the guideline on within-article consistency here, which states that:

  • Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
  • Dates in article references should all have the same format.

In almost all cases, the change can be summarised simply as "Remove the double square brackets around month-day and month-day-year dates in the main text and footnotes." Tony (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, "Remove the brackets and double-check that the raw dates that are left use a consistent format". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Sandy. The removal of DA sometimes brings to light inconsistencies (and occasionally even the wrong global choice for an article) that our chosen preferences were concealing from us.
A script can be run on any nomination by request, to spare the manual labour of removal. This should be accompanied by a quick check for compliance in the raw formatting of each date that our IP readers (the vast majority we serve) have been viewing from the start. Tony (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Two questions:
Does the consistency argument apply to references, i.e., we should use linked ISO dates to stay consistent with the linked ISO accessdate?
Are you going to get templates such as {{birth date and age}} changed to comply with the new guideline?
Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The consistency issue has evolved to be a requirement for dates in citation templates to be internally consistent, and (square-bracketed) dates in the body of the article to be internally consistent. Thus, ISO dates may be used in ref lists, but one of the two standard formats (US or international) must be used in the running prose. This is spelled out here at MOSNUM.

As for birth date and age templates, sometimes used in infoboxes (and other similar templates where dates are not entered with square brackets), they are fine, although clearly the community will work towards making these more flexible in the medium term (like "link off / link on"—sounds easy to do). Personally, I'd minimise my use of any date templates, but in the meantime, not to worry about this point.

Thanks for your questions. Tony (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


I'm seeing these templates being thrown out to note who's saying what with comments; do people want us to put 'Comments - David Fuchs' or something similar on the first line then when reviewing? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started doing that (comments by karanacs) because FACs seem to be getting more complicated and I have trouble finding my own comments. Karanacs (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes please! I've meant to post about this. Those of us who tend to write very long comments (myself included) could really cut down on confusion, and reduce the need for {{interrupted}}, by simply starting with Comments from Maralia. It would be great if we long-winded folks could get in the habit. Maralia (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec reply) There are a couple of issues, having to do with my eyesight and the way I process FACs (likely, not the same way Raul processes them, and I suspect his eyes are younger than mine). I scan through FAC (usually) daily, and keep a spreadsheet with notes on each FAC. On my initial scan of newer FACs, I look for problem areas that need to be addressed (things like invalid opposes) and I watch for what areas of WIAFA (1 thru 4) have been addressed. I keep notes on how the FAC is going, what is missing, what remains to be resolved, what I'm looking for, etc. Once the basics are in place, and after a reasonable time frame, I 1) watchlist the individual FAC and 2) read the entire FAC. When I scan a FAC, there is nothing harder on my eyesight than an Oppose or Support buried somewhere within a comment rather than at the front of the line. I just don't see the bolding, even worse when they're mixed up with horrific signatures and a lot of extraneous bolding within the FAC commentary. The FAC instructions say to put your declaration bolded, follow by commentary. So, what would help me in terms of how long it takes me to scan daily and sort those that are ready for a thorough look, is:

  • Always place your bolded Support or Oppose at the front of the line; don't bury it within a line. That stands out easier when I'm in scan mode to see how the FAC is doing.
  • Minimize gawd-awful signatures and other bolding on the FAC; they really mean I can't scan the FAC to see how it's going and decide when it's ready for my closer scrutiny.
  • For both nominators and reviewers, please view the FAC through my eyes. Think about adding unsigned templates when reviewers or nominators forget to sign. If I can't tell who signed, I don't know if the declaration is valid and I have to step back through the diffs to add unsigned templates myself. The same thing happens on strikes: often a nominator strikes reviewer comments and I have to go back and check. And, when commentary gets so long and convoluted that the signature of the original poster is separated from their comments by pages, and I can't tell who said what: consider adding an {{interrupted}} template somewhere, so I can see who's talking. Otherwise in these cases, I have to read the FAC by stepping through the diffs.

None of this affects the final outcome, as I eventually read through every FAC; it just has to do with how long it takes me to scan the newer FACs to determine when they are ready for a more detailed look. If there are a lot of opposes buried deep within convoluted threads and messy sig files, I may not see them when I scan, and I may let the FAC run longer than necessary.

Added after edit conflict: I don't disagree with the approach taken by Karanacs and Maralia, but a reminder that excess bolding not get out of control. Editors less experienced at FAC have taken bolding to an extreme, adding a bolded Reply on every single reply, which invalidates the ease of scanning the FAC to find anything! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the done reply to individual comments I put annoys me, so I've been starting to ask people to just respond to my comments in block form so it's easier to follow what's been addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it would be good for reviewers if nominators avoided unnecessarily chopping up commentary just to say Done, but from the nominator point of view, they're trying to track what they've done. We have three different POVs here on what and where to bold: nominator, reviewer, and closer :-)) Balance is hard ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd just like the nominators, et al to say "I did X and Y, but have a question about Z" rather than splitting it up. I don't really like status updates like FAC is Twitter or something, because what matters if they are done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have, when a reviewer's top-level comments span more than a paragraph, to include a hr-type line across the comments as a delimiter for such? This allows people to distinguish a general block of related comments, including if there is outdenting or other weird comment formatting that goes on. Obviously we don't want HRs all over the place so they should only be used when absolutely needed - basically when there are multiple issues identified by one reviewer and/or a long thread develops. (I do, however, believe that the hr line might be used to indicate something else, so this could step on toes. For example, in an FTC I had submitted, the maintainer had used the line to indicate a restart of the process, but I know that's not done here). --MASEM 19:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Could help in some cases, but what I notice is that sometimes, what regular FAC participants do in one case because it makes that particular FAC more readable, then takes over as the norm for newer FAC participants, and then gets out of control (like horizontal lines between every reviewer on a short FAC). It really is hard to strike the balance. Whatever works, but it seems to go in cycles, as newer participants imitate what they see others doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that a major issue is that there are a finite size limit, so images are baaaadd. Would level 4 headings work? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No, because section headings lead to bigger problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Drat. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


User:Sceptre wrote:

Quite a few FACs are failing because of inactivity, quite a bit more than before. Sceptre (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about this statement, since it doesn't accord at all with either the data in FAC archives or the way I process FACs. Sceptre, why do you have this perception? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might just be sour grapes, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Trial of a Time Lord/archive1 garnered no support or opposition, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Trial of a Time Lord/archive2 garnered only one oppose. Yes, TToaTL #2 failed because the opposer didn't consider his objections fixed (some of them I didn't understand, but I think I tried fixing most of them), but even if the oppose was struck, it would've ended the same as TToaTL #1. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)/archive2 only got one support and one oppose too. I was also concerned that the Stolen Earth FAC (which I've just noticed was promoted about ten minutes ago) was going to head the same way, because, up until 48 hours ago, it only had one oppose (which I talked to Matthew about privately) and one support. Sceptre (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I had the same thought on the Luan Da FAC; see Sandy's response here. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In fact, that was partly why I asked Sceptre the question; I was concerned this idea was taking hold, or that you had restarted a nomination the same day it was archived, thinking it was archived only for lack of review.
In fact, if you look at two months of FAC archives, one year apart, recent, but of similar size in terms of numbers of archives:
you can see that:
  • even though May 2007 and May 2008 have almost identical number of articles archived, the 2008 archive is about double the size as the 2007 archive, with far more commentary on each FAC (whether measured by the prose size script or by external website optimizer packages) ... this reflects that FAs are increasingly being created at FAC, rather than reviewed at FAC (compare the two archives), with a higher burden on reviewers,
  • every single FAC amazingly gets a source check these days (that never happened before Ealdgyth came along, I used to do a cursory spot check), and when an article isn't reliably sourced, reviewers may be less likely to engage, and
  • almost every FAC gets an image check, and
  • there are increasingly more copyeditors involved, Tony is no longer almost alone,
so that, overall, reviews are longer and more thorough than they were a year ago, and we often see line-by-line building of FAs in lengthy FACs. Some nominators then are upset when Opposes come in late, as some reviewers may hold off as they wait for sourcing and other basic issues to be sorted before engaging.
I don't know whether the trend at FAC to build FAs in lengthy review processes is a good thing or not: it's good if it produces FAs, it's bad if it leads to reviewer burnout, because without reviewer support, we don't have quality FAs. But it's distinctly different than a year ago, when many archived FACs had strings of short, straightforward opposes and much less commentary.
But, no, I don't archive for lack of review; if there is truly no meaningful input on a FAC, or if I can't look at the FAC in relation to the article and see why it's getting little feedback, then I will prompt this talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It's happened to me before at a few FA's (Halo 3 and Flood didn't garner opposes or supports (or any support after all opposes were struck), but I can't say that it's much more than occasional blips in the reviewing pool. Real life intervenes often, and sometimes FAC's fall through cracks. But I wouldn't say it's a serious issue (although Will, you do seem to have been hit with a big share of it :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd argue that first, we are in the middle of summer so the usual activity from colleges and schools will be low, but I think a larger problem is that as FA requirements become tighter (for appropriate reasons, this is not a complaint against those), the tools to pre-check an article for FA should also become stronger -- but at the same time, things like the League of Copyeditors, and experienced imaged reviewers have completely dwindled. Particularly for copyediting, it is almost necessary to get a third party (an uninvolved editor and completely outside the topic of the article) ce to really smooth things out, but these people are few and far between. I know from my own pass FA submissions that a badly ce'd article before FAC is not going to get the attention until the ce is brought to par as reviewers don't want to read bad prose. Basically, I think what I'm saying is we're seeing the number of volunteers that help outside of article creation shrink while more and more articles are brought to the forefront each day, and this starts a difficult cycle to break since the volunteer's workload gets harder, and they less want to volunteer that way. How to fix it, I'm not sure beyond mass education and call for help to get people involved in the pre-FA steps as to make the FAC steps as easy as possible. But I think this also points to how much "fixing" we can tolerate in FA. Maybe there's a need to immediately short-circuit articles that editors feel are going to take a lot of work to get straight - assuming we don't want FA to be a editroom. On the other hand, if FACs can take more of the brunt of final polishing, even with the time committments, that needs to be stated (but I don't believe that is the case here). In other words, if we short circuit off FACs with readily obvious problems, we will have fewer to look at and maybe will likely gain more reviewers. This may lead to a better review period quality in that finer details can be polished up. --MASEM 23:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I am home from a summer that had me on the road more than I was home (Since May 21 I've only been at the house four weeks... blech!) so hopefully I can say... actually review a few articles. I hope. I did notice that while the reviews are more indepth than say six-eight months ago, reviewers are doing fewer, because they take more time. I think the solution is to recognize that if you put an article up for review, you should really review an article also. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I can understand Sceptre's "perception", and to be quite honest, am in agreement with it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I no longer copy edit or review for FAC as I have found it a very "in group" and unfriendly place. I understand by the comments made about me in other sections on FAC that I am not welcomed and will not be missed. I believe others are also to intimidated to join in to help FAC and have said so in other conversations. There is a perceived favoritism in FAC. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Road discrepancies

Can reviewers and nominators please explain the comprehensive criteria on road articles and the standards used to support/oppose them? There is a 5,000-word road article FAC near the bottom of the page, looking to be archived, while there are several 800 to 1,000-word road articles at the top of the page with significant support. I'd like to better understand how comprehensiveness is determined on these articles, what the expected structure is, and what factors are leading to some gaining support while others do not. Feedback on reviews so that I can close them based on a solid interpretation of WIAFA would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think (although I'm not a member of the road project) that the longer the route; the longer the article. The Utah State Route 128 article is quite short as it only covers 44 miles, but the New York State Route 22 article is very long as it covers 300+ miles. I'm guessing that it purely depends on how long the route is. D.M.N. (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, here's what's going on:

  • New York State Route 22 - A 337-mile highway. I personally don't think anyone is interested in reading a very long article that could go on and on. This is one of our prized articles, but I don't understand why people won't feedback on what's its now 2nd FAC.
  • New York State Route 373 - Dang well, one of our shortest nominations, and the shortest in length. Personally, I feel this can be a FA, and really need it to be. I took a risk with this one.
  • Utah State Route 128 - This may be 44 miles, but it is in a desert region - it really can't have much, but in this case it has some notable history. This article has been reviewed a lot, it is ready for FAC.
  • Maryland Route 36 - Not sure on this one.

