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, 40, 41

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 22:54, 23 June 2009

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

RFC to make Wikipedia:Plagiarism a guideline

Please make your thoughts known here about whether or not we should elevate Wikipedia:Plagiarism to a guideline. Thanks. `Awadewit (talk)

Update: the above is now a guideline, but its status as such is disputed: Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Remove disputed tag from article page. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

links to Google Books

Hey, during copy editing a FAC I rmvd all the links to Google Books, because I thought I remembered all and sundry agreeing heartily that links to Google Books are a Very Bad Thing to have in a Wikipedia article. Was I wrong/delusional (yet again)? Ling.Nut (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can be very practical in theory, leading directly to the relevant page and highlighting a cited passage, but they decay over time and require refreshing. That latter point I've heard as a reason not to use them. JN466 09:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall we have any clear policy on the Google Books, but their links' use is recommended at Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Electronic_equivalents. Yes, they occasionally decay when a book is shifted to a more strict copyright mode, or when some editions are combined, but in my experience, more then half of the links I've added few years back still work. I strongly suggest keeping such links, and even demanding them, as they are very useful; if they rot, they should be dealt with as any other rotten links - recovered when possible, removed when not. However, removing those links - which are extremly helpful for insta-verification - is (no offense and IMHO) akin to the v-word. I suggest that once we hopefully reach consensus that Google Book links are helpful, we can discuss where this should be clarified, policy wise, and how we can update the existing citation templates to work with them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find GB links very useful. I don't think they're WP:COPYVIO in any way, as they are only links, and AFAIK are the product of a marketing agreement between GB and the publisher. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much of a problem with the links being included, but I do not want GoogleBooks links to be a requirement in an FA. --Moni3 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with her. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? They are extremly useful. We should encourage the use of this great (and free) database. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me three. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Why not link to project Gutenberg? or the Internet Archive? I think requiring people to link to a single project is not a good idea. Bibliographies are there for a reason. Awadewit (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any suggested making any online content link mandatory - I interpreted the original question as "are GB links forbidden?". Likewise IMO we should not exclude other online content links. --Philcha (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I just wanted to nip that issue in the bud. Process creep happens sometimes when a bunch of FAs within a short period have similar characteristics. I don't ever want it misunderstood that links to GB in some articles means they're required for all. --Moni3 (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) I thought someone said blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, and when you post links to Google Books it reveals personal info. Or something. Even if it doesn't, I think it's free advertising for Google books, which is kinda unsightly. But that's certainly not the Unforgivable sin. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google's free, and it provides us with a useful tool, so why not advertise for it? :) It's kind of like saying that we shouldn't use GPS coordinates (advertisement for GPS and services like Google Maps) or list camera type for photos (advertisement for cameras). Anyway, can I presume that the GBooks links that were removed will be readded, and that some policy (WP:CITE?) will now have a mention that GBook links are ok to add to citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share Awadewit and Moni3's concerns. Google Books is just one of several online providers of page views of published books, and should not be favored over any other. Process creep is also a real problem--many books do not have page views available on Google Book Search, and I don't think we want to head in a direction where reviewers will demand editors cite only books that are electronically accessible. (And if you don't see that as the likely outcome of the promotion of GBS links, I have some brilliant prose to sell you.) DocKino (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with a person using the source linking to it for others' convenience. A lot data, eg sports statistics are available at different websites and if one person chooses to use CricketArchive instead of Cricinfo or vice versa I don't think that is advertising just because of the link. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view it that way, either. What I'm concerned about is formally prioritizing one electronic resource, especially a commercial one, over others. And what I'm even more concerned about it the process creep promised in a line like this, from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style#Electronic equivalents: "Eventually we can begin linking all book citations to their electronic equivalents." Can we, really? Should we? Must we? The slope from the presumption "we can" to the decree "you must" won't need much grease. DocKino (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is slightly different, I worry about too much usage of just searching Google books for information without striving to secure the entire work and understand the entire context of the author's arguments. While I'm not going to discourage links to Google Books, I wouldn't want to encourage them either. I'd rather see links to various non-profit sources of these works (such as British History Online or the Avalon Project or Project Gutenberg before Google or Amazon. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends very much what the book's subject and structure is. E.g. many books are compilations of papers, each of which is standalone; and even in books written in one piece by the same single author / team one can e.g. mine the chapter on arthropods and ignore the one on molluscs. OTOH a book on a large new theory may devote a few chapters to summarising and critiquing existing theories, and one has to be careful to distinguish between what is the author's theory and what is a summary of another one. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a big difference between Amazon and Google. I'd prefer to link to an open source archive (if possible, wikibooks or wikisource), but the bottom line is that we should link to the best archive, and in my experience, Google Print with its links to the page and highlighting of key phrases is currently the most user-friendly. Perhaps a compromise solution would be to develop some template or function, similar to how our links to ISBN work, that would tell the reader which online archives have this page and let them chose from it? My point is not that we should prioritize Google Print over other archives, my point is that we should encourage using the best online archive that currently exists. The bottom line, as mentioned by several editors, is that such links are helpful, both to editors and readers, and thus they are a good thing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Ealdgyth has a fair point that like googling with a certain bit of information you're looking for, just getting a snippet of a preview page may not give you all the info you need, especially if the previews cut out. (Of course, you can just delete cookies and the cache and then read the rest of the book that way, but some books just dont have the full text online, which might be necessary.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/example style. Ling.Nut (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that our Harvard citation template works with external links (like Google): [1]. Ling.Nut, I hope you'll find time to restore the links you removed (at least from my FAC article)... thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that we do not link to GB because the address is not static. Fine, but an inderect through the internet archive solves that problem. I think a link would be useful as it would reveal those who are working from actual books, vs. thoes who are gleaming a word or two from snippet view, and piecing together the rest. Further, although I do not have direct access myself, I do know a few eternal students, and I would very much like to see JSTOR articles hyperlinked. A far better resource than GB (at least for the areas I work in), if you are fortunate enough to have the avenues. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All links are affected by linkrot, Google Books in my years of experience is doing so-so with this - most links (75%?) that I've added few years back still work. PS. As far as I know, Google Book links are not compatible with Internet Archive.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very pragmatic, but I don't like it in principle. We should not be preferentially linking to a particular external web site across a broad scope of articles. The reason that there is a special ISBN follow-through link page is to allow the reader a choice in accessing further information about the book. (I believe there is a Wikipedia option/plug-in that allows the reader to bypass the intermediary page and go straight to Google Books or WorldCat or whatever. Not helpful for the Average Reader of course. Nor do all books have ISBNs.) I'm torn, because Google Books is just that useful, but I think the principle is paramount. In that vague conceptual notion of Wikipedia--a self-standing encyclopedia--the fact that it is a web site that can contain links to the WWW is incidental. Outriggr (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial point here is that ISBNs don't allow us to link directly to a specific page. Google Book offers a single, relatively stable link linking directly to the cited page. If there would be an open content alternative, I'd say we should use it instead, since there isn't, we should use the best option remaining. And let's be frank - Google is not that evil, really :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the principle on which you object? If it's "We should not be preferentially linking to a particular external web site ...", we do it all the time - for academic journals. At least Google Books does not have monopoly rights over the content it presents, so editors are free to link to other sites that are similarly helpful. --Philcha (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not understand this principle. Since Google Books is that useful, a link to content the reader will find useful (for verifying, or for further information) can hardly be described as problematic. The reader still has a choice to access further information about the book, since information about the book (Author, date, ISBN) can be found on the left-hand side of Google Books. I also prefer linking to JSTOR articles over no link at all. Although JSTOR requires a subscription (which most readers won't have access to), readers don't need a subscription to see the first page of the paper. There's often an abstract on that page which can verify the material in the Wikipedia article. Even though the fact that WP can contain links to the World Wide Web is incidental, making the content easier to find by including relevant links is a service to the reader, and shouldn't be discouraged. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also find Google Books useful for verifiability, and created {{Google books quote}} to provide easy links to source material in footnotes or during talk page discussions. It is amazing how it cuts through an argument if you not only tell other editors what the sources say, but let them see for themselves via a handy link.

