Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

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

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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:32, 29 August 2009

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

Template:FixBunching

Image reviews needed

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samus Aran/archive1~~ NW (Talk) 05:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/To Autumn/archive1~~ ~~(pending)~~ --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ancient Egyptian literature/archive1~~ --NW (Talk) 01:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North by North Quahog/archive1 (pending)~~ --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will not be able to do any image reviews during August and perhaps September (I won't be around wiki much due to family concerns). Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the above image reviews !

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly going where no NFCC claim has gone before...

Ok, so I was talking with film-meister Erik today about some difficulty I was having in picking a good representative screenshot for illustrating key aspects of Star Trek: First Contact. He suggested that a video might be better, but noted that as far as he knew it was untested insofar as WP:NFCC compatibility (the only article he could think of that used a video was U2 3D, and I could not think of any FAs that used non-free video content). So I was wondering if I could get some neutral evaluations of the video's compatibility from the FAC crowd. I think the video still meets the criteria in regards to respecting commercial opportunities, et al, but then there's always the NFCC#8 bit... anyhow, decide for yourself. The video is placed at Star Trek: First Contact#Effects and the file description page is File:S08-first contact borg queen assembled.ogv. Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be done with a limited number of individual frames - I would argue between 4 and 6 composed as a single image would be fair to show the lowering effect. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have non-free video clips, although I can't remember where. There's probably a category. I would follow the audio rules, with common sense adjustment, if we don't have video specific rules. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a GA. Cartman Gets an Anal Probe - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Obviously I was using the audio clips guidelines in crafting the video. Technical difficulties aside, I'm not sure cutting out specific frames is as useful as the full video, but I agree that there's the nebulous 'minimal usage' clause in effect... I suppose we really need to craft a video use policy now, considering the amount of money being fronted for the development of it onwiki? (EDIT:) I should also humbly say that I feel File:S08-first contact borg queen assembled.ogv has a stronger FUR than File:CartmanAnalProbeSinga.ogg, which is apparently being used only to illustrate a character singing a song—hardly an essential part of the article.--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is illustrating a parody, a parody that is highlighted by one scholar as typical of South Park's comedy, as explained in the article, but whatever. Awadewit (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at its FUR on the image page, which doesn't really go into that, my mistake :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoices reviews an FAC!

Next Sunday, Wikivoices will be recording a podcast where we explain what is involved in reviewing an FAC. Please sign up to help us explain to the larger community the immense amount of work reviewers put in and how we can make the reviewing process better! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strongly encourage informed use of User talk:Nickj/Can We Link It

Just saw two posts by FAC regulars mildly anti User talk:Nickj/Can We Link It. I strongly encourage its informed use. Used wisely, it is a very valuable tool. People need to be trained in tiny little things like appropriate wikilinking — things we take for granted. [There are legitimate differences of opinion as to how much wl should be done, but all agree that common words or general terms not closely related to the topic at hand should be skipped]... I have repeatedly stated that GAN is the appropriate forum for this kind of education (see my user page). But GAN is not the topic here; here I'm just advocating use of the tool. Tks. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned this may lead to a need for closer checks at FAC for WP:OVERLINKing,[1] and I often find no one has checked for that and I have to pick it up myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tool is a tool. Blame the users, not the tool. Better yet, train the users. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The users will likely trend towards overlinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike things such as typo-fixing, code simplifying and making MOS fixes, which are great tasks for automated tools, linking requires considerable discretion, and should be done carefully. I'm not condemning the tool, but the problem with scripts is that sometimes users attracted to the speed and efficiency of the tool don't stop and think about what they are doing and just blindly press buttons. Also, the widespread trend on Wikipedia is to overlink; if it were the opposite I would not be so worried. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my post was not against the tool in any way. I was just reminding users that, to paraphrase someone else on that page, there's no replacement for judgement. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When testing it at Tourette syndrome, it suggested 40 links, of which I agreed with six. I'm not for or against tools, but if the use of this tool becomes widespread, we'll have to do much more careful link checking at FAC. Experience shows that such tools are more likely to be used indiscriminately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to strongly encourage the use of disambiguation checks after running it also. I'm running it on my FAs now, mainly to pre-empt future runs, but also because it has turned up some useful links that I'd missed. It's also great for checking where you've put " (double quotes) when you really wanted ''(two single quotes in a row to make italics or close italics). You do need to be very very careful on the linking, as it does return some howlers. Like any tool, it can be abused, but that's true of all the tools we use at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't make it work; when I tried to accept the six links for TS, it bombed and I lost the whole thing. (Have I mentioned that I detest IE8?) Yep, it returned some real howlers and errors for TS, and dab links as well, while none of the six I would have kept were particularly notable or necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it on two pages. For Autism it didn't work at all (it claimed the article had a syntax error, with an undecipherable diagnostic). For Daylight saving time it recommended 48 links of which I took 5. Some of the links were obvious howlers (links to deleted pages, or to dab pages), but most of them were simply not relevant enough and would have led to overlinking. Why are you still using IE8 when you can download and install Firefox? Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the syntax error for Autism. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links. Probably no more than one or two are useful:

cognitive development
scientific evidence
help children
self-care
communication skills
developmental disorders
social development
natural speech
basic language
figurative language
resistance to change
in focus
head banging
eating behavior
Down syndrome
first category
system theory
basic emotions
psychiatric disorders
high-resolution
predictive validity
service providers
residential care
risk factors
sex ratio
risk factor
psychiatric drugs
Hugh Blair
medical student
online communities

Ling.Nut (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opening text of the tool seems to be pushing the indiscrimate linking of items—the old scattergun practice: "Can we link it? ... Yes we can!" More appropriate would "Can we link it? Possibly." with a few points about the skills required to achieve good wikilinking, and links to WP:LINKING. The very absence of guidance reinforces the danger that this will be used as a toy, and easy way around the exercise of serious judgement to optimise the utility of what can be a superb functionality (wikilinking).

