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, 37, 38, 39

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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:29, 12 March 2009

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

FAC symposium

Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured articles/Science FAC symposium Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange request...

My nomination, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Million Dollar Homepage‎, is getting plenty of support but no comments. I'd hate to think it became featured without being properly reviewed—and I'm not saying those who have haven't done it properly—and I'm sure someone will be able to find a mistake somewhere. Please, can somebody please review the article The Million Dollar Homepage‎ and find something wrong with it! I'm getting a bit worried! Thanks, :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's a pretty good article, I couldn't see anything which would be an automatic fail on the current criteria, but I'd like to read you replies to my comments before I commit myself that this really represents Wikipedia's very best work. Physchim62 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC backlog

Hi. I've posted along these lines before. I don't have the time for regular FAC and FAR reviewing any more, but am happy to be called on to review a particular article and I'll try to find the time, if the requests are not too frequent.

I'm sure there are other experienced FAC reviewers like me and perhaps a register can be kept. We may even have started one, once. --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just pop by once a week and pick something from the Urgents list? --Laser brain (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have been trying to do as well - the list at the top of this page is very handy :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can watchlist User:Deckiller/FAC urgents to keep track of the latest articles needing review. BuddingJournalist 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find the urgents list difficult to work with. Probably a deficiency on my part, but when I pop into one, it often looks like it's already adequately manned. --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure why you say that, Dweller; typically, those listed on the Urgents list do need additional review (I can't speak for the last two weeks, as I've been traveling). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I'm just a simple soul. If you need me, just give me a shout. --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

I have created two new userboxes so you can express your views on whether FAC standards are too high or too low:

{{User:Szyslak/UBX/FAC too strict}}

This user thinks the featured article candidates process is generally too strict.

{{User:Szyslak/UBX/FAC too lenient}}

This user thinks the featured article candidates process is generally too lenient.

szyslak (t) 02:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there one missing? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's like Goldilocks! Aptery gial 02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user thinks the FAC process should not be subject to the arbitrary whims of popular opinion, but guided by well-reasoned standards.

Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it:

This user thinks the FAC process is completely FACked up!

Physchim62 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1(f) "well-researched" added to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

Resolved

– Please discuss at the FA criteria talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1(f) added to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as follows:

- (f) well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive survey of literature on the topic, and relies primarily on sources representing the most stringent quality standards available in the industry or field.

Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I have just removed it again. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. The Land (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Land. You are very clearly in a weak minority position. reversion is not an act of consensus. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And unilaterally adding something isn't either. Have you discussed this addition? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. Need more eyes before deciding what to do. BuddingJournalist 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion in one place (over there, in this case). There should be no need for hurry to add a new criteria that hasn't yet been widely discussed and gained broad consensus from many FA, FAC and FAR regulars (I don't recall ever seeing WIAFA destabilized before). Since it's not clear to me that the proposal will change any current practice, it won't hurt to take the time to develop broader consensus with a wider and longer discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, surely the people you are gathering for the "FAC–Science Symposium" might want a word to say, instead of having FA criteria changed under their noses… Physchim62 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at WT:FAR, as well as WP Tropical cyclones, WP MILHIST, and WP Video games. Anywhere else? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with SandyGeorgia please comment there. Let's close the discussion here and resolve there. (My reading does not show consensus for this important change; so it should be resolved first). Arnoutf (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes needed

Most of the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore has (again) verged off-topic relative to WIAFA and FAC; would an uninvolved admin be interested in refactoring the page to talk and encouraging parties to keep discussion focused on WP:WIAFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image checks needed

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi should be added.~~ Nominator claims image issues outstanding from the last FAC have been resolved, but there hasn't been an image review in this candidacy. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rampart Dam

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

referencing headache

I have a Talk:Amanita_muscaria#Referencing_headache for discussion, which i would like to sort out before making alot of changes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always followed the pattern of listing the author in whatever way they list themselves on the work. Thus if the author is Nicholas Brooks on one work, but N. P. Brooks on another, I list it how it's done on the source. And I use templates for the formatting... so it always puts in a comma for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well the books generally use the author's name on the cover, so that is easy :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm making major changes to an article, I convert everything to Pubmed style, on the grounds that any unnecessary punctuation is just eye clutter in a long list of refs. Looie496 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you ditch all teh first names of primary authors? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it doesn't matter ultimately, as long as the usage is consistent. Speaking as a matter of style/preference/taste, I would use the style that seems relevant to the article's topic (e.g., PubMed style for med articles or related ones). But as far as rules go, AFAIK only consistency is mandatory. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more featured crud