OTOH, I wholeheartedly agree that use of Google Books should be entirely optional, and diversity of offwiki sourcing should be encouraged. In most cases the ISBN link does that job perfectly. Geometry guy 10:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles which are found wanting at FAC

Following this discussion on what to do when an article's GA status is brought into question at FAC, I have set up Category:Good articles in need of review to provide a mechanism for drawing GA editors' attention to problematic articles. The category is automatically listed by a bot, and changes can be watchlisted here. At the moment this list is transcluded onto the good article reassessment page.

To add an article, just place its talk page in the category. This feature is experimental, and comments and suggestions are most welcome. The intention is that GAs which are unsuccessful at FAC and have obvious weaknesses be added to the category for review by the GA process. Geometry guy 11:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be good to surface a more visible way of determining that someone has added this to that category? Like a template of some sort that automagically adds the talk page to the category and that provides a parameter for users to give some sort of reasoning as to why they are putting the article in that category. The template could be just inserted in a new talk page section rather than cluttering the top of talk pages. Would also help to contribute to discussion. TwilligToves (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this? Geometry guy 11:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thinking about this a little more, this strikes me as a bit of process creep. The whole idea of GA is that it's supposed to be lightweight, no? Therefore, if someone comes across an article that s/he feels doesn't meet the GA bar, shouldn't they just open a GAR? TwilligToves (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should, and it isn't the intention of this to discourage that: please see the discussion that initiated this idea and the parallel thread at WT:GA. In particular, this mechanism is intended to provide an easy way for Sandy and Karanacs to notify the GA process when they close unsuccessful FACs of weak GAs. They surely don't have time to make multiple GAR nominations with all the work they do for the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 12:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! It would be a bit uncomfortable for FAC closers to be put in the position of initiating multiple GARs :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empty FARCs

There are quite a few at WP:FAR. Most of them are pretty obvious but don't have much feedback YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at it. Obvious keeps or obvious removes? :) --Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly obvious removes for no references but I removed some of them with only 1 nom + delist because they were so obvious and traffic is so low YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic diamond