So, the JS Bach article picked up the New Style / Old Style date syntax at the top as an error (it's not), or at least it was objecting to some closing square bracket that I couldn't locate. It refused to proceed until it was "fixed".

The Australia article: same trouble: curly square brackets. No go on doing the link function.

This is a really boring tool. Tony (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently: I finally found an article that didn't throw up the boom-gate at the start with false-positive syntax "errors": Geoffrey Miller (evolutionary psychologist). Lots of the suggestions are undesirable. This is highly problematic, unless the tool GUI itself warns editors of the dangers of overlinking and directs them to the appropriate guidelines.

Yes, I certainly agree that a note directing people to relevant guidelines would be a Good Thing. However, I see much of the chatter here as distinctly overblown. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the opposite: that we should be much more concerned, particularly considering the samples I've seen. When I review an article before promoting it, it's relatively easy to identify missing links. Checking links to see if they were done incorrectly with this tool will take much more time, and the examples show a massive trend towards the possibility of incorrect linking. I'm concerned that if it is used by editors looking to rack up automated edit counts on their path to RFA, it could make FAC reviewing much more difficult. I'd like to see much stronger disclaimers written into the page, and encourage its use only by editors very familiar with the article, discouraging use by others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Nickj for clarification about a technical problem with his script that a number of editors have been complaining about. He has answered bottom of this section; he points out that his RL work is rather full-on at the moment, so his wikitime is limited. He acknowledges the need for careful judgement in accepting/rejecting the script's list of suggestions for potential links. I agree with Sandy: users should not be lulled into thinking they don't need to examine the link targets for specificity and relevance. Tony (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super-meh. I've been using the damn thing for... ages, not sure how long... and have never been accused of over-linking. Meh. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Nutty One, you aren't a typical editor. In fact, I'd wager that most editors who follow this page aren't typical editors. It isn't those following here we need to worry about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest if someone is going to use this tool to add links to FAs there should be something in the directions to encourage them to think twice on it. Someone linked all this in Harvey Milk. It was easily undone with a single edit, but I imagine if the editor who did it started to insist that most of that should remain linked, it would be an awful and tedious experience to go through each section and discuss each link. --Moni3 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good example of the concern! This could end up in the same kind of controversy as date linking, delinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and ran the tool over the FAs I watch, as well as some of the GAs I watch. I looked at it as a preventative measure, that way I could say that it's been run and all the relevant links included, so it wouldn't need to be run again. It did suggest a few that I missed (I didn't know there were articles on two zoologists mentioned in the Horse article, nor some of the technical anatomical terms), but yes, it needs to be used with care. It has a tendency to try to turn any phrase that's close to an album name into a link, which is kinda funny, but if it's just run bot-like would be bad for an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That urgent template again

I'm more than half way through FAC, and haven't yet found a promotable article. Reviews are lacking. I'm always wondering why we have User:Deckiller/FAC urgents if we don't aggressively use it? Anything more than ten days old without consensus should be added there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spent five mins trying to find "Hurricane Bob", which was on that list. Still looking. Tony (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, people are either a) Unwilling or b) Unaware that there is a backlog of unreviewed articles. It's no good just asking on here because those who do review already will be watching already. Places like the content noticeboard need informing as well, and maybe other places. Majorly talk 02:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct number of repeated refs?

I'm working on Ravenloft_(module)#Reception, and I want to know if a partial quote is part of a sentence, does that sentence now require a following reference? Say you have two or three of these sentences in a row, do they all need following refs? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Episode 47

The Wikivoices episode on FAC reviewing has arrived. Awadewit (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a fascinating collection of accents. All participants said valuable things. I wish I'd known it was happening. At 1 hour 37 mins, it would be great to edit it down (participants could be warned beforehand), and possibly to sectionalise it into themes (10–15 mins each?). Excellent for community bonding. Tip: participants could name each other and themselves a little more during the session. Tony (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice speedy job Awadewit.

And do I really sound like that?!

And thank you for the suggestion Tony; I'll be sure to keep that in mind for future episodes. NW (Talk) 13:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the fact that we kind of had to stop and start probably didn't help it, but that was a very speedy editing job, so kudos! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about references and citations

An FA reviewer of Otomi language is suggesting that using the <ref name > function to join multiple references into one is obligatory, and a requirement for FA-status. This wasn't the case with the two FAs I previously had reviewed. Has the practice changed? Is there a policy actually stating this? In my reading of the MOS I see no such statement. I don't want to use refname because it makes it more difficult to identify and change references when in edit mode - and because of the extra problems it causes when removing pieces of text with references in them. I also don't see the problems with having multiple separate references to the same source - why should it matter if there are three or four more notes in the reference section?

