Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, April Fools 2005, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Short FAs, 32 Short FAs cont., 33, 34 Context and notability, 35, 36 new FAC/FAR delegates, 37, 38, 39 Alt text, 40, 41 42, 43 44, 45

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
2023 World Snooker Championship	Review it now
Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945	Review it now
Susanna Hoffs	Review it now
2023 Union Square riot	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:33, 22 October 2009

For a Table-of-Contents only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list

Template:FixBunching

Image reviews needed

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive4~~ Awadewit (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/York Park/archive2~~ Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- York Park done. NW (Talk) 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about poor Jackie? Where's the love? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sent the love. Awadewit (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Links, Disambiguations, Interwiki and Alternate Text

Being new to the whole process of Featured Content, I am confused by these aspects, I know alternate text on images is needed per WP:ALT, but the other three are a blur for the most part. Users can check them, but things are not always done. I regularly check the dabs, and correct those that I can, but for interwikis and externals, nothing happens, I mean, look at this and there are 27 bare links in total as well for FACs. Is this proper FA style or not? I can understand if its been FA for a while and no-ones checked, but it really isn't that difficult for FAC's.

Concerning interwikis, are they checked at all? I understand that the majority of the time there will be no matches, but should it be mandatory to check them? --Lightlowemon (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On external links, their status, reliability and formatting are checked by User:Ealdgyth at some point during the FAC. Disambiguations have a tool in this template, and if there are any disambiguations, they are generally brought up an fixed. Interwikis are generally put in by bots soon enough after the other language articles are created. I suppose it may be a good idea to add an interwiki to the FA tools template.

One thing I do think is underchecked is categories, but that's another matter. Mm40 (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the FA criteria cover categories? Or even come to that disambiguation? Isn't it about time to rein in this kind of creep? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't check "external links" as in that section of the article where folks can list links to other websites. I check that the link checker tool doesn't show any links as dead. And I check the reliability of links used as references. And others are MORE than welcome to check that sort of thing themselves. As far as categories and interwiki's, please to the gods, lets not add MORE ~~crap~~ stuff to worry about, please? Pretty please? Interwiki's and categories have nothing to do with whether the article is featured or not, so let's just leave them alone. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that if there is a category link that needs to be fixed, or an interwiki that needs to be put in, please just fix it yourself instead of raising a stink about it. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought categories were something for the main editors to do during the actual editing to featured point. Interwikis, I mentioned as an after thought, and considering how large the English one is, I don't think there needs to be a criteria or anything, it was just a feature I saw on the tool server that seemed neglected.

It was mainly dabs and links I was thinking about, I use the disambig tool on the tool server to check all new FA, FAR, FL and FT stuff to see if anything is picked up and most I can fix, but when it comes to something along the lines of dulcimer I have no idea. For externals, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) has so many redirects and Virginia is a rainbow of colour.

I thank all for their replies, but should they be brought up during the voting process that there are a 'multitude of redirected links', or should they just go by ignored? I don't mind checking them all weekly, (if they should be) and bringing them up, but I was just unsure and wanted to check here before making a mistake. --Lightlowemon (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interwikis and categories don't affect the readability of the article, and checking for those at FAC seems an unnecessary burden. But the other items you raise are items that should be checked and fixed: incorrect wiki links or dabs that need to be fixed affect the reader's ability to understand the article, and they are easy to fix. Since the tools detect incorrect dab links, the nominator should address those. And, the issue you identified at Trump Hotel and Tower should probably be addressed as well; that many redirected links on sources likely means that those sources would eventually become dead links, so the nominator should update the links now. (If I'm understanding the problem correctly ... the example you gave is not about external links, rather sources that are going to redirects.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what I was referring to, both the external links and the external links in the sources. I apologise, I should have probably been clearer about that. So worry about links and disambigs (that are either too nummerous or to ambiguous to fix oneself), and don't worry about the rest? --Lightlowemon (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the redirects aren't a problem. A good webmaster will create redirects to keep the old links working. A bad webmaster just doesn't care, leaves links as dead, and lets their Google ranking plummets. It should not be our job to clean after lazy webmaster mess. I'll give wired.com as an example of good webmaster, they've changed their content management system (CMS) many times in the past 10+ years, but all the old links continue to work. And when . — Dispenser 01:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Corrected negative 13:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I didn't know that it's very interesting. --Lightlowemon (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of "being ignored". Its a case of "FAC nominators already have a great deal to worry about, and this is just trivial". If you see a problem with categories or links then just fix it. Neither of those have any bearing on the quality of the article, which is what FAC is about. --Malleus Fatuorum 07:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - an article not appearing in a relevant category is a big problem for the category but not for the article. If George Washington doesn't appear in Category:Presidents of the United States, the category looks rather shoddy, but the article's information content is not affected and it is still easy to get from the article to any of the other pages in the category. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of most of those tools, I'll be addressing each of the points

External link - Checklinks was my first tool, it was actually designed for another purpose of project mass repair and many things have been tacked on. I'm current redesigned the interface with focus on improving individual articles.
Disambiguation - Developed Dablinks and dabfinder after coming across a dab in a TFA. I'm working companion tool to speed up actual disambiguation plan to announce it at the next NYC meetup.
Interwiki - No real point to doing this, it would just get in the way of the bots. Might be fun to implement enough of the pywikipedia API so they could run on the web.
Alt text - More recent, was good until the software changed. That threw all the knowledge of the tiny details out the window. Will need to research that stuff again. :-(

I would like to more more towards submitting using the tools and checking the information and part of that is to improve the interfaces and part is to make the tools easier to find. — Dispenser 01:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for making the tools, I have been using them a lot. --Lightlowemon (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured portal candidates

WP:Featured portal candidates could use some additional comments and reviewers, there are currently only three candidates, so there is a lot less to look through than what is currently at WP:FAC, though of course it is of a different nature :). As one of the co-directors I generally try to hang back from the review process itself.

Insights, comments, queries to the nominators, etc, would be appreciated at the three individual nomination subpages. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, I think it's obvious that we have quite a backlog, which is too much for our current supply of reviewers. I'll leave a comment or two over there, but don't expect major help. :) Best, ceranthor 00:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, anything at all is appreciated, and nothing is expected. :) Cirt (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a featured article style

As regulars on this page know, there's increasing concern about the way featured articles are reviewed, particularly regarding the MoS (including things that aren't actually in the MoS but that reviewers request anyway). There's a sense that there's too much nitpicking, too rigid an application of the guideline, and that the process is driving FA writers away and failing to attract new ones. There was a long discussion about it recently on Iridescent's talk page, initiated by Karanacs here.

My own feeling is that FACs shouldn't have to comply with the MoS, because it's a guideline, but there has been resistance to clarying that in the FA criteria. I'm therefore wondering whether, as a compromise, we should draw up a minimalist version of the MoS that featured articles are expected to adhere to: Wikipedia:Featured article style. It would be short and sharp, and easy for writers and reviewers to remember. Once created, the expectation would be that it would remain stable, with nothing added to it without clear consensus so there are no surprises. Reviewers would be expected to become familiar with it, and not request anything that isn't on it. How does this sound as an idea? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Tony1/Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style (discussed several threads above on this page) seems to be what you're looking for. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's is a slimmed-down version of the MoS for everyone. My idea is to have a minimalist (and I mean really minimalist) style guide specifically for featured articles, which would only include style issues that all agree are essential for FA. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short response: no. We're already too lenient with styling anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of a recent FA where people have been too lenient with styling? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that as an encyclopedia with the aim to be taken seriously, we should recognize that an essential part of packaging information is enforcement of a house style that should be applied to all articles; setting aside of FA-only bare minimum subverts the aforementioned goal and adds instruction creep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that the creation of such a style guide would a) make it even more tiresome for FA contributors to keep track of Wiki style conventions—general MOS and this proposal—and that by creating another style guide, inconsistencies between the general style guide and this specialized one would form. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have too many writers, we have too few reviewers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, the aim would be to reduce instruction creep. The way some FAs are currently reviewed is driving people up the wall, and something has to be done about it, because it's not sustainable.

Dabomb, it would make it easier for reviewers and writers to keep track, because FA writers would be asked to keep track only of this one, not the MoS in general (unless they wanted to, of course). The aim would be, once created, that this thing would remain stable. The MoS isn't stable, that's problem number one, so hardly anyone knows what's advised and what isn't. Problem number two is that it's being applied as though it's policy, when it isn't. Problem number three is that reviewers ask for things that have never been in the MoS anyway. Creating a very short, stable featured-article style guide of issues that are required for FAC, not just recommended—one short and stable enough to allow writers and reviewers to become familiar with it—would deal with all of the above. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more accurate to say that parts of the MoS are indeed unstable, but many others are long-standing, accepted guidelines. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of true, but there are also long-standing parts that are widely ignored, until you come to FAC and suddenly things that no one does anywhere else are being enforced as though policy. And any reviewer can choose to enforce any part of the MoS, no matter how absurd. It's true that the delegates are likely to ignore those reviews, but FA writers don't know that, so a very unpleasant atmosphere is created whereby writers feel they have to jump through a series of often ridiculous hoops, or else risk looking aloof and uncooperative. In addition, long review pages with multiple nitpicking objections make other reviewers less likely to want to get involved, so it's a discouraging situation all round. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the bottom line is that the current situation is untenable, unsustainable. The easiest solution is to make clear in the FA criteria that the MoS is a guideline, and is not mandatory. That's my first preference, and I've suggested it here before. Our articles are meant to be the best of Wikipedia—the best of this project, not of some other one.

