Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

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 00:53, 6 January 2012

Shortcut

WT:FAC

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Bernard Quatermass	Review now
The Slave Community	Review now
Exosome complex	Review now
7 World Trade Center	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

Spotchecks and image reviews needed

We have several FACs at the bottom of the list that are close to being promoted, but that still need attention to sources and/or images:

~~WP:Featured article candidates/Brain/archive4 – spotcheck found concerns, more work needed~~ archived
~~WP:Featured article candidates/Blonde on Blonde/archive1 – needs both an image review and a spotcheck of the sources~~
~~WP:Featured article candidates/Diffuse panbronchiolitis/archive1 – both an image review and a spotcheck needed~~
~~WP:Featured article candidates/Rehab (Rihanna song)/archive3 – image review, spotcheck, and further reviews needed~~
~~WP:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive3 – needs image review and spotcheck~~
WP:Featured article candidates/Plateosaurus/archive1 – spotcheck
WP:Featured article candidates/White-necked Rockfowl/archive1 – spotcheck
WP:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive5 – spotcheck
~~WP:Featured article candidates/Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias/archive1 – images~~

I haven't yet been able to go through all of FAC today; there may be more articles with similar issues. Ucucha (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC) (Now done going through. Ucucha (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)) (Updated – Ucucha (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC), 10:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I changed the latter link (Rehab) to point to archive #3. --Noleander (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Ucucha (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting on editor responses to my Brain spotchecks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just spotchecked Blonde on Blonde. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have commenced a spotcheck on Diffuse panbronchiolitis and am waiting on editor comment before proceeding or completing spotchecking. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough checks, Fifelfoo. Ucucha (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diffuse panbronchiolitis has had an adequate (5/27 sources) spotcheck without problems now. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask a dumb question? Does the term "spotcheck" refer to a validity check of all sources, or just a sample of them? I'm new to the FAC process, but I've seen "spotchecks" go both ways (comprehensive, sampling). Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under most circumstances, spotchecks involve checking a sample of sources for accurate representation of the source (WP:V) and avoidance of copyvio/close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wanted to help out with some of these, but also wanted to do it correctly. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, I'll sometimes ask for a comprehensive source check when a spotcheck yields too many issues. Ucucha (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who tries to clean up the "five on the bottom" with spotchecks, I make a judgement call about what variety and uses of sources the article has, and proceed with a sample of sources to try to "uncover" problematic habits. I spotcheck as many sources as I think I need to, or as few sources as I think I can get away with; and those numbers are the same. Like Ucucha notes, if there are a lot of problems, my spotchecks become more and more complete. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks have already been done for "Single Ladies". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed nomination

Does anyone have time to deal with this malformed nomination and to leave a note with the nominator? FAC page is here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying, Carcharoth-- that has been sitting there since Dec 11th, I'm busy with a funeral, and anyone could have done this over the last four days. See {{FAC withdrawn}}. Remove from FAC, remove from talk, db-g6 the nom, and notify the nominator. There's a page of instructions in my sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this user's second out-of-process nomination, also a FAR notification. Will someone pls watch this editor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recusals

So far as an FAC delegate, I've refrained from taking action on most biological articles, because that is the area I've worked in in my own content work. However, with both other FAC delegates absent for the moment, I'm going to start promoting and/or archiving those from now on. With one exception (for which I've asked Raul to make a decision), I haven't actually been involved specifically with any of the biological FACs that are currently open. Please do let me know if you feel I should recuse on any of these FACs. Ucucha (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Sandy is back active again? Not that I have any problem with you promoting/archiving bio facs that you haven't reviewed on, but just questioning the validity of the "both other delegates are gone" rationale. Mainly a technicality, though - as long as you haven't reviewed, I don't see an issue with you promoting/archiving. Dana boomer (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Actually, never mind. Just saw that Sandy blanked her talk page and put up a wikibreak notice. Have fun being the sole delegate again :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've been a significant editor of an article, I can't see that there's a problem. You wouldn't be doing this job if people had doubts about your integrity, Merry Christmas, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jimfbleak; there's no COI unless you've been involved in editing the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second/third Jim/Storm -- the fact you're even seeking a reality check is another sign of your integrity (or is it anxiety -- well, anyway, nice you asked)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be administering the biological articles in general since content is important as well as form. The Sasata-Visionholder-Uca trio is a little tight (although all of you very strong, just you work a lot together). So understand a reticense to be the decider there. But I think it actually makes most sense for you to be the subeditor for giraffe or the like. Would have no issue with you doing a turtle of mine and prefer it actually.TCO (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I think we need more delegates (just more total number). I think it will make things less tense if there is less of a concentration. And also allow delegates to write and review more. No reason WEhwalt, Brian Bolton, Hawkeye, Malleus, etc. can't do this job. They have lots of experience with the processes here. And have strong outside writing experience. And brains. TCO (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rs chen 7754 01:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger

hello,

please transclude it. Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 18:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Article is not FAC ready, but I can't suggest withdrawal based on not consulting significant contributors because there are no active significant contributors. I'm not transcluding it, I did put a suggestion on the FAC that the nominator should consider peer review, and will see what happens. If we had less ill-prepared FACs dominating the page and sapping reviewer time before being archived, we FAC delegates might actually have more FACs to close when we review the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic

I found this page suddenly when reviewing my watchlist log. Maybe we should request a bot, which will find non-transcluded FAC pages, and which will correct errors, or at least report them, say, on this talk page. ♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 16:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Thanks, GoP, I understood that, since it happens often :) I look for untranscluded noms routinely via Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list, but in this case, you got there first and posted here asking for help. I'm not sure we need a bot to routinely check for untranscluded noms: it happens rarely, and untranscluded noms are almost always drivebys from new nominators who haven't read FAC instructions, and they are often unprepared, requiring personal intervention and a message to the nominator to help decide what to do. If the nominator wants to go forward in a case like this (there are no significant contributors), it's not up to us to deny them. Now, in this case, even though I entered a comment on the untranscluded nom two days ago, the nominator hasn't responded-- meaning it appears to be a nominator who isn't even following the FAC-- not likely a good candidate for transclusion and one that will possibly result in a drain on reviewers without improvements to the article. That's the typical scenario for most untranscluded noms: and we can use the {{FAC withdrawn}} template to educate the nominator and just remove the template from the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done-- I removed the FAC template from article talk, and when I went to notify the nominator, I realized it was the same editor whose other work had been brought to my attention on my talk page by a third editor (a week or so ago), so I pinged someone who works in that area who might be willing to mentor this editor. (Another case of an unrecognized editor whose sig doesn't agree with his editor name ... grrrrr ... ). Anyway, I think if a bot did this sort of thing, we'd miss too many opportunties to educate new nominators, and end up with a lot more ill-prepared noms (which was my point before this thread went off topic). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose size

I see Dr pda hasn't been on since December 13, so I'm hoping someone here can run his prose size script on Elvis Presley; I for some reason can't make the prose size script work on that article, it has been suggested at WP:TFA/R, and I just noticed that concerns about the article's size were raised on its FAC (including by me). Could someone pls supply the Dr pda prose script data? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why the script isn't working for you but the readout on the latest version is

File size: 482 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 150 kB
References (including all HTML code): 33 kB
Wiki text: 178 kB
Prose size (text only): 92 kB (15642 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 1821 B

Nev1 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if Dr pda surfaces, I'll query him about the problem. Could someone also check the version that passed FAC?[9] User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics (last time data checked) shows this to be our longest FA, and I raised the concern after the FAC that the issue wasn't addressed although it was raised on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The stats for the promoted version are:

File size: 58 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 145 kB
References (including all HTML code): 31 kB
Prose size (text only): 90 kB (15388 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 1716 B

Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again-- does anyone understand what made file size go from 58 to 482? It's not prose, and doesn't seem to be citations, but I may be reading this wrong. This article isn't accessible or readable by most computers or readers with normal attention spans. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the file size for old versions is glitchy. I just checked old versions of Merionethsire, Rochester Castle, and Ben Hilfenhaus; three articles varying in number of words, images, and references and yet the tool says the file size for each is 58 kB. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 480kB for the live version is for the html for the entire page. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The History Review Department

I have restructured WikiProject History's review department so that it can serve more than just one WikiProject and conduct general history A-class reviews. The link is here. DCI traveling Talk 21:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 WikiCup

I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the participant list, and did you change anything that affects FAC? PS, the idea that we should contact a coordinator via email in cases of abuse goes against everything I stand for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 70 were here but he has cleared the page for some reason. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The participant list is not yet "live", as it were, but you can find a current one here. The only change, ruleswise, that affects FAC at all is that articles on subjects which are covered on 50 or more Wikipedias are now worth triple points, 100 or more quadruple (last year, the only multiplier was that articles on 20 or more/VITAL3 were worth double). I've removed "by email" from the main page; the question of transparency is a legitimate one. As Ucucha's bot should now deal with the notification, I'm assuming that this is no longer an issue? If not, I will remove it from the rules. If there's anything else I can do to make things easy for you, please let me know- I consider myself a part of both the Cup and the FAC process, and I hope to see them interacting positively. J Milburn (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow, I didn't know there were 100 Wikipedias ?? Will need to hear from Ucucha on the bot issue. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 283 right now, 107 of which have 10k or more articles. Naturally, of course, anything covered on more than 100 is gonna be something pretty significant... J Milburn (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

283 according to the list. GRAPPLE X 02:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still running the bot, and it should work correctly starting tomorrow. I'll keep an eye out for possible issues. Ucucha (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps CUP instructions can continue to remind other CUP reviewers to declare their participation, for the avoidance of the appearance of <you know, whatever>. For example, back when WP:FAT was submitting FACs, they would quickly rack up boatloads of support from involved participants, and anyone opposing had a tough row to hoe. We need to know if reviewers have a pony in the race, in either direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. The high-quality media gleaned from sessions like these will help illustrate FAs, hence my message here. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question re translations

As some may remember, my FAC nomination of Koninginnedag failed earlier in the year due to a lack of quality Dutch sources. I have, in the interim, obtained such sources. I have a Belgian friend who is bilingual in Dutch and English, and if I approached her, I am certain she would be willing to translate the relevant extracts for me (I will insist on paying her, she needs the money). Would there be objection to that? I would not quote from the translations, merely rely on them in citing to the original Dutch. She has no special academic qualifications. I am certain she would do a good job or tell me if she was unable to do so, as she seems to value her friendship with me, as I do her. I don't think she's edited here in article space, but I seem to recall she's posted a question or two to Belgium-related talk pages as an IP.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine, but take care to avoid close paraphrasing-- often folks doing translations forget that when you move from the Dutch to the English, you still have to paraphrase rather than translate literally. Also, ask her to provide an exact quote of the Dutch for you to include in the footnote for anything that might require clarification, is contentious, is surprising, is BLP, whatever ... adding the Dutch to the footnote helps native speakers see exactly what was said and lends assurance about the translation for contentious text. Doesn't Ucucha speak Dutch? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will pass on your advice to her. Yes, Ucucha does speak Dutch, Drmies as well, and so they can look over my shoulder. I can easily email scans to them, and copies of my friend's translations. I see this as far superior than trying to use Google translate.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I wonder if I could be licensed one way or another as a translator, and if I could get rich off of that. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Google translation-- no kidding! (I think you may be familiar with the high regard I hold for Google translations in Spanish :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did a few paragraphs and was not happy with the results. Drmies, the Dutch translator who I've usually dealt with (also speaks Spanish) in the court system does very well for herself. If you can keep up with the flow of words in a courtroom simultaneously translating, that's pretty good. I believe she has certifications. And if the Spanish translator is not someone I know and trust, Sandy, I'm listening to the translation to my client with half an ear. I know enough "courthouse Spanish" in addition to my very stale high school and college courses to sometimes catch a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep good records of everything that was translated etc., so that if ever anyone objects to any detail (either during FAC, or even at some later date), you can show the data. One good way would be to put the info in your user space. If that isn't feasible, store it on your computer or your email acct., and don't accidentally delete it later. That's my .02. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titchwell Marsh

Any chance of an image review for the Titchwell Marsh FAC? Thanks, Jim

Sure. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 767

Greetings all FAC contributors...is there anyone able to perform source spotchecks for the FAC of Boeing 767? Thanks for any help. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC 2012

I hope 2012 proves to be a joyous and prosperous one for all who contribute here, both IRL and "in here" as well! FA writers give us top content to display on the mainpage, but without FAC reviewers and the helpful bot operators, our FA writers would have a harder time getting the content displayed, so as always, a most hearty thanks to the reviewers and bot operators who make it all happen, along with Raul654 and Dabomb87 for writing the blurbs.

With a New Year, it's a good time to take the temperature in here. I'll start with some things I've noticed, and hope others will chime in with any other matters for discussion.