Another issue is whether to supply pagenumbers for all citations. I don't apply pagenumbers when citing a fact that is not confined to a specific number of pages but which is evident throughout the cited source. For example I cite the usage of a source which is evident throuhout the entire article - should I really supply pagenumbers beginning at the firt page and ending at the last? Also I don't put pagenumbers if the point cited is the general point of an article - and is argued throughout. Thirdly the reviewer is expressing concerns about several items in the bibliography not being in the body - this I have done because i want the bibliography to be exhaustive and to give the reader an overview of the entire field of study. Think of it as references and further reading combined. I also don't see why this would be a problem - wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and the bibliography isn't that long anyway. Am I completely out of tune with wikipedia citation practices here? ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. There is a tremendous amount of leeway (hell, I'd even say often too much so) in citation styles. As long as our policies are being followed and the citation scheme is consistent throughout the article, there's generally no issue, especially as it pertains to FA criteria. Things about pagination and bibliography is another issue which I defer to greater minds than me. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the bibliography and further reading being combined, that's going to be one of those things the MOS specifies, so you'll have to comply. See Wikipedia:Layout for details. On the page numbers, it's generally better to give page numbers for any book over 75 or so pages, unless it's completely devoted to the subject. Articles have a bit more leeway, and I've seen folks just cite an entire article or cite specific page numbers within that. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well these are articles mostly, but there are cases for example where I cite the usage of a spelling to a book that uses that spelling throughout the book. I have passed FAs with bibliography and further reading combined before, but i will check the MOS.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage coalescing duplicate citations, both as a service to the reader, and as a service to other editors, who will more easily see that a source is being multiply cited. I realize that the <ref name=foo> syntax is more work in some situations, but it's worth it. As far as I know the MOS doesn't require coalescing citations, but it's a common and good practice. For citing books, if the entire book is the source then cite the whole book; but here it sounds like you are giving the book as an example of a style or orthography, which is an unusual form of citation and verges on WP:OR, so I suggest making this fact clear in the footnote to avoid confusion (and also help to dispel requests for specific page numbers). For books I often cite chapters rather than page numbers, as chapters are typically short enough and citations to chapters can be shared more easily, but page number citations are also fine of course. Finally, I am not a big fan of "Further reading" sections that cite works not referenced; if the sources are that good, they should be cited, and if they're not good enough to be cited, then why are we pointing to them? "Further reading" sections are fine for lower-quality articles, or articles in progress, but less so in featured articles. Eubulides (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see further reading as for two types of things: 1) When the subject is covered by so many works that it's not practical to cite every single one as a source. 2) When the given books/articles go into more detail than is needed for the article itself. An example would be Ealdred (archbishop), where I listed an article about the funeral of William the Conqueror. I didn't need to cite the article, as the information relevant to Ealdred was already cited to other works, but it might be of interest to someone who wanted to go more in depth on a particular bit of Ealdred's life. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the advantages of using refname to combine repeatedly used sources is you can see at a glance how often each source has been used, and that can sometimes be useful. It can also sometimes be a red flag, for the writers as well as for readers, to indicate that a broader range of source material should be introduced. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait till we have a show/hide tool for inline refs. For me, I have come to like seeing lots of the little blue buggers but can imagine (well I hear) lotsa folks don't like too many of 'em. So.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Agree with Eubulides re further reading. If a source is unable to be used as a reference anywhere in a Featured Article, makes me wonder of its value in a Further reading section. I have seen examples but they are uncommon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience Further reading sections tend to be leftovers from before the article was developed, which nobody's yet had the heart to remove, because someone must have put them there "in good faith". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ealdgyth's comment that "Further reading" sections may be useful for "1) When the subject is covered by so many works that it's not practical to cite every single one as a source. 2) When the given books/articles go into more detail than is needed for the article itself" - Ealdgyth's example was of a bishop in William the Conqueror's time; I could sometimes add further reading to scince-related articles. OTOH Malleus's "leftovers from before the article was developed ..." often describes the actual content of "Further reading" sections. So there's no general rule, one must check each item to see if it adds value. --Philcha (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Malleus's comment is often true, "further reading" should be for standard or highly relevant works that have not been consulted; this may often be because they are in a foreign language. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the case here since the works are highly relevant I just haven't found any facts in them that I could not source better to another source - because they are somewhat to specialised for most of the general facts that I have included in this article (also some are very rare and i haven't been able to consult them). For me the point is that the references+further readings is in fact a (hopefully) complete bibliography of everything that has been written about the otomi language. The Otomi language is very little studied and to have a place in the internet with such an exhaustive bibliography is extremely valuable for anyone trying to find more knowledge about the language. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many topics that have no "standard texts" in the normal academic sense though. Added to which I'd be very dubious about the quality of an article that did not use a standard text as one of its sources. If the Further reading section is just an incomplee list of other books saying the same thing as the books used as sources, as is frequently the case, then what's the point in it? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some have none, some have several. Normally, I certainly don't think WP should attempt to provide a full bibliography at all, though this may be ok for subjects with very little written about them. Normally works read, even if not directly cited, should be in references, imo anyway, with further reading strictly for stuff not read. Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re SlimVirgin's "It can also sometimes be a red flag, for the writers as well as for readers, to indicate that a broader range of source material should be introduced" it should not be taken an automatic sign of trouble - WP has a habit of elevating such rules of thumb to principles. For example in zoology articles I typically use 2 or 3 sources for the basics, and some of these can be cited 30-40 times. There's no controversy about the basics, and using too many sources of such content will just confuse readers, especially as the sources tend to present the same content from different perspectives and therefore have quite different structures. --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re SlimVirgin's "It can also sometimes be a red flag", as it was in the recent FAC of Ralph Bakshi where close to 100 citations came from one source, Gibson, Jon M.; McDonnell, Chris (2008). "Wizards". Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi. Universe Publishing. Also, it is easier to tell if a flimsy source, such as a newspaper article is being relied on overly. —mattisse (Talk) 22:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it can be a problem, as in Ralph Bakshi - but not always, see e.g. the use of a few high-quality textbooks at Arthropod. Unfortunately WP has a habit of over-generalising and setting in concrete such rules of thumb. --Philcha (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<INDENT> I just woke up to find what a discussion has come out of my comments overnight :-) You'll have to see Otomi language to understand the points, which are more specific than the discussion above and are: (i) "Bibliography" mixes up sources which are used and never used in the text - it is not like it is a separate "further reading" (ii) For some facts, page numbers are provided and for some are not; whereas some "non-paged" facts are indeed "broad", some are very specific, and I can not understand why some facts are given preference there. Regarding consolidating references, this procedure is built in the bots, and some consolidation I've done on that article is simply AWB work. Considering that AWB is run over most articles almost every week, consolidation is inevitable, and I thus can not understand requests of the nominator to me to revert my edits. Regarding "bibliography" there being short, you have to see for yourself, but I just find out that it is being split up into "further reading". Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what AWB does, consolidation of references on an article that has specifically been constructed in another manner is arguably the sort of change from one acceptable style to another that is specifically discouraged by the guideline. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not take a general answer to a specific question. You'll have to see the issue, which is beyond any reference style. As to what AWB should or should not do, please take it to the AWB talk. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I haven't experienced these problems with my other articles using the same style. Never had AWB come change them as far as I remember.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is that AWB scanners missed them. If you wish to experiment on this, I could run AWB on your other artcles ;-) Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not some given article uses 'named references' / combines "duplicated" citations is a decision that ought to be left to the discretion, consensus and good judgement of the editors interested in and working on the given article. Just as is the case for other editorial decisions between valid style, formatting and reference system choices (eg. parenthetical vs citeshort vs 'full footnote', or BC/AD vs BCE/CE, & so on). It's horses for courses; while in some circumstances and in some opinions having named references might bring some advantages, in other circumstances and by other equally valid opinions there are disadvantages to that system that outweigh any minimal benefit, alternative systems work just as well if not better without them. There's nothing wrong with editors electing not to use them—named references are not mandated by any policy, nor are they specifically required in MOS, CITE or FOOT guidelines. Instead, the MOS general principles ought to be applied.