What I feel is that NY 22 just is too much for someone to read, and that roads is an often boring topic to deal with. Personally, this is just a concept of uninteresting material - for commoners. And you're getting this from who nom's roads a lot.Mitch32(UP) 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For myself, I won't review road articles at FAC. The Roads Projects and i have a disconnect on what we view as comprehensive and rather than spend all my time fussing, I just don't review them. That way both myself and the roads project are happier! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, there's a difference on what you can say depending on where in the country the road is. Forty miles buys you a lot more route description in New York than it does in Utah. (Heck, even in Oklahoma, you can get much longer route descriptions from roads on the east side of the state than those in the west because there's fewer towns and interesting geographic features west of US 81.) Also, the history section's length varies from route to route; you can have a 400-mile route that was first signed in 1930 and had nothing done to it since then, or you can get something like Oklahoma State Highway 22 where it has its routing swapped with some other route every other year for no apparent reason. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Let me know if I did something wrong. I copyedited the first half of Literature in the Hoysala Empire by request, and User:Finetooth covered the second half. Now it's getting towards the end of its time at FAC, and it hasn't attracted much attention. I left a note on Finetooth's talk page: "...the FAC may fail unless one or two more reviewers can be found. If you're willing to say that the part you covered is up to par on the FAC page, I'm willing to support it. Let me quickly add: I don't have any connection to this article, and I don't really care if it passes or not. I just think it would be a shame for it to fail for lack of reviewers. Since you've already looked at it closely, I hope you won't consider this canvassing." I can see this both ways; this might be acceptable reviewer behavior or not. Please let me know. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Each person should review an article independently. Asking someone else to make a decision so that you can act is not what I would call ethical. Canvassing for supports or opposes is unethical but canvassing for additional *quality* FAC reviewers is highly recommended -- the more eyeballs, the better. I stress on the word quality. Lack of reviewers can be tackled in a different way. Posting a note that you seek additional reviewers to review the FAC on the Indian noticeboard, literature noticeboards, and history noticeboard might accomplish what you seek. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think, on reflection, that what I tried to do was experimental and didn't work. The writer asked for a copyeditor, Sandy recommended me and a few other people, I did as much as I had time for, I was asked to review, I did as much as I had time for. In some places on Wikipedia, it works to do a part of the work; it breaks inertia and makes it a lot more likely that others will finish up. It probably doesn't work that way at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay for the primary nominator to request for additional quality review and comments?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That depends on the situation. There are three kinds of reviewers on FAC. The first kind are the subject matter experts. They are well versed with the topic. The second kind are the grammar nazis, and the third are the reference and image checkers. I would say its fine to contact reviewers based on the expertise they provide before the FAC nom. If the nom is listed on User:Deckiller/FAC urgents, I personally wouldn't find it a conflict of interest in requesting those who reviewed similar FACs to review this one. If the person opposed in a similar FAC, all the better to contact that person, as the person has taken time to review the previous topic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey! "Grammar fascist", please. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No grammar commies? bibliomaniac15 05:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Something worse than inactivity!

Clearly there is a problem much more unfair than inactivity (which can sometimes be resolved). Has anyone else noticed that FACs are commonly supported only if it is a popular subject? Of course, there are some random articles which are just up to the standards and do make the cut as they gain some support, but I maintain that some articles simply dont receive support due to the subject. No matter how well written it is, it will only gain large amount of support if it is a well known or popular topic. It's become more than obvious that some FAC are treated very differently top others. I myself have seen and even had FAC attempts which are opposed or heavily criticised because of some minor issues in the article, yet if you look at an already FA status article you will see that it has the exact same issues which still managed to bypass the reviews etc.

What I'm basically after is a consensus as to why this occurs and how it can be overcome? The Scotland national football team page has been a FA for a fair amount of times now even though it had to undergo a few content reviews which were applied because the article didn't meet the criteria anymore. It gained a fair bit of support in its promoted attempt, even in its not-promoted unsuccessful nominations. Yet the Croatia national football team is of very similar standards. It is well written and follows all the other criteria, it is even much more highly referenced that the Scottish page. Yet somehow the latter article has failed a few FA nominations and is looking to repeat such in short time as there have only been a few constructive comments on the article, but it seems that nobody feels like supporting due to the subject. I hate to say it, but in this case, it seems like it has become a form of racial differences, Scotland is one of the most popular nations due to their known history, yet their national team article gained numerous supports even though the team itself has a fairly disappointing history. I dont think its a coincidence that the Croatian team (who are much more succesful and highly rated) is gaining no support on its nomination page. I think it has to do with the country itself and its overall popularity. Domiy (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It would do you well to try doing WP:GA first to get a gauge on how your article is doing, as well as peer review. I definitely wouldn't recommend trying to build an article from C-class to FA with nothing in between. bibliomaniac15 22:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
How about going from stub to FA directly? I love working on those. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for other reviewers, and I wasn't yet an editor when Scotland national football team became featured. All I can tell you is that I don't care who or what an article I review is about; I judge on quality alone. Croatia national football team is much improved from its previous visits to FAC, but I still think there is work to be done. I'll give you a couple general hints: 1): Get the references and photos sorted out. Seeing a large wall of unresolved comments on an issue can scare away reviewers. It certainly makes me less likely to support when I see unresolved issues like these. 2): Please try to assume good faith. I know that it's difficult to see your pet article languish, but we are all trying to make the encyclopedia better, and what we do here sets the standards for all articles. Calling reviewers racist will only alienate them, because nobody likes to have names thrown at them. The same applies for your response to Fasach Nua at the FAC. If you believe the oppose is inactionable, don't tell him that "your entering close grounds for a ban I think." or threaten to report him; this also discourages reviewers. Just ignore it, and Raul654/SandyGeorgia will decide how much weight it carries. I applaud your passion to make this featured; many editors would have given up a long time ago. Try to think of it this way: Even if your favorite article doesn't get there, it has gotten attention from many new editors and has improved significantly. I wish I was that lucky. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
There may be a cause for the theory. A popular subject means that more people can review it as per their concerns, and other set criteria they have in mind. For example, its easier to review a football team than Literature in the Hoysala Empire where more erudite experts would be needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That may be true. But I believe there are many editors like me who seek out and enjoy copy editing and reviewing articles on subjects I know little to nothing about. Many times I prefer that to spending time on a subject I know well. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to be the little guy who stands up towards this issue instead! Sorry, but WP has a specific objective and to achieve it fully this clear biased action needs to be stopped! I find it daunting that you actually admit to not even bothering with your articles because of how confident you are of the biased behavior it will receive. No user should have to feel like that, especially since they contributed a lot of time and effort to make an article up to acceptable FA standards. I'm one of the very victims. The Croatia national football team page was below stub standards before I started editing it! It contained no more than a few sentences explaining the team in the lead and another sentence which stated the teams first game. That was it. Credit goes to some of the few tables which were already there, but everything you see on the page now (including the references and images!) was solely found and contributed by me. When I look at other FA, I like to look back at the miletsones and see the reviews which got them promoted. Its absolutely ridiculous! Duncan Edwards gained 3 or 4 initial supports in a row without any comments being raised. That wouldnt be the case if he was a football player of equal or even better skill from lets say Croatia, Serbia or Denmark. Unless the FA page clearly states that some articles can never become FA due to biased reviewers, then I will not let this issue go freely! The criteria says nothing about this. What's more ridiculous is that some of the popular articles which clearly did gain promotion due to their popularity are well below the criteria. It's not even worth listing them for review because there are way too many! Domiy (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that the FA criteria and FAC community are systemically biased. As a Singaporean contributing to Singapore-related articles, I do not take articles I write to the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC, because they would never pass. I usually stop working on an article once it achieves GA status and move on to other articles. Perhaps you should do so as well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability suggestion/proposal

I think it is becoming a problem that some articles get notable although they cover a very obscure topic. I think this tool should solve the problem. I know to is not 100% proof, but I think it is still a good indicator of notability. There should be some kind of limit (say 10.000 previews in the last month) that does not necessarily have to be strictly enforced, but it should still be used as a guidance as is the "check external links tool" now. In debatable cases, users are able to look at the past history of the article (assuming that it was created some while ago) and notice if there are any discrepancies that the nominator tires to hide. Anyways, please! No more obscure albums that nobody heard of! Please! Nergaal (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The number of times a Wikipedia article has been viewed has no direct correlation to real world notability, nor does it have any bearing on its suitability for featured status. Maralia (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not say it should be a criteria, but some articles are rather obscure and voters in FAC and especially in FLC don't really realize it. My point was to give them this shortcut (as is the case for check external links tool) and that way they can estimate if the article is notable at all BEFORE jumping into supporting the article because they've heard of it. Again, it is not a criteria, but just a tool to OBJECTIVELY estimate the notability. Nergaal (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
At FAC, a support or an oppose should never be based on the subject's notability or lack thereof. Were I to see someone !voting to oppose an article's candidacy at FAC based on lack of notability, I would mark the oppose as unactionable; the proper route for challenging notability is AfD. There is no gradient of notability; if an article is allowed to exist, then it is eligible for consideration as a featured article. Maralia (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:WIAFA makes no mention of notability because if something is notable enough to have an article there is no reason it should not be allowed to become Featured. As long as the criteria are met, that is. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Maralia. The notability of a topic should only be reflected in the sources used within the article. FAC reviewers should be screening for quality, not popularity. --Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, gone are the times when the GAN-criteria stated something like "articles that could never become featured"? Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I had a question about that too (whether it was still the case), but I guess WT:GAN or WT:GA is the place for that question. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
In an ideal world, we'd all work on the most significant topics first. But this is a hobby for people, so they will put the most care into what interests them, or what they love, most. Tiny corners of the universe may be beautifully etched, while mountains remain sketchy. Wikipedia is charmingly unpredictable in this way. One thing about obscure FAs is that because few people read them, they are far less likely to deteriorate. qp10qp (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Damn straight. My most obscure FA's prolly no one has read 'cept me and the reviewers, but they're still up to snuff :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that hits do not relate to notability; many undisputed featured and good articles get less than 100 views per day, while other featured articles get 20,000 views per day. I do have a concern about "short" articles, though. GA was originally intended for "short" articles, but that changed rather quickly as many long articles became GA, and some fairly short articles achieved FA. Should there be any concern about length for FA? Should a short article be held more strictly to the comprehensive criterion than a longer article, where certain aspects of the topic may be treated lightly and hardly anyone would complain? Should short articles appear on the main page? (I think relatively few articles less than 1000 words have made it to the main page unless they were "traditional" encyclopedic topics.) Should we distinguish topics where reputable authorities explicitly say "this is all we know" from topics where the beset we can say is "this is all Wikipedians have found"? I tend to think that if reliable sources don't cover a topic comprehensively, then a comprehensive article cannot yet exist. If reliable sources do cover all reasonable aspects of a topic, an article can become FA, but I still tend to think short articles are in many cases inappropriate for the main page. Gimmetrow 00:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