Yesterday's TFA contained a hanging participle in its very first paragraph: however, it wasn't present in the FAC version, so it would be unfair to suggest that the corresponding sentence was even worse in the version passed by FAC reviewers… Today's featured article was promoted in September 2007, and that is no doubt the reason why it has entire paragraphs which are unreferenced, something that would get it thrown out of FAC these days. Still, it's on the main page as "representing Wikipedia's very best work", so surely it must be good. Physchim62 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree that TFAs should be at modern standard, however, last year I complained about a 2006 FA with little refs and evryone either supported and Raul didn't care... and he chooses them, not anyone here. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess as Raul's selections on TFA/R aren't overturnable, the obvious way would be to nominate them for FAR before he schedules the out of date ones, correct? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anything we will do short of deleting FAC will address Physchim62's complaints. He'll continue to find problems in any FA he chooses, modern or not. No piece of prose is perfect, not articles, peer-reviewed journals, or printed media. Physchim62, I sincerely believe you are acting in good faith and are interested in improving the quality of articles we place on the main page, but I have to question your motivation for posting this kind of message in here. Open an RfC. --Laser brain (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather hope that it it doesn't come to an RFC, but in the meantime you can hardly blame me for pointing out the obvious deficiencies in the current Process. If you can come up with a way of ensuring that TFA represents Wikipedia's best work without abolishing FAC, please let me know and I'd be happy to hear from you. Physchim62 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need more reviewers. Many FACs get one person reviewing the sources, one person reviewing the images, and 2-3 prose reviews if they're lucky. If the article is long, or boring, or on a pop culture topic, they're lucky to get one substantive prose review. What if that prose reviewer misses things? And we do miss things, as you point out. Subject matter expert reviews are far too rare. We need to coordinate with WikiProjects so their members know when an article is up for review. This happens for medical topics I've seen and we do get SME reviews. The answer is NOT to give over control of TFA to WikiProjects. We need centralized review and control of featured content to make sure standards are consistently applied. You may argue that they're not being applied correctly now, but you can't seriously argue that the situation would improve under direct control of WikiProjects. --Laser brain (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To state the obvious, this is a volunteer effort and the project hasn't, for various reasons, reached a critical mass yet of involved editors to ensure that every issue or forum, including FAC, is addressed adequately. So, we'll do the best we can. For some reason, inane admin discussions get more participation than the FAC and GA forums. See, for example, the recent ANI debate and RfAR spill-over on "secret" user pages. Anyway, I haven't been doing my part with FAC and have committed to myself to review at least two articles the next time I nominate a FAC. Otherwise, the A-class forum with MILHIST is backlogged enough to occupy much of my spare time. Cla68 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a great point though: effective checkpoints along the pipeline definitely help. MILHIST sends some of the best-prepared articles to FAC, so clearly your time with the A-class process is well-spent. --Laser brain (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Physchim62, we know featured articles are inherently crap. We should just delete the whole process. No need to tell us every few days. :) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the hanging participle doesn't even create any real ambiguity, it's much of a muchness. Perhaps you should start reading the daily corrections columns that they publish in your least favourite newspaper as a way of getting your schadenfreude. Besides, we all know what FAC's problem is—it's reaching a high capacity with a lack of reviewers. Devolving powers to WikiProjects is silly because only two or three could feasibly meet current demands, I know that at my previous FAC that three heads-up postings to Projects resulted in zero comments. Judging things on a human scale, the Projects could not manage running their quota, just as Texas currently would not run itself as well if it were given national status. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced

This discussion is misplaced and should be at Talk:Main Page or WT:TFA. FAC exists to check that an article is Featured quality at a certain point in time. FAR exists to periodically review the worth of the article and do maintenance or remove its status. The Main Page selection process people should ensure it's up to scratch before appearing there. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to a new working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial coordinators together so that projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. We are also planning a better coordinatopn among all projects and centralizing.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hep ^Talk on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trial reactivation of Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