We continue to see that the biggest problem affecting FA production, IMO, is the lack of reviewers. Last week, I spent several hours reading through FAC and came to the conclusion that there was only one that could be archived, and only three or four that were "mature" to the point of a closer look for promotion. Ucucha subsequently promoted/archived and apparently came to the very same conclusion. I frequently find that the hours FAC delegates spend reading results in same: just about nothing that can be closed because most are lacking in reviews. What can we do to encourage more reviewers to engage?
On the same topic, we continue to see a lion's share of work done by a handful of reviewers (you know who you are, and so do all of us, and you are appreciated :), accompanied by some nominators who never review, and the additional problem that some topic areas receive only review from other editors from that topic area, while needing independent review for jargon, comprehensibility to laypersons, etc. I've long been against requiring quid pro quo reviews (for the very reasons that plague DYK IMO), but is there anything we should do to encourage those editors who "receive more than they give" (post-Christmas terminology :) to also engage in more reviewing?
Prose standards are slipping. All too often, even when a FAC has "matured" to the point of potential promotion, I find that glaring prose issues are evident. Since my own prose isn't stellar, if even I can spot prose issues, that's not a good thing. While I'm pretty sure we've done a good job on checking images, reliability of sources, accurate representation of sources, too close paraphrasing, etc, I'm concerned that prose standards might warrant more attention. Any ideas for how to kickstart that? It's not optimal IMO for delegates to have to weigh in too often on FACs, but should we promote a FAC with support when prose issues are glaring?
Repeatedly, I get posts on my talk page to the effect that there is some minimum number of supports that should get a FAC promoted, or some minimum amount of time that FACs should be on the page, and both of those numbers are misstated in the wrong direction and with no basis in FAC procedures of instructions. There is no minimum amount of support for a FAC to be promoted, although we never promote with less than three, yet increasingly, with the lack of reviews, I'm seeing more and more articles getting only three reviews (and per the point above, not always a solid prose review), and nominators complaining about closures of long-running reviews that have no consensus for promotion. It was once common for FACs to be promoted with many supports and solid reviews within five days, and to be closed within two weeks-- yet I'm getting complaints about closing FACs with no supports at three of four weeks. What gives, and what can we or should we do about it? Is the bot placement of "older nominations" confusing people about the length of time nominations typically or should run? I always thought of ten days as "old", depending on the number of reviews on the page, and try to avoid closing nominations aggressively when the workload is light, but may close them sooner if the page is stalled. Right or wrong?
WP:TFAR has become dead, moribund. Is that because folks are now afraid to nominate there because of the fallout from the (unsupported, non-consensual) notion that only high-page-view articles are worthy of being Featured articles, is it only because of the holidays (I don't believe we've seen that before), is it related to the undue scrutiny on some specific authors that occurred during November, or is there another factor? What, if anything, can be done about the downturn at WP:TFAR? Page requests were to the limit of five in the two past years. [10] [11]
Delegates: Karanacs is no longer promoting/archiving, but I've yet to find a time that I've read through FAC and found a lot of noms that are ready to be either promoted or archived-- the backlog on the page is related to lack of reviewers, not lack of delegates. Yet, we've seen on this page calls for more delegates (which would take away valuable reviewers). Feedback? Is there any reason to take away valuable reviewers and appoint another delegate, if neither of us are finding many FACs that can be closed either way, because of lack of review?
Without characterizing the past discussions on the topic, or the origin of those, are there concerns about FAC, FAR or TFA/R leadership that need to be discussed here?
Are there any matters related to WP:WIAFA, WP:TFAR, or leadership that warrant a wider RFC here, such as was held last year?

That's all I can think of-- please add as needed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'm new to FA, and I've just nominated my first article. I am a bit concerned about the lack of reviewers: it would be frustrating to see all the hard work evaporate because there aren't enough reviewers to reach three supports. That said, I understand it is a two way street, and I really, really appreciate all the hard work done by the reviewers and delegates. To do my fair share, I've provided comments on several FA nominees (although I've never been so bold as to Support or Oppose). Your list of issues above is a good synopsis. The only thing I would add is: I think the FAC process could benefit from a checklist for each nominee, containing tasks like spot checks, images, prose, etc. As it stands, when looking at an article that has been in the queue for awhile, it is hard to tell at a glance if those various pieces of the puzzle have been completed. I suppose the delegates have a checklist in their head, but important processes like FAC should have written checklists, rather than relying on memory. --Noleander (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for new leadership. Raul has 'delegated' his Divinely Granted Directorship, which amounts to an abdication. Hold an RfC of some sort to determine the appropriate means of running an election. New leadership will spark new ideas, new participation, and better criteria for featured status. Alarbus (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of prose standards, this is probably the hardest to meet pre-FAC. The standards that some FAC reviewers/editors know and expect to be met at FAC are far higher than even some LoCE editors can provide. Copyediting for prose is a kind of art, and thus it would be better to have more collaboration by the knowledgeable copyeditors at FAC to polish language that they know best how to do and do quickly, instead of flat out opposing because there are problems. No, FAC cannot become a copyedit process, and we should still be quickfailing articles with poor copyedits that can be sniffed out quickly and easily. But when we're at miscellaneous problems throughout an article in prose, getting collaborative help rather than rejection would go a long way to make the FAC process less elite-ist and encourage more to participate. There is a balance here between the extremes. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I would say, after what I fear is about to become five unsuccessful FACs, that I will never feel confident enough about the process to start judging others. They're incredibly stressful, I've only attempted them because something about the rigorousness of the protocols is attractive. Clearly, though, the more inner strength I find (and the support in at least one case of another editor) to put myself through the whole shabang the more I become your problematic nominator #2. I think you're also judging #4 rather wrongly. It's just an extension of number 1 and some of the other points. I don't know what other nominators think, but it's not that they ignore the rules, it's because they are really, really frustrated. Not generally at anyone in particular. I ran a few tests a coupe of months back, and what we know is that FAC standards have tightened quite considerably. I am therefore starting to think that, although this is nice, is is unsustainable. There aren't enough judges that can sit above that process and preside. Editorial quality is starting to outstrip many publications, and so it must surely be taking more and more "balls" to say, yes, I can pick holes in this. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've said most of this before: (1) I've tried several times to participate in FA reviewing, but I am always driven away by a dismaying feeling that my input simply vanishes into a massive unbroken wall of text. I think it's crazy to have a system that does not allow reviews to have sections. (2) It is hard to maintain awareness of the list of current candidates. As far as I know, the only way to see the list is to load the huge FAC page, which is annoying to everybody and a big problem to people with slow connections. There really ought to be a page that contains nothing except a list of the currently active candidates. Looie496 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your second point, there is Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer, which will condense the unwieldy page into something much more manageable. GRAPPLE X 19:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the one I use to check for untranscluded noms: Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(break cancelled, I guess) I agree with Alarbus, we need elections. Plainly, my break will have to wait. The incumbents free to stand, of course. We can find, of course, ways of honoring those who have served even as we do this. I would simply propose we elect a director for a short term. The rest can follow from there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've stepped up and reviewed two articles - instead of snipping at each other, how about everyone here ... reviews an article if they haven't in a while. And if you're not comfortable supporting or opposing, at least leave some comments on some aspect of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Ealdgyth. A few hours ago I thought I should start reviewing again (unfortunately have been busy IRL) and then saw this. And btw - Noleander, I was excited to see the Du Bois article nominated and would have reviewed anyway! I think reviewing is time better spent than sniping. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I agree with all SG's points, except that on TFAR I think it is just the holidays, and anyway it's nice if TFAR is busy, but is it essential? However, you don't mention the not entirely successful effort to increase the expectations for reviews that have been a notable feature of the year, and may have scared some people off. Otherwise it is probably just a reflection of the general lack of content editors. To Louie - these days there are plenty of all-too-short nom pages! Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm don't all jump at once if this has been tried in the past, but do we inform relevant Wikiprojects about FAs? Also it might be time to do an update to the last Signpost article about reviewing, Featured content gets a lot of publicity there but do we also tell people that reviews are welcome and they don't have to check every aspect provided they say what they've checked? Lastly, and I'm preparing to duck as I say this. the first stage of the wikicup ends in late Feb and subsequent stages every few weeks afterwards. Now I appreciate that not every cup participant has ideal qualities for FAC, but some will have and a personal request from an FA delegate or regular might be just the ticket for those who you do want to recruit for here. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm of mixed opinions about this - sometimes reviewers from WikiProjects will be very thorough and will catch issues that someone not familiar with the subject matter wouldn't. But other times, reviewers will just go "Oh, a _ article! Support!" (Granted, I did that a few times in my early days...) --Rs chen 7754 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arb break 1

I agree with Wehwalt and Alarbus; elections would be a great idea. We have just elected out third tranche of coordinators at the GOCE, and find that the system is serving us well. Our system is based heavily on that of WP:MILHIST, which has been holding elections since 2006. Continually updating the leadership might mean an influx of new ideas for ways to improve the nuts and bolts of the FA process, which might help attract more reviewers and a higher level of participation all around. Which leads me to my second point: A lot of people are experiencing extreme load times when trying to work on the FA pages, and this is off-putting for some editors, as it means techniques such as templates or section headers are not permitted. There is likely a better way to organise the FA pages. If the FA team was to work in coordination with the more technically-minded people and the people who run the bots, the system could likely be improved. --Dianna (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be the rare drive-by reader here who thinks elections would be a horrible idea. Other delegates to replace those who aren't consistently here would be great. I never thought Sandy should have to be a delegate for life, but opening the FAC process to politicking, elections, etc., would compromise the integrity of the process. Imagine an FAC-elect who gets "fuck you for not promoting my article I'm not voting for you ever again and I'm going to run against you" response on their talk page. There are ways to improve this process, but elections is the wrong way to go. --Moni3 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, other processes face that sort of thing and survive. Arbitrators face that every day. The community is deemed politically mature enough that we overcome that, and we re-elected what? Five out of six arbitrators seeking re-election?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Moni3. Elections and political posturing can be and often are counter productive to both quality and creativity. I'm opposed to elections here. Arbitors hold political office with term limits, not the same thing by the way. And as you imply the political scenario is not ideal anyway..Modernist (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. Elections would be a dreadful idea, even the death knell for FAC. "With all due respect", there's no particular skill required to be an arbitrator. As you say, it's a political position, not a technical one. Elections also somewhat miss the point: what power do the delegates actually have? Doesn't the real power sit with the dwindling pool of reviewers? Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that MILHIST or Guild elections had turned into anything like that, although it's an ongoing concern. I am neutral on this issue. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elections or no elections, there's something odd about the fact that Raul is listed as the head honcho, yet rarely participates in this process in any way (I am aware that he is still active in other areas of the wider FA project), and the fact that Karanacs remains "on the books" if she is no longer promoting. In the same vein, it took an awful long time for Laser brain to be replaced by Ucucha. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Malleus: The dwindling pool of regulars have almost all already posted in this thread. Elections would demonstrate to the wider editorship that the FA process is available not only to a small clique of contributors, but is welcoming to new people and new approaches. --Dianna (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm always fascinated by the idea that FAC is limited to a small clique. There are no requirements to jump in and review... but I notice a number of folks posting here that I've not noticed reviewing - granted, I could be wrong and have missed them (there are a lot of FACs up that I don't comment on, so it's easy to miss other folks) but I think the best way to prove that FAC isn't limited to a clique is to ... step up and review. I almost think I need to start handing out little buttons like they do with voting or giving blood - you know "I've reviewed an FAC today, have you?"... would that help? Seriously folks, REVIEW! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know MILHIST has elections, as does ARBCOM and apparently the GOCE. There's nothing really at stake at GOCE, so that's not an accurate parallel. People really tie a lot of emotion into the articles they write, which I know this isn't news to anyone experienced here. I'm not familiar enough with MILHIST to speak intelligently about it, but the combination of the emotion people put into prepping and maintaining FAs combined with Internet politicking will be extremely divisive. Decisions on whether to promote or archive will be open to "Will they vote for me next time around?" Crappy articles may get promoted while appropriate ones may not. It will become a political game. Dianna, if you think FAC is ruled by small cliques, or some notion of a group of elite editors, just wait until it gets opened up to people running for office. It's just not a good road to travel. --Moni3 (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't agree with Diannaa at all, creativity and quality are not improved by opening the process to all comers; which it is anyway by the way, sorry...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little reviewing over the years by the way - not as much as I should perhaps...Modernist (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - I came to FAC via GOCE (when it was dead and I was like the only person in GOCE) because I watched this page when an article I'd copyedited was a candidate. At that time there was a call for reviewers, in fact I believe it was in January, probably 2010, and I slowly began to review. And then to write. There's no clique here - but we do need more reviewers. Perhaps the people at GOCE who are copyediting could jump in and review pages they haven't copyedited - that would bring in new blood, give them a better sense of the requirements, and ultimately probably teach by example so that they'd feel bold enough to begin submitting pages. As for elections - terrible idea, but the reason I ignored it. It's just more shit-stirring to be honest. ( ... excuse me for the foul language .. I know we're all sensitive these days ... ) Truthkeeper (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better be cautious, Truthkeeper. It's still an open question whether or not swearing is allowed! ;) The elections would be for the clerking positions, not for reviewing articles at all. It would be elections for the head of FA and the clerking positions that SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, and Ucucha now hold. Reviewers would still be unelected members of the community, just as they are right now. --Dianna (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do know the difference between a delegate and a reviewer, just to be clear. The delegates really are only part of the process - what we need are more editors willing to review. It's that simple. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I think SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, and Ucucha and Raul have done a terrific job. This begins to look like a crusade...Modernist (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)For the sake of argument, what if Raul, Sandy, Karanacs, and Ucucha were replaced by 4 other editors (or any number, it doesn't matter) who were appointed instead of elected? The comments made in this discussion make it seem as if those pressing for elections would be pleased just to see new people in these positions. What would elections do to accomplish more creativity or change? Have any potential changes been suggested to the FAC talk page, either informally or through an RfC? What kind of changes are we talking about here? Would they primarily be replacing the director and the delegates? --Moni3 (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec @ J Milburn) Please clarify so we can be sure we're getting to the heart of your concerns. Why is it odd that Raul may not appear to be in a hurry to fix what isn't apparently broken (I don't mean to speak for him, that is my impression only), or that he typically stays out of the way and lets consensus form, and what harm resulted from leaving Laser brain or Karanacs "on the books" while they weren't promoting? Did a shortage of delegates affect process? Specific examples of how FACs were affected, or can improve, via processes here are helpful. I've always rather thought that Raul's not "overdirecting" was helpful.

