Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

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

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
American Writers	review it now
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
Roswell incident	Review it now

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

Image review needed

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 ACC Championship Game~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for review criteria

I think the criticism raised above is essentially that FACs are at least sometimes inadequately reviewed. We currently have article criteria but no review criteria, so although we have high standards our enforcement of those standards varies. To address the specific grammar issue raised above a criteria could be added to the FAC process along the lines of "at least one of <some set of grammar experts, perhaps members of WP:grammar> has reviewed the article for grammar". A similar criteria to address domain expertise might be "before being promoted as a FAC any article tagged as within the scope of any (active) wikiproject must be reviewed by at least one member of each such wikiproject". If we're looking for consistency another criteria might be "at least N members of the FAC review board have reviewed the article" where the FAC review board would be a wikiproject of folks willing to dedicate significant time to the FAC process (I would expect this would be more or less the existing "FAC regulars").

Another way to address at least the grammar issue would be to have an explicit checklist for reviewers to fill out based on the FA criteria. The checklist could be coded in a template that reviewers would include in their comments indicating which of the items they had specifically reviewed for. This would become a declaration of sorts - e.g. I reviewed this article for FA criteria 1a(grammar only), 1b, 1c. An article would then only be promotable after at least one reviewer had checked each criteria in the checklist. The implicit assumption today is that each reviewer reviews against all criteria, which is (I think) obviously false.

I think the bottom line is unless we enforce standards for the review process the output of the process will vary - this is sort of a basic quality control issue. Anything of this sort to be implemented should be carefully balanced against m:creep. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your first proposal: At the core, this is a good idea, but I am afraid that this might lead to specialization, which has already happened in the source- and image-checking areas. Reviewers who usually look at prose and MOS will be less confident in checking sources or content because they are not considered as the "authority" on the subject areas. Your second proposal sounds interesting, although I don't know what to make of it yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that more of the hard noses are needed at FAC. A lot of things (at least implementation and scrutiny if not the explicit WIAFA) have risen a lot at FAC, but it seems a bit odd that the FAR enforcements aren't as stringent and the difference between the top 20% of FAs and the worst 20% of FAs is increasing a lot. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The implicit assumption today is that each reviewer reviews against all criteria, which is (I think) obviously false". Yes certainly false on my part, and to my mind it goes against the basic wisdom of the crowds idea of a Wiki. I don't think that specialisation is wrong amongst FA reviewers. I've been reading those FA candidates that interest me for a while now, fixing minor errors and pointing out what I perceive as anomalies and gaps. But going from that to saying that a particular article in every way meets the FA criteria would still be a very big step, and would have been an even bigger one from where I was four months ago. IMHO A guide for FAC reviewers with FA Criteria might make it easier for new reviewers, and be something that could be used to invite potential reviewers from say the typo fixers or those IP editors who make really good IP edits to articles. But it needs to emphasise how easy it is for someone with the requisite reading skills to do something interesting and useful in this area. Not present FAC as some esoteric area for WP aficionados only, or imply that you are only useful as a reviewer if you can do a complete review against all criteria. Were Spiel Chequers 14:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy that's perfect. Were Spiel Chequers 14:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone thinks it needs an update/refresh, we could probably run it again this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably worth running an updated version every year simply because of the turnover amongst Wikipedians, I can't remember when in 08 I started reading the signpost or whether I've read that article before. Some stats as to how many articles are involved, how much they change as a result of the FA process and how many readers they get when they go on the mainpage would give context and more reason to rerun the article. Also, and this may be a wider issue it implies that when you spot something wrong at FA you raise that as a comment or a reason to oppose. Surely if you spot something that is as easy to fix as to comment on you should just fix it? Were Spiel Chequers 15:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA quality, and more FARs to improve it

Per, the latest kerfuffle: This biggest problem with rubbish FAs are the relics from olden days that the original author/wikiproject does not raise the article's quality to keep pace with modern standards unless someone puts the article under the hammer and threatens to bin their FAs, eg rather disorganised pieces like Malwa or Brian Close (punted off last year). I think that it humans normally work that way and need to be put under pressure, for the most part. So I think FAR is a pretty strong incentive to improve poor FAs, and the vast amount of problems with FAs is from the way old FAs, rather than current FACs that have skated through with errors. There are hundreds of 2006 and before, and even a few poor FAs in early 2007 like Technopark Kerala, a lot of which are worse than GAs and even some B class articles. The other thing is that with the likes of Ealdgyth etc on FAC, the standards in FAC have been rising a lot but with FAR this has been less so, and I think the standard deviation between the worst and better (new) FAs is increasing. Especially because of the need for consensus to change, sometimes a couple of dubious WikiProject "keeps" at FA is enough to get a FAR to crawl home when an article is still only half fixed up.