DotA passed FAC at 1098 words and weighing about 6.5KB, but as I remember Sandy brought up the topic on this page about whether it was too short or not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Which is now 1250 words. I've raised similar points about Pilot (House) (currently 1150 words, at FAR) and 9.0: Live (currently 700 words, at FAC). Shouldn't FAs be at least comparable in development to a five paragraph essay? Gimmetrow 00:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Comparable in what way? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Length, development. Gimmetrow 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
If an article is notable and has exhausted all reliable sources, I don't see how we can say it's not comprehensive. DotA got utterly gutted at FAC because of reliabe source concerns, and has only increased in length due to more sources in time since. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I know quantity isn't quality, and vice-versa, but do short articles really meet: "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia" per WP:FA? Peanut4 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"Best" means different things for different topics. If an article has all the information allowed by our policies, I'd say it meets that criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Even where little is known about a subject, an FA on it can be useful, though we should not allow such an article to become an FA unless we are sure it is fully comprehensive. The star would tell readers that the article gives them the full information. Take an article like Mounseer Nongtongpaw. It seems puny, but as a matter of fact it is simply the best article on this subject anywhere, online or in print. If it came up for FA, I'd have to support, despite the slight subject matter and the limited scholarship on it. qp10qp (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Quality academic topics with many papers written about it, such as Quasi-Hopf algegra get less than 5 reads per day...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean there? Do you mean that we should refocus on more mainstream or "core" articles, or are you saying it is OK to write on obscure topics? Oh, and how can a red-link get even 5 reads per day? :-) Did you mean Quasi-Hopf algebra? Or did you mean Quasitriangular Hopf algebra or Quasi-triangular Quasi-Hopf algebra? Ooh. :-( All this quasiness is making me queasy... No wonder they get so few reads. Carcharoth (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
it is OK to write on obscure topics. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not arguing for this to be a criteria. My suggestion was to have this as a tool for reviewers. Of course nobody will have anything against academic articles becoming FAs, but there are some rather obscure articles from say pop culture (i.e. an obscure album of an obscure group) that reviewers should be able to check somehow weather they are notable enough to be featurable. Again, my proposal was to simply have the link as a tool for hasty reviewers. Nergaal (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how much more clearly I can say this, but there just is no such thing as "notable enough to be featurable". Maralia (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A) It is not necessary, for the reasons Maralia stated, and B) the tool is significantly out of date. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any reason to base featured status on a topic's popularity on the internet. That is actually a poor indicator of a subject's notability. Some important topics are rarely searched for on the internet and some unimportant ones are often searched for (internet memes like Star Wars kid, anyone?) so this test is not particularly helpful, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Glitch in candidates list

Something's wrong on Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list. I do not know what it is. I thought this would be a suitable venue. Waltham, The Duke of 09:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:CBM handles this service. Gary King (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe it's related to an edit by User:Geometry guy to {{CF/Content_review/List}}. I've posted a query on his talk page as this may affect some other lists. Dr pda (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It should be fixed now. Dr pda (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick opinion on lead sentence?

Could I get a quick opinion on which of these is best for the first sentence in Literature in the Hoysala Empire? Ignoring bolding and linking for the moment:

  1. The Hoysala Empire (1025–1343) in what is now southern India produced a large body of literature in the Kannada and Sanskrit languages. [or, leave out the exact dates and put "from the 11th through the mid-14th centuries" at the end].
  2. The Literature in the Hoysala Empire has produced some great Kannada and Sanskrit works like [blah blah].
  3. Literature in the Hoysala Empire refers to a body of literature composed in Kannada and Sanskrit languages during the ascendancy of the Hoysala Empire, which lasted from the 11th through the mid-14th century.
  4. Something else? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
DEFINITELY number 3. The second one is a clear POV I reckon, and the first one is still a consideration but not as well worded as number 3. Domiy (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Be careful of WP:REFERS :) Also, WP:LEAD says if...the title is simply descriptive...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. Dr pda (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. The main editor likes #3, but I have the same reaction to it that Dr pda does. I added an option to #1. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

2 is inaccurate (the literature didn't produce works), and 3 is redundant (refers) and overlong; neither answers the first question in my mind: 'when/where was the Hoysala Empire'? #1 is superior. Maralia (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • 1 is ungrammatical. The non-defining phrase in what is now southern India must be between commas. I don't object to the approach, but this is not well executed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • In American English, I generally follow AP Stylebook unless there's a reason not to, and I'm surprised to see that by that standard, you're absolutely right, and thanks, I needed to read that. There's no wiggle-room in AP Stylebook; all "non-essential" phrases are to be set off with commas, which I guess means they like "The house is on Elm Street, two down, on the right, with red shutters, in front of the lake." (Assuming all the houses are on the right, each phrase is non-essential to what precedes it.) But this article is British English; anyone know if there's flexibility in British English? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
How "large" is a "large body of literature"? In reference to what other literature sizes? Seems like Tony wouldn't like that! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Heavens, I didn't mean that I find #1 perfect as is—only that, given the three options above, I feel it is the best approach. Maralia (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, I see how it is. I write crap. Now you know why I copyedit. Regarding "large", lead sections without the supporting text are usually WEASELy vague to some extent; they make one or more general statements that get supported and defined in the text below. I believe anyone skimming the article would quickly be satisfied that we're talking about a large body of literature; "some literature" or "a body of literature" would get a "Whaaa?" reaction from a lot of readers. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmph. I didn't mention commas because I know you are a competent copyeditor. Damned if you do, damned if you don't :) Maralia (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Who says you come up empty when you fish for complements. Btw...this discussion just made me realize that lead sections really are often vague without their supporting text...meaning, the plan being discussed at WP:1 to put something on a DVD including only lead sections for many articles is a terrible idea. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I mean "vague" instead of "WP:WEASELy". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And it encourages what is all too common anyway: POV editing of intros. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that logic is faulty. Whatever is in the lead ought to be cited in the body of the article, or if it isn't, be cited in the lead. I don't see how that can be described as "vague". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
But summaries tend, quite reasonably, to use language like "large body of". Being exact (especially if the exact size is disputable) will take more space than a well-balanced lead can spare. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. What I don't agree with is that statements like "large body of" are necessarily vague. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to convince me; I like "large part of" in such circumstances. You have to convince Tony. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

←[tweaked for readability] This is basic, but it needs repeating: if the first sentence in a paragraph gives the point of the paragraph, it's called a "topic sentence". Don't add a topic sentence if it would give away the paragraph's "punchline" or surprise ending. Don't add a topic sentence if the first sentence, or maybe the first two sentences, already explain(s) well enough what holds the paragraph together. Otherwise, a paragraph in an article probably needs a topic sentence. If someone complains that your topic sentence has words that are vague or unsupported, give it some thought; however, many good topic sentences do have words that are vague or unsupported ... until you read the rest of the paragraph. Super-short example: "Cats are well-adapted to catching mice. They have sharp claws. They have pointy teeth. They are adept at stalking and pouncing. Mice, beware!" "Well-adapted" is vague by itself, but if you omit it, then the readers have to piece together the connection between the elements on their own, and when they get to the end and figure it out, they have to re-think what they just read. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan55, I think we have enough opinions to give us an idea. We can just keep it as is and move on. Thank you all for you suggestions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if it felt like I was picking on your sentence; after reading a lot of FACs, I thought we were overdue for a discussion of lead sentences. I think it was generally helpful. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts. No issue with me. Please feel free to copy edit it anytime. I have no objections.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Subscription required

One reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Group (mathematics) has made an issue of specifying that some links require subscriptions. Is this the right approach?

In the reviewed article, they are all JSTOR links; I believe all of them are to journal articles. What is being cited, in principle, is the printed journal article, available without fee (if you can find it). The JSTOR link will be available in some libraries; few readers will want to pay for it on their own.

But the JSTOR link is a convenience link; usually the only one available. It is reasonable to include it; better a convenience link only some readers can use than none at all. Is it reasonable to have to specify that it's subscription only? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm the reviewer, and I'm not opposing the article based on the lack of the notice, I'm just pointing out that most FACs include it as a courtesy to the folks who can't readily access it. If the consensus at FAC is that they aren't needed, then that's fine. However, I'm hardly the only reviewer that prompts for this (I got hit for it in my current FAC nom up!) I'm fine with being guided by consensus on this, but the general consensus has been to require it at FAC before this. (You'll note that I struck the concern when the editors raised some issues about including it, so it's hardly a "live" concern at the moment.) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not soliciting support for the article; I just think the point should be discussed in general here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Free (as in beer) references are preferable to subscription references. But with that said, if you are going to use a subscription references, by all means include links. Those with access to those sites (myself included) most certainly benefit, and there is no tangible harm to non-subscribers by including the link. Raul654 (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If 5 ref's are JSTOR, do we mention "subscription only" on all 5, or just add to the first one, "JSTOR cites are available by subscription only"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What about citing the DOI and forgetting the JSTOR link and associated disclaimers? I see that presently you've done this with "On the lattice of subgroups of finite groups", for example, which looks a lot cleaner than the "The evolution of group theory: a brief survey" reference. I think DOI links when available obviate the need for linking article titles (and including an ISSN, FWIW), all of which make the references cluttered/harder to read. I'm very surprised by Raul's first statement but that's a different matter! Whiskeydog (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just about to post the same thing. According to this page it looks like JSTOR articles since April have had a simple stable URL which is easily reachable via a doi. That is, the article can be reached via doi:10.2307/1353871. So for the specific case of JSTOR one could use the doi parameter of the cite/citation template for the convenience link, which I think also makes it clearer that it is a journal which is being cited, i.e.
  • Baz, Bar (2008). "Foo". Journal of Metasyntactic Variables 314. doi:10.2307/1353871.  instead of
  • Baz, Bar (2008). "Foo" (subscription required). Journal of Metasyntactic Variables 314. 