GimmeBot has closed FA nomination synthetic diamond here and there in the midst of a review. Could someone have a look at that please.Materialscientist (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was asking the reason for delisting. There was no unasnwered doubt on the content or quality of this potential FA, and the reviewer was just gradually improving the presentation. Technically we can continue by renominating, but I'm sure the reviewer(s) would prefer to have their old comments back. Any advice ? Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "delist[ed]", it just wasn't promoted. There was no consensus to promote. I saw two opposes and no supports. I suggest working with the reviewers to finish implementing their suggestions, then renominate. The long review page (and two opposes) turns off other reviewers. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: (i) what would you say if I renominate the article now and we continue the review (i.e. are there limits on successive renominations ?) (ii) FA is all about quality of the article; how about quality of the review comments ? What I mean is that anyone who "opposes" FA should provide a valid reason, which should be judged by a third party; am I missing something ? Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a few weeks to work with reviewers on finishing up issues raised, and bring it back in a few weeks; other articles also need a shot at increasingly limited reviewer time. Carrying FACs too long bogs down the page; peer review is a better venue for continuing work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I find myself wondering why FACs keep getting closed during the midst of ongoing discussion. Everything I had written up to that point, both on the FAC page and in my edit summaries (see this as an example) very clearly indicated that I was going through the entire article and that I wasn't done. Aye, Dabomb is right in that there wasn't consensus to promote, but that's only because the only person who actually looked at the content of the article (me) wasn't finished! Instead of making these decisions arbitrarily, perhaps the FAC delegates could actually discuss the matter with the reviewers or, at the very least, read through all of the material to make sure that all the involved parties seem to be "done", since it doesn't seem like that happened here (nor did it happen at GRB 970508, nor 243 Ida, nor Euclidean algorithm). If these obviously premature closings occur as an attempt to satisfy the burning hunger to produce featured content as quickly as possible, please stop, and consider reading my first thought. In any case, please reopen the Synthetic diamond FAC. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary for the article to be at FAC for a reviewer to finish working with the nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Cryptic here. The atmosphere at FAC has become increasingly hostile over recent months due to what appears to be a race to get the nomination closed. Surely we can all agree that reviewers are few and far between these days, but it is a volunteer project after all; no-one's required to participate. Ideally we should be working together to produce quality content, not preparing for battle and proclaiming "Every man for himself"... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should be working together to produce quality content, but that can happen off-FAC, at peer review, at article talk, any number of places. There are greater problems when the FAC page hits 60 to 70 open reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, those other venues are toothless, and are even more deprived of participants than FAC is. I'm not by any means suggesting that FAC should be used as a substitute for peer review, but it just seems detrimental to archive nominations so quickly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations are not being archived quickly; by keeping the page size down, we've actually been letting them run longer than they could several years ago (so folks got used to that, and want increasingly more time ... FAC should not be used as peer review). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about a set time limit: say, perhaps, 3 weeks (excluding of course obviously premature candidates)? That would resolve quite a few issues that have driven off reviewers in the past. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than two weeks, and two opposes, is not a quick close; it's a normal closing. The nominator has engaged reviewers and has plenty to work on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If there were two outstanding opposes with no effort to address the issues at hand, then I would agree; but to archive the nomination in the middle of a productive collaboration seems a tad arbitrary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate these *&! colons. At some point, we do need to say that FAC is a forum for recognizing FAs; not producing them. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, FAC could be run in a format similar to that of FARC, with a review period and a subsequent voting period. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I'm not gonna take sides here; I'm gonna say that we've been kicking this poor dog of a thread over and over and over again for months upon months. [Note that it isn't a "dead horse," because the latter is an issue that is either wholly resolved or wholly unresolvable]. If we leave FACs in too long, everything gets clogged up. If we close them quickly, nominators get pissed. We've had proposal upon proposal upon proposal; I personally have made enough proposals to terrorize and engulf a small village in Wales. None has ever been accepted; I'm not really sure that any proposal is acceptable to a majority of FAC folks. FAC is often(perhaps always) undermanned. From what I hear, PR is undermanned too (I haven't been there much). Yes "FAC shouldn't be PR", but from my extremely limited observations, PR isn't always PR. Even at its best, the reviews at PR are not (or seldom?) as rigorous as those at FAC. But the quality of the reviews at FAC is highly variable as well. I'm starting to think that there's no hope of really finding any solution where PR does PR and FAC does FAC. It's a pipe dream. The only answer is 100 more highly committed, highly skilled reviewers... or OK may 20 more (ten apiece for FAC and PR). Without that, all I see is an endless arc of yammering and pointless talk from here to eternity. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the answer to many of the problems at FAC is often more dedicated, skilled reviewers. However, what about adding a timeline guideline that would give nominators a clearer picture of when they can expect an archive? Say, "In general, if no consensus has been reached within three weeks [or whatever the timeline should be], the nomination will be archived. Contributors are encouraged to continue working on resolving issues that arose during the nomination process." The "In general" is to give leeway to Raul/Sandy/Karanacs so that if a nomination is close to achieving consensus (perhaps say a copyedit has been undertaken and the two outstanding opposes just have to revisit) then they can delay archiving. TwilligToves (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was the one who closed the review, let me give my take on this. The nomination had been up for over two weeks. In that time period, it garnered no support or neutral commentary but had gotten two opposes. I did note that the nominator was diligently working on fixing the problems identified, and that almost all of those on the page had been addressed; however, I also noted that Cryptic had not finished the review yet, so there would likely be more issues to come. It looked to me as if the nomination had turned into more of a peer review, and since Cryptic and the nominator were already working well together I thought it best to let them continue to do so outside of FAC. I couldn't see leaving the nom open another week to finish fixing Cryptic's concerns, and then hoping that the length of it would not scare off other reviewers so that there could be supports after that. I hope to see the article back at FAC in a few weeks, with all of Cryptic's concerns addressed; at that point it will likely be in better shape to gain support. Karanacs (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<essay>

I respect Kara's intentions and decision-making, and of course I would be happy to continue working with NIMS/Materialscientist outside of FAC. However, upon mulling this over, I've come to the conclusion that the real problem is that there is a fundamental incompatibility between, as LingNut put it, "FAC is a forum for identifying FAs, not producing them" and WP:FAC's "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". If I were to try to follow the first guideline, I would be forced to simply write "Oppose. Prose needs tweaking." but not write out individual concerns, which would violate the second guideline. If I were to try to follow the second guideline by listing out my concerns, I would apparently be violating the first guideline. I've seen examples of both extremes: This for the first guideline; the closure of Synthetic diamond for the second.

Since these two guidelines are incompatible, only one of them can be correct. Let us assume that the first, "FAC is a forum for identifying FAs, not producing them," is correct (I realize that neither Kara nor Sandy have stated or endorsed this rule of thumb in this discussion, but it seems to encapsulate their points of view quite well). The nominator would have to, in order to avoid an oppose from me or any other line-by-line reviewer, essentially predict which FAC reviewers will be reading through the article and work with them before the FAC actually happens. Neither authors nor reviewers should be obligated to work in such a way. It appears that this guideline is false and that the second guideline is correct.