Having said that, a lot of old timers seem a bit disconnected and still count their olden day work as legit FAs after they have been removed for having multiple formatting styles mixed together, substandard English, no sources or random geocities websites used as sources etc and sometimes harp on about the modern trends and how articles in the old days were better, which there patently were not. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to pop over to FAR when requested, I just can't add another duty to my pile... I had to drop FLC as being too much time away from writing articles (which, in the end, is the point, right?) Anytime someone wants me to weigh in on an FAR, drop a note on my talk page. Sandy already had that open invite for FAR, anyone else is welcome to it too. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh YM, ~~you taking the Australia's dismal run pretty badly~~ good point. I have my finger in a few too many pies but try to pop in every once in a while. Just trying to help out with a few current FACs first...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I was in an angy mood and not because of the cricket, but I have reworded it because looking at it again it doesn't look pleasant. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my locale, "rubbish" is a very loaded, dismissive word. Thinking about the real spirit behind policies like WP:NPA, which gets quoted any time someone acts a little naughty... well, I'd rather have someone tell me to "fuck off" on Wikipedia than I would have someone describe the effort of any volunteer, including me, as "rubbish". No, your attitude and the existence of FAR are not "incentives"; in fact, they're very much the reason why a person seeking any sort of middle way on wikipedia learns eventually to just stay the hell away from it, at least in any substantive capacity; especially to stay away from the self-appointed experts on what constitutes a quality article. –Outriggr § 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey isn't trying to denigrate anyone's work, but let's face it; many of those articles are poorly written and under-referenced, making them less than middling GA rather than FA according to today's standards. We don't need "self-appointed" experts on what makes a quality article because we have criteria; and frankly, if you don't want your work being judged critically, why the hell did you try and have your writing featured in the first place (let alone write on the wiki?) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical assessment is fine, but "rubbish" isn't critical assessment. I'm quite willing to believe that YM has reason for his comments and that the cited articles are below current standards, but like Outriggr I'd prefer it if we could avoid such terms as "rubbish" in this sort of conversation. There's plenty of scope for people to get upset without starting off with emotive language. Mike Christie (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I didn't mean that the articles were useless, so that was a pretty poor rant on my part, so I've reworded it as it might be seen as being aggressive and hostile. I do think that the gap between the standard deviation in FA quality is getting very large nowadays. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Hi Outriggr & all: I use strong language when reviewing and speaking to reviewers. I simply believe that being all hugs 'n love will do zero-point-zero to staunch the flow of crap (did I say crap? I think I did) that people shove into FAC simply because it has fewer ungrammatical sentences than grammatical ones... even though the grammatical sentences are usually merely WP:COPYVIO. I think... Wikipedia's reputation sucks. It's improving, but I have been looked at like a Martian by professors when I mention it. It's considered a toy—an inaccurate, useless toy. WP:FA represents (or is supposed to represent) Wikipedia's very, very best, period. It is not Romper Room; it's not a place where love 'n hugs are distributed to boost the self-esteem of junior high students. Those junior high students need to go home and crack open a grammar book (and one about research skills, etc.) before they even set foot here. Our job is to present a high-quality product, not be baby-sitters. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no more interest in hugs at FAC than in insults; I guess I wasn't being clear. My comment to YM was only about his language, not his meaning. If he has critical comments to make about FAs I think they should be made. One can write accurate and condemning comments about an article's shortcomings without insulting the author of an article, however; and I think anyone who can write an FA understands the use of language well enough to do so. Mike Christie (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flow of crap pushes onward. If we had tons of reviewers who would fail and fail and fail and fail the crap, then folks might get the message without any need for a dash of vinegar. But we don't. And they don't. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does one define "crap"? (In FA terms, of course. I know too well what the main definition is. :-)) Is it just bad articles, or are you referring to repetitive FA topics? We're usually good at spotting the ones that aren't ready yet, and there are no real solutions to the latter problem. Editors will work on what they want to work on, even if they end up copying formats after a while. As for our reputation, every article on Wikipedia could be FA-quality and we still wouldn't be considered a reliable academic source. At some point, we should recognize that and accept it; we can still be a great free source of information for anything encyclopedic that you can think of. That's our advantage over Brittanica, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)