AWB is a handy tool that makes repetitive tasks much easier, and is good for fixing obvious errors like typos. But it's not an instrument for enforcing policy or style guidelines—it's editors who make those decisions not some rule-set (that is no substitute for actual policy or guideline).--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, usage of AWB is so much wider than the FA system that you better discuss such issues on its talk page, not here. Materialscientist (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, AWB will only combine two refs that are identical. It won't change citation styles, etc. –xeno^talk 04:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we don't have a rule saying "combine your sources when possible" then it shouldn't be required on FACs. I think we should have such a rule, but if we don't, that's fine. As far as further reading goes, it may be a red flag in some instances, but I feel it can also be a totally legitimate section. Some day, someone is going to get Abraham Lincoln up to FA, and I expect a very good further reading section to be included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review needed

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia prionotes/archive1 (I can't tell if the reviewers who have commented on the images were looking at the copyright status or not).~~ ✓ Done by NW (Talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unification of Germany/archive2~~ ✓ Done by NW (Talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tally ho?

I think I've suggested this before; don't recall why it was opposed... but why not keep tallies of all Opposes and Supports (not including Leaning or Wobbling or whatever) atop the FAC page, as in RfA? Much easier to keep track of, IMO. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be good to know about the opposes, but otherwise that sounds good to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this would be that FAC is much less !vote oriented than RfAs, not to mention the amount of updating this would require. 6 RfAs at a time is considered a lot, and !votes are numbered, so a bot can take care of it. IMO, it seems too much effort to be worth it. Mm40 (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just makes it sound like a vote. Which I hope strongly that it is not. But I'm probably wrong. Majorly talk 14:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC is not a vote, that was done before and nominators used it to misrepresent, and not all Supports and Opposes are equal: this tally would be completely meaningless while adding to the workload of maintaining the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandy here. Not naming names, but we all know there are certain serial-supporters and serial-nitpickers whose views aren't taken as seriously by Sandy and co as those of others; plus, FAC is far more fluid than RFA, and a lot of opposes are provisional pending the fixing of a particular issue - an FAC with 0 supports and 5 opposes would look like a sure-fire failure on a tally-table, but it's entirely possible that those 5 opposes would all be over something like "insufficient alt text" or "unclear fair use rationale" which can and will be resolved. – iridescent 17:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced, no tallying. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! What gurgling moron suggested this idea anyway? Off with his head! 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(In re: to Ling.Nut's comment above) Yeah! Making uncalled-for comments, having a weird user name, and *GASP* not signing his comments. I'm filling out the ArbCom request as you read...Mm40 (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA process and expert retention