Diannaa, I hope you didn't intend to leave Ucucha or Gimmetrow out of the "bot" folks, as they are both accomplished? We might discuss in what ways bots could make FAC function more smoothly, but one of FAC's strongpoints (or not?) is that it's not run by bot (reference DYK) or "votes"-- it's an area of Wikipedia where human eyes do the looking, human brains make the decisions, and human fingers type them, and where "votes" and strength of numbers can't influence outcomes, which I believe is A Good Thing (examples to the contrary would be helpful if anyone disagrees). I suppose if consensus found that bots could be more helpful at FAC, Ucucha and Gimmetrow would generate them, but one of the questions I posed above is whether the bot placement of "older nominations" (which I used to do manually, depending on the size of the page) is affecting perception of how long stale nominations should be left on the page. Has the bot helped there?

@ Diannaa, could you give some examples of how the FAC consensus-driven process, whereby delegates judge consensus, measure whether everything important has been assessed, make sure independent and expert review is provided, and promote or archive based on reviewer commentary, is similar to the skills needed to join in copyediting at the Guild of Copy Editors?

Also @ Dianna, since you aren't a prolific FAC reviewer or FA writer, could you give some examples of how elections in particular (or anything, in fact) would help encourage you to review more here, because having more reviewers would be grand? Specific FACs as examples would help. Also by no means have most FAC regulars already posted here ... I'm curious to know why you have that impression after only a few hours of discussion.

Further, FAC does not have clerks: delegates are fully empowered to act as Raul would act. Examples and specifics will help us come to better improvements here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the page to hash this out amongst just the usuals; that's the problem. SG's the one that agreed to an RfC about a month ago, and just above. It doesn't matter what is discussed here, what matters is what the wider community believes should happen with the process that's supposed to result in the project's best offerings. A half percent of articles at GA/FA is failure. Ten years into wp it should be 10%; with new direction, it can still get there. Alarbus (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be the case, but it may also be the case that one of the reasons FAC works is that we don't rush to "votes" without discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of opening the FAC process to people completely ignorant of it is harrowing and unjustifiable--unless you would like to justify it. ~~A half percent of the articles failing to be promoted to GA or FA is pretty damn good. Actually, I think that's a typo or something. I don't understand your last sentence at all.~~ I think I got it. But you seem to be saying it's the FAC delegates who are responsible for the lack of quality in articles all over Wikipedia. Is that accurate? --Moni3 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He means that half a percent of Wikipedia currently holds FA/GA status, when that proportion should be much higher by now. GRAPPLE X 22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need more editors willing to review - it's that simple. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then someone ought to buckle down and write those new FAs and GAs instead of the usual stuff you see at new page patrol, it's that simple. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And people need to start going to the library, reading and writing. It is that simple. These conversations inevitably become extremely acrimonious, which I think is counterproductive, particularly when I just started a review (the first one I've done in months!). FAC writers are bad; FAC reviewers need to be replaced, and FAC delegates dumped. This, in my view, is the creeping and overlooked incivility that's pervasive on Wikipedia. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also against the idea of elections - basically, don't try to fix what's not broken. The delegate system is not broken. It's not the delegates fault that only half a percent of articles are GA/FA...it's the fact that we don't have more reviewers. What would replacing the delegates do? Sandy has already said that there is really very little that can be promoted/archived right now, and so more/different delegates would not change the number of articles through the system. Or is anyone disagreeing with this? Have the delegates been doing a poor job? Basically, we need ideas for getting more reviewers (and I appreciate that there are a couple of people on this page who have been tossing out ideas for this), not ideas for "fixing" what's basically the only part of the Wiki that's not broken. Dana boomer (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sandy, you are missing the point about the bots. The bot operators would have to be consulted if the page layouts were redesigned, to be sure that the bots could still perform their expected tasks. The way page redesign could help attract reviewers is because many are currently discouraged from contributing by the intimidating wall 'o' text presented by the current page design. As far as turnover in staff if elections were to occur, I would certainly not expect that all four current coordinators would be removed in an election, as you have all been doing splendid work. --Dianna (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Moni3: your remark "The idea of opening the FAC process to people completely ignorant of it is harrowing and unjustifiable" seems counter-productive, as one of SandyGeorgia's reasons for opening this thread seemed to me to be how to attract new people to contribute, review, and help out at FA. --Dianna (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the disconnect: I read Alarbus' comments as saying it's the delegates' fault that a larger percentage of articles aren't at GA or FA. I don't understand that. The quality of articles gets degraded little by little unless someone is there to maintain them, often rigorously. Among most other Wikipedians, this rigorous maintenance of articles is seen as ownership. It's not an issue of the delegates doing something to encourage editors to improve articles. That's not what their jobs are. Any Wikipedian should be improving articles with sources and prose edits, but by far the majority of editors do not improve articles on a large scale. They do not understand what excellent sourcing is, or brilliant prose, or image policy. Neither did I when I got here. But unless you're trying to nominate articles for FA, Wikipedia does not require anyone to improve sourcing and prose. It just expects folks to do the very least and not piss people off. So if you're suggesting that this process would be improved if editors who have never written an FA, or reviewed any articles for FA, acted as a delegate to promote or archive FACs and those delegates were elected to that position...I don't have words for how awful that scenario might be. I really hope you're not suggesting that scenario. New reviewers? Absolutely. Whenever someone comments on the length or language of an FA, I encourage them to review FACs if only to understand the significant disparity in quality between an FA and a regular B class article. If your comments are restricted to the delegates encouraging folks to review, then I agree that is within reasonable expectations. --Moni3 (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Looie496's point about section headings, is there any reason why we can't make a section for each review? I can't be the only one to have had edit conflicts because of the current wall of text, is the objection something to do with the way all FACs are transcluded on one page? If so one possible use for a bot would be to list the current candidates, their number of reviews and maybe even the particular things that they've been checked for. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To pick up on just one of your points, how would a list of things they've been checked for help? When you check prose, for example, do you check the same things that I might? Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd agree that prose is an aspect where multiple eyes can be helpful, no comment as to whether you and I would pick up the same prose issues. But if someone is willing to check image licenses or we've managed to get someone who knows the topic to comment on comprehensiveness it might be helpful to have one list which easily shows all current FACs and whether or not anyone has checked those aspects. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand what you're saying, but I still don't buy it. Let's say Randy from Boise turns up and ticks the image review box. Is that job done? Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the case of the much maligned Randy, yes absolutely, he's been here for years and for all his odd views about Ancient Greece by now I'm sure he knows how to do an image review. But I take your point, it wouldn't inspire confidence if I was to tick the image review box with an edit summary of "they all haz alt text". Probably best to put those boxes under the control of the delegates and those they authorise to make changes to them. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that will help should be on the table for discussion/consensus, but my contention is that whenever you encounter this "wall of text" at FAC, there wasn't ample review or usage of the "oppose" button early on. Is this a wall of text? Could someone convince me that the "wall of text" problem is not an absence of reviewers, both here and at peer review, so that FAC reviews are looking like peer reviews on ill-prepared articles? Also, whenever I see a lengthy FAC maturing towards promotion, I do add those sections if they'll help, but I'm not sure that's a typical case. In other words, sure we could go to that if we're sure the "wall of text" problem isn't just a lack of reviewers to oppose ill-prepared FACs that are increasingly appearing here, since peer review is also over-burdened. Also, could Diannaa explain how bots would help with this peer review "wall of text"? I'm still not seeing her point. I'd like to see us flesh out anything worthy of an RFC, and I'm not yet convinced this "wall of text" isn't just an issue of ill-prepared FACs getting longer and longer. Also, per Malleus-- again, human eyes, human brains, and human fingers do the analysis here, and checklists may add more clutter than light. And number of reviewers or supports may mean nothing at all at FAC; here's a wall of supports that meant nothing, because they were mostly fan supports, set aside by well-placed, informed opposes. Diannaa, I'm still hoping you can explain how the skillset necessary to evaluating FACs is comparable to that of the GOCE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'd add two things. First, there's an inherent danger of losing "corporate memory", and I'm reminded of the Rlevese case for instance. Second, anyone who's actually tried it knows how difficult it is to write a GA, much less an FA. Thirdly (noone expects the Spanish Inquisition) given the relative difficulty of producing FAs and GAs vs. stub articles it's inevitable that the percentage of "good" articles will diminish over time, not increase. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I am not suggesting that bots should do any more work than they are doing right now. I merely suggested that the bot operators would need to be consulted if the layout of the pages were modified. @ Moni, I am not implying that brand new people should be running the featured articles department. Such people, even if they ran in an election, would be unlikely to be elected anyway. I would support the idea of checklists on the FA page, to help guide reviewers and editors as to where the remaining work needs to be done. Sandy, you are probably right that many articles that are listed at FA are not ready for promotion. Truthkeeper, it seems to me that you have misinterpreted virtually all my remarks. I am disengaging now. --Dianna (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, I don't see how I misunderstood this. You explained that reviewers are not elected but that delegates, ie. SG, Karanacs, and Ucucha, are elected. Aside from the fact that I'm am aware of that, how have I misunderstood? I'm very confused by your reaction. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is proposing elections for those positions, not stating that they currently are.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely aware of that. And also totally confused that she wouldn't think I'd know that. Unless I've left my brain somewhere. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make a great deal more sense to hold elections for reviewer positions. Not that I'm advocating that, just an observation. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose? Primogeniture? Or shall we have elections upon the accession of King Wills, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have much greater faith in elections than I do. I think in my entire life I've only ever once got the government I voted for, and Tony Blair turned out to be a bloody disaster. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have faith in the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I on the other hand do not believe in the fiction of a community. There are many communities here, each with their own different agendas. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arb break 2

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias will be my last article on Wikipedia. I haven't made any edits for some time now. I've grown tired of this place (as many, many others who have left) and once the nomination is closed (passing or not, although I bet it won't pass), everyone will see a "retired" banner on my user page. However, I'll share my thoughts about this entire discussion: do you want to improve the FAC? Remove all present delegates, including unofficial delegates such as Nikkimaria, from their posts. Get rid of Malleus Fatuorum. Someone who is blocked often for incivility and is always on arbitration over trouble with other editors should not be regarded so highly as he is here. Next, start an election for newer delegates, who should all have an irreproachable past. Also, nominators must be assured that their nominations will be reviewed by neutral editors. Perhaps, I repeat, perhaps, once the hostile environment that is the FAC is gone, more editors will be willing to help here. For the ones who will stay, I wish you all good luck. --Lecen (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... always on arbitration"?^{[citation needed]} Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is an "unofficial delegate" at FAC? I'm a delegate at FAR. At FAC I perform only those tasks any reviewer is empowered to do. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be doing that? Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to the current directors, and I'm not saying I could do the job any better, but I think it would be nice to have new directors, just so we can get some fresh blood. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's only ever been one director; do you mean delegates? Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sorry. Mentally I don't see any distinction. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But surely the distinction is fundamental, in that the director has appointed the delegates. Are you sure you know what you're voting for? Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, voting for the delegates. I was half-kidding about the lack of distinction. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So, speaking hypothetically, what criteria would you use to choose between the various candidates presenting themselves for FAC delegate? Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant delegates. Ucucha has only been in office for a few months, so is relatively new blood; Sandy's experience is a huge asset; her understanding of the process is unrivalled. Keep these two; Karanacs is no longer active in the delegate role and should be replaced by Nikkimaria. But, as Sandy said a while back, the problem is less a lack of delegates and more a lack of competent reviewers. This is a hard one; we don't just need numbers, we need reviewers who know what they're doing. In particular, as far as prose quality is concerned, we need another Tony1 (or a slightly more user-friendly version, maybe, with all due respect to the great man). Rather than worry about finding a new delegate, I say look for a new Tony, a prose guru who can pick up faults and train how these can be avoided. Replace him with Malleus (I'm serious). Some of the most regular nominators, including myself, could each take a month or so off from our own articles, and concentrate on reviewing. Such simple steps could easily revitalise the process without too much drama. Brianboulton (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "more user-friendly version of Tony1"? That's a hard one to get my head around. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Malleus for delegate, in an election. On condition he smiles.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no chance that I would stand for an election anywhere on Wikipedia. Period. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then if an elected Featured Article Director appointed you as a delegate, you would have my support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve." The role of FAC delegate seems to be to be just about the most thankless in the whole of Wikipedia, and we ought to damn grateful to SandyG and the other delegates for what they do, not knocking them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll offer you the kingly crown the other two times later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you misquoted Sherman. Good thing you didn't source that quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily source that quote, as he said the same thing in different ways throughout his career. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that they were very likely to nominate or elect him, actually. He would not have gotten a vote south of Philadelphia.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this was supposed to be my wikibreak until someone or other called a snap ... a snap ... well, not an election obviously. Curious timing.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it curious that I, who stated I would start a discussion in the New Year, did exactly that as soon as my ski trip due to no snow was cancelled? I'm sorry I don't keep up with your personal business, but what is "snap" about holding deliberative discussions that will hopefully lead to a well developed RFC? This reads as if you're on a personal campaign to hold immediate elections, and that you have something personally invested in the outcome; is there consensus that there should even be elections? I see you've also made references below to having editors "campaign" for delegate; I would be very suspect of anyone who would campaign here or who seeks to introduce politics into an area of Wikipedia where that could affect outcomes. Those very persons inclined towards "campaigning" then might be careful to never use the "Oppose" button when reviewing other FACs, lest they not be "above reproach" to Lecen,[12] (who has attacked more FAC reviewers than I can remember, and led to mulitple recusals, which is why it's good we can send recusals over to the uninvolved Raul654) or fear that they might not be "electable" (sort of like the reason you allude to for not reviewing other people's articles-- the "risk of alienating"). No, a FAC with that kind of politics is not a step in the right direction, and neither LOCE, GA, nor arbcom have similar functions as FAC. FAC delegates judge consensus based on FAC reviewers' comments and should be free of the type of politicing that you mention and that has never been part of this process; what other process on Wikipedia has to fulfill a function similar to FAC? The best FAC reviewers are those who make healthy use of the Oppose button when warranted, and I've never seen one lose respect because of that. We need more reviewers-- not the kind who don't review because they fear the "risk of alienation" or that their own prose might be more carefully examined if they were to review and oppose more often. We don't need reviewers who are politicians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I accept your word in good faith you had no idea I had just started a wikibreak, if that is what you are saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(@ Alarbus) You say that you wish that 10% of all articles were GA/FA by this point. Do you realize how many pages that is? We're talking about 380,000+ articles that would have to meet the standards of those processes. The current number of GAs/FAs is around 17,000. To meet this goal, we'd have to add 363,000+ new GAs/FAs, and keep promoting more to match the number of new creations. It is impossible for any system we could create to meet such a demand without thousands of new reviewers. Also, Malleus is correct that new additions to Wikipedia will tend to lower the GA/FA percentage. It's not impossible to find new subjects that can reach high levels of quality, but it is more difficult than ever. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I think the delegates are doing the best job they can with the cards they're being dealt. If there are insufficient reviews to reach any consensus, they have two main options: leave reviews open longer and clog up FAC, or close them and leave the nominators upset. Unless you are a director or delegate at one of these processes, you can't really understand what a difficult choice that is sometimes. Getting rid of the delegates for what ails FAC (lack of reviewers) amounts to killing the messenger. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arb break 3