However, there has been resistance to doing this, so I'm suggesting as a compromise that, if people want some style issues to be mandatory at FAC, we make a separate list of those and call it featured article style. It has the potential to satisfy both sides here: the list would be mandatory for FAs, but it would be lean, reasonable, and stable. And reviewers would be asked not to request anything that's not on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much MOS stuff at all, mostly the complaints are about inconsistency, and even then, it isn't difficult to note undetected inconsistencies on one's own FAs or others (recent ones I meant, the old ones can be all over the shop). Also, some people do say that MOS focus can take away from content issues, but I disagree with this notion that people will start checking the content if the MOS rules are relaxed. I doubt people will start looking up books to check for OR violations or fake refs, and even then most topics hardly anyone is fully up to speed with it (except maybe the author) so that would be the main obstacle to unbalanced (deliberately or otherwise) or incomplete articles getting through. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with SlimVirgin's point of view but I'm not sure that a separate lean/mean FA style guide is the answer due to the likelihood (expressed by Dabomb) of inconsistencies developing between that and the 'main' guide, and because (like David) I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of FAs being treated differently. What I would prefer to see (though admittedly I don't by any means 'live' in the MOS and try not to lose sleep over it) is one master style guide with the must-haves clearly marked and the rest being advisory. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the finest writers I've reviewed on FAC review, you, SV, of all people, must know that compliance with any manual of style—Chicago, AP, or Wikipedia—ensures only that some obvious errors of grammar and usage have not been made. It doesn't make the prose error-free, much less brilliant. The problem at FAC review, as I see it, is that an increasing number of people, whose FA ambitions far outstrip their writing abilities or effort, are looking for easy passes. Instead of nursing an article over the long haul, as you have done with Marshalsea, or respecting the reviewers and working with them, as I am doing in History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), these people are parking their three-day wonders at FAC review and expecting perfunctory support, or failing that, a list of spoon-fed instructions before the eventual support. Perhaps the whiners should consider copying a paragraph (any paragraph) of Dickens over and over again, and then comparing it with their FAC handiwork. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS As for other issues, I agree with YellowMonkey's post in its entirety. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I deplore the kind of reviewer whose sole contribution to an FA review is, for example, a complaint about em dashes (about which the average reader will not care at all) I don't in fact mind a comprehensive MOS. It may even assist those of us who did not arrive as professional copy-editors to improve our written style. What I do however think is totally dysfunctional is the instability of MOS itself. We are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - but why does that mean we have to have a Manual of Style that anyone can edit? And they do edit it, hour after hour, day after day, and (so far as I am aware) there is no way of knowing whether these edits are trivial, or are affecting thousands of articles. It's a nonsense and no-one except a savant could keep track of all the edits, reverts, disputes and comments. I don't have an a priori objection to a simplified FAC MOS, but my concern is that it would be just another page, probably inconsistent with MOS istelf and subject to endless changes. What I would prefer is for MOS to be locked, now. A single talk page would be created, listing (not debating) proposed changes. A small group would be empowered to implement minor corrections - typos, syntax etc, that did not change the meaning of the guideline. After three months an evil vote would be taken on the ten most important proposals, which would then, over a two week period be debated and implemented or rejected. MOS would then be locked again for three months. This would prevent ongoing instruction creep and inconsistency and enable those seriously interested in producing quality articles in a style that is acceptable to the community to be provided with a stable and understandable set of "guidelines". Ben Mac Dui 07:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started this, so I suppose I ought to step into this lion's den. My views are given in more detail on that thread, but here's a short(er) version.

At the moment, the MOS is ridiculously long—as I've already pointed out, Wikipedia's MOS is longer than the entire Guardian Style Guide—and even Tony's condensed version is long enough that many users will take a look at it and decide not to even try. The reason we're not seeing as many MOS-nitpicks isn't that the nitpickers have gone away; it's that more and more people are either not coming to FAC at all because they're scared off by its reputation, or have given up on it as a process. Additionally, relatively minor points that should really be raised on the article talkpage or with a quick note to the nominator are being discussed on the FACs themselves, giving FAC an ANI-like appearance which further enhances the "people will jump on me for a comma out of place" reputation. Leaving aside the issue of whether strict-compliance is a good or bad thing, the fact remains that a huge swathe of Wikipedia's writers are now unwilling or feel they're unable to come to FAC, either as nominator or reviewer. Perversely, this has a net negative effect on compliance to the "house style", as people who have no intention of bringing an article to FAC/GAN won't see the need to comply with formatting and prose requirements (Giano is the most obvious example).

"The writing is of a professional standard" is in itself a meaningless phrase. A children's book, a newspaper article, a technical journal and an instruction manual on the same subject will all be professionally written, but will be wildly different. Professional writing in specialist journals—the main source for many Wikipedia articles, and thus what I imagine most writers mean when they think of "professional standard"—is generally dense, jargon-heavy and assumes that the reader is familiar with a lot of background material, and that's a style that's completely unsuited towards Wikipedia's "provide a basic background for those unfamiliar with the topic" remit.

In my opinion, talk of a "house style" is inappropriate. We're not trying to recreate Encarta here; with the exception of a few basic across-the-board guidelines, what's important should be that the articles are consistent internally in how they handle formatting, layout etc. To me, the only real significant criteria are:

Is this article accurate and reliably sourced?
Is this article comprehensive?
Is the formatting of this article internally consistent, and not unusably ugly, confusing or poorly laid out?
If a member of this article's intended audience, with no prior knowledge, were to read this article, would they understand it?
Is the text written in such a way as to make this article interesting?"
Does the article comply with those parts of the MOS which are necessary and justifiable, such as the key parts of WP:ACCESS?

We're writing for general readers, not for other Wikipedia editors, and most general readers could not care less what Wikipedia's policy on comma-separated dates, em-dashes or image alignment is, providing it doesn't detract from their use of the article.

I agree with what I think Slim's proposing here. Not a separate FAC MOS, but a short list of those style and formatting policies with which articles must comply to pass FAC/GAN, leaving the remainder of the MOS as what it was always intended to be (and indeed, used to say in bold letters at the top); a list of style recommendations which can be disregarded providing there's a reasonable reason to do so. – iridescent 09:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with SV, Iridescent and others that MOS is bloated and unstable. Iridescent (09:53, 30 September 2009) sums up the real priorities pretty well (except that I still have doubts about alt text in some cases). --Philcha (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is a different issue (read the original thread for my thoughts on it); the issue there is whether it's an important part of WP:ACCESS which ought to be essential, or an additional feature that only benefits a small group and doesn't always justify the time and energy it takes. That's a discussion for another place (apparently, The Community has decided that "another place" refers to my talkpage). – iridescent 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own attitude to alt text is less binary than Iridescent's, who contrasts options "ought to be essential" vs "only benefits a small group and doesn't always justify the time and energy". IMO:

I'd judge each case on cost vs benefits, with a fairly low cost ceiling.
The "physical description" approach currently enshrined in the alt text guideline is not always informative. E.g. "Lord Nelson dying on the deck of Victory, propped up by Hardy" is much more concise and informative than "A man in (long description of early 19th cent UK admiral's uniform) lies on the wooden deck of (long description of ealry 19th cent UK first-rate battleship), partly supported by a man in (long description ofhis posture) and wearing (long description of early 19th cent UK naval officer' uniform, sorry I don't know his rank and frankly I don't give a damn). --Philcha (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Articles are supposed to be our best work and one of the advantages of the FA process is supposed to be that it drives quality across the pedia; a separate MOS for FAs would not help that process. I suggest that if editors have concerns with MOS they change MOS, personally I would like to see FAC become a driver for improvement of that turgid tome. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what we are saying. Nobody is proposing that FAs work to a different MOS. The FA process patently does not drive quality across the project, and it's ludicrous to claim that it does – 50723 articles (0.741%) of the 6,842,402 total are rated FA, FL or GA, and most of the rest of the project is never touched by what goes on here. By making "quality" appear to be an arcane and incomprehensible process, if anything the current setup reduces quality elsewhere, by discouraging people from even trying to comply to standards. – iridescent 11:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I read the above as considering a cutdown version of MOS for FA as opposed to reforming MOS. As for FA driving up standards across the project, I beg to differ. My hope is that many editors read FAs, learn from the FA process and that this improves their editing of other parts of the project. I think that my editing skills have been honed by experience here and I doubt that I'm alone in that. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world WereSpielChequers' "if editors have concerns with MOS they change MOS" would be the way to go. However in practice MOS is controlled by zealots who will fight unrelentlessy for each every minutia. Much of thier motivation and power base is WP:WIAFA's injunction that MOS must be observed to the letter. The advantage of SV's and Iri's proposal is that avoids fighting the zealots at a time and place of the zealots' choosing, and will also weaken their influence when the time does come to cut MOS down to size. I think that's the way "to see FAC become a driver for improvement of that turgid tome"--Philcha (talk)