Dr pda (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    • How did you find the DOI? Looking at the JSTOR site, I've tried to and failed. Or is all of JSTOR 10.2307? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no direct link to the doi of an article on JSTOR, you have to construct it manually. From the page I quoted above it appears the doi is constructed from 10.2307/ followed by the number in the stable URL (so yes, all of JSTOR is 10.2307). If the URL of the JSTOR article you are looking at uses a sici identifier rather than the format, clicking on the article information button near the top of the page seems to convert it to the stable format, from which the number can be extracted. Dr pda (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest creating a doi template, but apparents it already exists Raul654 (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Attention needed

Not a single declaration at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AMX-30E, in spite of it being listed for many days on the Urgents template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

The Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games FAC is currently on hold over the inclusion of a full listing of games based on Olympic events. The Video games Project has not been able to come to a clear consensus and Sandy has suggested we get some input here. For those interested, the previous discussion at WT:VG is here. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

I don't think the list is necessary. The prose does enough by itself to explain the various events. This is before considering that the list may well be a violation of WP:NOT. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned before that I think the events list is necessary for the article to be comprehensive. It's essentially a quick view of the entirety of the game. If you're going to mention specific events which are exclusive to platforms in the prose, why are you negating to mention those which are similar? Groups of events are mentioned, some such as table tennis are very accurate, yet others such as athletics and aquatics could mean a wide range of different sports. With a list, you can definitively state, "this is it". - hahnchen 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't it's necessary if all it is, is a list with no further info. BUC (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a succinct summary of the arguments: Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games is a video game which features a selection of Olympic events. I have argued that a listing of featured events is essential in achieving a comprehensive article. Others have argued that the listing of events is outside of Wikipedia's scope and fails WP:NOT (not a guide). - hahnchen 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the list is necessary, as the article already says the games that can be played are based on real Olympic games. I'm unfamiliar with VG articles, but do the articles for Need for Speed list each car and modification? Does the article for Sonic the Hedgehog list each level? Do the soccer games list each playable player? Does Rock Band list each song? If so, then the list might need to stay to keep consistency within the project. However, if they don't, this one shouldn't either. And even if they do, times change and WP must change with them. Maybe it is time to stop being a players' guide. I dunno.. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 22:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a mix. I would argue against lists of levels in Sonic say, as it has no real world context, and the names of the levels have no meaning. We don't always have player/team/track lists if the feature represented has no real relevance to the gameplay such as which 3cm tall football player you're controlling. On the other hand, we do have featured lists such as List of songs in Guitar Hero II. My argument has been throughout that the events define the gameplay, and because of the real world context, they aid in understanding the contents of the game. Mario and Sonic is a sports simulation game. "What sports?" is a valid question that should be answered. - hahnchen 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
But doesn't "Olympic sports" suffice? I've never watched more than a few minutes of Olympic competitions the past decade, but I know that there are track and field events similar to what takes place in high school gym. I know we're writing for the layman, but I'm sure most everyone has some idea of what normal events take place at the Olympics. Plus the few mentioned in the article help to paint that picture too. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC))
I don't think "Olympic sports" does suffice. I don't get why we're using snippets within the prose to help paint a picture, when we can just show them what the picture is. Aquatics can mean any of 46 events at the 2008 Olympics, simply stating which 3 specific aquatic events are featured gives a lot more clarity, the reader no longer "has some idea" of what the events are, he knows what they are. - hahnchen 00:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but how much more does the reader really gain by knowing what they are? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC))
  • I don't really mind and my support stands either way. —Giggy 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • From what I can see: hahnchen seems like the only one strongly pushing for the list of events. A consensus isn't everyone agreeing: it's the majority. At one point, I removed the list: but he just reverted it back claiming discussion was still going on. However, from the discussions I've seen (at the FAC discussion and Video Game project talk page): not listing the events appears to be the current consensus in my view. I don't want to accuse him of bad faith, but it just seems like he wont drop the issue until people change their mind to his viewpoint on this matter. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Capped Comments

For a few days now I am unable to unhide capped comments. Is it just me? Its very annoying. (IE on XP). Ceoil sláinte 21:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, here (IE on Vista, but can go to IE on XP on my old laptop if you want me to check); do you have a sample page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, S Johnson for one, but all of them at the moment. Worked ok for me when I just there tried it now on Firefox, so if nobody else has same prob I'll just archive this. I likely just pressed the wrong button somewhere. Ceoil sláinte 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it does the same for me. See my userpage as an example.Mitch32(UP) 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm able to open the hides on your userpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
No can do on Mitch's talk. Looks like somebody has been messing with the template. How does one find the code for such a thing. Ceoil sláinte 22:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You might post at WP:VPT (or see if others have already raised it there); also, mention that others on IE7, Vista have no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Works for me on Mitch's user page. Gary King (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Works for me, as well. However the hide caps have been screwy the past few days, as a number of editors on IRC have complained about similar problems. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

← I found this edit which may have caused the screwiness. It was undone two days later. Gary King (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for Supporting an article should be compulsory!

I find it a little bit unfair and inaccurate that the FA decisions work this way. Opposing an article for no specified reasons at all is considered invalid and enters close grounds of inappropriate behavioral issues. The oppositions must be specifically stated within the article. On the contrary, why is it allowed for users to merely write -Support- with no additional specific reasons? I've seen numerous FACs pass because of short and simple supports. Yet why does it work this way? This can coincide with my previous claim of biased decisions based on preference and racial acceptance. When reviewers support an article, they should state why exactly it is worthy of FA anymore than another similar rated article. In other words, which criteria does it follow completely and how well does it abide by it? For example, you could say "SUPPORT - well written and comprehensive, especially compared to other similar subject FA pages. And it's so well/consistently referenced etc etc". Supporting without reasons is blatantly unfair, especially when you consider that a lot of FA comments really are based on preference. Supporting based on personal preference is definitely not valid or neutral, yet the majority of articles are covertly experiencing it in the sense that no reasons are provided for supports. This would actually ensure that FA is actually a compilation of WP's best work, not most popular or best-looking. Don't get me wrong, I've seen a fair bit of reasons for Support, but definitely more simple supports without explanations. Domiy (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a support without a reason stated just assume (if it's coming from a user whom we know has some familiarity with the FA criteria) that it's saying "Support - I looked at the article and it appears to meet all the criteria"? Giggy (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Giggy. If author and reviewer are in agreement, there is often little to say. Actually this is how scientific peer review also works. If the reviewer says nice paper (article), no comments, this is very good; however if the reviewer criticises the paper (article) the reviewer should substantiate these comments to allow the author to rewrite, or allow the author to formulate a rebuttal when the reviewer has misread or misjudged the issue. Arnoutf (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly - what is gained by replacing Support with Support because it meets all the FA criteria? jimfbleak (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Pssst. Come a little closer. Closer. I wanna tell ya a secret. Life ain't fair. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I echo Jim's comments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

what is gained by replacing Support with Support because it meets all the FA criteria? Pretty much the same thing that is gained from saying Oppose because it breaches the FA criteria. As I said earlier, stating you support an article because it is in particular uniquely distinct from the average type of page on WP ensures that all FAs truly are WP's best work, not just a list of articles which were promoted due to the popularity and preference. Its quite simple, if a reviewer doesn't have sufficient or valid comments to back up his support, then his comment is just as useless as an unreferenced statement. It would be quite unfair for me to step in the middle of a brawl and support one of the fighters merely because I think he is a better person or if he is the same nationality as me. As crazy as it sounds, this is exactly what is happening on WP's FA nominations. Whether you want to admit it or not, a lot of users notice its visibility. I'm just trying to put a stop to it with this strategy. Domiy (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