FAC is pretty entrenched in the way it works and I'm giving generous benefit of the doubt here, so let's say as a society, FAC typically dislikes change and questions it. So in all fairness, Diannaa, Alarbus, and Wehwalt, who are promoting the idea of an election to improve FAC, please persuade me, at least, that an election would improve the system that exists. This would require you to enumerate FAC's weaknesses, the ways in which the current system restricts improvement, and in what ways specifically elected delegates and directors would improve what the current system lacks. I'm requesting this as a way to avoid personalizing the election suggestion, so I'm not asking anyone to say that Raul or "Sandy sucks". Just concisely describe what your vision is. What I've read above says "change it" but why and how? --Moni3 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given some very specific advice, but my meaning has been misconstrued by presumably well-meaning editors. I just don't know why, because i am actually a plain speaker: I say what I mean, and there are no hidden meanings. Okay, here goes:

The size and structure of the FA page is getting in the way of the process. The fact that the entire review of all the candidates are transcluded onto a single page is impeding the process, because once there are a certain number of candidates on the page, SandyGeorgia can no longer load the page. She has said herself that she has regretfully ocasionally had to archive candidates that have not had adequate reviews because the page is too big and she can no longer load it. The system at GA works differently, and there is room for any number of candidates to sit for any period of time. Other pages are broken and/or malfunctioning as well; on my display, the WP:TFA/R page has a box of "potential upcoming requests" overlapping the table of votes. User:WOSlinker recently tried to improve the page at Wikipedia:Featured articles, and was told that it was impossible to modernise it to today's coding standards. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigs on the Wing) said the solution was to subdivide the ludicrously-big page. But Sandy said it doesn't matter, as only one article per day is promoted, and by the time it's an actual problem the wiki will have burned down, so let's not bother fixing it. Here we have some wonderful technical people who want to help improve the way the featured articles pages and processes are handled, but they are being blown off because they are not "content contributors". You know, Edoktor rules the .css page, the guts of the wiki. Are you seriously saying these people need to go to the library and write an article? That their technical skills are nor wanted or needed? That you are not interested in collaborating with editors who contribute differently from you? The process could be made better, I am sure of it. But I am not a coding expert or web page designer, I am Marty McSorley, not The Great One, so I cannot tell you how the pages could be redesigned to function better. But I do see that people at FA are very set in their ways and resistant to change and that is why it is time to hold elections. Well, that's it for me. I am not accustomed to talking so much and always regret it when I do, so I am going to stop there. Please don't get angry at me or vindictive for I have been directly invited to post here by Moni3, so please consider my remarks carefully, in the spirit of improving the wiki, which we all love. --Dianna (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick question, wouldn't something like Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list be similar to what you're saying about GAN? How could we better publicize this list for people who didn't want to load the whole page? Dana boomer (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dana, are you suggesting something like this? We've discussed reviving the Dispatches in 2012 with The Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving the Dispatches would be a good way to publicize FAC in general, but I was actually thinking about a fairly prominent banner/note at the top of the FAC page, "If you don't want to have to read this whole huge page, try using...". Only, you know, more formal :) Load times, or having to read/scroll through a bunch of candidacies just to get to the one you want, seems to be a big deal. I personally use the nominations viewer "app" and really like it, but maybe that's just me. Dana boomer (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the actual conversation you (mis)quote from ("by the time it's an actual problem the wiki will have burned down"???) Diannaa, I'm still hoping you can answer some of the direct questions posed to you above, and perhaps also explain how the difficulties multiple editors had in loading that page relate to your comments about Edoktor's feedback there? Many of us would like to see FAC function better, you've been invited and encouraged several times to give specific feedback, but I'm unaware of a process or procedure that would allow us not to tranclude all FACs to one page: have you suggestions that would help us improve FAC to that effect? I agree with you about that one (new) irritating aspect of WP:TFAR, but that is a community-run page, outside of the specific remit of delegates, the most frequent editor there is Wehwalt, I'm not aware of who made that change or when it was made-- I've also been unable to figure out how to fix that, but would be most happy if someone did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What change? The upcoming articles box? I think it was put in in '08 or '09. Its use comes and goes. I asked if people still wanted it about a year ago, they still did, even though it is rather underused. Regarding Sandy's point about TFA/R, in my view the end of the year is almost always dead at TFA/R. A lot of the people who care are on break, and Raul and Dabomb always seem to be scrambling for articles just then. I don't see any causal connection between the various reform proposals by Ettrig and TCO, and a lack of interest in TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded in new section below since this is long, and tangential. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I agree that delegates do a good job, but I agree with several people here of having a delegate election would work. I have no experience at the FAC, but I honestly feel the best solution is have FAC backlog, and try to encourage reviews. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Evan, could you please clarify what "the best solution is have FAC backlog" means? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would not archive noms with no !votes if they are a month old or less. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks-- so that we might formulate proposals here, how long would you let nominations run without consensus for promotion before closing them? If we are to formulate a meaningful RFC out of this discussion, some concrete proposals would help. Two months? Six months? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'd say nine weeks. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've asked Mike Christie (who has helped formulate RFCs here in the past) to follow this discussion and pull together an RFC-- whether FACs without consensus for promotion should run for longer than two months can be taken under consideration, if consensus supports that as a workable proposal (past RFCs supported faster archiving of ill-prepared FACs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help if others are willing for me to try some organization of the issues. The link Sandy gives above leads to a set of straw polls on a variety of different ways to improve FAC. Some were successful and were implemented. What I would suggest as a next step is a bullet list of the suggestions that have been made. If that's thought to be a reasonably accurate representation of the conversation so far, then formulating each as a straw poll to get an idea of prevailing preferences would be next. Doing that last time gave us some clear indications of where there was dissatisfaction and where there was not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could prepare something in a sandbox?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I think it would be great for you to take the lead in putting together the obviously necessary RfC here - the formula of the last one seemed to work quite well and resulted in a (relatively) clear set of suggestions (mandates?) from the community. Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike would be an incumbent/regular here? That would entail some level of CoI, and really SandyGeorgia should not be cherry picking the one who frames this. Far better to seek an outsider such as User:Mdennis (WMF), who has a job to do here: Community Liaison. I'll ping her. Alarbus (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be great to get MRG's (Maggie's) input, I think you're really not assuming good faith here. Although Mike writes FAs, his main qualification is that he has put together solid RfCs in the past that have made discussing and consensus gathering easy. I have seen a lot of RfCs that are poorly put together and end up in a huge mess - the one's that Mike has done in the past have not done so. Besides, just because Mike is doing the initial framing of the discussion doesn't mean that whatever he says goes - if someone has a problem with the way a statement is worded it can always be changed. You can see the last RfC and the pre- and post-discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive43. As you can see, the community was more than welcome to add proposals of their own, and there was fairly wide input, resulting in several changes being made to the FAC process. Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just left her a note. My thinking is that this should be framed by someone uninvolved, and as far as I know, she is. This would also appear to be her job here. We'll see what she says. And thank you for the link, which I'll go have a look at. Alarbus (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... I'm thinking that any discussion about changes to internal FAC practice would follow the inauguration of new FA leadership. I'm more interested in a framework for discussing how the elections should be held, what the roles are. The Director function, of course, but after that it gets murky. What are the next tier roles? Clerks? Coordinators? Delegates are simply those that the role of the Director has been delegated to, and as such there really is only one authority here. Alarbus (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is why I was talking about electing the director under the present system, for a limited term, with the present powers and duties of the office, and during that term deciding on other changes under their guidance. Obviously anyone seeking the office would have to answer questions during the campaign about what he is going to want to see in terms of change (if anything).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alarbus (and everyone else), if MRG is acceptable to everyone to frame the RfC then I'd be happy for that to happen. The benefit of having me do it is just that I have a lot of knowledge of FAC and can use that to help organize the issues. If there is consensus that I have a CoI then of course I shouldn't be the one to set up the RfC. I think (at least, I hope) that I have a reputation as fair-minded and not excitable, and not particularly a partisan of any one view, so I think I am qualified. I would also recuse myself from expressing any opinions within the RfC itself to avoid any further appearance of CoI.

I'll try to put a structured list of possible issues together this evening and post it below, and we can see if there are more comments by that time on whether I or MRG would be better positioned to help organize the RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, that sounds like a good plan of action. Perhaps having you and MRG (if she's willing) work together would be good - your knowledge of the FA process combined with her lack thereof? Also, Alarbus, I think that one of the questions on the RfC will be whether or not there should be an election - so far, there is no consensus one way or the other on this page. I'm also not sure why you're so sure that the incumbents (with the exception of Karanacs, probably, since she hasn't been active for the majority of a year(?)) won't just be "elected" into the spots they already hold. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, just work together and report back in (how long should we allow?). And I agree, the incumbents who choose to run will stand a very good chance. But we will have chosen them to, and that's a big difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slipping in to say that as community liaison, I'm really here to help coordinate work between the communities and the Foundation, but if Mike would like a second set of eyes, I'd be happy to offer him a pair, if even as User:Moonriddengirl. Since RFC's are engineered for the wider community, I may be able to offer some input on where clarity could be added for others like me who aren't familiar with the process. Mike, please just ping me if I can help. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the assumption that an outsider would have clearer insight into how FAC operates or should operate. Wouldn't an outsider have considerably less insight? --Moni3 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are all members of the Wikipedia community; by definition there are no outsiders.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no outsiders, why have MDennis enter this discussion? I think what you're going for here is an ideal that opposes pragmatism. Randomly choosing an editor to run FAC would be foolish. --Moni3 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arb break 4

As some feedback from a relatively frequent FA nominator and reviewer (note that I haven't many of the above comments)

I think that Sandy and the other FA delegates do their job very well. I certainly appreciate their efforts over the years.
The declining number of reviewers is concerning. However, this is inline with the overall decline in the number of active editors, so may not be FA-specific.
That said, I think that the rise of image and source reviews has contributed to a mistaken perception that it's more difficult to review FACs than it used to be (eg, that it's not enough to simply read the article and comment on prose and completeness). I'd suggest fiddling with the layout of the FAC pages to address this - one approach would be to have seperate 'content review' and 'image and source review' sections.
As feedback, I think that there's currently a lack of clarity around the requirements for a FAC to be closed as successful. This has come up in discussions I've had with several very experienced editors, and the perception is that it's difficult to predict at which point FACs are closed and, as a result, that the process is inconsistent. Clearer or better publicised guidance on this topic would be helpful in addressing this (and I don't think that there should be one-size-fits-all closure process).
I think that some form of election for FA delegate status would be helpful. I'm a current coordinator of WP:MILHIST, and served as a coordinator for about two successive years a while ago as well, and in my experience the use of elections for these positions has been very helpful in providing coordinators with authority to go about their tasks (which carry the FA delegate-equivalent responsibility of closing the project's A class reviews) and ensuring a turnover of editors through coordinator roles (note that, from memory, all the incumbent coordinators who've stood for re-election have been successful; the virtue of having regular elections is that it gives the coordinators a prompt to consider whether they still want to do the job, and allows other editors to put their hands up to volunteer for this role). Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting briefly on the elections issue, I followed the recent MILHIST co-ordinators election and found it a bit different to other elections. Maybe it would help to outline here what potential commentators would look for in a FAC delegate? My view is that rather than elections, it might be helpful to have candidates either be nominated or put themselves forward for a position, and then open the floor for comments, followed by Raul (or the current delegates?) appointing new delegates (the only trouble with that is that some might want Raul himself to put himself forward in some form of reconfirmation process - I should state up front here that I'm implacably opposed to any 'for life' appointments - call people 'emeritus' or something, but don't let them get in the way of fresh blood). Also, someone linked to it last time I asked, but the history of how the current delegates were appointed should be required reading for anyone wanting to comment on this.

