Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
MLS Cup 2022	Review it now
Fountain Fire	Review it now
1973 FA Charity Shield	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:05, 6 August 2019

Shortcut

WT:FAC

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition	Review now
Helium	Review now
Martin Keamy	Review now
Pauline Fowler	Review now
Battle of Red Cliffs	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

Image/source check requests

Current requests

Requests should only be posted here for FAC nominations that have attracted several reviews and declarations of support. Premature requests can be removed by any editor.

FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC source reviews

For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

FACs needing more input

Noting here that there are currently three FACes in the "FACs needing feedback" box, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1969 Curaçao uprising/archive1 which began on the 25th of April, my own Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Payún Matrú/archive1 which began on the 13th of May and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sega/archive1 which began on the 24th of May. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these out, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I'll do my part and take a look at the first two today while I have time. Hopefully someone will be willing to return the favor for Sega, which is my FAC. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the Sega article and perhaps also at Curaçao. I'll admit, I was a bit uneasy with posting this request on my own FAC as it looks pushy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I felt the same way when I tried to do that at WT:VG, but alas, did not generate any interest anyway. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that's two of three promoted. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review for Kal Ho Naa Ho

A source review for the article would be very helpful. The link for the article's FAC is right here. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query re: one-at-a-time rule

G'day all, I have a query about the one-at-a-time rule. I now have about twenty articles ready for FAC and they generally take about six weeks to move through the system. I also review virtually every Milhist article that comes to FAC, and mostly work in an area where collaboration is not easy to line up. I am wondering if there has ever been an arrangement in the past where a single editor has been able to nominate two articles at a time? What would be the implications of loosening up the one-at-a-time rule, say to a maximum of two articles at a time, whether they are single nom or collaborations? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The concern I see with allowing specific editors to have an exemption is that it establishes one kind of editor as superior to the other and Wikipedia normally does not do this. Regarding letting everybody have more than one FAC running is that it might overload the system with nominations, but on the other hand, it might increase the output of the FAC system. I am not sure which aspect would end up being the most important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not asking for a specific exemption, I am after an expansion of the rules to allow single editors to have two noms in train at once, which is currently allowed as long as one is a co-nom. I think the current arrangements make it harder for noms working in narrow subject areas where co-noms can be hard to find. In 45 FAs, I've only been able to find a co-nom two or three times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be concerned that this brings in an element of reviewer fatigue to the process. There are currently 39 FACs running, many of which are desperately in need of reviews. Allowing productive editors to double up on nominations could add a further five or ten to that process making the process unwieldy. If we go down that route, I suspect many of the relatively new FAC nominators and those working in niche or 'unfashionable' areas are just going to be more overlooked than they are at the moment. (Personally I would like the rule, as I am often in the situation of wanting to have a couple running simultaneously, but I just don't think it's fair for the majority of nominations running at that time.) - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable concern, and as a fellow prolific FA contributor, I appreciate your perspective. I still think the current arrangements preference those that work in areas that allow greater scope for collaboration due to having more willing workers that can potentially work together on articles. Diversity is important on WP, and editors that work in less mainstream areas can be sidelined to some extent by the current arrangements. I also wonder about the TFA throughput, which I admit I have no visibility of, and perhaps @Dank, Jimfbleak, Ealdgyth, and Wehwalt: have a view. If we need 365 or so FAs every year, are we keeping up with that? If not, what is our plan? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Can you clarify who editors that work in less mainstream areas refers to? ——SerialNumber54129 11:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it obviously isn't just me, working on Yugoslav topics, no doubt there are many others I'm not aware of working in niche areas who are affected by the current policy. Perhaps you yourself are working on developing articles in an under-represented niche area towards FA and would benefit from a change in policy? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Mine regularly take 6 weeks to 2 months minimum. I would willingly allow twice as bloody long if it allowed prolific contributors more opportunities. ——SerialNumber54129 13:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"they generally take about six weeks to move through the system" As an editor whose first 12 FA nominations have, thanks to the generosity of other editors, just gone through in under 35 weeks (less than 3 weeks apiece) that seems an inordinately lengthy average. I have no real suggestions, although I find myself in agreement with SchroCat. However, I for one, as a reviewer who tries to look at 9 or 10 FACs a month, would be happy to preferentially review your nominations. (I am sure that you can think of a couple of my reviews of your noms which suggest that you would by no means get a 'wave through'.) If you were to ping me each time you nominate a FAC I would see what I could do to get that six weeks down. It is possible that there are other frequent reviewers who may be similarly inclined. I would also be happy to preferentially look at the nominations of other frequent reviewers - not, I hope that it goes without saying, just those who commit their time to pointing out the infelicities in my nominations. I realise that this doesn't really address your issue, but it may go some way towards ameliorating his particular problem. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker for a long time now the supply of new FAs has fallen short of the needs of a daily TFA, which is why we occasionally have reruns. Anything that speeds up the production of new FAs will help postpone the day when TFAs runs for longer than a single day Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Peacemaker, pinging again due to error in spelling Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally have any issues with altering this rule if that's the wish of the community. It was made to keep the queue more sane—not for us coordinators but for reviewers. A longer queue isn't necessarily any more difficult for me to manage as a coordinator. However, something that may come hand-in-hand with this is more aggressive archiving of nominations that receive little feedback or have little support for promotion. We've tended to wait a month or even longer before archiving such nominations but I think we'd want to start pushing that up depending on what effect this change has on the queue. If the queue increases in size by a substantial amount, we'll have to manage it differently because our reviewers are definitely not increasing in number. --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the main problem with this is lack of reviewers in general, otherwise I would have nothing against multiple noms. We are just not quite there, reviewer wise. Articles about obscure subjects have to wait months to get reviews, while military history articles usually just sail through (that seems to be the most successful project in Wikipedia in this regard, as it has a constant high number of writers and reviewers), so it is already unbalanced in their favour. Anyhow, there is the option to ask the delegates for a second nom, so that should be a good compromise that is already in place? FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People have asked to run a second nomination from time to time if the first has ample support and appears to be heading for promotion, but is at discretion of coordinators IIRC...