But people can easily support for the very reasons you cite as correct reasons, without actually stating them. Conversely, people can say they support because it meets criteria when they're actually supporting their friends articles, or whatever ("popularity contest"). I don't think forcing people to add a reason helps much in this regard. Giggy (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hence the glory of having an actual human decider for the FA process (the Raul user guy who makes the decisions). Clearly, if somebody supports an article based on popularity but tries to cover it up by stating that they actually support it because of a certain characteristic or feature, then this can easily be noticed. I'm sure the time can/would be taken to follow up and check if the claimed features which lead to the support are actually uniquely present in the article. If they are not, then the supporting comment can be disregarded. From what I know of FA's, they are getting more and more based on preference. But from the actual description page, it states that FA are rare forms of WP's best work. Old Trafford] is currently under nomination and gained numerous supports towards the closing stages of the article. Yet I went in and by far had the easiest decision to make...I opposed right away because the amount of issues I saw were ridiculous. POV, possible copyright, referencing, layout and structure and even information quality/quantity were all very poorly met. I can assure anyone that there would be no support if it werent an English article, furthermore the stadium of one of the most popular English clubs. How much more evidence do we need. The supports were all actually short ones with no reasons as well. Domiy (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You raised three valid, actionable minor issues. Graham Colm Talk 13:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I think on the whole the reason for promotion is more about the absence of opposes, rather than the presence of supports. I have never supported an article, simply because I only look at criteria three, and you need more than one criteria to promote. The process is not a !vote, but a measure of weighted arguments Fasach Nua (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, it's not a vote. Old Trafford is just one of over 150 FACs I've reviewed this year and the process, although often enjoyable, takes up a lot of time. When I support an article my comments are often short. In this case I made about ten edits to the article before adding my support. I like to do this when I have time because it's better than leaving a shopping list of nit-picks on the FAC page. User:SandyGeorgia has to read all the comments. FAC pages are becoming too long, often longer than the candidate. I see no point in making them longer just to state the obvious. Graham Colm Talk 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can think of a situation where it would be useful to justify a support. I've always been curious to know what is in the mind of editors who Support an article right after Ealdgyth posts a long list of questionable sources or image reviewers post a string of images that don't comply with image policy. Is it because the reviewer doesn't care, or thinks it's someone else's job to deal with the policy issue of WP:V on a FAC that gains Support? I really wonder what I'm supposed to do with FACs that get a string of Supports right after a long list of very iffy, often non-reliable sources or images that violate policy, particularly when the Supporter hasn't stated why s/he is supporting an article that potentially violates core policies. Should we really be promoting articles that violate WP:V policy? I'd actually appreciate it if the editors who do this would explain their reasoning. They don't notice, they don't care about that aspect of WIAFA or Wiki policy, or they think someone else should sort that matter? It appears lately that FAC is assuming that it's Ealdgyth's and image reviewers' "job" to enforce policies on every single FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've sometimes supported an article because I knew it well from having been the copyeditor or peer-reviewer. Occasionally I've given my support at FAC before all of the larger issues raised by others were resolved. I've assumed that the nominator would resolve them. I see from this discussion that it makes more sense to wait until the big issues are resolved or to help resolve them and then come in with support (or not). It would then be possible to say something like, "Excellent article, copyedited by yours truly, further improved during FAC". Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
These Supports before all issues have been resolved put me in the spot of 1) reading minds (did the reviewer not care that non-reliable sources were used, not look, or does the reviewer disagree with the evaluation of the sources or images and Supports anyway); 2) letting FACs run indefinitely until issues are resolved; 3) archiving FACs with multiple Supports and no Opposes because policy is violated IMO; or 4) raising the issues myself. Are items 1), 3) and 4) really a role that the community expects the FAC director or delegate to assume or is the FAC director/delegate expected to promote whatever y'all Support, even if there are clear and unresolved issues? I'm wondering why reviewers don't say something like, "I will support once other issues raised are resolved", so I'll at least know the intent of their declaration and whether they have even considered our image and verifiability policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand your predicament Sandy but FAC reviewing, like everything we do here, is a team effort. Image copyright, (unless they are homemade), is a minefield. For example, it might be OK to use a picture of the Eifel Tower at night on en.wikipedia, but it would not be allowed on Commons, because of Freedom of Panoramma issues. I think it's asking too much of FAC reviewers to be experts on copyright——doing so will drive them away; the last thing we need. Same with sources; I don't trust anything that's not been printed on paper by a reputable publisher, but I can't raise this as an objection at FAC, and rightly so. I've always, and wrongly assumed it seems, that you knew that my comments were adressing a specific criterion or two and that you would see the bigger picture before deciding to pr/ar. As always here this discussion has drifted away from the intial point made way above: that I and another reviewer had supported the candidature of Old Trafford without saying why. I wrote my response to this earlier. Graham Colm Talk 20:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it as straying off topic :-) You shouldn't have to justify a support, but in cases when editors support over other policy opposes, I'm curious why and I need to place them in the context of policy issues raised by others. Another reason I don't believe the discussion is straying off topic is that Domiy raises the issue of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Croatia national football team/archive3, which throughout all of its FACs, has not yet resolved sourcing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Croatia national football team for another comment on the same matter. Woody (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy, and Woody. I hope all this not because of the taste of sour grapes. I need time to think about this. Graham Colm Talk 21:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
While you do that, it might be worthwhile to know that there are a list of reasons as to why Croatia national football team has failed numerous times without issues being resolved. I don't want to start another racial assumption here (although it is obvious that it can be based on personal preference) but the source issues actually were resolved at FAC. I was asked as to why Javno (one of Croatia's leading newspapers) and were reliable sources. My arguments were requested to be sourced, in other words, I needed to provide evidence as to the fact checking or the process of content release of the websites at question. I did so for both of them by linking their submission, policy and other criteria on content which proved they were reliable. However, the issue was never agreed upon as most of the users (including the one who actually requested the source verifiability) never replied; they just kept on pointing out other nonexistent issues. But to get on topic, I remain that it is unfair that a lot of articles are receiving Support's without reason. As you said Sandy, it helps your cause a lot and can silence any biased issues.Domiy (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, a support without any previous opposes can hardly give an explanation, but I agree with Sandy that it might be very useful if a support after an oppose would give some reasoning why it supports in spite of existing opposes (e.g. the supporting editor disagrees with oppose reasons, the supporting editor thinks oppose reasons are unreasonably strict on very minor point (very best article needed for FA is not the same as a perfect article). I think we should not make a guideline on this (as that would only increase bureaucracy and in some case may not be relevant as I argued above requiring conditional application of the rule ie more bureaucracy). We might add a line to such effect somewhere in the project page as a suggestion. Arnoutf (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I think giving reasons for one's support is a very good idea, particularly because we cannot all evaluate every article on every criteria. For example, I read Group (mathematics) and commented on its accessibility to a lay audience, which I feel is an important part of 1a, but there is no way that I am capable of commenting on that article's comprehensiveness - my knowledge is way too limited. Therefore, in my support statement, I made it very clear exactly what criteria I evaluated the article on. Other times, I have relied on previous reviewers to decide a WP:RS argument because the debate was about popular music sources and I really don't know enough to enter that debate and I didn't have enough time to familiarize myself with the debate to make an informed opinion - therefore, once the sourcing debate was resolved, I reviewed the article and made it absolutely clear that I was relying on other editors' judgment regarding the sources. These kinds of statements, I feel, are imperative at FAC. We need to know what criteria each reviewer has actually considered. It seems, for example, that most reviewers just ignore the image criteria. If reviewers are supporting without having reviewed the images, they should say so. Such statements would help us all figure out what criteria have actually been considered during the review process. Awadewit (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I also try to give reasons for my support of an article. They are usually general, such as I enjoyed reading the article and it made me want to learn more about the topic (which above all, is my primary standard for FAs if everything is backed up by reliable sources). If the article provokes further thought then I try to share that at the FAC. However, listing reasons for a support similar to listing actionable oppose issues may reach the ridiculous. I don't think I would want to spend the time listing all the things I think are good or right about the article. That would be silly. --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Sandy has been asking nicely for a while now for us to re-start WP:WPMOS to rationalize the style guidelines. I've done that, and I'm giving it a slant that might be slightly alarming for FAC people: I want the widest participation possible, and I'd like for us to assume going in that FAC people (which included me up to now, but I have to be strictly "FAC-neutral" for the duration) are going to lose a few rounds. If not, then GA people and wikiproject people might continue to assume that there's no point in showing up, on the theory that FAC people will continue to win on all points (I don't buy the theory, but it's a common perception); and the result of that will be that GAN people continue to pay attention (officially) to only 6 of the style guidelines and some wikiprojects will pay attention to fewer than that; and the result of that is that we'll have very few people who can do a good job with copyediting all 30000 WP:1.0 articles, because if other people aren't reading the style guidelines or discussions on those pages, then we'll continue to see results like the 30000 articles in WP:V0.7 (which is not pretty, let me tell you). So: please visit WT:WPMOS. I'll warn you that it's going to be a lot to read by the time everyone has had their say; I pledge that I am trying to mention only those things that I know for certain people care a great deal about, and I try to say what needs to be said in the fewest words possible, because it's a lot. It's important, it's hard if you don't know the style guidelines (so please consider volunteering if you are somewhat familiar with them), and it's somewhat urgent because of WP:V0.7. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Without even having visited or peeked yet, Dan, what needs to be done there has nothing to do with FAC, GAN or any Project. The first order of business should be bookkeeping. Get a summary list of all of the duplicate and redundant and contradictory pages before even beginning to think about what to do about them. If you all aren't taking that approach, you're just going to get more bickering, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but on the other hand, I look myself and also ask other people what their perception is about areas of overlap, a lot. This isn't instead of, it's in addition to. And I disagree that this isn't about avoiding contradiction and overlap; I'll add a section called Overlap there and explain why. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
IMNSHO, if you don't have an approach to the approach, a way to organize the work needed, it's going to go nowhere quickly, and degenerate into bickering among the various WikiProjects who all have their preferred MoS page. An evaluation of what the current pages are and where they stand is first: which overlap, which are redundant for starters. MoS discussions have a way of very quickly running into WP:TLDR; that should be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
SandyG is right. Many of us, including me, don't consider ourselves to be primarily FA, GA or project people. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's a strange and divisive way of viewing editors. Also, if the first priority "is a detailed copyedit and 'certification' of the 30,000 articles" of some off-Wiki DVD, IMNSHO, the most urgent boat has already been missed. Rationalization, consolidation and cleanup of MoS to something useful is the most urgent task before a WikiProject, and editing specific articles to comply with the unintelligible beast that MoS has become shouldn't even be part of MOSCO or on the radar screen until MoS is cleaned up. I suspect MOSCO will continue to be dormant if the goal isn't to finally rationalize, consolidate and clean up MoS, starting with a simple evaluation of where the redundancies and contradictions exist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I completely second Sandy's comments. The MOS must be streamlined before it is completely ignored (instead of just 98% of the time). Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I don't mean that it's true that there are FA, GA and wikiproject people; I mean that that's a perception, and a very important one. Feel free to clarify that, especially at WT:WPMOS. Sandy and Karanacs: no problem, let's see if we can get whatever volunteers show up to focus on streamlining first; it's a perfectly reasonable request and should go over well. Still: don't sell this short until you see what happens; I believe some very pleasant surprises are in store. Oh, and you are SO right about missing the boat, but rationalizing Wikipedia's business plan is far, far above my paygrade. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I see it as a matter of whether you want to teach people to fish, or feed them yourself. When we're already short-staffed everywhere, why aim to clean up 30,000 articles rather than building a solid, rational and cohesive MoS that more editors will respect so that they'll be more likely to do it themselves? I have a hard time getting behind a Project that starts off expressing a goal of bringing 30,000 article to compliance with an ever-changing contradictory and redundant MoS beast. Fix the beast first, and they will come. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Every time you have reprimanded me and abruptly sent me to an MoS page for my education, it has never said what you inferred it would, at least I could not find it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It just won't happen. The GA Sweeps project tasked itself with cleaning up 2,800 articles, not 30,000. A year later, about one third have been checked. Editors have got to be able to refer to an easily understood and consistent MoS, so we don't have to undertake any more of these mammoth and draining exercises. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Eliminating overlap and redundancy would be an excellent start; there are items discussed on as many as four different pages, creating an absurd duplication of effort and confusion ! A task force should be put together, first, to identify and catalogue the issues. Only then will solutions emerge, IMO. For example, I spent the last month trying to eliminate redundancy between LAYOUT, LEAD, ACCESSIBILITY, FOOTNOTE and CITE. Turn your back for a week, and it's all undone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I oppose increasing the importance of the MOnSter in the GA criteria or in the WikiProjects. It is simply too complicated and is one of the reasons why I, a "GA person", would never take an article to the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. (The main reason, of course, is that it is almost impossible for Singapore-related articles to attain FA status.) Please tame the MOnSter if you want it to be taken more seriously. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Complaining from the sidelines isn't going to help you, you know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

←Make an announcement that you want to change how WP:RfA works, and you'll have people banging down the doors. Say you want to work on style guidelines, and people fall asleep. (Or complain loudly, and then fall asleep.) I understand that you (Hildanknight/JLWS) and others have concerns. All I can say is: pick a CAT:GEN talk page, any page, and say what you don't like about it. I'll meet you there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

headache at the tally-room

There has been some lively discussion here - Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations#Cas Liber and Vampire: on the application of criteria for Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Please make your feelings known here so we can establish consensus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A comment on choice of featured article

I was unsure where to put this comment, but I felt it needed to be said somewhere. On 2008-09-11, the anniversary of 9/11 the main page has three featured things relating to that event (featured article, featured picture and "featured speech by GWB"). Just for a sense of balance I looked at all the FAs for Aug 6 and none relate to the bombing of Hiroshima. I realise that that article does not have FA status (yet), but the emphasis on 9/11 compared with other equally large events concerns me. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can find information about how to recruit volunteers to help bring an article to featured status at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. I would start, though, by questioning the A-class rating of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at MilHist, as it doesn't appear to be A-class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It isn't A-Class at Milhist. It's B-Class. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting! I have Gadgets turned on in Preferences, so it shows up as A-class. I wonder if Gadgets chooses the first WikiProject listed, or the highest rating. In either case, it's a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean that there would be no objection to having a Singapore-related main-page FA, a FP of a location in Singapore, 4 Singapore-related DYKs (one per update) and an entry about our National Day in On this day, all on 9 August, as long as all the articles were of the required quality? Of course, this is just a pipe dream, as it is nearly impossible for Singapore-related articles to attain FA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be great! I really hope the SG editors get together and collaborate on some stuff for 9 August next year. I'm sure it's possible to get SG related content to FA standards if you get some good copyeditors on your side. Giggy (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC) SG = Singapore, not SandyGeorgia. Just noticed. :-)

More on capping...