If anything I think the opposite -- the close relationship between FAC and MOS tends to undermine the usefulness of both institutions. (1) The MOS is mainly applicable to improving FACs, the vanishingly small fraction of articles which have a dedicated author willing to expend huge amounts of time on tasks that have effectively no benefit to our readership. Meanwhile it offers little useful advice for the vast unwashed millions of articles with no dedicated author and thus has a much lower impact on the quality of the encyclopedia than it potentially could. (2) FAC is burdened with a large amount of work unrelated to improving the experience of the average reader. I think separating the two, by specifying exactly which aspects of the MOS are require by the featured article criteria, would be a useful measure. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, recent activity at MOS has lead me to the idea of having WP:MOS being the style guide that is used 90-95% of the time (covering the basics that every editor should be aware of) with more exacting details for things like numbers and the like spelled out in sub-MOS guidelines (like MOSNUM). I would think this would achieve the same result as if having a FA-specific MOS page, and would be a better end result for everyone (not just FA authors or reviewers). --MASEM (t) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

I asked SlimVirgin to post her comment here because it was the first concrete proposal (other than totally scrap the MOS) that I've seen to "fix" the perceived issue of too much MOS nitpickiness at FAC and I was curious to see what the regulars think. From what I've seen recently, it looks like large parts of the MOS are already being ignored by reviewers and nominators (non breaking spaces and dashing are two well-known areas that are hit and miss). Yes, some of the MOS provisions (such as alt text) are enforced very well and can be annoying to nominators who had no idea that this was a requirement and no idea how to implement it.

I personally think that all articles should be encouraged to have a consistent style (and not just internally consistent, thought that is a great start). At the same time, though, the MOS is so freaking detailed, and the subject of so many edit wars, that it can be impossible to follow. In an ideal world, I would like to see a giant RfC on the MOS with the aim to identify what is most important (along the lines of Slim's proposal), and throw away the rest. Tony's slimmed down MOS is a good start, but I'd still like to see a massive overhaul, I'm just not sure how to go about organizing one. Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could, of course, just scrap FAC; that's another "concrete proposal", but not one that would go down well with the "FAC regulars" (as if they were the only editors who mattered). Physchim62 (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, we need an article grading system, so that users can see what's good and what's not, and to motivate editors to improve the huge mass of poor artciles. That means there must be a top grade. So all we have left to haggle about is the ~~pri~~critieria for each grade.

It's interesting that Karanacs, who is one of the FA Director's delegates, thinks "the MOS is so freaking detailed ..." --Philcha (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My job as a delegate is to determine consensus per WP:WIAFA, whether or not I necessarily agree with the consensus or with the particular aspect of WIAFA. I've nominated 15 articles or so through FAC and reviewed hundreds of them. Still, every once in a while someone comes up with an MOS requirement that I have never heard of, even though it's been part of some obscure subpage for a long time. I don't have a problem following most of the MOS guidelines, but the little bitty detailed stuff can grate. Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles are supposed to be the epitome of Wikipedia, not something separate from the rest of Wikipedia. (For example, I'm confident that we'd love it if all articles had a professional-quality writing style and perfect spelling.) For this reason, they should not have a separate manual of style. If the MoS is too restrictive, then the answer is to change the MoS, not write a new one.

The MoS is treated like rules and not like a guideline. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but we must acknowledge it.

Tony's shorter MoS isn't any less restrictive than the regular one. The explanations are shorter (or absent), but it has all the same rules in it, so it would not reduce the amount of nitpicking. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses by Tony1 indented:

The MoS isn't stable,... so hardly anyone knows what's advised and what isn't.
- I undertook to provide a monthly report at this page and elsewhere on substantive changes to the MoS (i.e., those that were substantive enough to be reflected in the concise version. I'm afraid I could find nothing worth reporting for September when I scrutinised the diff of the MoS yesterday. (However, it's true that in August the "Images" section was updated, to everyone's relief, although see the concise version for how that section should be set out, IMO.)
- I don't mind if the style guides are locked and independent admins unlock for changes.
- Periodic reportage at WT:FAC/FLC is, frankly, just basic good manners.
- Rationalisation of the MOSNUM–MoS relationship is important. So is the adoption of a concise version of the MoS; the benefit of FAC and FLC nominators was a primary reason for my writing the concise version.
[The MoS is] being applied as though it's policy, when it isn't.
- FAC and FLC long ago decided that the MoS was a suitable anchor for both nominators and reviewers to raise the standards of featured material. IMO, this has worked; however, no one is claiming the relationship works perfectly—only that it's the best one available.
... reviewers ask for things that have never been in the MoS anyway.
- The MoS says not a jot about redundant wording, which is by far the most vexing problem for writers. Does that mean reviewers should not point out examples of redundancy and ask for a copy-edit throughout? Redundancy is not something that is suitable to inclusion in a MoS. Reviewers need to be free to advise on how to improve style and formatting. This seems to stray from the MoS issue: it is more pertinent that we see pointed out here examples of unreasonable requests by reviewers. It's important that we deal with this by example so we can moderate the problem behaviour.
Suddenly things that no one does anywhere else are being enforced as though policy. And any reviewer can choose to enforce any part of the MoS, no matter how absurd.... [under the proposed system,] reviewers would be asked not to request anything that's not on [a special FA style sheet].''
- Could we have examples, please? If aspects of the MoS are absurd, they should be changed for all articles, not just FACs; I share the concerns of dabomb and others that another style sheet for FAs will make the whole box and dice harder to manage and will bring into question the model for fine articles that FAs and FLs have represented for many years. The MoS is a critical part of counterbalancing the freedom of a wiki; it is, if you like, a way of bringing at least some order to a language and a project that are both "big and baggy" (quoting Clive James). This freedom and the centralised guidance/requirements will always be in dynamic tension. That's like real life.
... long review pages with multiple nitpicking objections make other reviewers less likely to want to get involved, so it's a discouraging situation all round.
- As I've pointed out before, I see no shortage of nominations or successful promotions. However, I am most concerned that some nomination pages have led to upsetting situations, and have possibly shown evidence of a less-than-good-faith attitude by reviewers. Perhaps we need to agree on a beefed up set of guidelines for reviewers to balance the requirements of nominators and to reinforce the positive aspects of the process. I'm unsure, but please remember that in past years we have had to resist gaming by some nominators: sorry, I had to say it.
"The writing is of a professional standard" is in itself a meaningless phrase.... Professional writing in specialist journals—the main source for many Wikipedia articles, and thus what I imagine most writers mean when they think of "professional standard"—is generally dense, jargon-heavy and assumes that the reader is familiar with a lot of background material, and that's a style that's completely unsuited towards Wikipedia's "provide a basic background for those unfamiliar with the topic" remit.
- God no, we don't want to stoop to the levels of academic journals, whose authors far too often use the captive specialist readership as an "excuse" to avoid the rigours of writing for real human beings: journal articles are typically poorly written and edited, and aimed so narrowly that even the semi-expert struggles. No, FAC sets a much higher standard of specialist communication that many professional researchers would be well advised to learn from.
[One of the proposed criteria:] If a member of this article's intended audience, with no prior knowledge, were to read this article, would they understand it?
- One hopes so, but all WP articles need to aim higher than mere comprehensibility: they need to be a good read, too. Academic journals are often comprehensible if one spends hours hacking through the jungle—we aim to give the world information (often complex, involved information) that is as easy to comprehend as possible. The MoS is one factor that on balance helps us to produce the good read.
... most general readers could not care less what Wikipedia's policy on comma-separated dates, em-dashes or image alignment is, providing it doesn't detract from their use of the article.
- This is an important point. On the surface, it's true: readers do not care about these technical matters in the sense that they consciously think about them,unless they're professional writers/editors. The best writing, I say, is writing that is not noticed as the reader slides over it. If what lies beneath the surface of the text isn't right, readers will simply not slide over it easily. They will not think as highly of it and it will lack authority; this is true even though a reader may not be able to explain why. By analogy, film-goers do not notice film editing (unless there's a glitch), and I do not think about the oven temperature chef has used when I eat a slice of the perfect cake. The MoS is there to help us to get the underlying technique right, to force us to think about all of the issues it raises: it helps us to prevent our readers from noticing the techniques we use. If we don't like what it says, we should argue it out there. It's not perfect, but I believe it's not too bad (except it needs to be made more concise).
Nobody is proposing that FAs work to a different MOS. The FA process patently does not drive quality across the project, and it's ludicrous to claim that it does – 11584 articles (0.38%) of the 3,047,406 total are rated FA, FL or GA, and most of the rest of the project is never touched by what goes on here. By making "quality" appear to be an arcane and incomprehensible process, if anything the current setup reduces quality elsewhere, by discouraging people from even trying to comply to standards.
- What is the evidence for these claims? Why do the proportions of promoted articles affect the influence of these quality-assurance processes? Some editors might argue that too many promoted articles might dilute the model, and therefore the influence. Perhaps you are reacting to the bloat in MoS main page and the somewhat uncontrolled relationship between the MoS pages; if so, could we shift the argument to that?