Writing and researching are processes that require substantial input of time and effort. If the text is WP:COPYVIO copy/paste, the article is crap. Even if the text of the article is so imbued with the its sources that the voice of the article is the voice of the sources, the article is crap. If the references do not truly reflect the breadth of the literature, the article is crap. If the references are cherry-picked for a POV, the article is crap. If the article is incomprehensible to the lay reader, but could be made comprehensible with enough effort, the article is crap. If the article has five references, all online, and took a long afternoon to write, the article is crap. If an article goes all the way through FAC and no one reviews it except 1 systematic image reviewer, 1 systematic references reviewer, and 3 or 4 members of the relevant Wikiproject (all Supporting), the article is probably crap: reviewers, being unable to state the obvious for fear of being argued to death, have "voted with their feet" that the article is crap. Does that draw a picture? :-)
However, having said that, I'm growing ever more and more weary of being the only one willing to call a piece of crap a piece of crap. On the one hand, crankiness is tiring. On the other hand, the folks pushing through substandard articles should be Opposed. Firmly. Decisively. In a memorable manner. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give an example, there is a FAC that has obvious deficiencies in regards to sourcing. Two regular reviewers made comments noting the problems (but did not vote) and they were simply brushed off by the nominator(s). I have made my oppose vote, but I am rather surprised that no one else has opposed this FAC even when the problem is so obvious. I leave the FAC unnamed because I do not want to attract undue attention to it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Obviously, candidates that copy sources should be quick-failed (why is this still on the page?). These other source concerns are all valid, but it's not easy to defend against them due to lack of time on our part. There are sometimes hints, though; I'm thinking of city pages that use mostly primary sources, for example. The best advice I can give is to get out and review the articles, which you seem to be doing more of lately. Sandy/Raul can't read the minds of those who don't show up. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just an aside - FAC doesn't have a quick-fail process. Currently, noms are being promoted/archived twice a week to work around GimmeBot's schedule. If the nominator agrees to withdraw the nomination, we can remove it early, but that's usually the only time we do so. (I've left a note with the nominator of the example given to see if he's willing to withdraw.) Even in copyvio situations, there's always an outside chance that the nominator could clean the article up into an acceptable status within the FAC time. Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there is not a quick-fail procss for copyright violations, there should be. There should be a powerful disincentive to bringing plagiarized text to FAC (and anywhere else in Wikipedia, for that matter). There seems to be an attitude by some (and I don't mean anyone commenting here) that copyright violations are OK if you don't get caught. Copyrighted text remains in the article history even if removed; it should never be there to start with. We have a situation where "rewards" are given for successful FACs, but there is no real downside to theft of intellectual property. Kablammo (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no way a nomination will be promoted if there are copyvio concerns. This problem is not confined to FAC; it's appeared at DYK as well. I'm not sure if there are actually more copyvios now than before, or if we are just getting better at catching them. I think some people don't understand sourcing, and they really don't get it that you can't copy text verbatim. Sometimes all we have to do is explain to them and they are cured of the bad habit. Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed. But where competitions or simple pride rewards promotion, the tendency to create content by cut-and-paste moves becomes stronger. (And how often are copyvios missed? Do all reviewers regularly check for them?) Kablammo (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I'm gonna start a quick-fail for FAc thread, just to irritate Sandy. :-P I promise much bolded and bolded-with-italics text, a few exclamation points !! and several ambiguous remarks that might or might not be insulting. :-) Hey seriously though: do any of those "how to" FAC essays deal with copyvio and quoting? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but I'd like to think that most nominators know that it's bad. As for quick-fails, they may not be official, but if six reviewers oppose something right off the bat, it's a de facto quick-fail. This is a prime example of what I mean. By the way, what happened to the backlog? Guess things are back to normal now. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really "normal"; this month may have been the highest "fail" rate ever; we still need reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to help out a little but I just can't do more than one or two thorough reviews a week. NancyHeise ^talk 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about FA notability

During a recent FAC, someone stated that only notable events should be brought up in an FAC. I feel that this is 100% untrue, and that a biography should contain all of the important information, if its independently notable or not. Regardless, the information that the user wished to dismiss was 5 years of the biographical subject's participation as a Privy Counsellor, an extremely important political position in Great Britain. Not even a bit is mentioned about anything he worked on, who he worked with, what projects happened, what his philosophy was in the position, etc.