I have an idea on how to avoid transclusion problems (hitting the limit etc.). I don't know if it's any good, so comments are appreciated. See here for details. Waltham, The Duke of 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow had the explanation for why the previous method caused the template limits problem; he would know if that works. It's Greek to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It's strange when people use that expression when speaking with me. It makes it look as if I can understand what they cannot. (In Greece we use a "Chinese" variant.)
Anyway, I'll leave a message on Gimmetrow's talk page. If I remember correctly, however, it is this explanation that gave me the idea to overcome the problem. Let's see... Waltham, The Duke of 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


We're missing several FAC reviewers due to Hurricane Ike, so things may slow down until they return. All hands on deck :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

please allow subsections in FAC comments

I just wanted to tell that it is quite a hindrance not to allow subsections in the FAC comments. FAC pages get easily really long (e.g. this one on groups), and one is always scrolling back and forth to see what is going on. I'd like to encourage officials to allow / even encourage that every reviewer makes a subsection à la ===Comments by ...===, so that replying gets easier etc. Thanks. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

whatever the decision on subsections, Comments by ... should be encouraged anyway. I would have thought it made life easier for Sandy, and I find it helps me to find my own comments in long reviews. jimfbleak (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • ; Comments by, good;
  • ====Comments by====, not good (makes a mess of the FAC page and archives and has been used to create POV),
but I do agree there are cases where an exception will help. Work is steadily progressing on the Group article, so it doesn't look like a potential restart yet, but it has grown very long, complex and hard to edit because of the number of editors weighing in (which is different than a FAC that grows long over two or three editors bickering back and forth). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

One problem with sub-sections is that, in the past, they have been abused of; I always remove sub-sections except, I have allowed them to stand in cases of clearly very long FACs that have become difficult to edit and read, and as long as the sub-section is not written in a way that creates POV or directs reviewers towards certain views and away from others. The issue is that once we allow one sub-section, others creep in. Not all long FACs need sub-sections; Group could benefit from a sub-section. I'd accept the use of sub-sections on that FAC because of the complexity, but also take this opportunity to remind reviewers that extensive content commentary could be placed on the article talk page to keep the FAC more readable. In the few cases where I've left sub-sections, I remove them when the FAC is closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps add a note for the reviewers not to add subsections for reviews under x kb long? Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
We already have a note not to add sub-sections. I've allowed an exception here because of the complexity of the topic and because the page is not a candidate for a restart as it has shown steady progress with issues being resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Another option that might settle the issue with overly long pages (at least visually) are these handy gadgets which allow to hide one's comments (once they are resolved). Encouraging using this doesn't share the drawbacks of the subsection method, but makes it easier following the FAC, both for the nominator and the reviewers. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
You can request editors to temporarily hide long resolved discussions while the FAC proceeds, but I have to remove them all before closing the FAC because of the template limits problem. Creates extra work for me, but I don't mind doing it. So far. It also doesn't make the FAC easier to edit, since the text is still there. The more logical solution is for reviewers to be aware that extended, peer review-type commentary can be resolved on talk rather than on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledgments paragraph?

I believe adding such a section at the beginning of the FAC is the best place to do it. Maybe not all FACs would need it, but this should solve the problems with the "not major contributors". It might sound useless, but it is not more useless than in the articles published in the academic journals (even there nobody really reads it, but I believe it is a good habit to do for FACs). Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Is it acceptable to have obscene articles featured, as they will appear on the Main Page? Also, is this an acceptable argument at WP:FAC, e.g. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck/archive1?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 16:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What is featured and what appears on the main page are two separate items, shouldn't be confused. There are about 1,000 FAs waiting to appear on the main page, so most won't make it. That FAC garnered no Support for many reasons; reading the FAC as if it failed for obscenity is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Opportunity to make friends

That sounds so much nicer than "chores to do", doesn't it? Wikiprojects have been invited to list pages between now and October 20 that may need light spelling and grammar copyediting at Wikipedia_talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Copyediting. Editors who have listed their pages might be appreciative, because these pages will be going on the (not widely distributed) WP 0.7 DVD. Do one or twenty; there's no sign-up sheet and no obligation. I don't mean to pull anyone away from WP:FAC; this is less strenuous work, for when your brain needs a rest. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Friends? I don't need "friends"! *evil cackle* Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll try and do one or two this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Good lists"

Hello FACers. No big deal but I've noticed our Featured brethren over at WP:FT have invented WP:Good topics. We already have WP:GA and in the past the idea of good lists was sniffed at. Can we have a chat about it over at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Good lists if you have an opinion? The idea is the same as GA, i.e. that you cover those decent lists which couldn't be considered the "finest work" within Wikipedia such as lists considered too short. I'd appreciate it if some FACers could contribute to the discussion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin help, malformed fac

Can an admin pls sort this malformed fac:

  1. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Kiko (2007) was incorrectly moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)/archive2. The old contents (now at archive2) belong in the regular fac file, along with the new nomination blurb and nominator name and tools.
  2. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)/archive2 then should be maintenance deleted.
  3. Then readd the {{fac}} to the article talk page, making sure it directs to the corrected new fac.
  4. Then re-transclude the corrected fac file to WP:FAC.

Because this is a move over a move, I can't fix it without admin tools. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I transclude, check and make sure I did what you wanted... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Perfect (I added back the old fac); now if you transclude it, I'll add the fac tag to talk. Thanks so much, David ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All done (in under 13 minutes)!! Thanks again, David. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Virus check images

An independent review of the all images used in this article would be helpful at its FA candidature. Are there any volunteers? Especially the two portraits that I've used. Graham Colm Talk 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I kinda ignored it when it popped up at FAC 'cause I'm lazy and it had lots of images :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2010 Winter Olympics

A very inexperianced user has tried to nominated the above page, by starting a nomination page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Winter Olympics, but has not completed the nom by listing on the FAC page. As this is an upcoming event, so the article will not be stable, and given that the nominator has 3 edits total, i imagine the course of action would be to speedily close the nomination and delete Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Winter Olympics, but i'm not sure entirely sure if, or how, to go about doing this. Basement12 (T.C) 22:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Meshuggah FAC

Good day everybody! I have a problem: I nominated Meshuggah for a FA and all things were solved the last nomination. This nomination started with one probably bad faith oppose, which was disproved instantly; and it had one support. But the problem is that since then, nobody added any comments for a week or so. And now it was just removed (and it is not very clear why). Is there something else what I can do except to nominate it again? Or, would you comment the nomination, please, if I nominate it again? Have a nice day.--  LYKANTROP  16:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The article explains the word Meshuggah, but not how/why a band from Scandinavia came to have the word as its name. Presumably someone's asked them at some point? --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't have any sources about someone asking them... The article has now a peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Meshuggah/archive2) before I'll go to FAC. Comments are welcome.--  LYKANTROP  10:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Question on an unreleased video game for FAC

I'm thinking of taking StarCraft: Ghost, a video game, to FAC. The problem is that it's an "indefinitely postponed" game (as stated by the game's development company). So essentially, it shouldn't have any major news in the upcoming months or possibly even years. It may never even be released. This is why it doesn't have the {{Future game}} template. The article has also reached GA status because of its indefinite postponement. So, I'm wondering, would this be a problem for FAC? Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My first thought was "oh my goodness, why do we even have an article about that!". Then I went and looked at the article. The sourcing looks decent and there is a surprising amount of information. The only thing it is missing (on a cursory glance) is a release section, and since that is unlikely to happen anytime soon, I think this should meet the comprehensiveness and stability guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm wondering why you would be surprised; we've got plenty of unreleased video games around here. You can imagine how many video game articles are created just from rumors where someone heard from a friend of a friend about a game :) Gary King (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
As I think I stated before, Ghost is more vaporware than "unreleased game coming out in X months" and thus unlike those articles, we have little evidence to suggest a rapid amount of new information would appear and destabilize the article entirely. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style checking tools?

Hi, is there anything like this in the form of a script, client side tool, or tool server utility that does this? rootology (C)(T) 20:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really (expect a lot of smart-arsed responses ranging from 'it's a moving target anyway' to 'if only common sense were scriptable'). There are a few pieces, like a dash-fixing script, but no comprehensive tool. Would you like me to take a look at a particular article for MOS issues? Maralia (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Andyz's script does some of it (but I don't think it's always accurate); ask Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) about that. Epbr123 (talk · contribs) is a human MoS checking script, and Brighterorange (talk · contribs) has a dash-fixing script (still being tested, you have to check after he runs it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. The one I'm working on now is The Greencards, but I had a few others I wanted to take a crack at. Tony1 got I think most of the leftovers on the Greencards the other day. rootology (C)(T) 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking into some WP:AWB stuff along these lines. Still don't know the details; will "try try see" (pardon the in-joke for Chinese-speakers; I use this phrase a dozen times per week in conversation). Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 05:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Readability tool

Is it no longer working? I can't see it listed in the sample three or four open FACs I just visited, nor is it in the toolbox at WP:FAC. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It still works, but it has not been in the toolbox for quite a while. –thedemonhog talkedits 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The version I remember seemed to include all the text at the bottom, with words highlighted... ? --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that part is gone. –thedemonhog talkedits 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed it after it became apparent that it was not used for its original purpose of pointing out problems in FAC, but instead as a crappy proses counter. The processed plain-text is just hidden but the highlighting has been moved to the debug mode. — Dispenser 21:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. What do you mean "it was not used for its original purpose of pointing out problems in FAC, but instead as a crappy proses counter."? --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard II of England nomination

Sorry, I seem to have made a mess of my nomination. It appears twice, though when I try to edit the page it's only listed once (seriously, when I can't even do this, how do you expect me to write a featured article?) Anyway, how can I fix this? Lampman (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Very strange indeed. I've looked at both the FAC page and the nomination in edit window, and can find no reason for this. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it twice anywhere. Maralia (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe there's a time-lag on this page. Let's give it a few minutes. Lampman (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems ok now for me too. Lampman (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FA awards

I know that some find the WP:SERVICE awards motivational (when self-awarding) / satisfying (when awarded by others).