Hi all, given discussion on esoteric nature of some FAs and GAs, I thought reactivating this might be worthwhile. My take would be the best candidates are large, general articles which are reasonably comprehensive, non-controversial and might not be too far off GA or FA. I thought barley but feel free to discuss or think of others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation between FA promotions, peer review, GA class and A-class

Given recent discussion about FA process, thought i'd make some enquiries about suggesting peer review (and/or GA class) as a requirement before FA nomination, as I thought this would make things more efficient for everyone. I reviewed Jan 2009 FA noms to see what evidence there was to support such a change but found different results to what I expected:

106 noms in January: 48 promoted, 58 unsuccessful. About 40% of both promotions and unsuccessful noms had completed a recent peer review (within two months of nomination). I was surprised it was that low and that it was a similar proportion for both promoted and unsuccessful. About three quarters of both successful and unsuccessful nominations were already either GA class or A-class. Again, surprised it was a similar level for both promoted and not. The only significant correlation I found was that, of the 13 A-class articles (12 milhist, 1 chess) nominated, 11 were promoted, confirming the view that a formal A-class review is a good stepping stone to FA promotion. Tom B (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice approach, however I think you have not completely interpreted this to best potential.

To get these stats right, it is probably more interesting to analyse slightly different. I.e. what is the success rate/percentage of promotion for Recently reviewed articles; for A articles; for GA articles, and for none reviewed B or worse articles.

Also I think you cannot conclude from your survey that A class is a good stepping stone, as your sample is most likely not representative for the whole of Wikipedia (12 out of 13 A classes is Milhist project). With that sample you could as easily conclude that falling within Wikiproject Milhist is a good stepping stone for FA promotion (correlation is not causation). Arnoutf (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're showing is that success at FAC does not correlate with any of the other quality assessment schemes on Wikipedia, with the one exception of A-class review at WP:MILHIST which is FAC-like in its procedures and criteria. Physchim62 (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that way, but that conclusion is confounded by the nominated articles, of which 75% seems A or GA. As of all articles on Wikipedia (that are not FA already) far, far fewer than 75% are A or GA; the nomination process attracts more than its share of otherwise rated high quality articles. I.e. the chance of an article being nominated AND promoted is much, much higher for an A or GA article compared to a non rated-Stub-Start-C-B class article being both nominated AND promoted. The selection seems to be in the nomination, more than in the promotion though; which means low quality articles are self selected for non-nomination. Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be normal and quite banal as a result. However what is interesting is that not being A-class or GA seems to have no impact on the success at FAC. It's hard to tell for sure because of the small sample size. It does point out that FAC could cut its workload by one-quarter by making A-class or GA a requirement for nomination at FAC. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor, backlogged GA. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it would not cut it by a quarter as most people who wanted to nominate would still nominate, they would just go through the other hurdle first. It would increase workload at GA, as Awadewit highlights. This increase might be about 20 GA nominations per month, though about half of those should sail through, on current evidence, with little work. Overall workload might be slightly reduced as there would be less comment/work on premature FA nominations i.e. work would be transferred from FA to GA and compacted. Tom B (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I should have been slightly less categoric on the A-class point, but it does provide positive evidence regarding that class, particularly milhist. On looking at the way Arnoutf suggests, i've already posted the a-class results, the other results are naturally about 45% given this is the overall success rate for that month and the proportions of successful/non-successful noms that are peer reviewed, GA or B are the same, as stated above. Tom B (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The backlogs at GA and WP A-class reviews are already substantial, requiring those would just increase their burdens, leading to lesser-quality reviews and no net positive result. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot know about what would happen with a requirement change i.e. that is a counterfactual assertion. It seems unlikely it would result only in an increase in workload at GA without any reduction in workload at FA. Tom B (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here—I strongly oppose the suggestion that there should be any requirements before coming to FAC, especially GAN. In my experience reviewing FACs, the GA process more often than not falsely emboldens authors to bring articles here. "I'm nominating this because it just passed GA" and so on. The quality gap between what passes for a GA and an FA is considerable, and due to the subjective and singular nature of GA reviews, the quality gap between individual GAs is also considerable. Some GAs are ready for FAC and the author seemingly went through the process just to get more feedback or because they were under a false impression of requirement. Some GAs arrive here so far away from meeting WIAFA that I would barely rate them B-class. Some editors consider GA a waste of time if the overall goal is FA. Overall, I think putting this requirement in place will be a net negative as we plant the suggestion that GA is the "final step" on your way to FA.