Is this truly acceptable? Is "comprehensive" limited to just what someone says is "notable"? I'm really upset about this. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Ottava, that's complete rubbish. The subject has to be notable, of course, but the article has to be comprehensive. Two quite different things. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objections based on the subject matter are not actionable, and (per the top of the FAC page) are therefore not valid. Raul654 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objections based on the subject's lack of notability would likely lead to a concurrent AfD and FAC. But if I've understood correctly, Ottava was talking about the content of an article about a notable subject, not the notability of the subject itself. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava was talking about the content of an article about a notable subject, not the notability of the subject itself. - So if I understand you correctly, you are talking about non-notable content (e.g, trivia) in an article about a notable subject? (For example, person X was born at 742 evergreen terrace, etc) Raul654 (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava says perfectly clearly what we are talking about at the top of the section. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although people sometimes fail to grasp the distinction, there are no WP guidelines etc defining or requiring "notability" for content within an article, only for article subjects. The nearest we have is "defining" in the context of categorization, but no one has ever suggested articles should only mention what is defining, which would be absurd. For what to include in an FA, we have only the requirement to be "comprehensive", and bringing up the concept of "notablility" in such a discussion is just confusing. On the specific issue, one would think it should be mentioned - you don't say what date we are talking about - nowadays it is not really "an extremely important political position in Great Britain" and rarely involves any actual work, let alone projects. But this was not always the case. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So at the risk of introducing new terminology, we are talking about relevant information versus non-relavant information (trivia) in articles about things that are definitely notable (e.g, would survive an AFD nom). So the questions here are:
  - Is it OK to object on FAC if an article is missing relavant information?
  - Is it OK to object on FAC if an article contains trivia?
  - Is it OK to object on FAC if an article is missing trivia?
- I believe the answers to these questions should be yes, yes, and no. But deciding whether or not something is trivial or not is obviously subjective. Raul654 (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better stick to the existing terminology! This is an issue about whether the article is comprehensive without this aspect being covered. Being a Privy Counsellor can't really be called trivia, whether or not it is required for comprehensiveness. What was the article in fact? Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to list the article because I do not want it to make it seem as if I am campaigning or forum shopping. I would rather not attract people to it. I want to see opinions and if opinions are against me I would strike my oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I believe an FA must be comprehensive and define that as including vital information on a subject. Vital information, as I see it, must cover the basics to understanding a person (in terms of biography). Having a large chunk of a career missing, especially when it is a major political position, seems to fail this. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to Ottava Rima's original question, whether events etc. that are not notable in themselves should appear in FAs, the answer has to be "Yes, if they were significant for the subject of the article." For example the spouses and children of politicians and sports stars are seldom notable in their own right, but one would expect to see such details in a bio. Mikhail Botvinnik's chess talent first became obvious when he won a game against world champion Capablanca in a simultaneous exhibition in 1925, and that simul is not notable in its own right. --Philcha (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR wrote: the user wished to dismiss was 5 years of the biographical subject's participation as a Privy Counsellor, an extremely important political position in Great Britain. Not even a bit is mentioned about anything he worked on, who he worked with, what projects happened, what his philosophy was in the position, etc.. I would certainly mention that s/he held that office. As for discussing his/her actions of that period, I would work backwards from whatever is most notable about this person's actions. If s/he is notable for standing up for agriculture & farmers in later years, forex, I might look for seeds of that stance in earlier actions, but would tend to disregard unrelated issues, e.g., s/he lobbied to have some library refurbished. Etc. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's the view that most reasonable editors would hold. I find this artificially created dichotomy between "notable events" and trivia to be rather puzzling. Is it a "notable event" that someone has a brother or a sister, for instance, or the occupation of their father? Bizarre. This paranoia about BLP is starting to go way too far. Best if there are no wikipedia articles at all about living people, then nobody can complain. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and no pictures either, what a nightmare they are! --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, the subject of the article is long dead. So, he wont complain. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I steadfastly refuse to get involved in any article about a living person. Don't need the hassle, I get enough of that at home. But if this person is dead, then it adds even more weight to your privy counsellor argument, because that has been a very important political position until relatively recently. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having found the article (see my or OR's contributions), in fact the position is very much mentioned, but nothing is said about his term in the position pre-dismissal, probably because there is nothing to say, although this itself should be explained. Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did find one article that emphasized the importance of the PC during the dates that he was a PC member. I also believe that the biographies used have more information on the time but I did not check them. There would be public records of votes, discussions, etc, if at the very minimum. If its all boring, that's fine. People may need to be shown that it was boring. It at least shows that something happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) As Ling.Nut said, it may or may not be important to discuss, what a person who has been on the Privy Council worked on, who he worked with and what his philosophy was in the position. To give a concrete example: Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma was a Privy Counsellor but given the many other much much more important positions he held, that is not a significant component of his biography. In fact, our FA article does not even mention the fact; while it would be ok to add another sentence to remedy that, discussing the role as Privy Counsellor in any great detail would simply be undue in this case. The same logic also holds for Winston Churchill, another Privy Counsellor. I don't think these are the article Ottava Rima is referring to. Abecedare (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For passing users who might not have followed all of the above, the article being discussed is Edgar Speyer which I nominated. The matter of notability which Ottava Rima has raised seems to revolve around a period of five years in the subject's life during which he was a Privy Counsellor and what he may have done in that role.