I'm not aware of FA equivalents, other than accumulations of userboxes/stars for each successive FA.

It's surely possible that, say, someone with four FAs to their name may be spurred back into the slimy pit by the prospect of a shiny thing to bung on their userpage. Or someone with eight, may consider doing another couple to get an even shinier one? It's surely possible... isn't it?

And yes, I know I've not been reviewing FACs recently. Sorry. <deep, Austrian-accented voice> I'll be back. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Anything's possible, but I suspect those who might be motivated by such things are more likely to pay attention to WP:WBFAN, so there is less need for shiny things in this case. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

New service

I've started a list here where editors can request the semi-automatic removal of date autoformatting for an article or set of articles. The removal of DA is required as part of the need to comply with the style guides (Criterion 2). Tony (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not using AWB or assisted scripts, so this is very helpful. Thank you for offering assistance with the date links. --Aude (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, Tony's already fixed at least one (I recently restarted my watchlist, so could be more) of the FAs on my boasting list and I'm truly grateful. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I've seen you go through all my FA's without asking :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image review Dispatches

Elcobbola (talk · contribs) has put a prodigious amount of work into writing two Dispatches for The Signpost:

I know checking images for compliance with Wiki policy is thankless work in our content review processes, and I extend a heartful thanks to Elcobbola for these wonderful resources.

Also, in case others have noticed that I get short-tempered and fussy as the publication deadlines approach, shepharding these Dispatches through to weekly publication is wearing me down. The Dispatch is published weekly, covering featured content and content review processes. Help is welcome and needed to shephard topics from ideas to publication at The Dispatch Workshop, to come up with ideas for new articles, to write them, and to help lighten the load for the few of us who are making sure something comes out each week. For archives of past Dispatches, see {{FCDW}}.

Thanks again, Elcobbola; You Are A Gem! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. The Signpost should come out fortnightly—it's as simple as that. Tony (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if the Signpost comes out weekly, we could still make the Dispatch a bi-weekly inclusion. Karanacs (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Man, I feel bad, one of the good/bad examples is from something I uploaded (and then later fixed, as to be the good example). The overall write-up is excellent, and once the SignPost is up, needs to be linked from WP:WIAFA and WP:NFCC among other places. --MASEM 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So FAC's are easy now?

Is it hard to get an article promoted or is it easy? Make up your mind! Am I the only one shocked at the fact that this article just got promoted? As I said before, isn't there supposed to be a clear consensus on the nomination page before it can be promoted? I don't see why SandyGeorgia ignored countless of my issues which I bought up on the article nomination page. They all went by the criteria (POV and Referencing mainly) and some of the similar issues were even raised by others initially. A discussion was taking place between the nominator and myself about some of the issues, and he eventually refused to take it further, obviously implying he does not want to follow the FA criteria. I don't see how the article was possibly still promoted. That's just disappointing. Domiy (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Short-handed. Too many FACs in the queue.. wait.. there isn't a queue, they all come straight in to the party.. wow, someone should propose a waiting queue... Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 04:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
What does that have to do with WP:V and WP:NONENG, Ling.Nut? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I was making a general remark, rather than validating any specific Pass or Fail! However, this thread is, in general, obviously a counterproductive sally into the land of sour grapes. I probably shouldn't have replied to the original post. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 05:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why you are actually asking questions Sandy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not your decision as to which articles are promoted and/or failed? You must have clearly seen my points raised about the German woman's football team article. Now, you have gone ahead and promoted it. Let me remind you just exactly of what you have done. You have marked that article as "Wikipedia's best work", even though the majority of it cannot even be verified in English since it uses countless foreign-language references without any translations or additional verifiability. For all we know, the German sources included have nothing to do with the football team at all. This may not be a requirement in normal articles, but for a quality which is supposed to exemplify this domain's best work, I don't see how it was able to pass when the only people who can verify it are those who speak German themselves. The editor refused to go through the trouble and time of translating the sources, clearly showing no additional commitment. How that deserves to be a Featured Article still amazes me. Sandy, you really need to read and think about the nomination page carefully before you make any decisions. Domiy (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
We don't write policy at WP:FAC; if you disagree with WP:NONENG policy, that discussion can be furthered at the talk page of WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense to me to think some of the best sources on a German topic are in German. Is there some reason you cannot use Google Translator? It does fine for translating articles well enough for verification purposes. --Aude (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Foreign sources are generally unreliable. It is acceptable to use them if you follow the minimal use guidelines (that is if there is no alternate English source available). But anyone would know that a German source is bound to present a biased POV, just like SkySports presents a biased POV towards England and Jutarnji List would present a somewhat biased POV towards Croatia. It happens with every domain. The least that could have been done is translate the sources to assure verifiability. I don't see why the reader must go through all the trouble to get an article translated manually when they are reading a Featured Article which is supposed to already be a top quality tool for research etc. Additionally, online translators are difficult. Everyone knows they don't really translate it correctly, some words are always misinterpreted and turn out broken etc. Also, how are we supposed to know when the source backs up the statement? The entire thing is in German so nobody can really understand the heading or the upcoming prose, so readers will have to go crazy and translate the entire article just to ensure the info is correct. It's not impossible to translate sources. I have done it well right here which can assure that any reader can easily verify the facts of the Croatian sources. The idea of translating the foreign sources came from one of the guideline talk pages. Can't really remember which one it was, but a user did strongly recommend that the foreign sources be translated into English for verifiability purposes. It was most likely on the "Citing sources" or "Verifiability" guideline talk page. Domiy (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Your position is clearly absurd. If taken seriously, it would mean, for instance, that the article on the English women's football team ought to use German sources, as English sources would be biased. Give it up, please. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Foreign sources (meaning non-English) are reliable if they are from reputable companies. If a Croatian-language source is from a major media outlet in the country, then it certainly qualifies as a reliable source, though it should be noted what language it is. To Domiy: while I'm here, the note with your signature at the bottom of the references in your example violates WP:OWN. Quote: "Since no one "owns" any part of any article, if you create or edit an article, you should not sign it." Giants2008 (17-14) 01:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Demanding only English language sources would only further the problem of systematic bias on English Wikipedia, and would only lower the quality of Wikipedia by denying in some cases what are the best sources for a topic. Being in a foreign language has absolutely nothing to do with reliability. --Aude (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Aude. From having translated original German language sources in order to fact check English sources for two German-related articles (Knut (polar bear), which is an FA, and Flocke, which is here at FAC), I can tell you from personal experience that sometimes the English counterparts are not as reliable or are downright incorrect. If the German source is the better of the two, then of course it should be used rather than a watered down, secondhand translation from Fox News or something similar. I have no problems with an article that uses primarily foreign sources; it depends on a lot of factors, but sometimes it just comes down to who do you trust? For German polar bears, sometimes you have to trust German sources, and I assume it's the same for German soccer teams. María (habla conmigo) 16:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Well not really. Hear me out. German sources may be very acceptable on German polar bears because such is a rare topic. Please note that any/every domain will publish English language articles on any subject. It's not hard to find. Again, it may be primarily accepted on German polar bears considering the actual topic/subject. But for a football/soccer team, it cannot be accepted as an excuse. There are numerous domains which publish English stories on any football team. BBC Sport, SkySport, Reuters, Sports Illustrated, The Guardian etc just to name a few. These all publish English stories on any football team, regardless of nationality since they are major competitive domains. Please do read the guidelines, foreign sources are only really acceptable if there is no reliable English source available. That clearly cannot be said about the German football team article. Football is the most popular sport in the world, and as I just said, there are numerous reliable domains which publish stories based on it. Now I'm not saying its completely unacceptable to use foreign sources, anyone is free to use them all they want, I'm just arguing that for verifiability purposes, they should be translated. Not the entire article, just the relevant aspects of it which back up the statements. Even if it is a very reliable foreign language source, how can we assure that it actually backs up what the article says? Domiy (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Translate it yourself? Sure, that may not be accurate, and not sufficient for direct quotes (which is why policy calls for such in references), but there's enough tools out there for online resources that can make sure the gist is right. --MASEM 23:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A truly pointless observation

You can ignore this, since it really is truly pointless. But I'll say it 'cause it's true: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is its fundamental bottom-up nature. I love it, you love, we all love it, and it doesn't scale to meet the current size of Wikipedia.. We have a WikiProject PR and a Wikiproject Fact Check and FA team and a (defunct?) LoCE and probably a couple of others that I don't now about. Someone working from the top-down should roll them all up into one WikiProject, with a single point of contact, focused goals and crisp rules/methods of operation—but it will never happen. Everyone loves their own little space and their own group of friends. So the labor is fragmented, unfocused, reduplicated and only marginally effective. So ignore me, I'm not kidding. I'm just being cynical again. We now return you to your regularly programmed debate. :-) Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 07:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Readable prose

Can anyone explain the reasons for my confusion at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Roman_Catholic_Church/archive3#Dweller_comments? What did I do wrong to get such an incorrect number? --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't have that thing that Sandy told me about. Go to...oh poop. Dr.Po? Gah. Ask on Sandy's talk page. A user has a monobook script that gives you an extra clicky to see readable prose. --Moni3 (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Great. Sandy? It's... Dweller, Dweller, Dweller (ooh) tell me more? --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Just copy/paste the script from someone else's monobook.js. In fact, I think all you need is on one line.. search fr the word "prosesize". Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 12:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Pda's prose size -> User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Instructions at User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js. Giggy (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've tried it two different ways, but neither's worked. Am I just too stupid computer illiterate? --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Try copy pasting the first line of User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.js (remove all the stuff you've added first). Remember to bypass cache. Giggy (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Tried. Failed. Never mind. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Most scripts don't work on Internet Explorer, if that's what you're using. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Firefox. The rest of my monobooks scripts work fine. I'm just incompetent with setting them up. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); // [[User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js]]

to after

<pre> <nowiki> */

on the next line. Gary King (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Great tip, thanks. Sadly, still doesn't bleeding work. --Dweller (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Check your firewall on popups. It took me forever to make this thing go, but I'm dumber than the average bear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Also try to do a WP:PURGE and WP:CACHE cycle after editing your scripts file, to make sure that you're getting the version on the server, not the old copy stored in your computer. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Or you could use –thedemonhog talkedits 18:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there were two copies of the text that I suggested you find above. Move:
importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); // [[User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js]]

To after:


Done Gary King (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hooray. It's now working. However...

Difference between the two tools?