Why there should be no requirements at all: If you are an experienced FA writer who works hard to get an article ready and meet WIAFA, why should you have to jump through hoops? Some nominators here are so consistent in bringing high-quality content that I would hate for them to have hassles and backlogs to deal with en route. --Laser brain (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to echo this. My impression is that articles which come to FAC within a few days of passing GA often don't do well here. I would be interested to know what the numbers say. Is there any difference in the FA rate for an article which starts FAC within 1 week of going through GA, vs. one that starts 1-2 months after going through GA vs. one that has had one failed FAC? Gimmetrow 20:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the criteria for GA and FA are significantly different, it should hardly be a surprise to anyone if articles taken to FAC straight after GAN rarely faired well. That's not to say that such articles aren't worthy though, just that although they meet the GA criteria they dont meet the FA criteria. I sincerely hope this topic isn't going to degenerate into another GA bashing vehicle, 'cos if it is I'm out of here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mean to impugn GA. It has its place. Its place just isn't as a required (or nearby) stepping stone to FA. --Laser brain (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree, and I have never supported this idea of FAC prerequisites. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, I had a look but it's quite hard to define what with repeated noms and also some are nominated 1-4 weeks after being listed as GA, Tom B (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most A-class reviewed articles come to FAC, and most pass. Hence, why bother with A-class? I would do away with an extraneous step and bring articles straight here. DrKiernan (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. A seems redundant with GA and FA around. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need the eyes of someone involved with FAC/FLC/FAR/etc....

A discussion on the assesment scale is currently taking place at.[1]. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools

Time is running out to get something submitted to FAC in time for April Fools.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like Nishkid64's suggestion. Seems like as good a choice as anything else. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion several months ago was Rings of Uranus. Because bwahahahah!!! About the only article on the suggestion list I might be inclined to work on feverishly is the Museum of Bad Art. I've been fascinated with this establishment for years. --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or Moons of Uranus. :) Ceranthor 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid's will almost certainly take too long. Durova's article is obscure, so it can be short and sweet. Help would be appreciated! Then there's always Lake Titicaca or Extraterrestrial real estate, which I've started work on. Ceranthor 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Will almost certainly take too long" isn't a concern when we have a whole group of editors collaborating on it. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more, for Moni, since she primarily works on LGBT articles, Gay bomb, and Raining animals. We need to decide by today or tomorrow. Ceranthor 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of Lake Titicaca and might be able to find a photo of a diesel powered reed boat that took me to the isle of the sun. But there are some interesting candidates on the suggestion page. What do people think of Louis of England and the French invasion of England? Were Spiel Chequers 16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to take the lead on various possibilities, as Karanacs did last year, before time runs out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, Risker and I were discussed the Rhinoceros Party of Canada. Think of the blurb that could be written! However, I don't have enough time to take the lead, I'm already committed to several projects. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I can do Museum of Bad Art in about a week, but I would need assistance with copy editing and image concerns. --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moni's sense of humor and April Fools ... now there's a winning combo! You might call in Ceoil and his arts crowd, and even try to entice Outriggr. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion here, and contacted Ceoil. --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did... :o Ceranthor 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA cleanup listing

Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing is frightful. I hope editors will:

submit the worst of the bunch to FAR,
cleanup small issues that anyone can address, and
leave notes on article talk pages and WikiProject talk pages encouraging other editors to clean these up.

It's not encouraging that we have so many deteriorated FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted one to FAR, but that means I've now got two nominations currently on the FAR page. I would submit one or two more but I'm not sure if that's allowed (I'm not likely to disappear and never come back!). D.M.N. (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They won't bite, Nishkid put up 3 in one hit once. Other times, I put up once every ten days and have them in teh pipeline. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useful list! Can someone explain what "Articles containing potentially dated statements from xxxx" mean ? For example Giant Otter is listed as, "Articles containing potentially dated statements from 1997", but I didn't see any visible maintenance tags on the article page. Abecedare (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see: The article uses {{As of|1997}}. (Ignore my question above.) Abecedare (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary limit on noms