In conclusion, I believe we need to:

analyse examples of unsatisfactory/unreasonable requests or demands by rewiewers (the Marshalsea FAC, in my view, has been particularly hard—even unrelenting—in its demands, and less than encouraging of the superb editor behind it all: why?);
consider a permanent official lock-down of MoS and MOSNUM and MOSLINK (any others?), or at least an editors' note at the top of both page and talk page saying that substantive changes will be reverted unless there is consensus for them on the talk page, and insist on periodic notification of substantive changes (here and at The Signpost?);
consider the concise version as a model for removing some of the bulk from the MoS;
push for a sane relationship between MOSNUM and the MoS;
support the activation of WP:MOSCO, which was moribund from the start, despite the desperate need for coordination; and
support the impending RfC on requiring applications for MoS status to demonstrate consensus first. Tony (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined, without prejudice, and give or take the odd quibble, to agree. Ben Mac Dui 17:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It bears to be acknowledged that the "bulk" to which Tony refers consists mostly of explanations and examples. They make the MoS longer, but they also make it easier to understand and use, especially for people who are not writing or editing experts to start with. If we are to reduce the MoS's size, it should be by reducing the number of rules where we can find rules that should be removed, not by removing useful text.

I don't know that the MoS needs to be locked down. However, perhaps it does merit being treated differently from other articles. Ordinarily, the consensus process does not require people to discuss changes, even large changes, on the talk page first, only afterward if they're reverted. It might be good to explore an alternate system for the MoS and other policy-type pages.

Demonstrating consensus before raising a given article to MoS status would be right and proper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like MacDui, I find myself in general agreement with Tony's six suggestions. In the interest of full disclosure, I add that I had never heard of WP:MOSCO until this morning, and I'm unfamiliar with the Marshalsea debate, though I understand what they represent. I think Darkfrog is right about the usefulness of examples; learning by imitation is often quicker and more effective than learning from an abstract alone. It would be easy to include examples of for each (or at least some) of the abstract guidelines as linked sidebars. Tony's condensed MoS or something very like it could become the core MoS with examples of whatever embedded as a clickable link at the end of each guideline. (Each set of examples would be a separate article.) I'd be fine either with locking down or requiring consensus first for future changes to the MoS. Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though, really, Tony's concise version already includes so many specific examples and links to further elaborations, is anything else needed? Finetooth (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bot option

Proteins and I once talked about developing a MOS-bot to help this situation improve. I will alert him to this conversation. Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either switching to optional or implementing an MoS bot would be an excellent idea. If the ratio of substantive feedback to style feedback improved I'd bring articles to FAC more often. Had two GAs promoted yesterday, but current FAC climate just isn't worth the time. What's particularly grating is the sight of reviews that appear to spend more time and effort listing minor style issues than it would have taken for the reviewer to fix them. Durova³²⁰ 02:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- A well-implemented MOSbot, or its equivalent script or server, seems as though it would be very helpful to making more and better FAs. A few advantages I see for a fully automated MOS-checker include: (1) it would be impartial and tirelessly thorough; (2) it could catch subtle violations that even the best single reviewer (sorry, Tony!) might miss, e.g. misspaced list items such as this one (violates WP:ACCESS, which is part of MoS); (3) it could be run by authors before they bring their articles to FAC and suffer the public humiliation of people piling on to criticize their style and grammar with no regard for the article's content; (4) it would force us all to define exactly what our MoS is, because it would have to be encoded in software; (5) it would serve as a kind of "Flagged revision" system for the MoS, in the sense that we might not consider an MoS violation valid until it had been encoded in the software. However, we would need to agree on how to interpret the feedback from such a bot/script, as was raised in an earlier discussion; perhaps it would be best to consider it as "suggestions" and leave the final decisions to the human community. For illustration, I wrote a rudimentary script that checks for violations of MOS:HEAD. (It works, but I'm embarrassed about the grossly inelegant programming, since it was written as a quick'n'dirty proof of principle.) Anyone here is welcome to test it; the instructions are found at here (click "show", it's the first script). Dank55 had promised to give me feedback and help improve the script, but I fear that we both got distracted. Finally, one should not underestimate the difficulty of producing a script/bot/server to check the full MoS; this script took a day or two, but writing, testing and debugging a full MoS script might take months for a programmer working alone. If this were a high enough priority for the community, you might consider appealing to the Foundation for programmer time, but experience suggests that that would be difficult. Proteins (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there is a lot to be gained from a MOSbot, which would take a lot of the grunt work out of FAC reviewing and bring us up to a higher level of reviewing. As Proteins mentions, we would be more consistent. I'm afraid I can't offer programming skills, but I would be willing to help draw up a list of needed "requirements" and help run tests. What are others' thoughts on this idea? Awadewit (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's what Dr Bill Wedemeyer anticipated in his Wikimania address last year. 124.170.62.108 (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The idea of a MOSbot is excellent, but if it comes about it may not have as much impact on FAC reviewing as is being assumed. Look down the current FAC page and you'll see very little reference in reviews to MOS issues. What will the bot do to prevent nominators suffering "the public humiliation of people piling on to criticize their style and grammar with no regard for the article's content"? Nothing, I imagine—but why is criticism of style and grammar considered humiliating? Close attention to these issues has raised the standard of FAs considerably within the relatively short time I've been writing them, and I appreciate any such comments and suggestions which come my way. As to "no regard for the content", reviews of content can only properly be done by those with relevant expertise; even so, a poorly written article is just that, even if its content is unimpeachable. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for having distracted with a colorful illustration. The focus of the present discussion is the MOSbot, not the reviewing process. The only point I wished to make in point #3 was that a MOSbot would allow authors to check their work against the MOS with little effort before FAC. That would forestall unnecessary work and unpleasantness at FAC, and allow for reviewing of other elements, leading to better FACs. You raise a good point that a MOSbot won't catch many types of poor writing, e.g., a confusingly organized article with weak flow, grammatically correct but confusing sentences, or basic style choices. A MOSbot won't change George Eliot's sentences into those of Ernest Hemingway, or vice versa. However, the present MOS seems so dauntingly vast for newcomers, and holds such sway at FAC, that a MOSbot (or its equivalent) seems advisable. Proteins (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is also a perception that reviewers harp on MOS issues and fail to raise substantive issues. If we had a bot, we could forestall that problem. Sometimes perception is important, too. The bot may encourage more nominations simply because of a change in perception. The writing, as Proteins right points out, is entirely a different matter. Awadewit (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Awadewit is exactly right. Under the current atmosphere at this process, to some of the site's dedicated editors (such as myself) FAC just isn't worth the hassle. Anything that would shift the focus toward stubstance would be an improvement. Durova³²⁰ 20:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly support removing obstacles on the path to FAC, but I have doubts that a "whole hog" approach to a MOS bot would succeed. Trying to offer one master MOS script seems overly optimistic, given that MOS is ever-changing and endlessly disputed and many provisions will likely be unscriptable. Developing a small library of scripts—like the section header script mentioned above, Brighterorange's endash script, etc—seems more manageable in the long run from a coding standpoint, although perhaps not as attractive to an editor looking for a single quick fix. Maralia (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be very difficult, but perhaps even a set of five or ten scripts would be better? Awadewit (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by all of this talk of a bot option, as there already is one; it used to be regularly run at peer review, picked up most common MOS items and was frequently recommended here, but we asked that it be added to article talk pages so it not clutter FAC. Is no one still operating that bot? I can't recall its name or owner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be far more sophisticated - this bot would fix the MOS problems. It would be like the dashbot, but for the entire MOS (or whatever parts we programmed into it). Nothing like this exists, I promise - it is a massive undertaking to write this bot. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; yes, something else entirely. But that other bot, that already exists and is run at peer review or on article talk pages, would resolve most of the concerns raised about getting MoS issues addressed; is no one still running it? (Although having read through all of FAC yesterday, I'm still unsure what all this MoS fuss is about-- the biggest issue at FAC is lack of reviewers, and I encountered very few MoS tussles.) I'm not sure I would trust a bot that would try to fix most MOS issues, since they often require some judgment ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All bots require checking, I agree. However, there is a perception in the wider community, I think, that FAC requires a level of MOS-compliance that is beyond most editors. I agree with you that people are not arguing about those issues currently, but the community may not know that - this will reassure them. This bot will also prevent those disputes from arising again. Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec'd a bit) There appear to have been coding problems with that bot. It was unable to distinguish material inside quotation marks from outside quotation marks. Possibly changes may have been attempted to improve it, but it was not widely adopted because its reputation was that it was not a particularly useful tool. Possibly the most useful thing it did was check image licensing. Another somewhat useful function is to check for units of measurement for separation from numbers (but it didn't actually fix the latter problem--even though the fix would be easy to code). This new proposal would be a "fixer" bot rather than a "suggestion" bot; its action would be less ambitious than an overall peer review. The dashbot, for instance, has a very narrow purpose and most people consider it satisfactory. Think of something like a dashbot to address related MOS issues whose solutions could be mechanized. Durova³²⁰ 22:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I believe you are thinking of the AndyZ peer review script, which was manually run by User:AndyZ and later User:Ruhrfisch (see User:AZPR), and was recently converted to a toolserver tool (http://toolserver.org/%7Edispenser/view/Peer_reviewer) by User:Dispenser.Dr pda (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Awadewit's comment, I simply haven't the temperament for minute compliance to an unstable manual of style. WP:SOFIXIT isn't a good solution to MoS's flaws because of its tendency to become a nexus of bitter and longstanding disputes. My aim in mainspace is to contribute useful content. If it were possible to get through FAC by memorizing the Chicago Manual of Style, which has the virtue of stability, then I would come here more often. But when I suggested that at another page a month or so ago the reaction was "Bring it on". For heaven's sake, the last thing I want is a battle over that. The time and effort that my last FAC consumed less than a year ago could have produced a GA or two FPs, which wouldn't have been an objectionable use of time if it actually made the article better. Instead the attention went into trivial issues such as a review that complained about passive voice and suggested alternative text which was also passive voice. I tried to conceal that I was rolling my eyes as I jumped through the hoops, but it reaffirmed the cynical assessment I already had about FAC. Really, the cost-benefit value to this process appears to be negligible unless one regards it as a gathering point for political clout to be spent elsewhere. And I write this as one of five remaining finalists in the 2009 WikiCup. Since that doesn't provide enough motivation to return, probably nothing but a change of process will. I dread this part of the site. Durova³²⁰ 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect to the above editor, I don't believe that perception of FAC is generally held, and we shouldn't try to legislate as though it were. Anecdotal evidence is not a basis for good law. In fact, more and more editors are bringing articles to FAC, more and more articles are being promoted and the quality of featured articles is rising. As Sandy says, the system needs more reviewers, but that was ever thus. The proposed bot may help reviewers, and may help to change nominators' perceptions about the process, but its effect, overall, will be quite small. Nonetheless, if it can be done I'll welcome it. Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debate over the future impact of a MOSbot may be academic, if no one is willing to code up such a bot, or if no one is willing to use it once it is coded. Three minor clarifications: (1) I agree with Maralia's suggestion for a modular design of the MOSbot, which is what I had in mind as well. A top-level program can invoke several lower-level, independent programs. (2) Although I almost always agree with Awadewit's ideas, I would suggest that the bot not fix MOS problems, but list them for human editors to fix. Simple problems could be amended automatically, but some MOS situations seem to require human finesse, both to understand the issue and how to fix it best. Fully automated scripts have their limits; for example, the AndyZ bot often flags passages that are not incorrect, and I assume that any MOSbot would make mistakes. (3) My experience suggests that the AndyZ bot encodes relatively little of the MoS, and I haven't found its feedback useful. But perhaps it might be helpful for newcomers to FAC, who might make more basic mistakes. Proteins (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the MOSbot could fix some MOS issues and not others? :) For example, the dashbot fixes dashes rather than listing all of the dash issues. That is why it is so wonderful. Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoS update: September 2009