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think technically it's at the coord's discretion but I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've not agreed to a good faith request for a second nom before the first is complete, and generally only then because I like to give every nom at least two or three weeks to run and the request has come earlier. Quite a few people make these requests, no harm in more doing so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know, has anyone considered whether to do a "trial run" where for a limited period people can nominate two rather than just one FAC, to see what kind of benefits or downsides would crop up? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Along those lines, I suggest we allow two solo nominations for a six month period and see whether any of the problems foreseen above actually materialise, and whether our throughput improves. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really in favour of 'trial runs' at FAC. As I recall, adding FAR to the bottom of the FAC page was a trial too and that's still going though I don't think anyone's evaluated whether it's really helped much. We'd have to check the archives to be sure but I expect the decision for one nom at a time was decided by an RFC, and if we want to change that I think it's another RFC. If we want to experiment a bit then I'd be more in favour of the coords being a little more liberal about leave to start a new FAC after the first is seen to be progressing well (granted, still a discretionary thing), thus ensuring we stagger multiple noms. With the best will in the world, I'm not convinced that people doubling their simultaneous noms are going to suddenly double their reviewing effort as well to keep things moving at a good pace and also keep up our reviewing standards. Reviewer burnout is always a greater risk at FAC than nominator burnout, in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That hits the nail on the head. The only way this would work—at least, the best way of ensuring that it would work—would be to tie it in with reviewing: only editors who have reviewed X number of candidates get to upload another nom, or something. And that's review here not anywhere else. But even then, I still think it would be manipulable: as I've said before, how to ensure a review that isn't just the fac equivalent of "support per nom". ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good trade off. If we allow more nominations, we also need more reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that can only be assessed on an individual basis? For example, I average five to seven FAC reviews a month and my FACs take, on average, six weeks to go through the process, what would be an acceptable number of reviews per month to enable a second nomination? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing 50% of nominations (incl. older noms) on the board would probably cover it. ——SerialNumber54129 08:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd need a quality standard for for-a-second-FAC reviews, not a simple numerical standard. From time to time people on this page complain about "support on prose" and about people ignoring valid concerns raised by an "oppose" argument. This will perhaps go too much into weeds, but one thing I am thinking about is that a for-a-second-FAC a) should not simply ignore valid points raised by others and b) at least when it's prefixed with a "support" it needs to address all the criteria. That in turn raises the question of how to measure and record people's for-a-second-FAC arguments. While I like this concept, I am a little unsure of the practical implementation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any defined standard would work, because it's possible to do a thorough review and only write "Support -- could find nothing to complain about", and it's also possible to do a cursory review that finds a dozen or so minor points. Sometimes it is possible to see that a reviewer is being very thorough, but we don't want to incent reviewers to write reams of text in order to demonstrate their thoroughness. Peacemaker67, I'm sympathetic, but I don't see how to do this in a way that's fair to all nominators, since there are no doubt several FAC regulars in your position. What if we based it on overall promotion rate instead? If more than 30 promotions happen in a month, things are going fast, and extra nominations won't be much drag on FAC. So at the end of the month, if we hit 30 promotions the delegates could ask if anyone with an active FAC would like to nominate another, and give permission for up to five additional nominations? That would motivate everyone who wants to take advantage of this to do additional reviewing in order to speed promotion, but the delegates would be vetting thoroughness of review as they always do so cursory reviews would not help much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, and if 30 promotions a month would be a good yardstick then that would be a step in the right direction, but I still don't get that you can have two if you co-nom one of them but not two if you are a single nom. To me, the current arrangement makes it much easier for those that work in areas where there are multiple productive people working (and therefore areas already well represented on WP), and disadvantages those that work solo because there just aren't people to co-nom with in the less well-covered areas they work in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant discussion. The co-nom rule was added to prevent co-noms from being blocked from adding their own FACs, rather than the other way around. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The effect is the same though, editors that are able to arrange co-noms are privileged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know if I'd use the word 'privileged' -- that'd be true of 'co-noms of convenience', where you get someone along for the ride just to let you have an extra article in the list, but genuine co-noms, where the participants have collaborated to get the article to a fit state for FAC, and are therefore both capable of fielding questions and comments during the review, are a great thing all round. I also don't think that such co-noms/collaborations slow things up because two people can often action comments quicker than one, and you have an extra person involved who hopefully feels obliged to do some reviewing of other noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just permission for a second FAC that's being sought, then would it be acceptable to permit an 'honorary' co-nom? This could be someone who has not themselves edited the article significantly but has been involved in prior reviews of the article (at PR, GA or ACR), and who would be willing to attach their name to the nom but not be expected to be otherwise involved. This would piggyback onto currently accepted practice concerning multiple noms. The only issue I can see with this is ensuring that only editors who work in areas for which genuine co-noms are hard to find, as pointed out by PM, or who reciprocate by taking on more of the reviewing load, are allowed to take advantage of such a minor(?) relaxation of the current rule, so that it does not become general practice. Factotem (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mullum Malarum/archive4