However, there is one other problem at hand: At the FACs for Euclidean algorithm, 243 Ida, and Synthetic diamond, I did line-by-line reviews. In all three cases, the FACs were closed before I was finished going through the articles. For the first two, my review was listed under a "Comment"; those two passed. For the third, my review was listed under an "Oppose"; that one failed. To some, this may appear to be a mere coincidence, but considering that there is often only one reviewer who takes the plunge and really picks apart the article (although this wasn't the case for Euclidean algorithm), I remain unconvinced.

All that having been said, there are some questions that need answering: How can editors do their line-by-line reviews without being interrupted? How can such line-by-line reviewers list their comments without necessarily endorsing or opposing the article's promotion? The answer that Kara and Sandy seem to advocate is a peer review outside of the FAC. However:

The peer review with the FAC reviewer can only occur after the FAC has already started.
It is both inconvenient and illogical to have two FACs and one peer review page created simply because of one reviewer's compulsive need to go through the article line-by-line.
The FAC for Gamma-ray burst spanned approximately a month and a half, during which time very high-quality work was being produced by all of the involved parties. Best of all, neither Wikipedia nor the world itself exploded as a result.

Finally, I would like to invoke one of the most useful phrases ever written: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

All that having been said, I have come to one conclusion: Forget about closing FACs early. Forget about opening peer review pages when reviews are already in progress. Forget about inconveniencing everyone for the sake of "unclogging" the FAC process. If there is ongoing discussion at an FAC which will result in improvements being made to the article, let that discussion continue in its original forum for as long as is required. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

</essay>

Hear, hear. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is a contradiction that can only be overcome with experience. This is particularly vexing for newcomers who have limited involvement in witnessing the FAC process, so I understand MaterialScientist's frustration. I think almost everyone has had at least one article that has had to be archived to start it again. It is difficult not to see it as a failure. We should do our best to change any culture of viewing archived nominations as failures. However, it is unreasonable to expect reviewers to give line-by-line criticisms in all nominations, and FAC should not be treated at peer review. You're willing to give very detailed reviews, which is very commendable, but taxing to expect it of all reviewers. I'm not sure what the happy medium is. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on something that has been mentioned a few times here, but Peer Review isn't useless. I find it very helpful and get at least one independant, helpful review with each PR I start. I think more folks need to see PR as a step in the process towards FAC, not as a "useless" bit of nothing they can avoid. Another thing, if you're going to do a line-by-line review, that's really better taken place on the talk page of the article, whether before or during the FAC. As a reviewer, I find a long huge FAC page to be offputting. I'd rather see detailed point by point discussions take place on the talk page, especially when there is a lot of back and forth between the nominator and the commentor. As a nominator, my goal is to get my article ready before I bring it to FAC, but that's my goal. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion with other nominators, but I think it's best to agree to disagree, and understand that not everyone shares everyone else's opinion. The FAC delegates have to balance a number of different viewpoints on the process. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Cryptic's question, state your oppose and summarize the rationale on the FAC with some examples, and take your line-by-line review to the article talk page, where it can continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I suppose that would work. That way, whether an FAC is promoted, archived, or eaten by bears, my review can continue in the same place. I had thought that this separation of the review from the FAC would be inconvenient, but from Ealdgyth's point of view, it seems to be the opposite. Fair enough. Henceforth, I will review FACs on the article's talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic diamond 2

Forgive me, I am newcomer here, I do not know the past debates and do not want to criticize anyone. I am just a professional scientist dedicated to wikipedia who wants to make it better. What I wanted from the above thread is to get answers what have I done wrong and what should I do to make things better. I haven't got those and therefore starting a new thread asking the same questions. I was given answers, but let me explain why I don't understand them:

My article is by no means ideal. it raised questions, but they were all minor technical, and I answered them all. Delisting from FAR does mean rejection to me. How could I make it better ?
I understand it took time to raise and answer those questions, but I replied ASAP. What could I do better in this regard ?
It was suggested that the review process can be finished aside of FA project. Forgive my rudeness, I am grateful to all referees, especially to Cryptic C62, but I feel they took the assignment (of reviewing my article) because they wanted to help wikipedia and the FA process, not because they were eager to read my article (yes, science is often boring !). In other words, this review process is the part of FA system, and that yields the best WP articles. How can I recreate it outside FA ? Best regards. Materialscientist (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start a peer review, and ask the editors who commented on the FAC to continue listing their concerns at the peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Materialscientist, please understand that because wiki is a volunteer venture, a closed FAC here in no way resembles the peer review or "rejection" one may receive when submitting to a professional journal. A closed FAC is merely a chance to come back in a few weeks, better prepared, after working with the objectors on the original FAC, usually with quicker results than letting the FAC stagnate at the bottom of the page, where it might not attract further attention, would yield. Unlike a professional journal, we rely on volunteers; we must keep the page manageable to optimize the time of those volunteers. (I'm not in favor of any constraints, such as those mentioned above, on the FAC page, because every FAC is different, and the closers try to do what is in the best interest of the article.) Tips for getting an effective peer review can be found at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. We hope to see you back in a few weeks, with a successful outcome! SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Minimum size for an FA?

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but a quick look through the archives shows nothing. I've noticed several FA nominations with less than 1000 words in the last few weeks, and personally I think that is simply too short for a featured article. Of course 1(b) of the criteria states that an FA should be "comprehensive," but I think we should complement this with a requirement that an FA have at least 1500 words of readable prose (the DYK Checker can be used to count this quickly). Generally speaking, articles shorter than this simply do not represent Wikipedia's best work, even if they do technically pass the criteria.

