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
Susanna Hoffs	Review it now
2023 Union Square riot	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:00, 5 January 2012

Shortcut

WT:FAC

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Jason Voorhees	Review now
Battle of Red Cliffs	Review now
Aston Villa F.C.	Review now
Bernard Quatermass	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

Getting more reviewers in?

Yeah, we're a bit short of reviewers. Have you considered reviewing more? I noticed you reviewed Tintin, but additional reviews would help cut down on the backlog. Beyond that, I'm not sure what can be done - the reviewer shortage is becoming a perennial problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, here's why helping out with high quality reviews at FAC will improve your chances of seeing a nomination promoted. Other delegates may approach the task differently, but one of our "jobs" is to manage the size of the FAC page so that worthy articles have a fair shot at being reviewed. As long as the number of nominations is in the 25 to 30 range, I would be uninclined to archive a month-old nomination that has gotten no review-- even less inclined to archive quickly for a third nom. On the other hand, I would still archive noms with Opposes quickly, and when the page size gets up around 40 to 50, I archive more aggressively. Long story short-- the more any nominator can contribute towards high quality reviews that help the delegates close nominations more quickly and hold down the page size, the better the chances your nomination can run longer. Conversely, low-quality reviews (that is, supports where subsequent reviewers identify problems) cause nominations to run longer than necessary and add to the backlog, increasing your chances of seeing a nomination archived sooner. It's quality reviews that help the backlog-- dropping in a Support on nominations where other reviewers subsequently find problems just cause nominations to run longer, sap reviewer time, and mean that delegates may have to archive those nominations that receive no feedback more aggressively as the page size grows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What she said, and there are also some easier jobs that really need doing to get some of these FACs moving. Just reading the article and noting where something doesn't sound right to you ... and don't be shy about saying that you're not sure why, it just sounds wrong, or you don't follow what it means ... can be a huge help. Spotchecks are easy more often than they're hard ... just look at the sources that you can find online, and make sure the writers got the page numbers right and didn't misrepresent or closely paraphrase the sources. (Also see WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches). - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably have a page that tells you how to do a good FAC review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. From my seat, a good reviewer is one who either:

a) specializes in one area so I know exactly what the reviewer's expertise is and what they've checked (examples, prose, sources, images, check the lead, etc), or
b) does overall checks of a little bit of everything (reliable sources, accurate representation of sources, no copyvio, comprehensive, prose, MOS, etc) and lets me know what they've checked, or
c) a topic expert who can speak from a base of knowledge of the subject matter, or
d) a non-topic reviewer, who can check for jargon.

So, anyone who doesn't feel qualified to do b) particularly in the absence of someone else doing a) and c) probably shouldn't be adding Support, but could review to oppose on any basis. The single thing that contributes most to the backlog IMNSHO is reviewers who add unworthy supports and then don't keep the nom watchlisted to see if significant issues are later revealed. When a nomination has accumulated enough faulty supports, it has to be carried until serious reviewers dig in and identify the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fuck it, I'm a sucker for a request for help. I suppose I could come back to FAC. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could still use an essay guide to describe those 4. I believe that is one reason people have issue. That and they think they aren't qualified, so suggesting to cut their teeth at WP:GAN and WP:PR are also good suggestions.∞陣内 Jinnai 21:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much afraid that we have a reputation as less than welcoming and rather difficult to break into.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That doesn't mean we need to promote that stereotype.∞陣内 Jinnai 21:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, the largest concern at FAC is not about your article, it's keeping the index size down. I've read this over and over, and again above is another example. The only way to get your article through FAC in a reasonable amount of time is to join the ranks of the FAC Prima donnas™ where your article hits the FAC index and it has 37 supports within 24 hours. Brad (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, from someone who does not review FACs at the moment, but has always been interested in doing so: the reason I don't review is because I don't feel confident enough in knowing the various WP:# and policy guidelines relating to FA articles to do anything without fear of it being reverted or of sidetracking the process. Additionally and similarly to this point, I'm not quite sure of exactly what I'm supposed to be looking at/for. Yellow Evan's (YE) suggestion for a page that summarises how to conduct a good review, or even a page that summarises SandyGeorgia's "what we're looking for [in a reviewer]" would help. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and it was one of the things I was hoping to bring up during the leadership review in January. We work so much by precedent and unwritten rules it is difficult for newbies. Raul's page on TFA is an example of what I would like to see more of.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I need help here

Could someone tell me if what was said below it's true:

Malleus Fatuorum: "Once upon a time User:Tony1 was the "Oppose, 1a" elephant in the room, but that mantle seems to have fallen to me. I'm maybe being too critical, and that's a matter for the FAC delegates to decide, but I'd bet a pound to a penny that I could find multiple issues with pretty much any FA, never mind FAC."