Number signs: Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No."

This will involve a significant change to comic and some popular-music articles (a bot may be forthcoming). The update is reflected in the concise version of the MoS, under "Number signs" at the bottom of the section. Tony (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy

This guy is insane. He thinks plot summaries are evil things, is going around doing things like tagging Candide - a featured article - to have its plot summary gutted, and working on these mad little essays where he suggests The Odyssey should cut out most of the events in Odysseus' journey home.

He edit wars at all plot-related policy pages, screams madly at anyone who dares say anything pro-plot, and generally shows himself to be trying to tear down all coverage of fiction on Wikipedia.

How bad is it? He was editwarring on WP:NOT to try and get the section on plot summaries to say that plot summaries are only sometimes a valid inclusion in coverage of a fictional topic. And shouting in all caps that if you don't say it's only sometimes appropriate, you're out to destroy Wikipedia.

This is the person who disrupted the Hardy Boys nom. What the fuck is going on here? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 01:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaker, this is forum shopping and you know full well. WT:FAC is not ANI, second chance. There's nothing that needs discussing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review!

I'm recently taken to updating the "FAC urgents" list and I'm saddened by the number of FACs that desperately need reviews. We won't get quality articles at FAC unless we provide quality reviews! :) Go team! Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit as Bring It On-esque cheerleader. How are the meds they're giving you for that herniated disk? And I will try to review some this weekend, amid writing a couple articles. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the meds were a little more awesome. :( You can apparently make acid from one of them, though! Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviews needed (2)

Thanks for helping out! Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone who understands images (Awadewit, Fuchs, ?) take a look at Ellis Wackett images and see what the problem is? The discussion over why they need different statements is very confusing, and the person who reviewed the articles wants a different permission statement, but it isn't clear what is needed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commented. Awadewit (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ex-Girlfriend

Why was this FAC closed? There were only three or four reviewers that commented, and although they doubted if the article was ready, all their issues had been resolved. No further specific comments had been made regarding how I could improve the article. The FAC was closed way to early.--Music26/11 15:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this is the right venue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This being the FAC talk page I really can't see a better venue than this. 189.105.52.118 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs and SandyGeorgia promote and/or archive the FACs, though, so it is best to ask them. Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at the FAC, there was one weak support, image and source checks, and Tony1 saying that a copy-edit was needed. At a time when FAC is loaded with candidates, an article like this that isn't attracting support is likely to be archived after a couple weeks. The article will have a much better chance to pass with a fresh start in a few weeks, after the necessary work has been done. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback?

After the recent promotion of the Rolls-Royce Merlin article (thanks very much BTW) I wondered if the FAC team might be interested in some feedback of the process from my point of view (as the nominator)? I found the process a little mysterious as a 'first timer' and I have an idea that might help to avoid articles appearing as candidates with obvious problems outstanding. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - we are always interested in improving the process. Feel free to elaborate on any ideas you have right here. Karanacs (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Thought I would ask first and check that this was the right venue. It's not much really, I used the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria page as a guide but I failed to notice some of the 'small print' like the inclusion of alt text and checking for disambig links. I don't think that it is mentioned there that all the external links need to be live (though this is obvious really I suppose), I only discovered the tools to check things like this when the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce Merlin/archive1 page was created (the useful toolbox on the top right) it was at this stage that my statement in the nomination rationale that the 'article met all of the FA criteria' became plainly untrue!!

All I was thinking of was some kind of summary checklist table on the criteria page with simple and short questions that could be ticked like 'Image alt text' (yes), No disambig links (yes) etc. We use a version of Template:B-Class in the aviation project where requirements have to be checked yes or no, an example of the coding can be seen here. If an editor adds just B class without completing the list then it remains at the original lower class. Perhaps something like this for FAC articles could be included in the project banner, I am no good with code BTW!! The intent of this idea is purely to reduce workload for reviewers in the initial 'basics' checking stage.