Why does Dr pda's script generate a figure substantially different from that of the toolserver link, above? And which, if either, is accurate? --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you go to and click the Show parsed text link at the bottom of the page, you will see that sometimes the text within <ref></ref> tags is counted as part of the readable prose. Specifically this seems to happen when the ref tags contain something other than just a cite template. Consider for example the second paragraph of the parsed text:

The Catholic Church defines its mission as spreading the message of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments and exercising charity. Barry, pp. 50–1 The Church operates social programs and institutions throughout the world, including schools, universities, hospitals, missions and shelters, as well as organisations such as Catholic Relief Services, Caritas Internationalis and Catholic Charities that help the poor, families, the elderly and the sick. Barry, pp. 98–9

compared to the second paragraph of the article:

The Catholic Church defines its mission as spreading the message of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments and exercising charity.[7] The Church operates social programs and institutions throughout the world, including schools, universities, hospitals, missions and shelters, as well as organisations such as Catholic Relief Services, Caritas Internationalis and Catholic Charities that help the poor, families, the elderly and the sick.[8]

The bolded (by me) text should not be included as part of the readable prose. My script does not include the text of the references (or even the reference markers, i.e. [7]) in its calculation of the readable prose. Herein presumably lies the difference. Dr pda (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - that's clear. Thank you for creating such a useful script, even if dummies like me can't work out how to implement it without considering hand-holding! --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

There are precedents for the FAC director promoting/archiving their own nominations, e.g. Parallel computing Battle of Dien Bien Phu. DrKiernan (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • But if you read the Parallel computing FAC, you'll find me objecting to that very thing. It is a serious problem to have the nominators deciding whether or not to promote the articles they have contributed to! The conflict of interest is obvious. Awadewit (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Other options worth considering might be: (1) Joelito closes it; (2) I or Durova, as currently non-voting participants, close it. DrKiernan (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Joel and I are the only other delegates; I have voted on the nomination, so perhaps he is best to promote it.
An end must be brought to this. This is still a Wiki—with all due respect to Raul, we don't have to sit on our hands for weeks while he does nothing about the problem. Marskell (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Joel sounds like the best solution to me - an uninvolved editor who is already a delegate. Awadewit (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent; prejudiced against trafficking in colons) I third the <adjective redacted> motion. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 16:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fourthed. (Is that even a word?) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I have left a note for Joel. Only problem is, he isn't editing a lot and may not notice for a while.
Unless others object, how about this: we wait 48 hours for Joel and if he doesn't show up I'll close it. I've made hundreds of FAR closures and the fact that I've voted doesn't amount to a serious conflict (closers ought to support articles). OK? Marskell (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I also left another note for Raul earlier. If neither of them responds in 48 hours, I am quite confident in your judgement, Marskell. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Joel is User:Joelr31, BTW. Marskell (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Response I would rather not step on Raul's authority here. So, there are only two options - 1. We sit and wait until Raul decides it is ready for a decision. 2. This nom is removed by the wishes of all three sponsors, as two have already made it clear that they want a withdraw, and that this is added later under someone's nom. I have already stated that I will not work on the future nomination if this goes back up again, and that when this closes I am unwatching the page as a whole. I came to this page simply to fix the problems of no citations and other things those like Sandy pointed out on the talk page. I have dealt with and been involved with a lot of people having some very bad experiences, and also had my character and research ability questioned. I do not want to have to go through either of those again. I feel that having this discussed constantly on Raul's page, on the FAC, on multiple talk pages, etc, is unfair and that any such comments and feelings are better expressed in private or not at all. I feel that too many reputations are being attacked unfairly. I'm still around at Wikipedia because many people expressed that they wanted me not to be banned so I could contribute content. It appears that this too is starting to cause problems, especially with what seems as a revolt against one of the fundamental systems of Wikipedia, which I do not enjoy or being used in. This is my only response that I will give here and on this topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Ottava, please be assured that the actions the rest of us are taking have no bearing on you or your behavior and should not be construed as an attack on anyone's reputation. It is embarrasing to FAC for any nomination to be open this long and to be using up so many reviewer resources, especially when consensus is this clear. We all know that Raul is extremely busy (that's why he appointed several delegates), we just need to figure out what to do when Raul and some of his delegates are unavailable for various reasons. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish for this to appear to be a mutiny of Raul's authority, but I also agree that Sandy should not promote or archive this article. Can we decide to close this nomination in 48 hours or so? If necessary, by contacting everyone who has thus far commented on the FAC and asking for one last !vote? Can anyone promote or archive it? Karanacs? Maralia? Marskell? It appears this is unprecedented, so I don't know the answers - or if anyone else does either. --Moni3 (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I will review the nomination. Joelito (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Just noting that Joelito is Joel is Joelr31. To avoid anyone else getting confused like I was. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnson now FA

The article was promoted by Raul. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now let's all take a deep breath and look at it this way: the English Wikipedia has produced an FA on Samuel Johnson. As with Shakespeare previously, this is an awesome achievement. All involved deserve credit. Marskell (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to point out the List of contributors to Samuel Johnson FA. There may be some missing, so please feel free to add. This page could not be what it is now without all of the time and effort these contributors put into the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The list is not complete but I hesitate to add to it, lest I offend anyone by adding a name in the wrong category. Why are the contributors categorized at all? --Una Smith (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Because I was bored. :P The cats represent the stages of the process. The top names were those who were important in producing the page just before and after FAC, and represent the core consensus and editing group. The FAC contribution group represented those who were there during the major foundational changes and helped with the consensus to making it what it is now. The bottom group is the miscellaneous for those who offered advice, suggestions, tid bits, etc, that went into the page. Feel free to add, as I missed many with each sweep through the various pages tracking down names. If you want, you can add another list of the final support, neutral, and opposes in addition. Sandy gets to be in her own section just because. This is just a page to document an important moment in which many, many collaborators came together on a single topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Urgents list

I've long suspected that the FAC urgents list is causing part of the FAC backlog. I've gotten multiple comments from many editors that lead me to believe that reviewers wait for me to put a FAC up on the list before they review them. I actually got a comment yesterday for closing a FAC that had been up almost two weeks and had unanimous Support, because someone had just looked at it on the Urgents list. This list is causing a problem; it contributes to FACs that are very clearly deficient being carried on the list for weeks because no one looks at them early on. I'd like to AFD MfD the Urgents list and stop maintaining it. If reviewers would merely glance at FACs at the top of the list, instead of the bottom, much of the backlog could be reduced. I used to pounce on every FAC as soon as they appeared, not wait for them to get to the bottom of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to maintain a list of all the FACs? Or some kind of list for user pages of editors who are willing to review FACs? I understand the issue you're concerned about, but I think there's a lot of value in the easily accessible list on user pages. --Moni3 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
You probably meant MFD? But, in essence, I agree with your proposal. Ruslik (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a list at Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list (it has other issues, since it often leads to untranscluded driveby FACs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
How about a way to put that list on a user page, or even to mark "show top 10" or "show bottom 10" or something? --Moni3 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I gave up using that list some time ago. Graham Colm Talk 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why reviewers are waiting for them to fall to the bottom. In case anyone is looking at the dates, with the exception of Johnson, there are only two older reviews on the list. We've had a surge of new nominations since the 25th (summer is over, folks); we need to get on the top of the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I tend to check FAC once a week and edit topics in my area or close to. Sometimes when bored I'll come and look through the whole FAC to topics that have been ignored. When the talk pages seem to suggest that there is a concern with lack of response, I tend to go through all of the articles. If someone was really creative, they could have a "list" (like deletion candidates, GA candidates, etc) by subject area, and people could have a FAC box based on that that lists all the current FACs on that list. It would just make my response time to literature articles faster, but those don't occur that often so... yeah. I doubt this helps. I'm just rambling. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it's desirable to segment the list in a way that will make it more likely that reviewers come from within that content area than from outside? I'd rather encourage diversity in reviews, and not do something that might discourage non-domain experts from looking at articles. If I can't decipher a cricket article, but the cricket guys all think it's fine, they need to know that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I can barely decipher easy literature articles, Sandy. I mean, my computer barely even works for me, and I don't operate anything "complicated". I have a hard enough time with the simple things. I just try to help where I can. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
But what if you took a look at the lead of a sports or medical article, and let the nominators know if it was Greek To You or decipherable? <grin> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I said something to that effect on the quark page. I felt like curling up and crying afterwards, and I know a lot about physics. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There, there, Ottava. :) I think what the issue is with the urgents is that less active reviewers try to jump in and help sway an article one way or another when they see it on the list. It's not necessarily bad, but I do of course see the point that we should try and stay on top of the FAC's in the first place and not worry about them trickling to the bottom. I thought I removed it at one point, but someone evidently liked it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As a replacement for it, I'm thinking its possible to have a subst: template/regular template that can be invisible for X days, but appears when an entry is over X days. This is only to help highlight those that are lingering past their normal time and thus problem need more import. --MASEM 00:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Which could continue to encourage reviewers to wait until the FAC is stagnant or has garnered fan support before reviewing (shocking the nominator with significant deficiencies when the FAC has been up for two weeks), when unprepared FACs could be moved off the list sooner if reviewers will look at them sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Sandy here. We're better off attending to FACs as soon as they come up. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Commenting on FACs as early as possible is crucial. Raising issues right near the end of the week of a normal FAC is pretty straining on the nominator(s), especially if they are big ones. Commenting right at the beginning of the week allows the nominator(s) and/or others to help fix the issues raised in time. People should not be using the urgents list as the main one. -- how do you turn this on 01:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This is why I would like to MfD it; as long as it is around, editors will use it. I feel it's partly my fault, but reviewers were waiting for me to add them to the list. It is far better for a seriously deficient article to get a hint early on, then to get hit when it's at the bottom of the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there's little in the way of hints at FAC these days. You can oppose, but then you get badgered and have a series of claims that the issues you have raised have been met. This is a seriously deficient article in my view (to take one example, but it's hardly unique). However, the nominator thinks it's "fine" and hits me with grief, accusing me repeatedly (and in very bad faith) of bad faith, for simply opposing. It's exhausting. And it happens too many times. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 06:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
A seriously deficient article that has had support from numerous editors... right. If you can't be bothered to review it properly and help me fix the problems, don't bother reviewing it at all. -- how do you turn this on 06:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
...and this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to oppose someone, expect them to be a bit irritated. Especially when you ask for clarification, you get asked to play mind games instead. I can't read your mind jbmurray. I went through the entire article last night looking for instances of possible plagiarism, and removed all that I could see. Please do tell me what I've missed. -- how do you turn this on 07:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's be clear here. Opposes aren't against people, they are against articles. One of our biggest problmes is that nominators take the opposes personally. Rather than calming looking at the criticism of the article, many nominators tend to act defensively. This is unsurprising, but it is exhausting for reviewers who have to deal with it every day. Nominators also tend to expect reviewers to list every single problem with the article. That is not going to happen nor should it. We expect our nominators to be intelligent folk and they are - they can learn. If we point out a few examples of a particular problem, they should be able to see that problem elsewhere in the article once they are made aware of it. Awadewit (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)