My views on the minimum requirements for a FAC delegate is that they have spent at least the past year regularly reviewing at FAC, have a minimum number of FAC reviews, and should also have taken at least one (maybe more?) articles to FA status. Each candidate would outline how they meet these criteria and let people judge that. One sticking point is current delegates (incumbents) who may (understandably) have done less reviews recently, but presumably did more before they became delegates. Do each of the current delegates have a potted history written down somewhere of their track record at the FA process? Possibly not, but they should, really, if you think about it. Anyway, the point I'm making here is that the mechanics of any election or comment-appointment process matter less than being clear what makes a good FAC delegate. One very important criteria I forgot is having the time to keep reviewing while still closing other FACs. If you had to chose between a FAC delegate that only closed FACs and had no time for reviewing, and a FAC delegate that closed less FACs but did some reviewing and FA writing as well, which would you chose? Carcharoth (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, it is not just about efficiency, and forgive me if I evade your question. Let me tell you what I am looking for in a FA delegate. This is not a knock on the incumbents, who I respect greatly for their work and as people:

Knowledgable about the process, and cheerfully available to share information as needed. The ideal delegate would be available to all, and when you went to them for help, you felt like you were consulting a friend for informal advice.

Friendly (though not necessarily "friends") with all FA regulars, without worry about factionalism or cliquishness, not to mention anyone else who comes along! Not bitey to newbies, and does not give the impression or have the reputation as bitey. Does not inspire excessive personal loyalty, though obviously people respect them and their office, but people are happy to give feedback as they go along, without worrying about having their head bitten off. After all, the post is only temporary, no one wants it forever.

Considers the post "no big deal" (if I can drop such loaded words into the discussion) and not too worried about the next election as isn't sure whether they want the inevitable grief as lightning rod for FAC for another year or going back to reviewing/article writing. Ideally, people would regularly cycle between the various functions, much as they do in other projects

Available enough to promote/archive regularly. Gives feedback regularly (for example, to archived FAC nominators, and people don't worry about approaching them for additional feedback, as it will be given cheerfully, though certainly a certain amount of reserve with people who just won't be satisfied is OK). Hard enough to stick to their guns in a dispute, but doesn't bring personality into it.

Always open to new ideas, reaction on when presented with new ideas is to seek the good in them, rather than attacking them. Indeed, might even step back, knowing that there is influence attached to their position and allow the discussion to develop on the merits, rather than lead an attack on the proposal, or on its opposers. I see this as key, and if you don't have this, you will have a moribund and unpopular process, though still possibly respected from the outside.

Helpful if the person was an admin (for example, can change the TFA after protection sets in), but certainly not required. However, such a person would likely receive a relatively easy RfA. If this is not the case, then strength in other elements would help, such as helpfulness, lack of biteyness, knowledge and experience in the process. Basically what you look for in any leader, experience, leadership skills of various sorts, if you can't get the perfect candidate (usually you can't), then you look and weigh and measure, and decide.

In my opinion such a person would benefit greatly in their duties by having an electoral mandate. That way, no one can say "Show me your voters, explain to me why you are the best person for the job right now, and how you are justified in withholding from the community, what it does in every other case: allow editors to decide their leaders. In fact, how are you more entitled to fill the position than anyone else here, if you lack an electoral mandate?" The individual can say, "Maybe I'm not perfect, but the community talked it out and elected me."

That's the sort of checklist I would run down if presented with a choice for delegate (or for director, actually). Not shooting arrows at anyone, although obviously my comments are guided by things I'd like to see, based on (I think it is) 67 FACs, not all of which have succeeded. And again, not a knock on the incumbents, such perfect people as I propose are probably up to their eyeballs in commitments, other projects long since having grabbed them. That being said, I'd be willing to go with the imperfect, if there was an election down the road, without all this drama. Just something which is part of the process, accepted, and not to be argued over endlessly.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that if we are talking about a candidate for the directorship, I would be looking to see what kind of strategic vision they have for the process, willingness to act as our advocate with Saint Petersburg on such things as my JSTOR proposal, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I missed: Moni, I am not going to try to persuade you right now. This is generally to gauge support to see if it is worth having the RfC. We can argue it out at that stage. I would respectfully suggest that there is sufficient support for elections that it would be imprudent to ignore it. I will happily engage to persuade you at the later stage.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wehwalt and Carcharoth's both make excellent points. J Milburn (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to see if the delegate-election proponents actually had clear ideas in mind instead of "this sucks get rid of everyone", so in that vein I think we have similar goals. If there is enough clarity here to warrant an RfC then it should take place and let FAC regulars and other interested editors get creative and come up with solutions to legitimate problems. If the discussion wanders into unhappy ramblings and vague fussing then it should be archived and everyone should go back to work. --Moni3 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I liked Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list so much I've bookmarked it and promise not to complain about walls of text until the next highly controversial FAC (is 700k still the record for an FAC?). It would still be helpful to add a few features, especially if they enabled people to find candidates that hadn't yet been reviewed against certain criteria, but I can live with this list. As for governance and elections, no we don't currently need to change what we are doing as our shortage is reviewers not delegates. But FA is not a short term project, if Wikipedia is still around to celebrate the centenary of its founding then I doubt that any of the current delegates will still be in post. Reviewing Governance is always boring or urgent, and to some people both at the same time. There is an argument that it is better to sort out governance issues when the topic is boring rather than to wait until it becomes urgent. So no hurry, but if there are people who don't like the idea of electing delegates can I suggest that you work up a counter proposal? Ϣere SpielChequers 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reference purposes, here is the discussion that ratified Raul as Featured Article Director.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see it was ratified and not just a Jimbo appointment. I'm not seeing a huge demand for a change in who runs the FA process, these are in effect volunteer jobs and there is a perfectly good argument that when a volunteer is doing a good job you let them continue until they lose interest or otherwise have to slow down. But it seems sensible to me that we decide in advance how we handle succession. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 5

Not sure where in this discussion this should go, but anyway, I propose:

1) Every FAC should have a decent paragraph that describes the topic and why it's important. Like the beginning of current FACs, only longer (in most cases) and with a bit about the topic of the article (what "XXX" actually is, eg. the country, area, etc.)

2) The main FAC page be made up of these paragraphs only - like WP:FACL but with blurbs

Reasoning: simulatenously deals with the overly long FAC page; separate pages would mean the return of templates and section headings; interesting blurbs should draw in reviewers. I can't speak for all nominators, of course, but I imagine given the time they've put into to the article, and the benefits a good blurb would bring, on a subject they clearly care about, that they would not mind.

Thoughts? Might be worth considering at RfC if people think it's a good idea. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers

Picking up on the first point Sandy raised ("lack of reviewers"), I'd like to ask if it is possible for FAC delegates (and others among the "prolific FAC reviewer[s] or FA writer[s]" to give more feedback to reviewers? I did a fair amount of reviewing last year (2011) in the sense that it took up a fair amount of my time (the time spent closely reading and re-reading articles, and also the prior reviews an article has had, isn't visible in edit counts or length or number of reviews), but am little the wiser as to how helpful it really was. From some nominators I got profuse thanks, from others a rather defensive response. Very occasionally a delegate might comment or chide if I went off-topic or missed the point, but that was rare. Should I take that to mean that most of my reviews were helpful?

Reviewing, like writing, is not something that people can do well immediately. They take time to gain the confidence to comment on certain things, and to learn to avoid some areas, and any help that FAC regulars and delegates can give for that learning process would help. Would it take too much time to thank those who did particularly helpful reviews, and also to point out ways in which reviews could improve?

My intention for 2012 is to spend more time writing as opposed to reviewing, but if the prolific reviewers could each link to, or write a bit, on how they approach reviewing, that would really help. By this I mean something more practical than the criteria at WP:WIAFA. Break it down a bit more. List the tools that people use to check for things. Make clearer how to be more efficient at reviewing (i.e. that certain minimum checks are needed before getting too deeply into a review). I have at times tried to write something myself on all this, but there are so many things that can be checked about an article that it can be overwhelming. If there are elements commonly raised that are outside of WIAFA, state those explicitly. Also, for some articles it would really help if more co-ordinated reviewing was possible. I suggested at a recent FAC of a country article (Bulgaria) that reviewers volunteer to take portions of the article and review those, as that seems to be a better way to approach it. Not sure if anyone responded to that, but that is something FAC delegates could help with - co-ordinating reviewing resources as well as helping to bring on the next generation of reviewers. Carcharoth (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel extremely bad coming in very late to this discussion, but 2010 and 2011 drained my Wiki work for college purposes, and with my luck 2012 might damage it some. M-185 (Michigan highway) was my first FAC since Feb 2010. This includes my lack of reviewing anywhere. During the last couple years I've asked, if you need something reviewed, get my attention because my life has gotten in my way of doing things. However, I like the idea explained by Carcharoth of breaking down the article, because it makes things so much easier in the long run, especially for people like me, who prefer some detail. I've done some FAC reviewing in the past, but I've defaulted mainly to those who review more often than I do, because they're well-versed, and unfortunately, fewer are coming by. On M-185, we had a 9 or 10 day gap between reviews, something on FAC I'm not totally used to. (I'm used to going for 32-45 days on GAN for one). My current FAC hasn't seen any comments in 4 days, and honestly, I'm actually getting rather impatient because I'm wanting some constructive help. A lot of what I've gotten is basic stuff, and FAC is supposed to be more than that. As for the arguments over elections and the delegates, I'm of no opinion. I don't feel my opinion is needed in this topic, because it looks well-covered enough. And honestly, I wouldn't participate in whatever method. We need reviewers. Reviewers is top priority. Delegates, we have two of them active enough to handle it right now, Sandy and Uchucha. We need reviewers. Otherwise, FAC cannot live. (I pardon my terrible grammar, it is 2:35 EST, I stayed up to watch the caucuses in Iowa, so my brain is fried.)Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 07:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do that many reviews (it is very difficult for me to judge other people's work) so I am grateful for reviews when they come along. I had not thought of offering them feedback, but would be cautious about such things, due to the usual disinclination around here to risk alienating people. Ideally, some feedback should fall under a delegate function.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up on some issues raised above and below:

I think the point about nominations that are ill-prepared lingering too long at FAC is an important one, but is tied in with guiding potential and less-experienced volunteer reviewers as to what their role is (i.e. the whole providing reviewers with feedback issue). Newer reviewers will be more reluctant to oppose until they have found their feet (i.e. understand precisely when an oppose is justified). From what I can see, most new reviewers start out with 'comments' and then find a comfort zone where they are comfortable supporting or opposing. When this is not helpful (i.e. failing to oppose when the comments are trending that way or an oppose is looking obvious; or long comments and advice that crosses the line into what would look more like a peer review), FAC delegates (and other experienced reviewers) need to step in and say this. It would help immensely when an inexperienced reviewer made comments that could justify an oppose, if a more experienced reviewer stepped in and said (along with other comments): "I agree, suggest withdrawal", or "I agree, oppose", or "leaning oppose, but will return in x days to see if issues have been resolved".
On FAC delegates making comments about reviews that are getting out of control (for whatever reason), sometimes such comments are made without naming anyone, which is actually not helpful as an inexperienced reviewer may not realise that this comment (by someone they may not even know is a FAC delegate) is obliquely referring to their review! One of the most helpful things I think FAC delegates and experienced reviewers can do is to tell other reviewers when they think the line has been crossed from helpful commentary to a peer review.
I have sympathy with Wehwalt's position on reluctance to review - it can be hard for those who have worked hard on articles, and know how much work other editors have put in on this article at FAC, to be critical. Tensions in FACs understandably arise when opposes are being implied or severe criticism is being made - the FAC delegates could maybe help smooth things over there without being seen to take sides (a difficult balancing act) - possibly resolving tensions is better done by other reviewers joining the review. Sometimes when a nominator disagrees with a point I've made, I step back and invite other reviewers to comment - it would help if other reviewers actually did comment one way or the other, rather than silence being the result! My tendency, rather than opposing, is to withhold support, but that might in some ways be worse. I also have a bad habit of skipping ill-prepared FACs and reviewing those that I think have a chance of justifying a support. Maybe everyone should resolve to look down the FAC list and hone in on the few that look ill-prepared and actually say that (without piling on, of course).
Another matter related to opposes is what to do when tensions arise to the point that a reviewer may feel uncomfortable reviewing a future article submitted by the same editor. This is exacerbated by editors (understandably) specialising in topic areas. A reviewer may enjoy reading and reviewing in a particular topic area, but the nominator may not see that and may (due to the previous tensions) see the same reviewer turning up again as that reviewer focusing on the editor, rather than the topic area. What is the best way to resolve this? The only way I can see that doesn't involve awkward approaches such as "I would like to review this article, can we put the tensions from that other FAC behind us", is to skip the next nomination in that topic area and review the one after that.
About nominators who don't review, maybe apply some reverse psychology and require every nominator to link to the last time they reviewed at GAN, PR or FAC - this is not requiring people to do reviews, but requiring them to face up to how much or how little reviewing they do. This may obliquely start to encourage some nominators to review more, to avoid the embarrassment of turning up at FAC and saying "um, the last time I did a review was 15 months ago..." (or whatever).