As an (extreme) example of the following, consider if I wrote an article on Jaguars in Antarctica. The article would simply read: "There are no jaguars in Antarctica." Assuming I could find some reliable sources for this, the article would technically pass all of the criteria (if it didn't get speedily deleted).

The other problem with FACs <1500 words is that it's often hard for a reviewer to know what he/she doesn't know. After reading a very short candidate, I generally find myself thinking "That's it?" and I often have a few specific questions, but it's hard to know what to ask. Furthermore, authors often respond to queries with "sources don't say," so it's very challenging for a reviewer to figure out how to suggest fixing the article. On the other hand, a firm requirement of 1500 words would ensure that the initial author produces a fairly comprehensive piece before submitting to FAC. Cool3 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear how you can say that "a quick look through the archives shows nothing", when there is an entire archive labeled on this page as "Short FAs", and another labeled "Short FAs cont'd" (carefully set up in separate archives by moi) !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smacks self with trout. That's what I get for using google to search the archives instead of just looking. Thanks for pointing that out. Cool3 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the shortest FA is Tropical Storm Erick (2007), at 688 words. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Ditch is currently the shortest, and Intelligent design the longest. The stats are at Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length should you care. – iridescent 16:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pssh, that's by file size, which is misleading as it's not by actual words. If we go by readable prose size, Star Trek: The Motion Picture blows away ID by a good 3000+ words :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics for a more accurate measure: it is prose size, while the other (above) includes citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed to say that it turns out Nico Ditch has more words than Tropical Storm Erick (2007), but less wikimarkup. Beaten to the crown for shortest FA by a strong breezy! Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nico Ditch contains 784 words of readable prose, so Erick is still shorter. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a reviewer, I tend to read shorter FAs more critically, specifically looking to see if I had additional questions about the topic that didn't get answered (granted, I'm never an expert in the topic, so it's just my opinion on what should be covered). I also look at the sources. If the bulk of the article is sourced to self-published or otherwise primary sources, that throws a big red flag up that there might, possibly, be additional information out there somewhere. Most nominators of short articles seem very willing to list out the places they've looked so that reviewers are satisfied that a good breadth of sources have been pursued. Occasionally, I can suggest a few more places to look, and a lot of time the articles seem quite comprehensive to me anyway, so I get to support. It all comes down to the individual article. Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone intervene

I have been working productively with a number of editors and reviewers on the benzodiazepine article. For some reason an editor who I have known but not known very well for 6 months has for unknown reasons taken a personal agenda against me. They are now I believe trying to intentionally sabotage the featured article review? What can be done to stop them? I believe that I can demonstrate my accusations by submitting diffs as evidence? As FA reviews are generally short lived, a week or two and the articles are filling up with drama and childish games I would like this resolved urgently before they succeed is destroying the hard work of myself and several other enthusiastic wikipedian editors who have worked on the page. Thank you for listening.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I say sabotage, I mean using a number of WP:DISRUPT and troll type behaviours such as falsifying contents of refs, quoting out of context, starting pointless debates, trying extremely hard to put the article in a bad light, eg saying it is poorly sourced when it is 95% secondary sources, demanding dozens of refs for each word in a section, continually starting arguments, making comments knowing it will antagonise me or make me pull my hair out in frustration. Saying I said something when I didn't. I have no choice but to defend myself and the article thus furthering the troll type behaviour and drama. They mix it in with productive comments as well which is quite deceptive. This may sound like a minor nuscience but it is very close to suceeding in destroying the review process as it will soon be unreadable for the length of nonsense that is listed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are stressed. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. FAC itself has no process in place to handle dispute resolution. TwilligToves (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately from previous experience with a troll who caused immense disruption to wikipedia for years (and has only now ended up in arbcom) that dispute resolution regarding troll and WP:DISRUPT behaviour is inappropriate and useless and encourages the behaviour by feeding the troll. Also it takes too long to resolve before end of featured article review? Surely an admin can review the situation and if necessary issue a topic ban? Maybe I should not waste anymore time and just ask for the featured article review to be canceled?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISRUPT and troll behaviour I believe should be treated like vandalism, i.e., situation reviewed with quick decision to prevent further disruption and admin action discision made.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whew.. take a step back and have a cool one! I don't see what needs intervening, frankly. His/her comments seem to be in good faith and designed to improve the article (whether or not they are correct, I cannot hope to judge). I don't see the trolling you are alleging. FAC can be stressful, especially if it doesn't go smoothly, but the best thing to do is to work with reviewers to improve the article and see if you can get it passed. If you feel their comments are unfounded, state your reasons for that position. If the FA coordinators determine their feedback to be ill-founded or unactionable, it will be ignored. From the looks of it, the reviewer in question has been willing to engage in productive dialog whenever prompted. Alternately, you could agree to withdraw the article to Peer Review and ask the reviewer to list out all their concerns in one place so you can sort them out. --Laser brain (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I know because you are not familar with the refs or the article so you can't see what he is doing. This is why it is better just to cancel the nomination and review as it is very difficult to stop these people. This is how scuro caused immense disruption for years without anything happening because it was subtle (he is now in arbcom). Sceptical started editing the article productively, he is an established editor and I have never seen him distort refs, take refs out of context, say a ref says one thing and it doesn't. Something must have ticked him off, perhaps when I disagreed with one of his edits? I dunno but he just turned on me and started all this distorting refs and denouncing the article, announcing that refs say thinsg when they don't. To me who knows the refs, knows the article and also know Sceptical's editing patterns on other articles I know what he is doing. Anyway this is a perfect flashback to scuro and people saying he is goodfaith etc and 4 years later only now are people taking it seriously and considering a ban after half a dozen requests for comments, admin notice boards saying go into dispute resolution with the troll. Been there does not work. If someone is malicious they are malicious. This also started on the article talk page during FA review and then when he turned on me he suddenly jumped on FA review. I know what he is trying to do but I really do not want to get involved in trying to convince people of what he is trying to do, so best let him win and close the nomination.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But... you need to convince people of your point if you want action taken. I know it's burdensome but we all must assume good faith until there is a good measure of evidence not to. Could you succinctly demonstrate how and where he is being disruptive, preferably with difs? --Laser brain (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. If I do so, is there a possibility of a topic or article ban? I can do as you request.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount of personal attacks and off-topic posting to that FAC (~~from both sides, I note~~), normally I would ask an admin to clean up the page and remove most of it to talk. If any admin wants to have a look, that's an option, but there's so much attacking from both sides that the FAC might be better off with a restart, and a warning to all parties to stop personalizing the review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck one portion above, it appears that the personal attacks are mostly one-sided; not sure if any admin wants to attempt moving comments to talk (looks too messy to me, but I'm tired). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submiting evidence more to follow

