Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2

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

Moved from review[edit]

No offense, but this is why this is such a difficult matter. We get tens of kilobytes per day every day, stuffing this page and the talk page. It is enough to make a decision possible on the basis of exhaustion. Several editors have declared the article neutral and unbiased. I cannot deal with the endless badgering. Just reading and attempting to reply to Overagainst takes an hour a day. to say nothing of the energy lost which could be usefully employed on improving the encyclopedia. I ask the coordinator to step in to put this thing into some sort of order. We can't go on like this. It's not fair to us. We are attempting to deal in good faith with Overagainst, but the filibustering is impossible.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I had a long post saying the same thing, which I didn't post for fear it would just be redacted. Overagainst does not understand the purpose of FAR or how to use this page. I am tempted to go to his or her userpage to explain how FAR works, but afraid that will draw me even further into this mess. So basically, yea, I endorse what Wehwalt is saying, and ask that someone explain to Overagainst how the FAR process works, remove a huge portion of this FAR to the talk page of this FAR, and let the editors work on the article in peace. I have attempted to state this in a way that won't result in redaction. Alternately, would Nikkimaria mind if I went to the talk page of this page to explain to Overagainst how FAR works? Actually, I'm not even that sure that others understand the deliberative nature of FAR-- that is, plenty of time is always allowed, and the process is not being used correctly here because of what looks like misunderstanding of the process. Nikkimaria and Dana, specifically: may I post to the talk page of this FAR page a description of how the process works optimally, so that work on the article can get underway without unnecessary verbosity that is overwhelming the page and preventing article work, and then you can redact away if I inadvertently step on someone's toes ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of FAR[edit]

Thanks, Nikki. It is not my intent to offend anyone, I apologize in advance if I do, and I have full confidence in Nikkimaria to redact anything she sees fit. It is my good faith attempt at doing the same thing I have done historically at FAR since 2006 (I believe I am still the most active editor on Wikipedia of FAR and articles at FAR, I was part of its design and active here at a time when we processed hundreds of FAs through here, and I say that not to appear <whatever> but in hopes that Overagainst will listen to me and that everyone will gain an understanding of how better to use the page.

FAR is intended and was set up to be quite intentionally deliberative; we do not remove an article's featured status lightly or without giving the principle editors time to deal with issues raised, and then the broader to community to opine on whether WIAFA is still met. In the past, a typical FAR took about a month (two weeks in the FAR phase, and when needed, another two weeks in the FARC phase.) Because of declining reviewership everywhere on Wikipedia, the process has grown more lengthy. Up to four months is not ideal, but neither is it uncommon.

FARs may be closed at the FAR phase, they may be advanced to the FARC phase where even more time is allowed, and after more time at FARC if there are still issues, only then are Keep or Remove votes declared. EVEN IF the article moves to FARC, work may still progress. Experienced FAR reviewers understand that it is a deliberative process, rash decisions are not taken, and the editors should be given time to work on issues in peace. FAR reviewers may help in the work needed, but that is not required: the role of FAR is only to determine if WIAFA is or is not met, and that is after considerable deliberation and time to deal with any legitimate issues raised.

The page should not be used to revisit talk page content issues, but for a concise description of the issues as they directly relate to WP:WIAFA, and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Issues are raised, briefly (1a, 3, 4, etc as relate to WIAFA). Editors are given time to work on the issues. Periodically, brief updates are made to the FAR page (still working on 1a, POV unresolved, most of the work is done but we are cleaning up citations-- things like that) or delegates will query how work is going if they haven't heard anything in a while. I tried to model a sample of how that should be done. Wehwalt indicated he would work on that list; increasing his workload at this juncture is ... how to characterize this so it won't be redacted ... well, not helpful.