Hopefully some of those thoughts will help. Particularly the last one, which the more I think about it, might really help. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other concerns

Diannaa raised several concerns that I'm separating out here lest they get lost and to avoid edit conflicts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR display problem

Other pages are broken and/or malfunctioning as well; on my display, the WP:TFA/R page has a box of "potential upcoming requests" overlapping the table of votes. --Dianna (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about that one (new) irritating aspect of WP:TFAR, but that is a community-run page, outside of the specific remit of delegates, the most frequent editor there is Wehwalt, I'm not aware of who made that change or when it was made-- I've also been unable to figure out how to fix that, but would be most happy if someone did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What change? The upcoming articles box? I think it was put in in '08 or '09. Its use comes and goes. I asked if people still wanted it about a year ago, they still did, even though it is rather underused. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

History: I started the pending requests template in 2008 (as part of an effort to make that page more useful and to eventually turn more TFA scheduling over to the community), it has never "come and gone" to my knowledge, it was always linked from the talk page at WT:TFAR but sometime in the last six months someone moved it to the main page, I don't know when or by whom, but it has created a display problem ever since. It displays fine in Firefox, but according to this chart, Internet Explorer is the most used browser on Wikipedia, and the addition of the template to the WP:TFAR page has "broken" the page display in IE. The "broken" display isn't currently as bad as typical because the request page is now almost empty; to see the problem, look at this older bustling version of the page using IE. I tried to fix it once, but I don't frequent that page regularly, and each time I visit the page I find that not only are displays broken, tallies are not updated, the dividing line between non-specific and date requests removed, but more importantly, that blurbs aren't regularly checked (they don't always follow the instructions for the mainpage) nor are articles reviewed for TFA readiness. This page was set up specifically so the community could have a greater say in TFA scheduling, Wehwalt has unofficially overseen the page for several years, yet the community the page is supposed to be serving does not keep it up to standard or even assure that blurbs are formatted correctly for the mainpage. Besides that it would be nice if someone sorted the display problem (it really is a SOFIXIT issue), it would be even better if the community used that page to actually review articles that are proposed for TFA to assure they're mainpage ready, and maintain the page, blurbs, tallies, formatting, etc. As with several of Diannaa's points, I'm unclear how this relates to a discussion of FAC or what part this would have in an RFC; clarification welcome, because the problem Diannaa highlights seems to be an indication of what can go wrong when the community doesn't respond to tasks delegated to it at their behest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oversee anything. I'm one of several people who do the scutwork like evaluate points and whatnot. Dabomb's done a great deal of work on that page, for one, not to slight others, even before his promotion. I'm not on all the time, everyone pitches together. Perhaps I should have said the template has been underused at time, and with low participation several months ago on both the requests page and in the template, I asked if people still wanted it. People did, and it's seen more use the last few months.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flatlist at WP:FA

User:WOSlinker recently tried to improve the page at Wikipedia:Featured articles, and was told that it was impossible to modernise it to today's coding standards. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigs on the Wing) said the solution was to subdivide the ludicrously-big page. But Sandy said it doesn't matter, as only one article per day is promoted, and by the time it's an actual problem the wiki will have burned down, so let's not bother fixing it. Here we have some wonderful technical people who want to help improve the way the featured articles pages and processes are handled, but they are being blown off because they are not "content contributors". You know, Edoktor rules the .css page, the guts of the wiki. --Dianna (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is another issue where I'm unclear how this ties in to an RFC about FAC (and also one where Diannaa has done some rather extensive misquoting and misrepresenting, which isn't the best way to promote improvements to processes). The discussion is here. No one has yet explained why we need to implement this, but the discussion is still open (and seems to have been dropped because no one had an answer for that). Pigs on the Wing initially implemented the change, it was stated that it was to benefit those using screenreaders, but User:Graham87 (who uses a screenreader) doesn't appear concerned. So, what is broken there, what are we trying to fix, what proposals need to be worked in to an RFC, but no one has said the things that Diannaa represents above. Multiple editors opined there that the change was slowing down the page, and anything others can contribute to the discussion there would be more helpful than coming to this page to mischaracterize the discussion.

While we're on that page, though, there's another possible symptom of "what ails Wikipedia" in the next section, here. It's been four days since I responded to a query there, suggesting that we get more feedback before making the change. Zero feedback. Declining editorship across the Wikipedia. I'm still unclear how these issues relate or how Diannaa wants these points factored in to a RFC about FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC page loadtime

Another confusing misstatement from Diannaa:

... because once there are a certain number of candidates on the page, SandyGeorgia can no longer load the page.

This is not really an accurate statement of the issue, so it's hard to understand just what you're getting at or what change you propose. Diannaa, you originally said:

If the FA team was to work in coordination with the more technically-minded people and the people who run the bots, the system could likely be improved.

I'm all ears (eyes), but so far, I'm not getting anything from you that can be turned into concrete proposals for evaluation on an RFC, nor am I getting direct answers to direct questions (do people favor the bot placement of "older nominations", or a more flexible manual intervention?). It would be helpful if you could give examples, reasons, issues pertinent to FAC from which concrete proposals can be generated to put before the community in an RFC. What I am seeing explicitly in your sentence above is that you believe there is a lack of technically minded people involved here. If you're intending to say we need "new techical blood", the question becomes, do we want more automation here, more process, more bots, and if so, exactly what kind and where, and is there some attempt here to make FA work more like GA, which is a very different process?

I'm also still waiting for an answer to my query:

@ Diannaa, could you give some examples of how the FAC consensus-driven process, whereby delegates judge consensus, measure whether everything important has been assessed, make sure independent and expert review is provided, and promote or archive based on reviewer commentary, is similar to the skills needed to join in copyediting at the Guild of Copy Editors?

This is not, as you said folks getting "angry at me or vindictive", rather an attempt to help you focus your concerns so they can be "consider[ed] ... carefully, in the spirit of improving the wiki, which we all love." The goal here is a meaningful RFC, so we can avoid the "garbage in-garbage out", thrown up too quickly before the issues were all understood, RFCs that are all too often typical of Wikipedia's consensus process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate RfC issues

Here's a bullet list extracted from the discussions above, and grouped by topic. I think a good next step is to pick a subset of these issues and decide if an RfC is warranted. I don't think it would be wise to try to RfC all these at once. Please add to the list below, but I don't think there's a need to fuss over exact wording just yet -- this is not the RfC; we're just trying to decide what the right topics are.

I will ping Maggie and ask her to look this over and suggest improvements to this approach.

I've left a little redundancy in the wording to reflect the form of words used by various posters above; some of these could be compressed to fewer points, but I wanted to preserve some of the original comments.

Leadership structure and current leadership
- Should the position of director be made an elected post? Should delegates be elected, and if so, do we need a director? If there are elections, how should they be run?
- Do we need to modify/expand/clarify the definition of the director/delegate role?
- Are there any problems with the behaviour, standards or methods of the current FAC/FAR/TFAR delegates?
- Are there other roles than delegates/director? Should we have clerks/coordinators/something else?
FAC page structure and review structure
- Can bots help in the FAC process in some way – perhaps by changing the page design?
- Does the size and structure of the FAC page get in the way of the process? Does page loading time cause problems that could be eliminated by going to a structure such as the one used for GAN?
- How about separating review sections into “image and source review” and “content review”?
- Can the reviewing processing itself be improved in any way – e.g. via a checklist? Should reviews be sectioned and perhaps have collapsible sections?
Reviewers
- Should anything be done about editors who submit many FACs but review few FACs?
- What can be done to encourage more reviewers?
- Should feedback be given to reviewers as to whether they have done a good job reviewing? Who should provide this? Is there a process that would help reviewers learn to improve?
Issues with nominations and reviews
- Are prose standards slipping? What can we do about it?
- What should be done with a FAC that sits unreviewed or unsupported for a long time? What’s a "long time" in this context?
- Should nominations simply stay on FAC till they have received enough reviews, rather than be removed? If not, should there be a specific time limit?
- Are nominations that are ill-prepared lingering too long at FAC? Can anything be done about this?
Miscellaneous
- WP:TFAR has little activity. Is this a problem? Should anything be done, and if so, what?
- Would it be beneficial to revive the Dispatches as a way of publicizing FAC (or for any other reason)?

I suggest folks comment on which of the above sections they think should be the first target for an RfC, and of course to indicate if they don't think an RfC is necessary. I think we should let this discussion run at least till tomorrow evening (US east coast time); if there's a consensus on the general target then I'll draft an RfC formulation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent start, looks great ... until I got to ... "at least till tomorrow evening", which seems premature considering relatively few have weighed in here (discussion dominated by small number of participants relative to the pool who is usually here), and many are still in holidays, and there's a lot to digest on the page (I haven't read but about half of it yet). Today is almost Thursday UTC-- how about letting this portion go through the weekend (unless you see it stalled after about two days), lest some are still returning from holiday and need the weekend to peek in? Ucucha hasn't even weighed in, for example, nor has Gimmetrow, who does bot work, nor Dabomb87 who schedules TFAs (and gets clobbered at WP:ERRORS when FAC lets sloppy prose through)-- they may have additional concerns or feedback. This discussion has been running barely over a day-- another 24 hours seems rushed, particularly since we're just coming out of holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, allow people to ~~sober up~~ return to their routines. I'd leave it open for comment through the day Monday. This is a popular vacation week, and not everyone edits on the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as well (and good summary of the possible issues, though not sure which should be tackled first). This needs time to be done properly. After I've written a bit more above, I'm going to comment on the issue raised somewhere else by Sandy four days ago (which is probably due less to declining editorship than to some pages getting less traffic around here). Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Succession

In the leadership bit there needs to be room to discuss how else we handle succession, and we need to tackle the issue of whether appointments are indefinite or whether we have periodic elections. No one has disputed that we need an alternative to appointment by Jimbo or someone appointed by him, and elections are the only option so far proposed. But there is a big difference between "next time we have a vacancy for this post we will fill it this way" and every "March we will hold elections for the following posts". I'd like to see the RFC cover this. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Raul was appointed by Jimbo. I think he just did the work and became it de facto, and then was confirmed by a vote. Which carelessly left out the standard terms. Sigh. He has done a fine job over the years, I think we can all applaud him.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing basic info here, WSC. We already have a way to handle succession: none of us serve "for life", we all serve until we goof and Raul can dismiss us, all of us are fine with that, and that no one has disputed that we need an alternate to this setup is wrong. In multiple and every past discussion, it has been confirmed that this was desirable, working, not broken. By the way, no one has yet answered the question I posed several times above, which is what harm was there in leaving Laser and Karanacs "on the books" while they weren't promoting, when has there ever been a lag at FAC due to lack of delegates, in fact, when has there ever been a "vacancy" or a succession problem or issue? The first question to be asked is, should we change anything about the way succession currently works? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, doesn't that depend on what you do with the director?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I was poking through the WT:FAC archives and came upon this discussion, which touches on many of the same things we are talking about now. I did have a couple of good laughs reading through, I must say, but there is much which foreshadows this discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sandy. Serving until the Director decides otherwise means that it is only the Director post where we have a gap in our succession policy. But we still have a policy gap, we could leave that gap until that post is vacant, or we could decide in advance how we would handle things when the vacancy occurs. My preference is for considering such things in advance, but not at a "busy" time. I would predict that the WikiCup will give FA a bunch of first time FAC nominators in the next few months, so I would suggest working out which was the quietest month in 2011 for FA Nominations and schedule an FA RFC for that month in 2012. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