Is this a good way to invite more editors to post comments at the FAC page? Additionally, am I allowed to strike out another user's comments if they have been addressed but the user is not there to strike them out himself? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your second question, no. Leave them for the person to come back or, failing that, for the co-ords to judge whether you have done what the review asked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it Gav -- yes, as long as you've made clear that you've acknowledged and/or actioned the comments, there's no need for them to be struck. Generally I'd be posting at relevant project pages or individual editors' talk pages for further comments, but no great harm in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

alt text size

I exported all FAs a week ago and am fooling around with them. Dunno if we care about alt text size, but here are the largest few examples (sorted by size in characters=bytes). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title	Alt txt size
Spanish conquest of Guatemala	1560
Chaco Culture National Historical Park	1259
Postman's Park	1131
Capture of Fort Ticonderoga	1118
Distributed element filter	1030
Fort Ticonderoga	937
Fort Ticonderoga	886
Geography and ecology of the Everglades	855
Douglas MacArthur	829
Inner German border	807
Midshipman	793
Knight Lore	784
Little Butte Creek	775
Chaco Culture National Historical Park	761
Vannevar Bush	758
Bristol	746
Pig-faced women	742
Powderfinger	740
Spanish conquest of Guatemala	725
Blast Corps	714
Little Miss Sunshine	713
Hemmema	711
Little Miss Sunshine	710
Knight Lore	708
Chaco Culture National Historical Park	707
1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash	697
The Kinks	685
Cologne War	677
A Contract with God	672
Wordless novel	672
Southern Cross (wordless novel)	672
Thoughts on the Education of Daughters	669
Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)	665
Herne Hill railway station	663
American Beauty (1999 film)	661
Midshipman	660
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time	658
Congregation Beth Elohim	654
Fez (video game)	653
Some Thoughts Concerning Education	652
Big Butte Creek	648
Gianni Schicchi	642
Big Butte Creek	640
Spanish conquest of Guatemala	637
Battle of Bardia	632
Geology of the Lassen volcanic area	631
American Beauty (1999 film)	630
Fort Ticonderoga	626
Olivier Messiaen	619
Cock Lane ghost	619
Colley Cibber	619
Brill Tramway	617
Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347	612
The Smashing Pumpkins	612
Chaco Culture National Historical Park	610
Wii Sports	608
Quark	608
Funerary art	605
The Kinks	602
Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman	597
Spanish conquest of Petén	595