RE: "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" ... Any limit on the number of noms is stifling to the production of quality content and contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia; which is the creation of quality content. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That precept was introduced because it had turned out to be needed. Having no limit on the simultaneous number of nominations from a single user is stifling to quality, as it tends to encourage inexperienced users to nominate spectacularly un-ready articles, thus stretching the already thin reviewing resources even thinner. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Since when was the "creation of quality content" the purpose of an encyclopedia? Isn't that just a little-teeny-weeny-bit self-serving to the so-called "FA-writers"? Physchim62 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Any limit on the number of noms is stifling to the production of quality content and contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia" Eh? How exactly does limiting the number of simultaneous nominations prohibit people from creating/writing/expanding/editing articles? The FAC process exists merely to judge whether nominated articles meet the FA criteria.

There are a number of reasons why the limit is there.

Because reviewers are lacking, it prevents resources from being stretched too thin. FACs deserve to be reviewed by multiple editors. Lifting the limitation would only increase the backlog at FAC; many nominations already languish with little to no reviews.
It prevents nominators from over-burdening themselves. Some FACs are quite involved; the less burnout the better.
What Bishonen said: "It tends to encourage inexperienced users to nominate [multiple] spectacularly un-ready articles." The limit gives the FAC coordinator a handy way to deal with these typo of nominations; no longer must the FAC process be tied up by a flood of nominations by inexperienced editors, crowding out the nominations that deserve a good look from reviewers. BuddingJournalist 00:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA status =/= "quality content". I could point to many articles I firmly believe to be "quality content" that will in all probability never come to FAC. And even to some FAs that I believe are not quality content. FAC is a review process, not an arbitor of quality, however you choose to define that term. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument of lack of reviewers is lame-now THAT is self serving; and as for having of goal to impede new contribors - that's what speedy removals are for. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that was in reply to me, I really don't understand what you're saying. FAC is not the arbitor of quality; it is the arbitor of whether or not an article meets the FA criteria. The two things tend to converge, but they are not the same. Would yoy have the same concerns if FAC didn't have the ability to award litle gold stars? I somehow doubt it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, it was considered improper to nominate one's own articles for FAC. Then there was the invasion of the Socks, and it was seen that such proprieties were useless as a defense against the Vanglorious. Your current Bard was around then, but noticed too late the risks. I rang the Clarion Bell when the number of registered users was approaching the number of articles! I believe that the nomination restriction dates from that period, not that things have gotten any better since. Alas, we now have more than three times as many "users" as we have articles! Sometimes, it shows! Physchim62 (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment here is relevant to this thread, as well. What we need is common sense, not an arbitrary limit. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An arbitrary limit is easier to enforce than common sense (one editor's common sense is another's...etc.). Common sense (and fairness) would dictate that editors hold off on adding multiple noms when the list is quite long and reviewers are lacking for the other FA candidates already there, but when we relied on common sense in the past, it didn't work. What's the pressing need to nominate multiple articles anyway? Is waiting for the first one to finish such a horrible thing? Quality content is quality content, irrespective of a bronze star. BuddingJournalist 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with the one-nom-per-editor rule. Common sense is relative, unfortunately. Editors have individual views of the function of FAC or their own abilities, and I can see "use common sense" to be construed abusively. What about nominators who resist every suggestion, not overcoming by changing the article, but by arguing? What if that editor decided to nominate 5, 8, 12 at a time? Because the editor had a much different perspective on his own abilities, the role of FAC, and quite honestly, what his fellow editors are willing to tolerate? Is there any reason not to wait? We do not seem to be bound by time constraints. --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to the rule also. Unfortunately, it's one of those rules that had to be made because a small number of individuals did not recognize "one at a time" as the common sense action. --Laser brain (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of those rules that should be observed by most, but I've seen Sandy relax it for a couple experienced FA editors who are usually well-prepared. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the abritrary rule' there are enough nominations already. I have at least one article I want to take to FAC, but see no point at the moment given the backlog. Allowing editors to nom multiple articles will just make that worse. There's still GAN and ACR, and Peer-Review. Skinny87 (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing prohibits editors from creating quality content outside of FA. We need to restrict nominations here because of the severe lack of reviewers. We can always raise the number once we have more reviewers. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why so few reviewers?