Second thought, Mike, there is something missing. It's never explicitly stated on the page, but it's a theme throughout several sections. Delegates were once assumed (or at least, I assumed they were) to be in COI if they commented too much on a particular FAC or a particular reviewer, etc. Yet above, we're finding requests that delegates give more feedback to reviewers and on FACs, which can then be used to say we're in COI. What happened to "it's our job to judge consensus", not do the reviews ourselves. I am very careful about how much I say on a FAC or during a FAC, but then, I'm also finding more and more that I can't promote a FAC because it has glaring issues, so I'm forced to say that on the FAC (which is not my preference, but considering declining reviewers, has to be done sometimes). And, considering the four-day-old and ignored discussion at WT:FA, are more and more folks just assuming that delegates will make all decisions, pick up everything missed, do all and be all, so that feedback isn't given even when requested? Are we supposed to have a larger role, and what kind of slippery slope would it be if we got too engaged in particular FACs or giving specific feedback. No idea how you might word that whole dilemma on the RFC, but I find it very strange that people are asking for more feedback from us, when past conventional wisdom was that we judged consensus and avoided COI by speaking up only when absolutely necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need more delegates. Then it could be like an admin at AFD or crats at RFA, if you don't agree with the consensus that's emerging you can chime in like any other editor and leave it to someone else to close. Obviously you can't do that unless you have more delegates, but then if the delegates were reviewing some candidate and closing others appointing more delegates wouldn't necessarily mean getting fewer reviews. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we do that, we still get accused of using our delegate position and having a COI, even on future FACs. It sounds good in practice, but hasn't worked well in theory (see the mess of a mess involving Lecen, where one or another of us almost always had to recuse). I've always thought that the less we get involved, the better, so that we really are only judging the consensus of the reviewer work, unless we see something glaring or missing. That doesn't mean I won't recuse and review an occassional article, but I'm aware of the risk of doing that-- that nominator may then demand that I recuse on all future FACs (have seen that often). Is the risk worth it? What stops us from pretty soon having nominators like Lecen who have tangled with everyone, so that they want everyone tossed out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can be COI because of providing additional information. After all, you're being asked for it. That waives it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even in that case, I've seen times where it would create a conflict, or worse, prejudice the FAC. The instance I most recall was a FAC where reviewers kept claiming the article wasn't stable (1e), but never made a case based on WIAFA for why they thought it wasn't stable. By weighing in to clarify (which I probably eventually did), would I not prejudice the outcome of the FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicts) You (Sandy) have a good point there. It doesn't necessarily have to be FAC delegates that give this kind of feedback - experienced reviewers could give this feedback as well, but are really under no obligation to do so. I do think FAC delegates should do a review every now and again, if only to demonstrate what they are looking for in a review. And to be frank, as you have more than one FAC delegate, you could rotate the role of 'calling out ill-prepared FACs in the hope that other FAC reviewers will get the hint' with the role of 'closing such FACs'. If you really don't think it is appropriate for FAC delegates to be calling out the ill-prepared FACs, ask a regular reviewer to do that. Obviously don't name the ill-prepared FACs, but say that a sweep of FAC is needed to cull some of the less well-prepared ones. I don't think that goes beyond what FAC delegates should be doing anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. Or ask the nominator to ask a regular to look at the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other experienced reviewers should be doing this is exactly how I've always seen it-- that keeps delegates out of COI, and from then having to increasingly recuse, until we end up with another situation like Lecen, where delegates are recused and reviewers are alienated. On the ill-prepared, that is how we do it-- we can close them (according to the rules) after more than one reviewer suggests it (see exact wording on FAC instructions-- we don't just do it on our own). The problem throughout this discussion is that we have people with limited understanding of FAC asking for things that can and will compromise FAC ala be careful of what you wish for. If that's the way the RFC goes, fine-- it just means that FAR will be more active, as we'll start to see faulty FAs run through FAR quicker, and even more drain on reviewers-- a revolving door we haven't seen for years. And, since you mentioned what we're looking for in reviews, this is how I conduct a complete review, after I find a FAC that has garnered support but is lacking: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1. That FAC had support for promotion when I read it, and knew I couldn't let it go like that, so I recused and reviewed, and had great hopes that my review would inspire more thorough reviews :/ Note there that, even though I recused, Tony1 accused me of a COI ... so there you go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Anything you do is politically charged, so to speak. Even a request. What you would like is for the community to be active enough so these things would be caught without you getting involved, with all the implications of you getting involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a not-so nutshell! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to have things presented from your perspective, Sandy. And I am glad we are getting down to cases. So to speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is all kinda standard stuff, long understood here, but perhaps the declining editorship has meant that such issues don't get so frequently discussed here on talk, hence we get new folks in here who believe everything they read on the internet, we've had no Dispatches since WP:FCDW was cratered, so we've got nothing to correct misperceptions. <sigh> We need to get the Dispatches going again, but again, back to resources-- we've got a handful of people doing all the review work, at GAN, at FAC and FAR, and at PR, and without more reviewers, who will find time to write Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is nowhere written down in an organized fashion, then we rely too much on precedent and tradition, and I know there's a page in policy someplace (possibly an essay) that says that that isn't nice because it gives newbies too steep a learning curve. What's understood between FAC veterans is not understood by the good faith nominator who gets hit with the buzzsaw :) --Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we have something somewhere on Wikipedia that explains the fundamentals of COI, involved, how one judges consensus, etc. We must, no? Would we be reinventing the wheel to explain why delegates need to remain uninvolved, and why Raul's uninvolved oversight is a good thing, since we have someone to punt to when we're accused of COI? I would never have thought it needed to be explained, but then I never would have thought that people didn't see how elections would damage the one "FAC is not a vote" place on the Wikipedia-- where favors, backchannel dealing, politics, etc won't get your article promoted if it doesn't meet standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, there are any number of ways to insulate the delegates from interference, although I think in practice you fear too much. FAC people are outspoken, and I think you would find they would speak out. One idea was my basic proposal--elect the director and let him have the political responsibility. That is the same basic pattern that was followed in 2004 and can be repeated in some suitable and updated way. Then the director answers to the community for his own performance and that of the delegates.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers and issues with FAC (TCO comments)

Hadn't looked at this page in weeks. I really do take stuff of watch and not follow up on it. (It is great, try it some time.) Some interesting stuff going on. About what I expected, but perhaps a little better than expected. Kudos, peeps!

Getting reviewers

The one comment that was most amusing was Sandy asking about how to get more reviewers. SHEESH. It is NOT that hard a problem. The bigger problem is the article writing. That's a ballbuster. Moni nailed that with the go to the library and write comment. Yeah reviews are a heck of a lot of work...but writing the content on a real topic is (heck of a lot of work)^2. So...on to reviewers...

A. Make it a delegate priority! To go and get reviewers into the process. Think of it as part of the JOB to grow the health of the program. Not just firefight. Not just "go throught the page". And not just whine on FAC Talk. Think. Monitor. Evaluate. Experiment. Change. And motivate!

B. Delegates should circulate in space and work with new editors. Not just the old war horses and cronies. I mean shit...she whined about not having a Fashua Nua image reviewer replacement and I got some Graphics Lab peeps in there in two shakes of a tail. EASY! She needs to stop holding court on her talk page and spending all her time with dwindling cronies. (Actually she needs to be gone and an outgoing leader in there.)

There is no freaking way that MaterialScientist would not do a good job here as a reviewer. Fooker has a Ph.D. and knows all kinds of Wiki formatting shit too. But he is spending his time on vandal reversion (too much). I know someone could loop that guy in! (Or...the analagous version of him if he plays hard to get.) And it would be win/win/WIN.

C. What about real life? Bring in connects from personal life. Friends! Network....

D. Academics from article research and from picture donations. Find people to review on more specific things (content and the like) and then try to lure them into doing more.

E. Consider QPQ. Shit, try it! Pilot the mother fucker! If it doesn't work, go back. The dame is just totally stuck on whatever she convinced herself of 3 years ago and incapable of thinking of the opposite of her initial views. Like a needle stuck in record track. Heck...she just needs to be rolled over. Like an entrenched, change-averse middle manager in the corporate world. And since when did she have veto power? That whole remark of 'over my dead body, no QPQ' was horse shit. Stinky horse's shit.

F. Give some feedback to the good reviewers...and NOT just a few cronies. But heck, Carch reviews the shit out of stuff. I know I have too. I KNOW I have. And I know he did. I'm a big boy and have external, better than Wiki, experience. It's not like I need some attaboy from her. Really...I've totally written her off. I think people jumping through hoops for her or meeting her halfway is the wrong paradigm. I'm totally out of that. But the NEW Featured Article Director needs to do what I said in this bullet about interacting with reviewers more (and not just chums and allies.)

G. Add several more ideas (not just criticize...think and add and BUILD). And don't shoot all these ideas down. Wiki puts WAY too much hurdle for a new idea and way TOO LITTLE for the status quo (often having fallen into a practice much worse than optimum and different from obvious better things in the real world. (and that is not to say we can ape every external thing...we do have differences...at the same time...we are silly not to consider content administration practices the rest of the civilized world has worked out.)

(segue)

Issues with FAC

Which getting to what Moni said...she does not see any issues? how about ...

dropping article numeric output?

Radically dropping importance output (2011 median is less than a third of old median...and that is based on a huge sample...very statistically strong).

Karanacs and Laserbrain and Raul all absent without leave.

HERSELF (Moni) not doing articles no more.

The FAC page having a godawful structure for either writers or reviwers (no sections or templates or the like)...ONLY helping delegates.. And delegates who don't break up the articles but do the "whip through on the weekend" cause that is...how they've always done it. (and change is evil. EVIL!) The only recent good changes have been from Uca making the FAC bot and the link check bot...and I could have kissed him for that...but we should have lots more of that...and have not...for years.

Path forward

We should not be doing a turnaround. Well...we have to. But we shouldn't be. We should be kicking ass. We should be GROWING. Let's get on THAT traintrack!

TCO (Reviews needed) 04:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding E, QPQ should never happen under any circumstances. It isn't a coincidence that the quality and reputation of DYK collapsed after QPQ was instituted. What's happened at DYK is that nominators have been forced to review articles for their own work to be eligible, and they often don't have the skills necessary to do this well. This has led to numerous quick passes of articles that have proved to be faulty, often containing plagarism. Basically, at FAC people would do the easiest reviews they possibly can so that their own articles can be reviewed; this is human nature. I don't blame Sandy for her remark; I'd resign as FL director if QPQ was put in place there. And can Sandy please be shown a little respect, even if you criticize the process she leads? Comments like "she just needs to be rolled over" don't show any regard at all for the dedication she has showed over the years. Giants2008 (Talk) 05:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I know Sandy's posted a couple of diffs, but I don't see TFA/R particularly abandoned. Can anyone work up better stats on this? December 2011 may not be a typical month one way or the other as Cas and I were proposing blurbs in the nospecific slots so that Raul and Dabomb would have blurbs ready. We all tried to make life easier for them after the Friday Night Fright (that is, the night the TFA was delayed).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see TCO's comments above until earlier today (I was focused on the section below), but I'm dismayed at the tone of some of the things he has said there (he has clearly crossed the line again, and something needs to be done). Giants2008 is absolutely right to stand up and call TCO out for those comments, and to say that Sandy should be shown more respect. Even more damaging is the atmosphere such comments creates. Those that normally comment here are hardly likely to do so while the tone of the discourse is at that level. I already know of one user talk page where two editors have stated they don't want to participate in this discussion in the current climate: [13], [14]. I don't know if it is just TCO's comments that is putting others off, but I'm going to start with those and (a) temporarily redact them; and (b) ask TCO to retract or rewrite them, starting with removing all the personalised stuff and toning the language down. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of advice

I was thinking about trying to get West Pier to FA. Do you think I should put it through Pier Review first? --John (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best way to make sure it's ship-shape. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, get it all Bristol fashion, fore shore.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for that ... boys... I'm not touching that with a ten-foot bargepole. Bad editors, bad bad! No puns! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need more than ten-foot, I think! Jezhotwells (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image quality in FA candidates?

Moved from WT:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yogo1ct.jpg

Yogo sapphire

Yogo sapphire is heading towards FA. However the quality of the gem images has been questioned. Are these adequate? Is a notion of image quality even within FA's remit?

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Pre-FA_feedback. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I noticed this today. I'm biased because I encounter professionally produced images in my line of work (stuff that people actually pay to use), but I have to agree that those images could be, um, better. Note the image description for that one says 'taken with blurry cell phone camera'. To be honest, if I took an image like that on my camera, I'd delete it immediately. To balance this (I noticed one of the editors of that page getting upset about the image criticism) the text looks great. To answer the question, if I'd been looking at that article at FAC, yes, I would have raised the issue of image quality. Normally in a more diplomatic fashion, but here less so as the images do stand out as being so out-of-focus. Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is the best you got. Getting coin images, I remember, was an utter nightmare. I do not imagine conditions were better with the gemstone.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I do sympathise. I took the photograph at Lister Medal after I wrote the article and was surprised to see that the medal was being awarded again after a gap of many years and ended up attending the lecture (most lectures and awards like that are open to the public, but it was still very gratifying to be there in person). It is not a very good picture at all, but it is difficult to walk up close and stick a camera in people's faces during an award ceremony. Thought of something else, but will follow that up on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we are too digital. Because we can't be perfect...we don't strive for good. I would have no problem with allowing something worse than what Sports Illustrated or National Geographic puts out for images. But we've taken that allowance and then converted it to anything goes. An article on a gemstone, sure as HECK should have an appealing picture.TCO (Reviews needed) 04:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (1) The article does have some nice images; (2) The real blurriness of this image is only apparent when you click on it and look at it at full size. It is clearly the worst image in the article, but do go and look at the other images as well. Carcharoth (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to beef up certain pictures, maybe you could try Flickr. Just a couple days ago I asked a guy there if he'd mind re-licensing a certain photo of a medieval effigy I was interested in for an article. He was totally OK with it, and I think he probably felt good that someone noticed and liked his work.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...I just looked at it. That article is adequately illustrated. We have much more serious issues with FACs lacking images at all or with submitters thinking they "don't have to" write and ask for donation requests when there is no image. The one image is blurry even small...but the overall article is decent. One step at a time. Maybe eventually we get to professional quality. But for now, that article is fine.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the gem images is much good at all. The one you pick should probably be dropped. In totally different ways, I shall have rude things to say about the images in Bulgaria if I get round to reviewing it. The same excuses won't work there. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have better mineral images in an article on a non gemstone than in that thing about a gemstone. :-)

Notable fluorine-containing minerals

pink globular mass with crystal facets
Fluorapatite

Fluorapatite
A white rock on a black background

TCO (Reviews needed) 05:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that images we use, even at FA, have to be of excellent quality. My point is that they need to be good enough (which I don't see these as being) and that given the constraints today, it's acceptably easy to achieve much better images than this. Bare cell phones don't work for close-up like this, but that $100 compact you took photos of the kids with over Christmas is certainly capable of doing far better - especially with decent lighting. Even if a gem is in a shop and we're relying on the goodwill of a shop owner to let us spend a few minutes photographing it on their counter, we can still achieve this. Then if we didn't get it right, we do it again - and the article isn't up to FA standard until we've achieved it.