The article contains a large section regarding his expulsion from the council after World War I following accusations of his having traded with the enemy and having been in contact with enemy citizens. In contrast to this, there is only a short mention of his having been a Privy Counsellor but little about what he did as one. The reason for this apparent disparity is that one of the things Speyer is notable for is that he was the last person to be struck from the Privy Council (although others subsequently resigned). There is quite a bit of information available for this, but there is very little on his activities in the Privy Council itself - possibly, as JohnBod commented, because he didn't attend many of these or do much when he did.

The issue as to notability is over my comment: "Whilst it is notable that he was a Privy Counsellor, what he did as one is not necessarily notable." to which OR took exception. OR is misquoting me, I did not "state that only notable events should be brought up in an FAC", I simply stated that what he did in the council may not be notable. Therefore, it may not be recorded and not be capable of being included in the article. There are already a number of items in the article included to try and give colour to the subject which could be considered non-notable. For example, his owning a number of Stradivarius violins - which was queried in the FAC for this reason.

With regards to the information contained in the biographies that are available - there are two: one in Who was Who, which gives only the barest minimum of facts, and one at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which is one of the principle sources for the article. The rest of the listed sources contain just minor references to Speyer dealing with his interactions with the people in his life. OR seems to be of the view that I am deliberately withholding information that is readily available, I am not. There are minor things I could add which I found through my trawling of the Times newspaper archive but most of this would probably be considered unnecessary gloss and would, possibly, be objected to under the second of Raul654's suggested tests above.

There does seem to be a different standard being applied to the Speyer artcle than has been applied to existing similar biographical FAs. As I remarked in the FAC review, the recent main page featured articles on Richard Hawes and Robert Sterling Yard have parts of their careers covered in minimal fashion and focus on the bits that really make them notable. Speyer, I believe has three claims to notability which are covered in the article, yet one aspect of his life over a period of five years seems to be generating a lot of controversy. --DavidCane (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done a quick count of the counsellors alive when Speyer was appointed to the council (listed at Historical lists of Privy Councillors, they are appointed for life) and there were approximately 180 in total, some of whom had been appointed as far back as the early 1870s. Whilst it was a significant honour to be appointed, it was not that exclusive a club as might be supposed. --DavidCane (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But remember, even a US House of Representatives member (one of 435) still has a track record. The Richard Hawes article does not have a big blatant section that is pure negative, let alone two. Robert Sterling Yard is also not a politician. However, I have a strong academic relationship with the history of British politics, so I am able to examine such pages with an eye to see things that should exist. Now, as I pointed out on the FAC - a cursory search found an article devoted to the time and dealt a lot with Speyer, so much that it even credited him with the beginning of an economic cycle. That doesn't happen out of no where. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I can comment on the Privy Counsellor issue (all that reading I did when finding references for the article at FAR comes in handy!): Once upon a time, say 500 years ago, the Privy Council met as a council of the King and did actually have power. By the turn of the 18th century, when the Hanoverian Kings ascended the throne, power was exercised by a subset of the Council, which is what is now the Cabinet. The monarch ceased attending Cabinet meetings, and when s/he did meet with a quorum of Privy Counsellors it was merely to approve the decisions made by the Cabinet. This is still the case today—Cabinet ministers are appointed Privy Counsellors (for life), Privy Council meetings are held monthly, consisting of the Queen and four or five Ministers, typically those with responsibility for the regulations/legislation being approved. Everyone stays standing at the meetings, which are very brief and consist of the titles of the orders being read out and the sovereign saying "approved". However membership of the Privy Council is also awarded as a titular honour, much like a knighthood. This was true even in the time of Speyer, for example The Constitutional History of England by Frederic Maitland, written in the 19th century says on p.401 "A privy councillor made so as a mere honour—e.g. an ex-judge—goes to the council board once to take the oath, and he never goes again". A House of Commons fact sheet from 2005 says "Membership of the Privy Council is today a titular honour, with the office recognised as a reward for public and political service." and "On rare ceremonial occasions a larger meeting, including members other than Ministers, is convened – for example, to proclaim a new monarch or to hear a monarch give consent to a Royal marriage." The situation therefore has not changed for the last 150 years. As Speyer was not a Minister he would have attended a Council meeting once to swear the Privy Counsellor's oath, and most likely never attended again. Even if he had been a Minister and regularly attended he wouldn't have done anything much beyond showing up. A modern-day analogy to the calls for Speyer to be removed from the Privy Council may perhaps be found in the revoking of Robert Mugabe's GCB.