On the actual process the instructions at the top of the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page are very good, what would be very nice is a link to an essay from one of the main FAC team editors similar to User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article (I have only just found that and have no idea how useful it is or whether it is appropriate). Just noticed that there are links to essays on the criteria page. I was personally worried when the Merlin article sat unreviewed for a while as I have heard that nominations can fail just through lack of activity, as I understand the process most, if not all, of the improvement work should have been done through earlier peer reviews, leaving some minor work or unseen omissions to be noted, this was the case with the Merlin article and the points noted and actioned did improve the article markedly over a short period. The last stage (as I see it) is one editor reviewing the discussion (and the actual article?) then awarding (or not awarding) the promotion to FA. Nothing wrong with that at all, just noting my understanding of how it works. Hope this helps or gives food for thought, I can see that you are all very busy. With my experience I hope to return with more articles (but not too soon!). Cheers and all the best. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one small step along the lines suggested above, I added a mention of the toolbox to the nominating instructions. This way the nominator can easily use the toolbox before nominating the article. Eubulides (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Eubulides ... thanks (now, if nominators read instructions is another question :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oopsie, that was a good idea, but it was reverted ... see next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry for the silence, I took the FAC page off of my watchlist, which of course removes the talk page as well! I am so thick at times! Sorry if my suggestion caused a programming gremlin. I have read the essay now, certainly some familiar feelings being noted in there, lots of humour as well. I was thinking of something much shorter that mainly described the review process with the odd hint and tip. Thanks to you guys my talk page is filling up with barnstars, a very warm feeling. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The toolbox should be fixed now, so I've re-added it. Gary King (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we just mention that they're tools and link to the template? We already have a section labeled toolbox above. Nimbus, are the links at the bottom of the automated peer review noticeable enough? I haven't included Checklinks since it isn't usable without all reading through the documentation. Also, if you could critique my tools that would be helpful. — Dispenser 03:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The small addition to the Template:FAC-instructions should be very useful, the proof of the pudding will be if you guys notice an improvement in new candidates. From my experience with the Merlin article I was very busy with constantly trying to maintain the quality of the text (which meant having to 'reign in' some enthusiastic editors that were adding basic errors, they did understand the need), being very busy with that I probably did not read the instructions as fully as I should have. I have only recently discovered the auto reviewer tool and am publicising it to others and using it for lower class promotion reviews now. No, I didn't see the links at the bottom originally but I can see them now that you directed me there, perhaps they need to be a tad more prominent, bulleted? Could you direct me to your tools and I would be glad to comment, perhaps on your talk page to save clogging this page. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found them [1] will have a look and comment, cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC page is "messed up"

The FAC page is listing links to many FACs and FARs. Anyone know why? Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's been fixed here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeouch. I tested the change on Template:FAC-instructions and it worked just fine there but evidently there's some deeper magic when it's transcluded from WP:FAC. I'll debug it in a sandbox before trying again (if I try again....). Eubulides (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happens is that the Wikipedia:Featured article tools template automatically lists all pages that use the current page's name as a prefix. This is done so that it automatically lists all previous nominations for an FAC; since all FACs have the prefix of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ (note the slash at the end), then they are all listed when this template is used on this page. Gary King (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One review on the urgents list this weekend?

Perhaps everyone who watches this page (!) could review one article on the FAC urgents list this weekend? Think how helpful that would be be. Like. Wow. Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See? It's your audience. I lolled. Like. Totally. Fur shur. --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll do Neverwinter Nights 2 and probably another one too. Scartol • Tok 18:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1c

I'm working on Abraham Lincoln, and I'm worried about criteria 1c: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". I'm using lots of books by well respected historians, but I'm also using lots of other books. What kind of leeway do I have? I don't want to get bit at the FAC, and waste a bunch of effort. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a history specific reply, I am trying to work up this article you might like to read, Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History, or WP:MILMOS#Sources which acts as a B-class review of what minimum acceptable standards are for history articles (through transclusion). However, take what I say with a grain of salt, I am also apparently a controversial editor when it comes to RS demands, see Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1.

The first point to start is by attempting to find what the historiography is, for a recent example of this, check Talk:Soviet_historiography#Myths and reality which identified a historian's contributions as irrelevant by search through journal book reviews of his monographs, and located (and tested) an assumption that another historian was an acceptable producer of historiography.

Ideally you are looking for what historians call "A review article". These come out about every 10 years or so on a topic, and cover the historiography of the entire field, making a judgement on what the essential recent literature is and what the major arguments are. These would be "high quality" sources per FA for me.

Lower quality sources would be non-relevant academic writings.

Lower still would be popular writings published as RS per wikipedia's guidelines.

Argumentative use of Primary Sources to prove assertions would rule out an article becoming FA. Use of primary sources to illustrate (as in graphics, diagrams, photos illustrate other articles) would be useful, and looked on favourably.

Use of lots of other books depends on how they're reviewed, if their assertions are fringe, or just factoid, etc. etc. etc. Your narrative and structure in the article ought to be driven by RS historians' consensus discovered through historiography articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Fisher, I predict Lincoln will get several archives at FAC, so for clear expectations if it passes the first time up you should be ecstatic. There will just not be enough to make everyone happy. It is unrealistic to use every biography ever written about Lincoln, but you should, I think, be able to speak somewhat intelligently about why you used less of one biography for another. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an explanation for most books, and people I can ask, but I'd reallly like a place online where I can check how good sources are. It looks like The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature is not searchable by google books (not surprisingly). I don't think any of the libraries within 100 miles are going to be much help, either. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unreasonable to me to use every available source on Lincoln: this isn't a dissertation, or a book. What seems reasonable is categorizing the types of views on Lincoln, (for example: Lincoln as emancipator, Lincoln as politician, Lincoln as Commander in Chief, etc.), historigraphic views, (such as: Progressive, Marxist, Neo-con, social historian, cultural historian, etc.),and/or audiences (how different groups of people might tend to view Lincoln) and using representative views/works. This leads to a structure that combines narrative (one darn thing after another) and historiography (this is how experts have interpreted one darn thing after another), and assessment (this is how historians have assessed one darn thing after another, and one interpretation after another). I faced a similar problem with Unification of Germany, and this is how I addressed it there. Make sense? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(oh, and yes, I agree with Fifelfoo, controversial editor re reliable sources or not -- and I suspect that you can do a lot of work on this via the state of the historiography summaries that appear in the "good" (i.e., peer reviewed) journals, such as American Historical Review, and the like. I can recommend one already, Scott Sandage's article on the Lincoln Memorial. Easy to find, but I don't remember what journal or book it came out in.) Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to reviewers

I removed the backlog category, since the page is under 40 FACs. Reading FAC today was a pleasure: I found no FACs lacking image reviews, ample input to promote or archive 12 FACs, little work I had to do myself, and substantial reviews on most FACs. A special thanks goes to all of the image reviewers, Awadewit for maintaining the Urgents template (I think it's helping!), Ealdgyth for her constant and painstaking work on reliability of sources, and DaBomb87 for generally keeping an eye on things and following me around and cleaning up ! And to Karanacs, for making my travel break possible and sharing the burden; I'm sure she shares my appreciation for all of the hard work reviewers do to keep this page churning out Wiki's finest work. Thanks to all !

A reminder, though: Ealdgyth checks that sources meet minimum requirements for reliability. She does not check that articles meet WP:V; reviewers still must do that, and comment on sources she leaves unstruck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy it while it lasts all of three days :P (Ok, I'll shut my cynical mouth up and get another review in, I just can't help it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Ealdgyth checks with the link checker tool, which is not very reliable. Correct me if I am wrong, and that she actually checks the links to see if they give the purported information. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse, I've explained in the past what it is that I do, but I'll explain again. First, it is more than the link checker tool, which I do indeed check, but I also check the various publishers listed for the sources, make sure that they meet a minimum standard of reliablity (i.e. they aren't geocities sites, that they are reasonably reliable), I double check any that appear to be missing information. I check all the published/printed sources' publishers, make sure that they aren't self-published sources from something like lulu.com or iUniverse. I make sure that the journals are from reputable publishers. I do not check each and every citation against the information cited to it. I also spot check the formatting of the references making sure they are as consistent as possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the hard work you do here, Ealdgyth! We all appreciate it and we don't thank you enough! Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. (smile) But other that that, as I have gone after Ealdgyth and found links that look good but are actually redirects or in other ways do not lead to the purported information, although the link checker show that they are good. Each link has to be checked individually. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 12:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in all fairness, Ealdgyth does quite a bit of work aside from simply checking links. She (I think; apologies if wrong) also ensures the sources are formatted properly and that the sources are reliable. It may seem easy, but I've tried it quite a few times: it's actually extremely tedious and, at times, difficult. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm female. One of the rare ones on Wikipedia, honestly. Although we do tend to cluster around the review processes, I've noticed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen Raul close a FAC in months, it seems. You hardworking ladies are keeping the FAC wheels turning :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of thanking people, I always find it curious that nominators almost never thank Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) for the significant work he does at FAC, FAR and other places with GimmeBot. Well, he gets my thanks, because closing FACs and FARs would be quite a chore without him! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much abashed! These are just the sort of helpful tasks that go unappreciated - thanks Gimmetrow! Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow is very much the unsung hero of FAC. Lets be explicit - you rock Gimmetrow! and thank you for all the work... eh, I believe Ealdgyth is regularly thanked, so I spare her the embarrasment. Thanks for all your work, Ealdgyth it is highly valued. Ceoil (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding belated thanks. Ealdgyth's work means that content reviewers can just concentrate on the information from the sources without worrying about the other more technical/wiki stuff. A very important job. (And Gimmetrow).Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech massacre

Can anyone take a look at the FAR for this article? It's on its way to being delisted, which would be a shame because it doesn't to be far from FA status. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine...