Currently the problems with expert retention are being discussed in many areas of wikipedia. I think it might be relevant to consider it here at FA as well. I think the FA concept serves two functions only the first of which is currently acknowledged, while the second is in my view more important - the first function is identifying wikipedias best articles, the second and in my opinion more important is the function of providing editors with an incentive to produce great articles. My three experiences at FA have been decidedly unpleasant experiences and entirely demotivating for continued article writing (regardless that the articles were promoted). If editors nominating articles were somehow given the feeling that "hey, thats a great article you've made there - we'll help you get it that last step" instead of "How dare you write an article without Alttext and where some references lack page numbers you sloppy, lazy person - why do you even bother to show us such a waste of wikipedia articlespace!", then I am quite sure that more FAs would be written and the best content contributors would be encouraged to contribute even more instead of discouraged from contributing any new material. It is possible that I am alone with this concern and that I somehow require more acknowledgement of my contributions than other editors, or that I am more sensible to criticism, but my impression is that nobody who writes articles enjoy the FA process - and frankly I would find it strange if most editors do not have a some sort wish for recognition of the value of their contributions. So what I would ask the FA reviewing editors to consider is if they by their actions and behaviour could make the nomination seem less like an opportuinity for reviewers to sharpen their critical senses by finding every possible flaw and chastising the nominator for not having seen them and more like a helping hand to make great articles even greater by conforming to some specific criteria. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you somewhat, but my experiences are a bit different. The FAC process itself is not as stressful for me as the main page day attention. And when I say attention, I mean abuse. The response from some editors who disagree with something in the article that I constructed is disheartening indeed. I have stopped nominating articles for FA, and there is at least one I have written that I may never nominate for FA, not because I don't think it deserves to be promoted, but the stress involved in defending it will be mind-boggling.