Makes a large number of mostly productive edits. (See article history). Makes helpful suggestions on talk page such as here, asking if source is reliable enough for FA.[2] Thus demonstrating things started out ok.

Requests evidence for side effect list.[3] I point out that it is referenced by the British National Formulary.[4] By the way I think that because I dared disagree with him is what triggered the following disruptive behaviour. Starts trying to debunk the British National Formulary with original research.[5], claims that headache listed in BNF could be just due to placebo (never mind the fact drugs are compared against placebo) [6]

I provide him with additional evidence to back up the British National Formulary.[7] Claims that no proof is provided (The British National Formulary is not good enough, uptodate.com is not good enough, official data sheets are not good enough).[8]

Ok now things start escalating a bit.

This is when he starts to distort evidence.[9] He intentionally removed the first word of a sentence "severe" when copying text from the article and then trying to portray the article as being "full of errors" etc. Bare in mind 2 people had already voted I believe at this stage to support the article going to a featured article. He then went on as you can read to cite a review which spoke of 10% of people having paradoxical reactions (which includes mild or moderate paradoxical reactions). My citation was talking of severe paradoxical reactions eg rage, suicidality etc which is less than 1%. Ok this in isolation could be a simple "error" of copying and pasting but please read on. Here is source where it did not say that 10% have these severe reactions but less than 1%. [10]

In the same diff above he intentionally quoted the stats for people who had an anticonvulsant response to benzos instead of quoting the 10% who did have paradoxical reactions. Again he is trying to falsely mislead people that the article is "full of errors".

Here as I start to catch on to what he is trying to do, challenge him (I have no choice as I have to stop him trying to sabotage the FA review).[11] I then decide that perhaps if I do a compromise with him things will settle down.[12]

Here he writes in the edit summary "this article is not ready for FAC". This is when I became convinced of what his agenda was.[13] See his edit summary as well. I was forced then to quickly respond to defend myself. I cannot ignor this troll during FA review as you can see.

Much much more evidence to follow. Please let me know if this is helpful.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 95% secondary sourced, review articles, meta-anaylsis's high quality medical books from oxford, British National Formulary but Sceptical totally trashes the article saying it is poorly sourced, has stylist problems and so forth.[14] he also claimed that he was going to stop editing it.

Actually I just remembered something, above I said about him attacking the article when two people voted to support it, if I remember correctly now he actually jumped onto the FA review page after the two people supported the article being listed as an FA and made extensive efforts to make sure that it didn't make it.

More to follow.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does not belong here and isn't helping the FAC; the best way to help the FAC is to keep your responses brief, either address issues or say why you are not addressing them, and don't help the FAC become a battlefield. Editors who close FACs are used to reading around disagreements. Perhaps a read through User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article will help you relax. Agreeing with Laser, I see no need to intervene, but if your responses continue the battleground, the FAC is likely to end up restarted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandie. Thank you for your comments. This evidence is to prevent an FA being destroyed. Where should this evidence go? I don'it want to be forced to work under this environment where an editor's sole purpose is to try and destroy the FA review process and cause me maximum distress but disguising it as just his opinion. Is it better just to give up and delist the article? I will read your link, thank you. I understand that you feel that there is no need to intervene but you have not seen my evidence, I was only just getting to the hard evidence. If the FA is restarted then Sceptical will be back disrupting it so we still need to resolve the troll/WP:DISRUPT issues. Thank you for taking the time to reply.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to relax; ~~both of~~ you have made inappropriate statements, and a FAC can only be disrupted if one or the other takes the bait. Respond to valid criticism by briefly stating why you've addressed it, or why you don't plan to address it, and trust the persons closing the review to read around it. These extensive responses only cloud the content issues; stay focused on the article, not other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the link and feel that you are misreading the situation. This is not cross hairs or people disagreeing with each other. It is about someone intentionally setting out to stop the article from passing by using malicious tactics like lying about what I said or what refs say etc, probably because I must have annoyed them disagreeing with one of their edits.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don';t want to take up anymore of your time but will just ask one thing. I have lost my cool but honestly I don't think I can avoid it because I have no choice but to respond to them. My question is should I submit evidence to the admin noticeboard if it is inappropriate here? Thank you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have to respond is many of the reviewers won't be experts or have a reasonably good understanding of the subject to be able to see through how they are misrepresenting the refs or they may not bother checking the refs in detail and may assume Sceptical has a valid point especially if it is left unchallenged.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do have a choice. I've just read through the FAC again, don't see anything from reviewers that can't or shouldn't be dealt with calmly, and do see several personal attacks from you. A few days off from the FAC, to rethink how you respond to critique and the scrutiny of a FAC, might help; there are some valid issues raised that should be dealt with calmly. There is no hurry. There are plenty of pharm editors who can review this article; there is no need to be so upset. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the other reviewers at all only sceptical. I shall submit evidence to the admin noticeboard tomorrow. Thanks. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions

Could somebody point me to the discussion where the "significant contributor" bit was agreed on? It strikes me as a bit odd, and I haven't been able to find it in any of the archives. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive27#Monthly update of substantive styleguide and policy changes. – iridescent 16:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink analysis

Is there a tool to analyze which terms have been linked in a wikipedia article, how many times they are linked etc ? Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWB can certainly generate a list of all the links on a page. I'm sure there's an easier way though. – iridescent 16:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am too lazy to register and install AWB, can someone with access analyze On the Origin of Species and post the results at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/On the Origin of Species/archive1 ? Context: While reviewing the article I thought that several terms were overlinked, but a quantitative analysis will help confirm/refute my suspicion and also help the article editors deal with the issue. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up...