Revisiting entire content matters on this page does not advance anything. Working out the issues raised on the FAR is best dealt with on article talk, and even then, allowing editors time to work. I am seeing many things on this page that reflect misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and guideline, and those things could be more effectively dealt with on talk, or at different content resolution noticeboards (I see significant misunderstanding here of BLP policy, but who am I to say), and then summarized back to the delegates once they are or are not settled. When the deliberative process is exhausted or in the delegates' opinion(s) things are either stalled, or done, or whatever, then they may be ready to consider Remove or Keep declarations. They are also empowered to close a FAR that isn't, well, FARing. FAR is not dispute resolution; it is for determining if WIAFA is met.

Filling up this page with walls of text and constantly new items is not helpful or deliberative.

Wehwalt said he was ordering a book, and he hasn't been given the chance even to get the book much less to decide whether and how to use it, much less to work on incorporating some of it if that is decided. The page would be more effective if used appropriately; that is, article work commences, editors are given time to work, and issues are periodically reported back here for the delegates and the broader community to then decide what step is next and if more work is in order, or if "voting" is called for. Many a star has been saved months into a FAR, and the long FARs sometimes occur because there is too much off-topic bickering early on, and before folks settle in to do the work.

I also submit that in the interest of kindness, FAR has always allowed for events such as the approaching holiday season, so a lessening of the volume of postings here would be ... well ... not just helpful, but kind. We do not quickly or easily remove a featured article's status. What is happening now is that Wehwalt-- not even having received the book yet-- is being expected to deal with extended commentary both on this page and on the article talk page. I hope this helps; I have no problem with whatever redaction the delegates feel it helpful, because the delegates are tasked with keeping a FAR on track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy, that was very well said and I don't find a thing to disagree with. Let me just put into my own words some of what you said: Overagainst, give us space! Go away and come back in a while. The book is arriving today (Amazon is wonderful) but if you look at my talk page, you'll see people enquiring on peer reviews I'm in the course of doing or suggesting other reviews where I might be helpful. That is important work because we are very short on reviewers. I GET what you are saying about the article. Give me some time to work on it. I don't think we will agree on everything, almost certainly not, but I think what I will do is a lot closer to what we both can live with. The case is, for all intents and proposes, over, and it's possible to take a more historical viewpoint on it that glosses over some of the raw nerves of the day-to-day coverage that we worked on as events exploded around us. Go take a break. We'll still be here when you come back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
And I left all those typos so we wouldn't edit conflict! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I like it, typos and all, Sandy!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't-- they are embarrassing. I will come back when I'm sure there will no edit conflicts and fix them. Happy holidays to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
And to you.
Judging by the latest Overagainst matter, spread from talk page to FAR by MastCell, we're not going to be allowed leisure to make an attempt to deal with Sandy's comments, but we will be subject to interventions to get ways. I question the continuation of this FAR. There has never been meaningful talk page discussion, which is supposed to be a prerequisite to an FAR. Overagainst's walls of text don't count, because they were not made in a way we could engage with.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps part of my message above wasn't clear; listing the issues here on the FAR is always appropriate. It's the extended discussion of them that becomes a problem. I haven't looked at the article talk page, but I did click on the link just now, and I have a hard time imagining any justification for that link in any article. Who is this guy (domain name lookup)?
Registrant Name: Bret Redman
Registrant Organization: Bret Redman Enterprises
Registrant Street: PO box 2426
Registrant City: Venice
Registrant State/Province: CA
Registrant Postal Code: 90291
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: 1.9729911202
A google search on him doesn't look good. I can't figure how that is not a basic violation of WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not the point. It's that the same three editors: Overagainst, MastCell, and Anthonyhcole, are acting to not allow discussion but to get their way. That makes this FAR at the point of a gun as if anything happens that they don't like, they will allege BLP and push to get their way. Anthonyhcole just removed the material when few people have had a chance to comment, and he cannot be said to be neutral. This FAR is being used as a hammer. I have the book, but there's no possible work I could do like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

Review on hold for three months [2]. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)