Looks like, in these cases, large alt text is attributed either to describing maps or writing alt text as if it was longdesc (which is how I used to erroneously do it). I will try to poke through the table and at least work on the obvious issues. When I want a second opinion I usually post on WP:ALT, like I did at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#Alt_text_for_album_artwork. Kees08 (Talk) 17:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing statistics for July

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for July. I'll be out of the country for the first part of September, so the August statistics will probably be delayed till mid or late September. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers for July 2019

# reviews	Type of review
Reviewer	Image	Source	Content	Total
Nikkimaria	17	1		18
Brianboulton		16		16
Tim riley			9	9
Gog the Mild	2	1	4	7
Peacemaker67			6	6
Casliber			6	6
SchroCat		1	5	6
J Milburn		1	5	6
FunkMonk			6	6
Aoba47			6	6
CPA-5			5	5
SnowFire		1	3	4
Jens Lallensack			4	4
Jo-Jo Eumerus	3		1	4
RL0919			3	3
Ceoil			3	3
Cassianto			3	3
Kees08	1		2	3
Jimfbleak		1	2	3
Laser brain		1	1	2
Wehwalt			2	2
Toa Nidhiki05		1	1	2
Moisejp	1		1	2
Praemonitus			2	2
The Rambling Man			2	2
SounderBruce	2			2
Lee Vilenski			2	2
Hylian Auree		1	1	2
Veera Narayana			2	2
Parsecboy			2	2
Kailash29792			2	2
Red Phoenix			2	2
Gerda Arendt			2	2
Ian Rose			2	2
LouisAragon			1	1
Ssven2			1	1
Caeciliusinhorto			1	1
Sturmvogel 66			1	1
Haukur			1	1
Hurricanehink			1	1
David Fuchs			1	1
Jason Rees			1	1
Hurricane Noah			1	1
TheJoebro64			1	1
KJP1			1	1
Indopug			1	1
AmericanAir88			1	1
Bollyjeff			1	1
John M Wolfson			1	1
Megaman en m			1	1
Brandt Luke Zorn			1	1
TarkusAB			1	1
Eric Corbett			1	1
<none>			1	1
Mr. Smart LION			1	1
Chris857			1	1
Dharmadhyaksha			1	1
Ritchie333			1	1
Iridescent			1	1
Carabinieri			1	1
Abryn			1	1
Randy Kryn			1	1
Hijiri88			1	1
JennyOz			1	1
Indy beetle			1	1
CitroenLover			1	1
KN2731			1	1
SMcCandlish			1	1
Damian Vo			1	1
Lord0fHats			1	1
Tomica			1	1
Indrian			1	1
Maury Markowitz			1	1
Coffeeandcrumbs			1	1
3E1I5S8B9RF7			1	1
FrB.TG		1		1
Ojorojo			1	1
Yashthepunisher			1	1
Grand Total	26	26	140	192

Supports and opposes for July 2019

# declarations	Declaration
Editor	Oppose	Support	None	Oppose converted to support	Grand Total
Nikkimaria			18		18
Brianboulton			16		16
Tim riley		9			9
Gog the Mild		4	3		7
Peacemaker67		6			6
Casliber		6			6
SchroCat		4	2		6
J Milburn	1	3	2		6
FunkMonk		6			6
Aoba47		6			6
CPA-5		5			5
SnowFire		3	1		4
Jens Lallensack		3	1		4
Jo-Jo Eumerus			4		4
RL0919	1	2			3
Ceoil		2		1	3
Cassianto		3			3
Kees08		1	2		3
Jimfbleak		2	1		3
Laser brain	1		1		2
Wehwalt		2			2
Toa Nidhiki05		1	1		2
Moisejp		1	1		2
Praemonitus	1	1			2
The Rambling Man		2			2
SounderBruce			2		2
Lee Vilenski		2			2
Hylian Auree		1	1		2
Veera Narayana		2			2
Parsecboy		2			2
Kailash29792		1	1		2
Red Phoenix		2			2
Gerda Arendt		2			2
Ian Rose			2		2
LouisAragon		1			1
Ssven2			1		1
Caeciliusinhorto		1			1
Sturmvogel 66		1			1
Haukur		1			1
Hurricanehink		1			1
David Fuchs			1		1
Jason Rees			1		1
Hurricane Noah		1			1
TheJoebro64		1			1
KJP1		1			1
Indopug			1		1
AmericanAir88		1			1
Bollyjeff			1		1
John M Wolfson		1			1
Megaman en m			1		1
Brandt Luke Zorn		1			1
TarkusAB			1		1
Eric Corbett			1		1
<none>			1		1
Mr. Smart LION		1			1
Chris857			1		1
Dharmadhyaksha			1		1
Ritchie333			1		1
Iridescent		1			1
Carabinieri			1		1
Abryn			1		1
Randy Kryn		1			1
Hijiri88			1		1
JennyOz		1			1
Indy beetle		1			1
CitroenLover		1			1
KN2731		1			1
SMcCandlish			1		1
Damian Vo		1			1
Lord0fHats			1		1
Tomica		1			1
Indrian			1		1
Maury Markowitz		1			1
Coffeeandcrumbs		1			1
3E1I5S8B9RF7		1			1
FrB.TG			1		1
Ojorojo			1		1
Yashthepunisher		1			1
Grand Total	4	108	79	1	192