If these are the best image that have been achieved, then the article isn't up to FA. If these are the best images that can be achieved (probably for historical reasons), then the article might be up to FA, because we've still got to remain pragmatic. In our case today though, the images can be re-photographed (neither subject access nor technical complexity or equipment cost seem to rule this out). Before we think we're at FA, then IMHO, we have to do that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a photograph of a small object through glass while standing and with the lighting uncertain can be difficult, notably an object that reflects. Especially since many museums ban cameras but don't make you check your cell phone. Been there, done it with uncertain results. Worth keeping when the alternative is no image. One of the reason I gave up on coins (besides I was trying the patience of FAC) was the difficulty with images. US coins are popular, high grade ones can be pricey. I got tired of using pre-1978 catalogues and asking for the indulgence of dealers and museums, who were suspicious of me to begin with and who are understandably obsessed with security. And, yes, I tried several routes to get high quality images, including asking the coin grading services and appealing on the coin boards. I got some help, but not enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objects through glass - buy yourself a polarising filter and hold it over the front lens.

I did ask this question, and they're outside cabinets.

I've worked in museums. One of the things you learn is that museum staff are pretty much all crazy obsessives in love with their collections (they sure don't do it for the money). You want to make one of these people your bf for life? Tell them how much you love their collection. Once you've lifted yourself out of the mass of chewing-gum-planting great-unwashed visitors, you join them as someone who appreciates the collection, and (IM-vast-E) after that they then can't do enough to help you. Museum staff are doing it because they want their collections to be seen and appreciated by the outside world. If you look like a route to more of that, they'll be all in favour (NB - art galleries though, whole different game 8-( ). Many museums want a digitisation program, but can't afford it. OK, you maybe aren't going to have King Tut's headpiece handed over to you, but I've been granted access to world-class museums in the UK, USA and Europe, just for asking and looking like I was a fairly serious chap who was going to wash his hands first and not drop things. Today I'm asking to borrow a castle for a sculpture exhibition - they love it, because it's more visitors.

I'm too far from Montana to see many Yogo sapphires, or I'd just offer. I've also got enough past mileage through Commons that I get to say stuff like that with a straight face. Yes, I've driven to other towns with cameras, lights and ladders just to get that one weird photo for a gap in a wiki article. In this case though, the original photographers seem more interested in bringing FA down than in lifting the images up. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not assign motives.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about a unique object where it is being held in a location that forbids photography, there is no way we can reasonably expect a free image of the object, and one can argue that even if one gets a good image of the object via cell phone camera, that could put Wikipedia or the uploader in trouble should the museum find out (we're not talking major trouble, but enough to try to avoid that problem). In such a case, a non-free image provided by the museum or previously published before going into the museum would be acceptable presuming that the article in question is about that object specifically. We can't expect editors to break laws or private entities' requests to get a free image just because we can to try to replace the non-free image. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have "snuck shots", like at the Matthew Boulton exhibition in Birmingham a couple of years ago, but I hate doing that and generally won't. Besides, I'm generally concerned about "next time". I try to keep good relations with archives and museums. And in this day and age, word gets around so easily ... it is not worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the article talk, these are stones that the photographers either own, or have gained reasonable access to. They aren't working through cases.

If I can't get the photo angle I want, I ask the museum to move the furniture. If you look like you've a serious purpose, and you're flexible about just what and when you're after, then it's surprising just how flexible a museum will be. Even better is when they already know who you are, because you photographed something there before, and afterwards you thanked them and showed them how you'd used the images. We're both on the same side here, and decent museum staff recognise that. Few museums forbid photograpy anyway - they either forbid excess lighting in textile galleries, or they forbid arrogant jerk photographers trying to block up a gallery during busy opening hours. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in such a comfortable position with the museum to manage a free shot of something that they have generally disallowed the public from doing, great!. However, this is an unrealistic expectation if the museum broadcasts, in general, that photography is disallowed but they allow you to do such. A "freely available" image means one that any random editor at that place (and time?) with a camera could grab without breaking any laws or requests; if you have to make special deals to do that, that's not the same thing. We'd still love the free image, and if you can grab it, heck yes, use it over a non-free, but in the generalized case, the non-free image would pass NFCC#1 if obtaining the free image was restricted like this. And to tie back to the image quality issue, it would be the same thing: if the only free image you can get is going to be a washed out, blurry mess because you have to turn to a camera phone than a good digital camera, due to the nature of the display of the object, it is not an equivalent free replacement for a non-free image of the same object taken under high quality conditions. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed in part. At the Money Museum in Colorado Springs, I was allowed to shoot between visitors (if they see you doing it ...). The only thing I could possibly adjust was myself and the camera. Both are somewhat antiquated and worn with time. I did my best. Note though that we don't consider images snuck or with special permission less "free use".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a museum or gallery that bans photography. The tightest ones (and this is usually the case with art galleries) are where they want to own image copyrights, so they restrict photography to themselves. This is (IMHE) insurmountable. Even then though, photography still goes on, it's just restricted as to whom. In most cases though, those "no photography" signs are only there to keep the crowds flowing, not to stop your evil glass eye stealing their souls. If you talk to the museum staff (and this can often take weeks), things become so much easier. It's disruption they have a problem with, not imaging or copyright. I've sometimes paid money to museum staff as overtime, to keep access to buildings after hours, when the public have gone. Most often though, I've been working in the museum myself - lots of small museums or libraries have voluntary projects, especially if you have some skill to offer (I have a little training in paper conservation). This is the sort of interworking that the WP GLAM project is about.

I'd have to disagree about the rigours of NFCC#1 though. Usually I encounter this when arguing against image deletion, and the deletionists there take a far more stringent view - usually that if someone could take the photograph then a free image is needed, not that if anyone could take the photo. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that there's several different ways that a ban on photography can be taken - the copyright issue (for modern works, at least, but that means that a picture won't be free regardless), issues with flash photography impacting the art directly, and as you mentioned, crowd control. We do have to consider that museums may or may not be public places, and there are laws that impart copyrights on photos taken on non-public places depending on numerous criteria. You may be able to sneak a camera photo of a work of art of great quality, but if it is a private collection, that may no longer be a free image.

On the second point, I think we have a problem and inconsistency if editors are arguing that if at most one person can take a free image, then a non-free is inappropriate. NFCC#1 is written to follow the Foundation's resolution on non-free media, which contains this line An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose.... This implies that the ability to take the free image has to be of an Wikipedia editor, aka someone interested in promoting free content. For all purposes, these are members of the public at large; if a free image could be taken but requires access above and beyond what the public can do, it is not responsible to expect the free image could be made. This is why we have limited exceptions for non-free photos of living persons that are incarcerated or known to be recluse; the public (and ergo a WP editor) cannot easily access these to get the free photo. Similarly, if there are out-of-copyright works of art kept in locations where photography is outright banned, even if they allow a lone professional in once in a while to take photos, the free image cannot be reasonably expected. Now, if it is the case that we know of a specific active Wikipedia editor that has good ties to a museum and can easily gain access to spots the public can't to take free photos, that's a different story. But generally that's just not an assumption we can make. If people are making the argument that it can be anyone, not a random member of the public, that just needs access, that's the wrong point to make, and we may need a separate discussion on that. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I had another editor wet the bed over this image:[15] in the Dagger article for being too good. The typical people who never served in the military but edit military articles wanted a "Real Fighting Dagger" and were going to use a horrid B&W one from the commons. So I took this picture:[16] which I think sucks, but it makes the kids happy.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you are scary. With you and then TTT and his "farming implements" (and a set of 105 db bench press!) Oh, well...I can say that the M-1 rifle makes a great sledge hammer. It'll crack gemstones probably with the right amount of torque and ass driving down on something. Definitely pops a combo lock well. Um...that is the limit of my knowledge. Very good for breaking locks when you lack bolt cutters.

TCO (Reviews needed) 05:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the best thing to pop a combo lock in my experience is a spent 105MM Howitzer casing. Just the right weight and the brass usually doesnt leave a mark on the lock. Most of the time the combo still works, which is why it comes in handy when you want to put a live goose inside someone's wall locker the night before Inspection.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'm convinced this should be part of the RFC process, if only to make clear our expectations for images.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that-- another one bites the dust. The work is hard, draining,[17] and with Elcobbola gone, there are precious few image reviewers anywhere on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Criterion #3 just says "Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." Without wanting to be very prescriptive, it is odd there is nothing at all about quality. Is the Rfc the place to deal with this though? For the other side of the coin, on the infrequent occasions I look at featured pictures or their selection process, I am frequently appalled at how little attention is paid to the blurbs, which are often very shoddy. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to modify WIAFA #3, I think a RFC is a proper route for that. Personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the quality aspect has generally fallen to NFCC#1 in terms of equivalent replacement. We can presume that given a blurry, poor quality free image of something, there will always be a very high quality non-free version. The question we have to ask is when these are put side by side, does the poor quality of the free image impact its use as an educational tool over the non-free image. Arguably for the OP's photo of the gemstone, I would say, "probably not" in this case, ergo making the free image acceptable, but that's highly subjective and one of those things that really can only be resolved through consensus. But the discussion's framework is set by the equilvalency clause in NFCC#1, and thus I don't think a change to WIAFA is needed (though certainly pointing to NFCC for clarity on the image quality issue). --MASEM (t) 16:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about totally different things, deletion criteria & FA criteria. Most of WP consists of stuff that should not be deleted but also should not be featured content. Rather alarmingly, Commons seems to have no clear deletion criterion for poor quality, but that is different again. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm speaking of FAC criteria. NFCC#1 is used for deletion of non-free content when equivalent free content exists, but it can also be used if there is a free image and a non-free image (already used elsewhere) and deciding between those. Quality of the image is related to the "equivalent" aspect of NFCC#1, because a poor quality image cannot be said to be equivalent to a high-quality non-free one. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! You're clearly not talking about FAC criteria, which can't depend on some other discussion somewhere else. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does and it doesn't. If the MOS shifts, we shift with it, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WIAFA specific addresses all non-free images meeting the NFCC. NFCC addresses that a non-free image is inappropriate if a free equivalent will do the same job. But a free image is arguably not going to be able to do the same job if it of very poor quality. Ergo in such cases, if it is otherwise impossible to reasonably get a better quality free image, we'd use the non-free over that free image. It does apply to the FAC process, though not to this current present discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BEGINNING of the criteria says this "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes." So...I think that covers some expectation of quality in images. Note the word PRESENTATION. And the word PROFESSIONAL. Not JUST having the right license and following the period MOS caption nit. Also, we might think about what the actual impact is on readers. Not only "wiki law" criteria mode of thinking. And I'm NOT trying to say we need to immediately jump to National Geographic photographer standards. I'm reasonable. But we ought to at least consider the actual impact on the reader. And visuals are a huge effect. No reason why we can't try to up our game just a bit...TCO (Reviews needed) 21:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the wording "has images where appropriate". So that certainly puts an expectation that unillustrated topics (where an illo is needed for identification or understanding or enjoyment) are unsat. And really stepping back from the "what is in the rules" game. Think about what we are trying to do in terms of presenting things to readers...that is the end goal. If the reader "should" (qualitative judgement) have an illo and it is lacking...then the article is not up to par. (TCO, unsigned)

I am finding myself coming around to that point of view, and I think it is the words "professional standards" which is doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer guide

Per Carcharoth's comment above, I've created a sort of "guide for reviewers" at User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates, as a supplement to the Dispatches article already linked on WP:FAC. This is a draft only at this point, and any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd be willing to help out with Dispatches articles if the community decides to go that route. In partnership with someone else, preferably.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 530: / Line 530: @@
 :Regarding E, QPQ should never happen under any circumstances. It isn't a coincidence that the quality and reputation of DYK collapsed after QPQ was instituted. What's happened at DYK is that nominators have been forced to review articles for their own work to be eligible, and they often don't have the skills necessary to do this well. This has led to numerous quick passes of articles that have proved to be faulty, often containing plagarism. Basically, at FAC people would do the easiest reviews they possibly can so that their own articles can be reviewed; this is human nature. I don't blame Sandy for her remark; I'd resign as FL director if QPQ was put in place there. And can Sandy please be shown a little respect, even if you criticize the process she leads? Comments like "she just needs to be rolled over" don't show any regard at all for the dedication she has showed over the years. [[User:Giants2008|<font color="blue">Giants2008</font>]] ([[User talk:Giants2008|<font color="darkblue">Talk</font>]]) 05:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 ::Mike, I know Sandy's posted a couple of diffs, but I don't see TFA/R particularly abandoned.  Can anyone work up better stats on this?  December 2011 may not be a typical month one way or the other as Cas and I were proposing blurbs in the nospecific slots so that Raul and Dabomb would have blurbs ready.  We all tried to make life easier for them after the Friday Night Fright (that is, the night the TFA was delayed).--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 17:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
+:I didn't see TCO's comments above until earlier today (I was focused on the section below), but I'm dismayed at the tone of some of the things he has said there (he has clearly crossed the line again, and something needs to be done). Giants2008 is absolutely right to stand up and call TCO out for those comments, and to say that Sandy should be shown more respect. Even more damaging is the atmosphere such comments creates. Those that normally comment here are hardly likely to do so while the tone of the discourse is at that level. I already know of one user talk page where two editors have stated they don't want to participate in this discussion in the current climate: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton&diff=469747628&oldid=469696011], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton&diff=469749704&oldid=469747628]. I don't know if it is just TCO's comments that is putting others off, but I'm going to start with those and (a) temporarily redact them; and (b) ask TCO to retract or rewrite them, starting with removing all the personalised stuff and toning the language down. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 == Point of advice ==