Why so few reviewers? A question that's a hardy perennial on this page; Awadewit speaks of the "severe lack of reviewers" just above. I suggest an answer: because reviewing is frustrating in so many ways. For instance, for once I assuaged my conscience by writing up a FAC review, on The Lucy poems; but when I came to paste it in just now, it turned out no more comments on The Lucy poems are wanted at present. I think both the unexpected moratorium—meaning wasted effort—and Ottawa Rima's embattled responses, are the kinds of things that totally put off reviewers. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I think it is more likely that people realise the whole FA process and its reviews is fatally flawed. People spend months of their lives writing a page, others come along and make puerile comments, then it may or may not pass FAC. Then a few months later it goes to FARC nominated by some idiot who either was not born when the page was promoted, or does not understand it or cannot be bothered to try and find a few footnotes (if they must have them) or as often happens one particular discontented troublesome editor who has a personal axe to grind. The page is then demoted and sinks into the mire and abyss of shit that pages become when abandoned. No, writing and reviewing FACs is a complete waste of energy and time. Giano (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are better than Prozac. --Moni3 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano can always be counted on to turn everything into a hitlist for editors just because someone nominated his previous star at FAR. And as such, the topic veers wildly from actual process discussions into pointless drivel! ...To the more germane point, perhaps shortly before closing the delegates can leave a mention for a sort of "last call"? That it abruptly archives isn't my issue so much as when that abrupt process takes place is arbitrary to everyone else. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one will appreciate seeing Bishonen (talk · contribs) review of The Lucy poems when it's posted...it can use a fresh voice..Modernist (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, FAC isn't the only process with a "depression" of reviewers. FLC also lacks many reviewers, although its less stressful to review.--₮RU CӨ 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucy poems is a poor example as it is the exception rather than the rule. I didn't read into it that further reviews were unwanted, only that the bickering parties agreed to take a break. At any rate, I maintain that almost everyone operating at FAC is doing so in good faith. The nominators believe their content meets WIAFA and the reviewers either agree or try helping them get there. FAC is certainly different from what it was a year ago or longer, but that shouldn't devalue the time and effort of its current participants. --Laser brain (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear about the Lucy review; it was becoming entrenched and heated in one area, so we hoped that a cool down time might be helpful. Thats not at all to say that other reviewers are unwelcome, least of all editors with the ability of the likes of Bishonen. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(echoing Ceoil, Modernist and Lazer Brain) I believe all that was meant was that some of the more heated parties were taking a breather. I think further comments are welcome. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to get more reviewers an incentive may help. We give out baubles for those who nominate an article, why not give out awards for reviewing them too? Otherwise it's just a thankless, tedious job. Will Beback talk 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC had a contest (but it was mainly about nominating lists, but maybe FAC can turn it around to get more reviews)--₮RU CӨ 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't GA holding something similar? I'm not sure whether a contest for reviewing is necessary; besides the time wasted in organizing one, it may not promote quality reviews, which is more important than receiving a lot of reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly against any sort of competition. The occasional barnstar, verbal recognition, and the satisfaction of seeing articles you helped review or fix earning FA statues are pretty good incentives, in my opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving prizes as incentives to review; cheapens the whole process. It is a voluntary project; and should stay that way...Modernist (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is doing nothing an option? If not, then something needs to be done. Management books on "creating change" typically divide strategies into two categories, decreasing resistance to the desired change and encouraging it - and most say that no amount of encouragement (or pressure) will work if the main reasons for resistance are not minimised first. I think you need to do a bit of market research to discover what the main reasons for resistance are. Besides regular reviewers, I think you need to ask reviewers who have dropped out, and any who have been invited to review but have declined. --Philcha (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps everyone just needs to be a little bit nicer to one another? DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now your talkin'...good idea...Modernist (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to generally avoid FAC like the plague because I don't have time to nitpick articles anal-retentively down to every little minute detail. I generally tend to prefer reviewing GAs, because the criteria are pretty reasonable without being overly nitpicky, and you don't have to worry about really fine details,... As someone who can be considered "expert level" in the chemical, biological, and health sciences, I will occasionally try and review those for scientific accuracy,... but even then, I don't like being very nit-picky about minute things like commas and non-breaking spaces between units of measurement. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many people have the temperament to be that nit-picky, but that shouldn't keep you away from FAC. You could certainly come in and provide general comments on whether you believe the article meets the criteria of comprehensiveness and sourcing. I also think it's reasonable to say you believe the prose meets 1a having read the article. Most reviewers I've seen who are inclined to notice MoS issues will either just fix them or make a general comment that the article needs work to meet MoS. We need reviewers who will approach the reviews from different angles, not just MoS wonks (although they are needed as well). You can certainly write "The prose is brilliant and compelling, but someone needs to check it through for MoS issues because I spotted some things along the way." I'll give you a cookie if you do it. --Laser brain (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What'll I get if I write "Support this flawless embodiment of MoS, prettiest non-breaking spaces I've ever seen, P.S, the prose blows"? Bishonen | talk 21:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Probably ignored, but I can't say for sure. I would probably ignore you, at least. (Non-breaking spaces are pretty??) But what do I know, I just do sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some scratchers. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needing image review