When I criticize content in an article, I expect to justify my claims with evidence of other sources that refute claims, or provide something at least that the editor who constructed the article can use to improve it. I remain quite astonished that other editors not only choose a different tack, but opt for abuse and vehemence in the place of sources and policy. I would very much like to work on higher profile articles, but the punishments far outweigh the rewards for doing so. --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say "defend the article" - I have the same experience of having to defend one's work and I think this is fundamentally wrong. Editors should not have to defend their contributions, writing an FA candidate entails a huge amount of work (volunteer work) and is of course always done not only in good faith but with the will to give something to wikipedia and to the world, this shouldn't have to be defended - But we are pushed into the role of "defenders" because some reviewers take on a role of "attackers" instead of "helpers". ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No article is ever perfect and they can all stand to be improved in some way or another. I have no problem doing this when suggestions are helpful and they are given in the spirit of assisting content. It's easier for perhaps most editors to denigrate an article than it is for them to work a bit to find sources of their own. I welcome some discussion and scrutiny, but two editors who have no idea what they're talking about and take offense to something: a word, a sentence, a source, and are persistent in their criticism can be exhausting and harmful to content. One editor can start an RfC. How do article writers who have spent months constructing an article with over 100 cites make the point that a critic has offered noting in the way of sound sources or policy to make changes? Instead, I have been accused of owning article content for disagreeing. I understand your frustration. --Moni3 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) To offer a differing viewpoint, I enjoy the FA process, and welcome comments from any reviewer that wants to "sharpen their critical senses" to help improve any article I've submitted. The Fungus FA was a good example, many editors with varying interests participated, and the end product felt like a real community effort. I think it helps to "check your ego at the door" when putting up an article at FAC, and not take any comments personally. I may just be unjaded because I haven't had a bad experience yet. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it always help not to let your ego get affected by criticism of one's work - sometimes it is not so easy. In The currently ongoing FA I have personally been accused of deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the topic, and of all kinds of similar intellectual dishonesty - by editors who have no expertise in the area, but mereley react to orthographic mistakes and mistakes of omission. Its hard not to take that kind of comments personally. Another area that stresses me are reviewers who require articles to conform to their own personal tastes of reference apparatus, layout etc. without any back up in policy. Because its impossible to argue against what is basically statements of opinion.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Statements of opinion are easy to argue against, and carry very little weight unless supported by something more substantial than mere "opinion". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is of course that when you are in a situation where you as nominator are expected to react to criticism you are not in a position to reject statements of opinion as such or argue against them without appearing to be uncooperative.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are, and I frequently do. What you're not supposed to do is to ignore those statements of opinion, but instead to refute them if you don't agree with them. I don't see that as being adversarial. Where does it say that we all have to agree with each other all of the time? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is absolutely possible, as i have admitted, that my concerns stems from me having a more fragile personality, than others for example than it would seem that you have. But the point in issue for my part is that in a review situation like this one there is an imbalance of power - a nominator wants something an reviewers are in a position to give it or deny it - based on the nominators interaction with them. I feel that some reviewers endulge in that power imbalance instead of adopting a more collegial stance.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the issue is that the FAC process has taken all the fun out of writing FAs. I enjoy writing articles, right up to the point where I consider them for FA, then I instantly feel like a dog carrying my own leash. Every i to be dotted, and re-dotted, then dotted some more because some guideline has changed again. I feel it has gone too far, and that we're failing to attract some good writers to the FA process because of it. Each time I see a discussion about this, most of the people commenting seem to agree, yet the rules keep getting tightened even more. So the question is: is there any willingness to cut FA writers some slack? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with SlimVirgin. It's by far the worst part of writing a FA. Majorly talk 17:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)::::::::::I agree - the FA process is the worst part. The main reason I still do it is to get that feeling of closure to a project that I've put a lot of effort into. I also agree that its the writers that ought to be cut some slack, not the articles. Be nice to the writers, but strict with the articles. I am convinced that we can attain the same high quality of FAs without demotivating writers to contribute. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly isn't any will to "cut FA writers some slack", but I do share some of your concerns. Sure, FAs need to continue to be examples of our best work, but wtf has that got to do with alt text, to name a recent ill-considered addition to the FA criteria? Sweet FA is the answer. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the insistence on total compliance with WP:MOS and its offspring - for example WP:DASH makes debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead look quite reasonable. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just call me Cassandra. – iridescent 18:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's reasonable to insist that FAs comply with the MoS, given that it's so sprawling and changes so often, and that the changes are often made by a tiny number of people (sometimes just one). If that requirement were eased—changed from required to encouraged—it would make a big difference. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have problems with the MOS minutiae. Along that line, I don't even care much about main-page day "Mr. Jenkins is a fag" type vandalism. Pain in the ass, yes, but a trifle compared to an abusive onslaught from persistent editors who are avowed not to crack a book to do any work. Were it not for the MOS niggling things, I probably would have kept the attitude that it's too small to care. Now the articles I construct mirror the MOS as I knew it once. As it changes, my articles may reflect that span of months that I followed the MOS. I don't think editors should be disparaged for any reason. When I see MOS blips, I either fix them myself or list them as minor things. Prose, comprehensiveness, and sources are much more important, but if the articles look sloppy Wikipedia will never be taken as seriously as professional sources writers and editors spend hours, days, etc. on the same small issues. --Moni3 (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing we need keep in mind is that, at the moment, the MoS provision in the FA criteria is the only method by which WikiProject-generated guidelines can be brought up at FAC. There used to be an explicit provision for following subject-area guidance; but that was removed due to a feeling that not all projects could produce worthwhile guidelines, and we were told instead that we had to work towards making our guidelines a part of the MoS, and they would be given weight at that point. If we now remove the MoS provision itself, the net effect will be that anything WikiProjects produce will be left entirely out of the FA criteria, regardless of what hoops we've jumped through to ensure community acceptance of our guidelines. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the criteria were to encourage, rather than require, MoS compliance, most people would still do it. The thing about forcing people is it creates a bad atmosphere, it's demoralizing, and it gives people the green light to nitpick, which not all reviewers do (most don't), but some do. Kirill, can you give an example of the kind of style thing that might be lost, wikiproject-wise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILMOS and WP:MEDMOS come to mind as having explicitly made the transition from internal WikiProject guideline to MoS component as a consequence of the earlier change to the FA criteria. WP:MOSCHEM, WP:MOS-ANIME, WP:MOSMUSIC, and WP:MOSMATH are basically more of the same thing, but I'm not sure of the precise history behind the pages; generally speaking, most of the topic-area MoS pages consist of guidelines generated by the corresponding WikiProject, whether or not this is explicitly stated on the page itself. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, MILMOS and MEDMOS are head and shoulders above others because they garnered community-wide input. But, I want to clear up a (possibly only semantic) confusion in Slim's assertions. Yes, WIAFA requires compliance with MOS, but MOS (unlike WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc) is only a guideline, and on FAC closings, I apply it as such. Hence, it's a very loose requirement ... I think you overstate the case. It's not "required" as policy is required. A FAC that violates NPOV or V will fail, period, while a FAC with only MOS issues won't necessarily. Some of the MOS guidelines are in such a state of flux that I just igore them; others are more widely accepted, but even with those, there are often good reasons to ignore them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make that clear in the FA criteria? The belief that the MoS is rigorously applied during the FAC process is widespread, and somewhat off-putting, particularly so because it keeps changing. Just one example from my own experience: I was preparing an article for FA. Someone kept changing the formatting, and in particular was reducing the image sizes to very small thumbs. I was told by this person, who was supported by a couple of other experienced editors, that there was no point in my submitting it for FAC with anything larger than thumbs, because it would surely fail for not being MoS compliant. I knew it was unlikely that it would be failed on those grounds alone, and I also knew the support at the MoS for thumbs-only was weak (and that requirement has now gone, in fact). But the fact that this was being said, and that I was having to argue it, and was faced with having to argue it some more at FAC, meant I lost enthusiasm for doing the work, and I decided against submitting it. I shouldn't have been so sensitive, but I just got worn down by what I saw as the inevitable focus on "rules" that either don't matter or that don't have a clearly beneficial effect on the article.