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deep Space Homer/archive3

I dunno whether coordinators deal with problem behaviours in FACses but if so Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deep Space Homer/archive3 needs some go over I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I can think of maybe 10 reasons why people shouldn't care what I think on this topic. With that out of the way: FAC, and every other article review forum, relies to some extent on trust and shared expectations. Probably, none of the FA coords who are admins can treat this as "problem behaviours" and get involved, per WP:INVOLVED. If neutral admins have any thoughts to share, that would be great. There's a link in the FAC to a comment at a current RFA ... we should probably stay clear of that. (It's not any kind of problem that needs fixing; the crats are aware of the special circumstances in this case.) Popular culture articles, both at FAC and away from FAC, have different prose standards than, say, history articles. This leads to recurrent problems at FAC. We generally deal with this problem by ignoring it. I think the problem makes everyone a little uncomfortable, but no one has found a solution yet. We can probably agree that whatever is happening in this FAC is not a solution to the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look. I now want to go edit somewhere else. Rarely, if ever, have those behavioral issues been successfully addressed. Were I a coord, I would archive the FAC now, before it spirals. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture articles may have been allowed a different prose standard, but should they? And why is it a "problem behaviour" when someone thinks that they shouldn't, and votes accordingly? Is the issue here simply that opposing an article's promotion has become unpopular? Eric Corbett 19:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needs to be archived on the grounds of "behavioral issues". The article isn't in the right shape at the moment (and it's on that basis that it should be archived), but a good copy edit and a thorough search for any additional sources are needed for it to pass next time round. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said, SchroCat. That FAC is destined for failure, with three opposes. It also is seeing suboptimal behaviour from multiple users. Thus, I'd rather it be closed, before the discussion gets nastier. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 22:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: As the nominator, I agree with Jo-Jo. The article nomination has recently been a host for feuding between other editors. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Why Eric Corbett was attacked by Maury Markowitz for providing a review in good faith is beyond me. He may not have liked the conclusions that Eric came to, but reviewers are not here to just pat people on the back and push things through. Maury Markowitz should take note of that for next time. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,377: / Line 1,377: @@
 ::Popular culture articles may have been allowed a different prose standard, but should they? And why is it a "problem behaviour" when someone thinks that they shouldn't, and votes accordingly? Is the issue here simply that opposing an article's promotion has become unpopular? [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 19:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 :::Nothing needs to be archived on the grounds of "behavioral issues". The article isn't in the right shape at the moment (and it's on that basis that it should be archived), but a good copy edit and a thorough search for any additional sources are needed for it to pass next time round. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 19:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
+::::That's not what I said, SchroCat. That FAC is destined for failure, with three opposes. It also is seeing suboptimal behaviour from multiple users. Thus, I'd rather it be closed, before the discussion gets nastier. [[User:Karellen93|Karellen93]] ([[User Talk:Karellen93|talk]]) <small>(Vanamonde93's alternative account)</small> 22:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 *{{ping|Jo-Jo Eumerus}} As the nominator, I agree with Jo-Jo. The article nomination has recently been a host for feuding between other editors. [[User:AmericanAir88|<b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>]]<sup>([[User talk:AmericanAir88|<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>]])</sup>  20:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)