Imagine a week in which no FACs were closed due to lack of reviews....Let's make it happen! Awadewit (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a review

If anyone is able to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Well Dunn/archive1, I would really appreciate it. It has been open for 19 days with nobody supporting or opposing. I would really appreciate some feedback either way. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, looks like it was archived due to a lack of reviews. Please let me know when you nominate it again and I'll be happy to offer a full review. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Default thumbnail image size is now 220px

Today it was changed from 180 to 220px for all images for which a px width is not forced by editors who include an image in the article. This adds 49% to the area of such images. The result is that a little rearrangement may be occasionally necessary. Images will still need to be audited for size where 220px is still too small (or less often, too large). Tony (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure? 'Cause I had mine set at 200px and went to change it in prefs, but only saw the old 180px choice and 250px. David Fuchs (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the default size for non-registered users - log out to see it. Could someone who has registered but never set a preference confirm they now get 220? There was a question as to whether they would stay at 180. How registered users who have already set a preference get to a 220 I'm not sure! I expect the 220 option will be added to the preferences selection in due course. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried logging out and have not been able to see the change-I still see the 180px width as an anon. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, though I expect it can simply be blamed on server lag? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is wierd - now I only get 180 logged out too. Maybe something has turned out to need fixing first. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still 180px on my end as well, logged in or out, and after purging. Hasn't changed yet. --an odd name 16:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How short can a featured article be?

Having reviewed some two dozen FACs in the last two weeks (or three), I have noticed a trend among some submissions of severely skimping on the length and justifying it by citing the FA criteria, which, it is claimed, have all been met. For example, a number of hurricane-related articles, (such as Hurricane Grace (1991), Tropical Storm Christine (1973), that, in my view, belong as sub-articles in a featured list, have been submitted as FACs in their own right.

So, how short can a featured article be? I have many many articles (all reasonably well-written, scrupulously sourced, and comprehensive) that were written to be parts of featured lists. Should I be submitting them individually for FAC review? What if I submit an article that is a few paragraphs long, such as Stanley Henry Prater? You are unlikely to find more information on Prater anywhere else. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Archive 31 here, where attempts to set a minimum length failed. I recently commented at Afd that André de France meets all the FA criteria, though far too short for DYK. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there has never been any means of establishing agreement on this issue, and not from lack of attempts to do so. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 21:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you're serious Fowler & fowler. Are you trying to set a record for the longest sentence ever to appear in a lead? That's a long way short of FA, and you know it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix the sentence if you don't like it, but the article meets all the FA criteria. Notability of subject-matter is not one of them. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, I submit that primary authors who submit glorified stubs as FACs are abusing the FAC process and taking advantage of the goodwill of reviewers. Should honest reviewers (who notice, by contrast, the amount of effort that goes into a full-length article such as Marshalsea) then simply ignore the short articles, and let the FAC directors work out the full meaning (or the lack thereof) of the quick-and-easy support votes that these articles garner? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers are not required to review anything they don't want to. Personally I usually only review FACs associated with articles that are under 20kb. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA is first and foremost neither a trophy nor a recognition of effort, but a standard to be met, as defined by the FA criteria. If some sub-set of articles meet the FA criteria but are not of comparable standard to the rest of FA, the criteria ought to be re-examined. It seems to me that criteria 1b and 1c are a good start to guarding against inadequately short articles, though the focus on "facts and details" is misguided. The length criterion does not cover the subject at all, oddly, and perhaps ought to be renamed or rewritten. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Skomorokh. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC process has some unstated assumptions. It's all well and good to say, FA is this but not that, but no ones seems to answer my question: how short can an FA be? Can I submit the Prater article and a couple of other short articles for FAC review, and then a few weeks later some more (as some people seem to be doing)? Can others do the same? How long before the FAC review system collapses? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how short FACs are different than any others. Sure, go ahead and nominate Prater; I'd happily review it as I would a "normal" candidate. As long as you follow the usual FAC etiquette, I don't see why you can't nominate another one a few weeks later. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal rule is 20KB, as articles below tend not to be comprehensive enough. That doesn't give a free pass to those above: World War II wpuld require something in at least the high-80s, even as a summary article. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what arbitrary limits like 20kb have to do with "comprehensiveness". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Prater article is comprehensive. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate it, then. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I tend to not nominate below about 1000 words or so. I have one FAC I worked on, Ælfheah of Canterbury, that is a hair shorter than that, but the word counter doesn't count the block quote, so it's close. I have Miss Meyers which is comprehensive, but short, that I've kicked around nominating, but decided to not waste folks time with it, it's GA and that's good enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Indeed. The minimum size for an FA is the size required to comprehensively treat the topic, which varies by topic, so there is no magic number that serves as a threshold; if you think an article is comprehensive, FAC is the appropriate venue; you'll find out soon whether you are correct or whether there needs to be more work done on the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed? You are not exactly agreeing with Ealdgyth, whose hesitation about nominating Miss Meyers for FA is an aspect of the unstated assumptions I was talking about. The point is that there are many non-notable topics about which it is possible to be comprehensive in a few short paragraphs. Does one then nominate such articles for FA candidacy? I am suggesting that the unstated assumption that underpins the survival of the FAC review process is that we don't; for, if all of us who have written such short articles began to submit them as FACs, the system would break down. By the same token, people who blithely keep submitting short articles are abusing the system. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us submitting "short articles" are not abusing the system, we're exposing thoroughly researched articles, that may be on topics with limited reliable source coverage, to thorough review. This is a quality assurance process. And none of them are about "non-notable topics": if they were, they'd be at AfD ;-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be a politician, if you aren't already. :) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tito was responding to Malleus, but his indentation was altered somehow in this revision. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my handiwork. :) I was trying to be helpful, I thought. What does (ec) mean, btw? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, it means that I typed my reply and hit "save page" and someone else had changed the text of the page between when I started typing and tried to save. It's a courtesty to point out you had one because your reply might not take notice of the conflicted comment. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth! And thanks everyone for the responses. Dinner beckons, so, good night! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I think Stanley Henry Prater, cited by Fowler&fowler, passes the "survery of the literature" criterion (there's only a little) but fails the "comprehensiveness" criterion - its coverage is much less than would normally expect of an academic or politician, and Prater was both.

However I think it's possible for a short article to pass both of these criteria (and notability, if that's relevant). For example some well-known and widely used principles in paleontology appear to made other authors think, "Why didn't I thought of that?" So the analysis of the principle is short but comprehensive - unless it has a requirement to include all the circumstances of the discovery, analogous to asking what variety of apple landed next to Newton. --Philcha (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what comprehensiveness means (at least in the FA criteria). The criterion simply says: (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. No major fact (that is known) has been neglected in the Prater article. But the criterion says nothing about having coverage that is normally expected of X or Y; otherwise, I can unilaterally define a "normal level of coverage" for a hurricane and say that neither Hurricane Grace (1991) nor Tropical Storm Christine (1973) have coverage at the normal level, such as in Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Mitch, Hurricane Jeanne, or Hurricane David.