I always knew it, but this is the fist time that is said out loud. That is: we have a super-voter here, someone whose vote weights far more than anyone else's. If this is true, I see no reason to why there is any need to keep with the present FAC process. We should drop it entirely and let Malleus Fatuorum review all nominations and tell which one will pass and which one won't.

The problem is that he and I share a history. In my view, our relationship is quite simple: I stay far alway from him. Unfortunately, he seems to coninue going after me. I've recently nominated Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and he appeared there. Why? I can see it only as a provocation. There are countless other articles which have been nominated and it makes no sense that he chose to review mine. He won't be neutral for sure.

Thus, I'm asking for any delegate to tell him to stay alway from me. Just that. I'm here asking politely for Malleus Fatuorum to leave me in peace. --Lecen (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, you've no obligation to listen to me, but I think you're seriously misinterpreting that comment. It seems to imply not a "super-voter" (and indeed speaks to the opposite with the comment that FAC delegates should decide on the merit of the comments), but instead someone who consistently criticizes unclear or rough prose - just as I am arguably currently the "sourcing elephant" though I'd appreciate very much if no one used that label for me. The personal issues between the two of you are what they are, and the delegates may act on that if they so choose - but your first paragraph is, to my way of thinking, quite off the mark. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Nikki) Um, I don't see anywhere in that where Malleus says his vote is weighted more than anyone else's... He says that he's good at spotting errors in prose - that is completely true. He says that it used to be that nominators were afraid of getting a 1.a oppose from Tony, because he was picky about prose - that's true as well. He says that now being uber-picky about prose (something that FAC is known for!) has apparently fallen to him, because Tony doesn't seem to participate in the FAC process any more - that's also true. He does not say anywhere that delegates take his opinion more seriously than anyone else's - in fact he says that they may decide he's being too picky. He says of your nomination, "This isn't bad, but it's still a bit rough", and then gives some very specific suggestions for changes and appears quite willing to engage in dialog. Nowhere in your nomination does he show the slightest bit of attitude (which Malleus is also known for...with no offense meant to him). You have both him and Dank (another wonderful copyeditor) willing to help you out on this article. However, your attitude has driven Dank away - "Okay, I'm done here.". Are you trying to make it so no-one is willing to copyedit your articles? Because that really looks to be where this is headed, when you insult and try to drive away two of the best copyeditors in the project, both experts in what it takes prose-wise to get through FAC... Dana boomer (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comments to all other reviewers you'll see that I try to be as helpful as possible. I'm well aware that you're both friends of Malleus Fatuorum and that you'll stick to him no matter what. Unfortunately, no one here seems to have bothered with the problem: he and I do not get along and he should not review my articles. That's simple but I'm seeing that no one is listening. Plus, when he said Once upon a time User:Tony1 was the "Oppose, 1a" elephant in the room, but that mantle seems to have fallen to me he meant exactly that: a nomination can have 100 supports, but if Malleus Fatuorum appears and says "no", it's all finished. I'm not a newcomer and I had articles reviewed by Tony1 (see Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. I came here to ask politely to someone help me and for the sake of preventing greater problems to tell him to leave me in peace. I'm asking now: editors who share a history of enmity are allowed to review each other's articles, to make comments about each other on arbitration, disputes, etc? --Lecen (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: See Malleus Fatuorum's remarks there: we are not allowed to give physical description of long deceased people and an entire section is about the military education of that person we should change its name to "adolescence". Perhaps his early military career should be renamed "adulthood" and his generalship "Senile years". Reviewers can make unnecessary comments too. --Lecen (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see completely unreasonable behaviour by the nominator, who managed to turn constructive criticism from two respected reviewers into a fight. Assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The dishonesty on display here is beginning to stink. Attempts to get rid of me for alleged incivility have so far come to naught, but now I have to be eliminated because my standards for prose are too high. Well go fuck yourselves is all I have to say to that." (See here) This is what Malleus Fatuorum said to me less than 2 weeks ago. And you see from my part a "completely unreasonable behaviour"? Only because I asked the person who insulted me before (see here and here) and who does not like me to leave me alone? Really? Does everyone here sincerely believe that a person like that should review my article? (Please see here) --Lecen (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting Malleus's comments, and the fact is that these days no FAC does get 100 supports, least of all yours. Malleus is far from the only one to have commented on prose issues on your FACs over the years. I think you are not a native speaker, & you should just accept the fact that your articles will always need one to give it a tedious and time-consuming going-over to meet the current FA standards. Unfortunately you have managed to antagonize the editors who currently perform that function most often. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article's history log. I never said I was a fantastic writer. On the contrary: I do the research, not the writing. It is Astynax, who does the writing. Another copy-editor reviewed the article before it was nominated. But this doesn't matter. I read enough to know what is the general mood. --Lecen (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's entirely possible to not tick off Malleus - the trick to that is to ... not have a chip on your shoulder. And I'm impressed that Dank left off that FAC, since he's one of the most easy going persons around. Maybe, just maybe, if Dank left - the problem isn't with Malleus or with Dank - but with your own attitude and the solution isn't to blame Malleus but to work on your own behavior. I read the FAC - and I have to agree with Malleus and Dank - the description of his appearance fits very badly in a section entitled "Military education". And you don't seem to be willing to entertain other solutions to the problem nor be willing to listen to others. Yes, it sucks to have others criticize your prose and offer suggestions - but a real writer learns that having other critique your work is part of the writing process and learning to take well meant criticism is a great skill to have througout your life. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're being unfair. There was not, at any moment, a refusal from my part of collaborating with anyone. Dank reviewed the article and I supported all changes he made and everything he suggested or criticized. The same goes to Fifelfoo who also reviewed the article. It seems that the main point here is being ignored, unfortunately. --Lecen (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not being unfair - I'm calling the situation like I see it. A description of the person is a bad fit for a section entitled "Military education". Dank suggested retitling the section "adolescence" where the description would be fine - you seem to have ignored that suggestion and instead gone off on Malleus instead of replying to Dank's point - that's what I mean when I say you did not entertain other solutions - a solution was offered (by Dank) and you ignored it to go after Malleus instead. Get the chip about Malleus off your shoulder and learn to work with him, and your work will improve markedly. And you'll learn some things. Yes, you don't speak English natively, and we understand that. That doesn't mean that Malleus is out to get you. He actually treated that review pretty mildly - you are the one getting upset with his suggestions and imputing motives to him that aren't needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're again being unfair. I did respond to Dank [1] and he saw no problem.[2] If Malleus Fatuorum is not after me, could you explain why did he meddle (see here) in a conversation I had with an editor which he had no involvement or reason to? --Lecen (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious question here is what do you consider fair? Do you wish that no one criticizes the articles you nominate although you admit your weakness with the level of English necessary for FAs? Or do you just wish Malleus Fatuorum to avoid articles you nominate? If that is the case, and he is right when he says he has taken over Tony1's role of thoroughly critiquing prose (and I'm not saying he is, I'm just offering that as a hypothesis), that would mean the article might get passed without his pointing out what must be fixed. One of your articles might be passed when it should not be. So what? Well, imagine it makes it to the main page with errors and confusing English that appears that it was written by a non-native speaker. What would you prefer: Malleus critiquing your prose now or you having to read "Who wrote this crap?" with ten or fifty examples of mistakes that were never caught at FAC, on main page day? --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying to Lecen's "Now you made me look like a spoiled child" on my talk page. I've been doing my best to copyedit every Milhist article (and a lot of other articles) at FAC for a while now. Lecen's articles, including this one, have taken me about twice as long as most. That's not a problem, but in fairness to other articles, I wrote: "Lecen, I'm starting a new project and my time is really limited these days ... I have no spare time for settling disputes, so if you and Malleus start yelling at each other, I'm out of here." Lecen started yelling, so I left. No hard feelings, I've just got other articles to work on, and it wouldn't be fair to sink more time into this one, particularly when it's so difficult to make progress. If someone else wants to tackle it, great. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 14 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?[11] 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?
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]

Arb break 1

- 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]

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]

(@ Alarbus) You say that you wish that 10% of all articles were GA/FA by this point. Do you realize how many pages that I"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]

(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]

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]

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]

@@ Line 439: / Line 439: @@
 :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.)<FONT FACE="Poor Richard" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><FONT FACE="Georgia" SIZE="-1" COLOR="black"><b>32</b><sup>([[User:Mitchazenia|Never support those]] [[User talk:Mitchazenia|who think in the box]])</sup></FONT> 07:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 ::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.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 10:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
+== 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. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] -  [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 00:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)