Someone's playing with the citation and cite templates. Look at the references section for Paulinus of York for an example. I've dropped a note, but I'm not very happy about the sudden additon of white space and the sudden inability to add information after a template without a new line starting. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what's sudddenly (in the last 45 minutes or so) screwed up the spacing of seemingly every bibliography section? – iridescent 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my guess, yes. Feel free to head over to Template talk:Citation/core to discuss it. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of why I did the citations manually at Tourette syndrome; can't stand the vagaries of those darn templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you depended on me to hand format citations, they'd show up in five different forms for five different citations. I just don't do that level of detail for citations, never have been able to. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had better fix this before Giano sees the mess it's made of Buckingham Palace#References… – iridescent 17:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should just revert the recent changes and make the person who messed it up get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Someone who is an admin, that is. Ling.Nut (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to the diff and I will revert. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which of the last two edits there messed it up: Gimmetrow would know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue either. Eubulides is my hero for posting a note there explaining it in template speak, which I don't speak. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Idea: revert the lot. Ling.Nut (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nutty Ling, you are the ultimate colon non-conformist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the most recent change, but that didn't solve the problem. Can anyone who understands these things work out which of these has screwed it up? – iridescent 17:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The article that got Ling and I up in arms is Robert Foliot, which is nice and short and has the advantage of showing the changes at their worst. Blech. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) For the heck of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx3) I hate hate hate hate those damn colons. For a while I tried counting colons, then I decided I could just copy/paste and add one... but then I decided, I hate hate hate threads that are as narrow as wineglass stems. So screw 'em. I almost never go past three colons. Ling.Nut (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Purge the cache and the pages should be back to normal. – iridescent 17:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyrie FAC

I have objected to the Valkyrie article, since I do not think, (largely for reasons of bad prose and poor article structure,) that it comes up to the required standard. The article has supporters. Therefore it would be useful if some other editors could review the article with a fresh eye. Xandar 00:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Printed FAs

... would look like this and be unusable. Conserve paper, ~~no more FAs!~~ read online. :) Abecedare (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre logic, but I so want that book... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books and DVDs of WP just defy the whole purpose of the project. Why on earth ... it baffles me. Tony (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a PDF or similar, so i can print it out? :) --84.44.154.239 (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can generate a PDF file of any Wikipedia article by clicking on the "PDF version" link in the toolbox on the left-hand side of the screen. Today's FA gives a 15-page PDF, of which 11 pages are article text and the rest are licensing details which would need to be included if the PDF were ever to be republished. Physchim62 (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the version which Abecedare posted. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.154.239 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many encyclopedias are devided into multiple books anyway so not a good example, for example a book for each letter of the alphabet. Extensive encyclopedias are too large for one book. Wikipedia is no different.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleadingly precise currency conversions

Please see this discussion on the talk page of a recently promoted article. Tony (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

Administrators are very welcome to join, so long as they meet the criteria for admission, and so long as they are committed to the core objectives of the Association, including supporting other members.

All nominations will be by me for the moment, but other nominations are welcome - please use the space provided here to nominate anyone who you think would be eligible and interested (which may include yourself). When there are enough nominations, there will be an election from among the nominees.

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something spawned by this by Iridescent (placing blame where it lies) is the idea of an Article Writers' Noticeboard, currently being formed in Juliancolton's user space. I think this is an interesting idea that potentially could merge the writing issues of FA, GA, and other content issues. However, there are also possibilities of abuse. I don't think it should be used to ask for copy edits on articles that need content assistance, or be used to solve conflicts about content in contentious topics. Others may wish to anticipate problems with such a forum. --Moni3 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. And it's live! --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content noticeboard

Just as a heads-up, I've created Wikipedia:Content noticeboard per what appears to be a fairly solid consensus; see here for background context. Any suggestions/comments are appreciated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and this thread entitled 'Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#FA/GA Boycott' may be of interest. –xeno^talk 20:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community input

To start off, I don't have anything personal against any of the FA staff. But there seems to be a lack of community transparency as to how the people who judge featured articles are selected. When, if ever, was there an election (or consensus-based process) to determine the FA director or staff members? Stifle (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here. – iridescent 11:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the ratification of Raul as Featured Article Director occurred here in 2004. While the voting pool was relatively small (25 editors), silence implies consent, and it wasn't until 2008 that Raul's position (at least as the selector of TFA), was challenged. No vote occurred, but consensus (or at least lack of it) reconfirmed his position. Steve ^T • C 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Seems reasonable (on the delegate front at least), but I would prefer to see this as a community-led procedure (possibly like ArbCom elections but less threatening). Stifle (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an actual issue with the current director, delegates or whatever? Unless I'm missing something, this sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Majorly talk 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am curious too Stifle, is there a discussion somewhere which preceded your query? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. I think the directors and delegates have done a fantastic job, and I see no reason to indicate otherwise. Many in the community probably don't even know that there is an FA director, let alone their responsibilites; therefore, holding a community-wide poll sounds like the wrong idea, as well as process creep. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to the view that wikipedia polls are a poor substitute for picking the right people for the job regardless of whether you, me, or anyone is pally with them. So I don't really see a problem here that needs to be solved. The best people to decide who would make good FA delegates are the FA director and the delegates themselves. Who better to know what the job entails, and what skillsets it requires? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could also have a system where there were no need for "FA delegates" or an "FA director". Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be ideal, but as far as I see it, they are like the bureaucrats of the RFA process - they don't choose what becomes featured or not, they choose based on the comments made on the candidates. They are (usually) fair, though sometimes a little heavy-handed for my liking. I don't have a problem with the current people who do it - they know what they are doing, and are long-term veterans of the FAC process. Again, I'm not sure what the problem is here. Majorly talk 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein

After a very distasteful experience with the FA process I have abandoned work on the Albert Einstein article. I have done a lot to it to get it up to status and if someone is interested they should be able to get it to FA status relatively quickly. Most of the remaining work is related to cleaning up and pruning down the references.--Kumioko (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your lingering frustration. First, do not consider the archiving of the FAC to be a failure. Nearly everyone who has participated in the FAC process has had to re-nominate an article. I disagree that it might be quick work on this article. It appears to be a simplified look at his life, but I would ask for much more detail about his achievements. He was the most influential scientist of the 20th century, yet the legacy section does not address his impact not only in the scientific community, but elsewhere. I would suggest at the least two peer review several months apart, asking scientific wikiprojects in particular to participate. Have you read other FAs biographies on scientists? Check out Frank Macfarlane Burnet, Johannes Kepler, and Edward Teller. I'd focus on Kepler's article since it gives what appears to be good detail on Kepler's theories and discoveries. --Moni3 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sore about it not getting promoted, I am sore that it was closed as I was making changes. If I was not making the changes I would expect it to be closed after a period of time had gone by or if the article was grossly lacking, which I do not beleive it is. It had some changes that where required but it was nothing that wasn't fixable. By the way I spent about ten hours repairing the remaining issues including adding some content, expanding some references and info, and pruning the list of over 100 references down to about 40 solid ones. I have deceided not to make the change though because it was felt that I was not a major contributor. I found out the article was closed when I went to make the last change. I also do not understand what you are talking about. Identified in the article are several of the most significant achievments, it discusses his views on Nazism, Zionism, the atomic bomb and religion. Also included are a number of forks and links to other articles that are also about him or things that he did. Due to the overwhelming amount of data available about him and the sheer volume of books he himself published it would be unrealistic to document every detail of his life in this one article. With some biogrpahies including the one you attached there is a limited amount of info available, in this case there is almost too much so we have to trim it down. Case in point you could devote an entire article just on his childhood, 1 for his life while attending college or working as a patent clerk, many of the books he wrote have an article and many of the hundreds of theories and ideas also have articles. If I missed a major topic or need to add data to one then someone could have just said that and I would have found it. All I am saying is that good faith should be assumed before just closing an article without so much as a statement saying it wasn't ready. Additionally, none of the 3 articles you gave me is over 75K, Albert is already at 97K so if we add too much more we wil be hitting critical mass.--Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming "peer review" to "internal review"

This post is a notice for a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Peer review#Renaming "peer review" to "internal review". Since our review process is a step in writing featured articles, editors interested in candidates for FA status might also be interested in the name of the review process. Please participate in the discussion at the link above. Thanks! Ecto (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review needed

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Symphonic Poems (Liszt)/archive1

All images captioned, and orientated correctly, File:Franz_Liszt_conducting.jpg would be better licenced as free everywhere, not just US, due to age, all other images fine Fasach Nua (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jjraffportrait.jpg is missing essential info for validation of license. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strdubmainaltar.jpg does not have licencing information about the 3D work it is derived from, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! When I'm reviewing FACs, it's unlikely that I'll remember comments left on this page; they should be left on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why the peer review bot isn't reviewing FAC?

It seems to me that it would be pretty useful to have around? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be very lengthy and not always accurate ... and it takes a lot of space. I seem to recall a discussion a while back where it was decided someone was welcome to leave the results on the article talk page, but they wouldn't really be helpful here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well right now it leaves the results on a subpage. See for example Wikipedia:Peer review/Virtual camera system/archive1, with its the bot review stored at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/June 2009#Virtual camera system. While the review is not always accurate, they are also rarely completely useless: at the very least, it's something to chew on while waiting for comments. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date unlinking bot proposal

The community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and comment here. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text in images

Now that the Wikimedia software supports alt attributes in images, and the WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:ALT guidelines recommend alt text, I propose that the featured article criteria should also mention this, with the following change (insertion underlined):

"Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, useful alt text, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly."

I brought up this proposal earlier, at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria #Alt text in images, and it was suggested that I mention the proposal instead on this talk page, which is better-watched. Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 376: / Line 376: @@
 The community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see '''[[Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot]]''' and comment [[Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC|here]]. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 13:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
+== Alt text in images ==
+Now that the Wikimedia software supports [[alt attribute]]s in images, and the [[WP:ACCESSIBILITY]] and [[WP:ALT]] guidelines recommend alt text, I propose that the [[WP:FACR|featured article criteria]] should also mention this, with the following change (insertion <ins>underlined</ins>):
+: "'''Images.''' It has [[Wikipedia:Images|images]] that follow the [[WP:IUP|image use policies]] and other media where appropriate, with succinct [[Wikipedia:Captions|captions]]<ins>, useful [[Wikipedia:Alternative text for images|alt text]],</ins> and [[Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Licenses|acceptable copyright status]]. [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|Non-free]] images or media must satisfy the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|criteria for inclusion of non-free content]] and [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content|be labeled accordingly]]."
+I brought up this proposal earlier, at ''[[Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria #Alt text in images]]'', and it was suggested that I mention the proposal instead on this talk page, which is better-watched. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)