The Hurricane Grace article I mentioned above is different from the Prater article, in that it really can be expanded. However, the primary authors of these (hurricane) articles are taking the tack of dismissing any suggestion for expansion, even when specific guidelines are offered, by defining the scope of the article to be as narrow as is required to preserve the current text. So, for example, in the FAC review of Hurricane Grace (1991), when I suggested that the author add, "4) a discussion of Bermuda subtropical storms, what are their characteristics and which of these are shared by Hurricane Grace. Here is another paper for that: Template:Harvard reference, the response I received from primary author Julian Colton was, " 4) That's irrelevant to this article and seems an attempt to fill it with fluff." I would like to challenge the primary authors to have an independent expert evaluate this response (and I'm happy to provide a list of independent experts). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, if i'm understanding you correctly, F&F, your concern isn't so much that the article doesn't contain all the pertinant information on the particluar storm, but that it lacks context about the generalities of Bermuda storms? If I may generalize from my own experience with historical articles, it would be as if I had nominated Urse d'Abetot much earlier in the article writing process, say in this state or maybe after it's GA status was obtained. Both of those articles are comprehensive, but they contain very little of the surrounding historical context that makes the article easier for a non-specialist to read. That at least, is how I understand F&F's comments ... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(To Ealdgyth) That is a good point. The Hurricane Grace article certainly doesn't provide much of the context of the storm, but it doesn't even have comprehensive coverage of the storm itself, unless you define the article to be only about the storm after it became a full-fledged hurricane. Hurricane Grace started out as a Bermuda subtropical storm and the reference I provided has a three page synoptic survey of Hurricane Grace during this stage, which was dismissed by Julian Colton as "fluff." Similarly, as you describe in your own articles, at least two or three reviewers of Hurricane Grace requested that some context should be provided about how it led to the so-called "Perfect Storm." All these too were dismissed by Julian Colton with the remark, "but those are two different storms" (I'm guessing, the expanded Hurricane Grace might detract from the subsequent FA run of the Perfect Storm). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it's unfair to blindly request that more information be added to an article without raising any specific objections to the content's comprehensiveness, and it smacks of an attempt to make the article longer. Oftentimes the information that is being requested at FAC is irrelevant to the page in question, and in those cases, I believe reviewers should generally defer to the nominator's judgment, as they will be more familiar with the article's subject matter. Scientific articles should always be concise and more-or-less on-topic, and to that end I try to avoid including needless "background" info. Hurricane Grace was just that: a hurricane. It was marginally related to another more notable storm, but it was its own entity. Therefore I felt it would have been unnecessary to add content related to an entirely different storm system. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is blindly requested anything. I read the paper I asked you to include. Can you tell me why you consider it to be "fluff?" Why is a description of the storm's subtropical stage not relevant to the article? It is equivalent to writing an article on an author and claiming that the author's childhood and youth are not important since the author started writing at age 45. We can make such arbitrary divisions for any article. We can split the Battle of the Alamo into Battle of the Alamo (day one), Battle of the Alamo (day two0 and so forth, each of which will likely be longer and better sourced that Hurricane Grace; we can then object to requests for expansion with, "but they are different days." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the paper contained very little useful text related to Hurricane Grace's life as a subtropical cyclone, but rather subtropical cyclones near Bermuda in general. It comes down to editorial judgment to determine when the content is sufficient. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what length has to do with quality (as a synonym for 'featured'). If the subject matter needs only a brief treatment to convey the essentials, then a short article is actually better than a long one. However, that said, one should note that short articles will always give the impression that they are not comprehensive enough and the nominator should be ready to put up a strong defense. For example, Charles J. Knapp is fairly comprehensive but I wouldn't nominate it for an FA because the sources are entirely online and a rigorous library search may (or may not!) produce more detail. On first glance, the Prater article has very limited sourcing, far less than one would expect for the late gentleman, and Fowler will have to demonstrate that the article is comprehensive despite that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(To RegentsPark) :) This is not really about the poor Prater article; that is just a straw man I set up in a hurry to make a point! (BTW, there is very little secondary literature on Prater; I pretty much scoured everything when I wrote it a few years ago.) The point is that in general usage the term "Feature Article" has a meaning, which refers to an article on a prominent topic. Wikipedia's featured article might or might not have the same meaning, but it certainly is treated that way. It is regarded by its primary authors as a mark of achievement. There is an unstated understanding, I believe, in Wikipedia that articles submitted to FAC review have heft both by way of content and notability. I am suggesting that people who don't respect that understanding are like drivers who wait until the last minute (in a traffic bottleneck) before they merge in; they are taking advantage of the vast majority of drivers who have already merged and who have to wait much longer. In other words, they are abusing the process. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't mean to answer the question - should Prater be nominated! (Though I would decline to be a punter if you did nominate it!) My point was that the three(?) sources may be all that is necessary but, in any short article with a small number of sources, the question of comprehensiveness will arise.

(To Physchim62) Exactly. I haven't read the discussion, but there are thousands of phylogeny (or systematics) related articles that are a paragraph or two long and are completely comprehensive. Should all the editors in the Birds, Animals, Vertebrates, Invertebrates ... Wikiprojects, start nominating those articles for FAC review? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{Butting in) In my opinion, no. The FAC page specifies: "FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria." That's two different things. The examples you cite may fulfil the latter requirement, but not the former. Put another way, it might be argued that these examples could fulfil the letter of FA law, but not the spirit. I know that many (probably most) disagree with me over this - it is a recurrent issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this debate is ultimately rooted in what FA's are considered to be. Some people (F&F, for example) appear to take the view that the FA's should represent only the very best of Wikipedia. That is, they believe we can afford to require that an article be of a certain length or voluminousness to be an FA, regardless of comprehensiveness or completeness. This view seems to be attached to the idea that not every article has the potential to be an FA. The other camp adopts the view that any article that meets the criteria should be an FA, no matter how long, short, wide, or tall it is. Myself, I'm in the middle. On the one hand, articles that meet the criteria meet the criteria, and – in that respect – there is no solid reason codified in the guidelines to deny the FA status. But on the other hand, we have to consider why we have featured articles: is it to present the créme de la créme of Wikipedia's articles, or every article that technically meets a set of criteria? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally I think it's somewhere in between. Obviously we shouldn't be producing "cookie-cutter" FAs; on the other hand, the "best Wikipedia has to offer" is subjective and varies from person to person. I'm of the opinion that all high-quality articles should be officially recognized and exhibited, but obviously others feel differently. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing FAC declarations

Frequently, FAC reviewers amend declarations of support or oppose by striking out the previous declaration and entering a new one without signing the new declaration (see samples here, here and here). This could result in confusion about why a FAC was archived or promoted. Also, I give less weight to a Support that is entered before other reviewers identify serious deficiencies, and more to one entered after issues are identified and resolved. Please take care to strike the old declaration and enter the new with a sig and timestamp. If other reviewers see this happening, please feel free to amend a note adding a diff to the changed declaration, so we'll all know when it occurred. As a sample, when Awadewit updates her declarations, she strikes, amends, and adds a note with a sig saying she is updating her declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

Can someone who knows what has happened update Talk:Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FAC/ar; it will be updated when the bot goes through, likely after Tuesday night.[2] Also, please keep in mind that FAC is not Peer Review, and articles should be nominated when they meet WP:WIAFA, not just to "raise the quality of the article".[3] This kind of advice results in a drain on reviewer time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating an archived FAC

Hi all. I've recently been involved with an FAC that was archived without consensus to promote (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive1). This was, I think, largely due to the lack of reviewer follow-up to issues that had been responded to during the candidacy. We believe these issues were addressed, so can we renominate the article or is it possible to unarchive the FAC? EyeSerene^talk 08:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators should wait for at least a week before re-nominating. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'd wondered if there was a procedural 'bypass', but we can wait :) EyeSerene^talk 14:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviews needed please

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1 - Note: NW started and stopped due to number of images. Karanacs (talk)

I've started, but I didn't make it all the way through the article yet. I'll try to finish tonight. If someone else wants to continue, start after the section on "Patrol roads". Awadewit (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Awadewit!! Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks-- I know this kind of work is tedious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fourth lev headers

SandyG...I like the fourth level headers we've used on some of the complicated reviews, especially this present one on the Inner German border. It makes navigating the reviews much easier, and responding to comments much more precise. Sometimes once we click on the "edit" button, it's hard to find the proper comment to respond to, in the maze of comments, crossouts, responses, more responses, and such. I realize that there will be pros and cons, but sometimes these reviews are incredibly long and involved. If each "reviewer" had a section, it would make our lives, and the lives of the editors, easier. What are the negatives for this? I'm sure there are some! :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FAC instructions say to avoid headers because of some past bad experiences. The first problem, in the past, was that it convoluted the entire FAC page, but this has now been solved with the use of a TOC setting, so that the subdivisions don't show on the FAC page-- only in each review. So this is no longer a problem. The bigger problem-- and one we really need to avoid-- was that, in the past, there were many circumstances of headings being used in ways that would bias the review or turn it into a battleground: breaks strategically located to highlight or ignore certain points; breaks that conveyed one reviewer's bias; breaks that were inflammatory or inaccurate; etc. And the problem there is that, once we start allowing sub-headers everywhere, they take over even the shorter reviews, and before long, we have less experienced reviewers using them inappropriately. So, on long and complex reviews, where headers are used appropriately without bias and without artificial breaks intended to convey a bias, I let them stand, but I'm not in favor of seeing them take over in general. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 462: / Line 462: @@
 SandyG...I like the fourth level headers we've used on some of the complicated reviews, especially this present one on the Inner German border.  It makes navigating the reviews much easier, and responding to comments much more precise.  Sometimes once we click on the "edit" button, it's hard to find the proper comment to respond to, in the maze of comments, crossouts, responses, more responses, and such.  I realize that there will be pros and cons, but sometimes these reviews are incredibly long and involved.  If each "reviewer" had a section, it would make our lives, and the lives of the editors, easier.  What are the negatives for this?  I'm sure there are some! :)  [[User:Auntieruth55|Auntieruth55]] ([[User talk:Auntieruth55|talk]]) 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 : The [[WP:FAC]] instructions say to avoid headers because of some past bad experiences.  The first problem, in the past, was that it convoluted the entire FAC page, but this has now been solved with the use of a TOC setting, so that the subdivisions don't show on the FAC page-- only in each review.  So this is no longer a problem.  The bigger problem-- and one we really need to avoid-- was that, in the past, there were many circumstances of headings being used in ways that would bias the review or turn it into a battleground: breaks strategically located to highlight or ignore certain points; breaks that conveyed one reviewer's bias; breaks that were inflammatory or inaccurate; etc.  And the problem there is that, once we start allowing sub-headers everywhere, they take over even the shorter reviews, and before long, we have less experienced reviewers using them inappropriately.  So, on long and complex reviews, where headers are used appropriately without bias and without artificial breaks intended to convey a bias, I let them stand, but I'm not in favor of seeing them take over in general.  HTH, [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-::Does anyone wonder, as I do, if there will ever be an academic studying section-header bias in Wikipedia? :) [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)