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings~~

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I did note in my support statement that all of the images meet our policy requirements. Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, thanks! (I haven't read the full FAC yet, just scanned to see which pieces are done, and I typically encounter a separate image review.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did an image review though haven't done one before so someone should check, thanks Tom B (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll double check it. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 Images

Does the main section of an article require mutiple images under 3 Images of the criteria? - which isn't specific. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it doesn't have to have any number of images, it's just preferred. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll make 3 Images _clear_ WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles must have images (The Swimming Hole, for example). Some do not. There's no hard and fast rule for this. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean???

"doesn't add clarity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria&diff=276627392&oldid=276627157 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one cares about accuracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria&curid=4715286&diff=276629478&oldid=276628554 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does nobody visit this talk page or something?? .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 00:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the heck you're talking about, thus I haven't replied. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are funny. You don't know how to click on links? And you can't read?

Dicussion over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#3_Images —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the criteria because for some topics, it may be necessary to have an image; it's up to reviewers to decide. Please do not attack editors here, as well. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Be respectful. If you want a discussion then be clear about what you want. Don't insult people. --Moni3 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"what the heck you're talking about" is an insult. So glad you take sides already. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~You have not asked a clear question or made a point.~~ Clearer: I don't understand what you are protesting or asking. What is your issue? --Moni3 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like WhatisFeelings? is trying to adjust criterion 3 to explicitly state that images are not mandatory for an article to become an FA. His/her changes were reverted and I suspect that is the cause of the apparent frustration. Эlcobbola _talk 00:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Does this translate as "you want criteria 3 removed, or made clearer that it is not essential that an article include an image to reach FA status"? If so, say so; if not, then add me to the list of people who don't understand exactly what point you're trying to make. – iridescent 00:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe this is what s/he means. Note that this is a new editor. BuddingJournalist 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "It has images ... where appropriate" is clear enough. Shouldn't this discussion be moved to the talk page about the FA criteria? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New FAC and FAR delegates

Marskell has been missing since last year, and Sandy has told me she's going to have less time in the future to help out on FAC. At her request and the request of others, I'm going to appoint a few new delegates for FAC and FAR.

I've asked YellowMonkey and Karanacs, and they've both said yes (although with a baby on the way, Karanacs did so hesitantly). So what I'm going to do is this -- I'll make YellowMonkey FAR delegate, and Karanacs FAC delegate. Depending on the workload and Sandy's thoughts, I might also add another FAC delegate. Raul654 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 322: / Line 322: @@
 ::::::Yes, I believe this is what s/he means. Note that this is a new editor. <small>[[User:BuddingJournalist|Budding]]</small>[[User_talk:BuddingJournalist|Journalist]] 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 :::::::I believe that "It has images ... where appropriate" is clear enough. Shouldn't this discussion be moved to [[WT:FA?|the talk page about the FA criteria]]? [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 01:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
+==New FAC and FAR delegates==
+Marskell has been missing since last year, and Sandy has told me she's going to have less time in the future to help out on FAC. At her request and the request of others, I'm going to appoint a few new delegates for FAC and FAR.
+I've asked YellowMonkey and Karanacs, and they've both said yes (although with a baby on the way, Karanacs did so hesitantly). So what I'm going to do is this -- I'll make YellowMonkey FAR delegate, and Karanacs FAC delegate. Depending on the workload and Sandy's thoughts, I might also add another FAC delegate. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)