The perception of the nominators and the reviewers is as important as the reality, because it's the perceptions that determine whether people take part in the process. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem, and the information you were given there was wrong. There are some areas of MoS that are clear and long-standing, and if there are breaches in those that no one has addressed, I just fix them myself. The thumbsize images debate is one of those murky areas, often-changing, less clear on long-standing consensus, and I won't hold up an otherwise compliant FAC over a murky and often changing guideline. I will take a look at WIAFA later today and see if I have an idea for how to address this, and will propose it in a new section. Busy for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion would be simply not to mention the MoS under #2. It currently says " follows the style guidelines, including the provision of ...", and links to the MoS. Instead we could say: "It is internally consistent in style, and includes the provision of ..." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Reviewers are only human, and so I don't doubt that there is sometimes a perception of "power", and perhaps even occasional abuses, but you have to go into FAC with the conviction that everyone wants the same thing. And that's not necessarily a bronze star; it's that the article comes out of the process the best it can be, whether that's ultimately judged good enough for promotion or not. In truth the bronze star can be a double-edged sword anyway, as anyone who's had to defend their article against the vandalism that happens to all mainpage articles can testify. --Malleus Fatuorum

Well, I do go into the review process with the aim of making the article better and getting help with catching those no-brainers that every writer who spends weeks with a text becomes blind to. I also go into the review process because I am proud of something I have done and I would like the fact that I made a mjor contribution to be recognized by others - not necessarily with a bronze star - but definitely not by being the butt of condescension and disparaging comments.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you that the process does too often have adversarial overtones of "Do this or else I won't support", or "I can't believe anyone would bring an article here with such a glaring misuse of a dash hidden away in the footnotes – you need to find a good copyeditor and bring this back when it's been peer-reviewed". On the other hand at least the rules are (mostly) applied consistently, rather than made up apparently on a whim as at FLC. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can have the article your way, the FAC reviewers way, and occasionally you can have both. The best thing to do is ignore your feelings on the subject, and just do whatever the reviewers tell you. You can't fight city hall. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me it's crossed my mind to just do as the reviewers say and then change it all back the week after the review. But more than the actual feeling of one's deliberate decisions about best to present the subject being rejected my problem is with the manner in which it is rejected.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you get upset because someone asks for alt text, I would hate to see your reaction when a real concern is brought up. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(retort in poor taste removed by author)·Maunus·ƛ· 19:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the concerns that you've raised in this section I can't help but note the irony of your response. It appears that you want everyone else to be encouraging and supporting, but you're excused for some reason? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Im not. I apologize, the comment has been removed. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I express however my dissapointment at Ottava Rimas attempt to make this look as if I am complaining that "someone asked for alt text". This is not the issue - I have stated repeatedly that i do not mind criticism or suggestions for improvement done in a collegial athmosphere - but I'll be damned if I'll write article upon article for wikipedia and be ridiculed for it afterwards - then I'll rather spend my time on writing something i'll get paid for.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I thought was interesting about the recent Wikivoices episode was how much the reviewers stressed that although it might seem that they tore the article apart, it was actually a very good article. I think the same can most often be said about articles at FAC, but it is probably not made explicit that often. --Harthacnut (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, Alt text is nothing. Plagiarism is something big. Original Research is something big. Misrepresenting sources is something big. I have pointed out a lot of this lately at dozens of FACs. Those nominators are still working on pages and cleaning up items. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with point that some of the reviewers sound like they want to bit you and bark and act like guard dogs for the FA status. After getting more into it you experience that some are really helpful, but the tour through FAC is not allways that pleasant and if you get only a; oppose because of 1c, 5d, 7675g and please look at WDF EWF GTF and MOSDF; you feel like you did something wrong, and even for me it takes some time to figure out what this all means. Attract somebody to a this process should look a little different. Some projects avoid the FA and GA and focus only on internal reviews making them less visible, but more effective in writing articles. Nobody needs the star, it is nice and good for your self-confidence, but nobody is forced to ask for it. On the other hand I got support on the most difficult things without any hesitation and most of my nominations became FAs.--Stone (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording for alt text requests

Since alt text seems to be a sore spot here, I'd like to ask for suggestions for better ways that I can make requests about it. Here are my most recent first-time requests for alt text in FAC or FAR pages. Specific suggestions for improving this sort of wording are welcome. I would rather that this process be as painless for editors as possible.

'The alt text is quite good and very detailed, but it's a bit long; see WP:ALT#Brevity. Relatively unimportant etails like "The sky is blue with no clouds." can be omitted.'[2]
'Alt text is present (thanks), but it repeats the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition) and doesn't convey enough information about what the picture tells us that Procter looked like (see WP:ALT#Portraits).'[3]
'Alt text is mostly present, but needs work. Most of the alt text entries are near-duplicates of the caption. Alt text should minimize duplication with the caption; see WP:ALT#Repetition. For example, the alt text "A map of the boundaries of the United States Courts of Appeals and United States District Courts" is largely a duplicate of the caption "Map of the boundaries of the United States Courts of Appeals and United States District Courts"....'[4] (please follow the URL to see the full comment)
'Alt text is present and mostly good (thanks), but the alt text for the lead (infobox) image is merely "Track of Hurricane Georges", which doesn't convey much info to the visually impaired reader, and also contains a claim (that this is the track of Hurricane Georges) that can't easily be verified by a non-expert. Please reword it to not use the name, and to briefly describe where the track goes. Thanks.'[5]
'Most images have alt text as per WP:ALT (thanks) but some work is needed. The lead (infobox) image lacks alt text, as does File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg. The following proper names are not obvious to a non-expert who is looking only at the image and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT: "Chicago Picasso", "Buckingham Fountain", "Fountain of the Great Lakes", "Fountain of Time". Also, a minor thing: I suggest rewording "Crown Fountain" to "The fountain" in most of the alt text entries (e.g., "Crown Fountain spouting water on frolicking children" should be "The fountain spouts water on frolicking children") to avoid needless repetition.'[6]

Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 256: / Line 256: @@
 ::::::::::::One thing we need keep in mind is that, at the moment, the MoS provision in the FA criteria is the only method by which WikiProject-generated guidelines can be brought up at FAC.  There used to be an explicit provision for following subject-area guidance; but that was removed due to a feeling that not all projects could produce worthwhile guidelines, and we were told instead that we had to work towards making our guidelines a part of the MoS, and they would be given weight at that point.  If we now remove the MoS provision itself, the net effect will be that anything WikiProjects produce will be left entirely out of the FA criteria, regardless of what hoops we've jumped through to ensure community acceptance of our guidelines. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[pf]]]</sup> 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::If the criteria were to encourage, rather than require, FA compliance, most people would still do it. The thing about ''forcing'' people is it creates a bad atmosphere, it's demoralizing, and it gives people the green light to nitpick, which not all reviewers do (most don't), but some do. Kirill, can you give an example of the kind of style thing that might be lost, wikiproject-wise. <font color="green">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="pink">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::If the criteria were to encourage, rather than require, MoS compliance, most people would still do it. The thing about ''forcing'' people is it creates a bad atmosphere, it's demoralizing, and it gives people the green light to nitpick, which not all reviewers do (most don't), but some do. Kirill, can you give an example of the kind of style thing that might be lost, wikiproject-wise. <font color="green">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="pink">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::[[WP:MILMOS]] and [[WP:MEDMOS]] come to mind as having explicitly made the transition from internal WikiProject guideline to MoS component as a consequence of the earlier change to the FA criteria.  [[WP:MOSCHEM]], [[WP:MOS-ANIME]], [[WP:MOSMUSIC]], and [[WP:MOSMATH]] are basically more of the same thing, but I'm not sure of the precise history behind the pages; generally speaking, most of the topic-area MoS pages consist of guidelines generated by the corresponding WikiProject, whether or not this is explicitly stated on the page itself. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[pf]]]</sup> 13:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::: As far as I know, MILMOS and MEDMOS are head and shoulders above others because they garnered community-wide input.  But, I want to clear up a (possibly only semantic) confusion in Slim's assertions.  Yes, WIAFA requires compliance with MOS, but MOS (unlike WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc) is only a guideline, and on FAC closings, I apply it as such.  Hence, it's a very loose requirement ... I think you overstate the case.  It's not "required" as policy is required.  A FAC that violates NPOV or V will fail, period, while a FAC with only MOS issues won't necessarily.  Some of the MOS guidelines are in such a state of flux that I just igore them; others are more widely accepted, but even with those, there are often good reasons to ignore them.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::Can we make that clear in the FA criteria? The belief that the MoS is rigorously applied during the FAC process is widespread, and somewhat off-putting, particularly so because it keeps changing. Just one example from my own experience: I was preparing an article for FA. Someone kept changing the formatting, and in particular was reducing the image sizes to very small thumbs. I was told by this person, who was supported by a couple of other experienced editors, that there was no point in my submitting it for FAC with anything larger than thumbs, because it would surely fail for not being MoS compliant. I knew it was unlikely that it would be failed on those grounds alone, and I also knew the support at the MoS for thumbs-only was weak (and that requirement has now gone, in fact). But the fact that this was being said, and that I was having to argue it, and was faced with having to argue it some more at FAC, meant I lost enthusiasm for doing the work, and I decided against submitting it. I shouldn't have been so sensitive, but I just got worn down by what I saw as the inevitable focus on "rules" that either don't matter or that don't have a clearly beneficial effect on the article.
+::::::::::::::::The perception of the nominators and the reviewers is as important as the reality, because it's the perceptions that determine whether people take part in the process. <font color="green">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="pink">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::: I see the problem, and the information you were given there was wrong. There are some areas of MoS that are clear and long-standing, and if there are breaches in those that no one has addressed, I just fix them myself.  The thumbsize images debate is one of those murky areas, often-changing, less clear on long-standing consensus, and I won't hold up an otherwise compliant FAC over a murky and often changing guideline.  I will take a look at WIAFA later today and see if I have an idea for how to address this, and will propose it in a new section.  Busy for now, [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::A suggestion would be simply not to mention the MoS under #2. It currently says " follows the style guidelines, including the provision of ...", and links to the MoS. Instead we could say: "It is internally consistent in style, and includes the provision of ..." <font color="green">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="pink">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 16:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 :::::::(ec) Reviewers are only human, and so I don't doubt that there is sometimes a perception of "power", and perhaps even occasional abuses, but you have to go into FAC with the conviction that everyone wants the same thing. And that's not necessarily a bronze star; it's that the article comes out of the process the best it can be, whether that's ultimately judged good enough for promotion or not. In truth the bronze star can be a double-edged sword anyway, as anyone who's had to defend their article against the vandalism that happens to all mainpage articles can testify. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]]