So to summarise, meetings of the Privy Council are more-or-less a constitutional formality; membership can be also be awarded as a titular honour; Speyer's appointment was of this sort; therefore he has no actions as a Privy Counsellor to discuss in the article. Dr pda (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article that I quoted on the FAC page makes it clear that he did notable things while on the PC and through the PC. If he started an economic movement through his position, it definitely cannot be dismissed in the manner that you just did. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have omitted my last paragraph—the point I was making was in the first paragraph of my post, namely that membership of the Privy Council does not confer any political power. Such a statement is a simplification, for a good description of the powers/role of the Privy Council see p140–144 of Mathiot's The British Political System. To summarise the main points

The full Privy Council only meets for the marriage, death or accession of a sovereign
Meetings of a small subset of members occur more frequently (~monthly). Between three and six Privy Councillors are usually summoned to such meetings, all of whom are Cabinet Ministers
At these meetings the Council does not deliberate on matters, but simply gives formal assent to executive acts already decided on by ministers or the Cabinet.
Such meetings can also approve Orders in Council, which are used by the Government to enact delegated legislation, i.e. statutory regulations
I'm ignoring the Judicial Committee since Speyer was not a judge

Thus in the British political system the Privy Council is essentially a "constitutional rubber stamp" (again I'm oversimplifying to make the essential point)

Nevertheless appointment as a Privy Counsellor has a certain social cachet, conferring the title of "Right Honourable", and appointments, beyond those necessary for constitutional reasons, were used as an honour, much the same way as knighthoods. This practice predates Speyer's appointment (see the references in my last post). Such honours are awarded on the advice of the Government; Speyer was a supporter of the Liberal Party, and a friend of the Prime Minister. The article implies this is the reason for Speyer's appointment; the Prime Minister's response when Speyer offered to resign his Privy Counsellorship and Baronetcy refers to these as "... marks of distinction which you have received in recognition of public services and philanthropic munificence." Indeed even the journal article you found says that Speyer's baronetcy was presumably awarded for his financial support of the Liberal party. Thus it appears clear to me that Speyer's appointment to the Privy Council was simply a titular honour.

Turning now to the journal article you mention, I don't find anything which implies that Speyer accomplished anything through his membership of the Privy Council. Taking it point by point again, remembering his appointment to the Privy Council was in 1909.

Speyer came to London in 1887 and took over the London Branch of the family bank
Speyer helped to extend and electrify the London Underground between 1903 and 1908
Abroad his family were involved in American railway speculation, 1906–8
London railways and other domestic investments performed poorly in 1907–8, therefore like many investors Speyer began to transfer his investments abroad
Thus by 1912 Speyer was heavily involved in Brazilian railway schemes

Pausing for a moment, here we have Speyer after his appointment as PC, but his actions don't involve the PC, instead they follow from what he was doing beforehand

Speyer financially supported the Liberal Party, for which (presumably) he was created a baronet in 1906
In 1909 he "held aloof from the City's anti-budget agitation, and was sworn as a Privy Councillor in June, to the disgust of the Council's snobbish clerk, Sir Almeric FitzRoy"

Pausing again; the narrative here is basically chronological. His holding aloof from the budget agitation (whatever that was about) is not necessarily to be interpreted as the cause for his being appointed to the Privy Council (though one could imagine him using his position in the financial world to support the government's position, in which case it is not implausible that he would be rewarded with an appointment to the Privy Council). In any case Speyer is not yet using his PC appointment in any way.

George Paish's association with Speyer began in 1904. Paish believed overseas investment would revive the economy; Speyer delivered the same message in a speech to the Institute of Bankers, in 1905 (according to footnote) "which if it did not start the Edwardian capital export boom (as Paish claimed) at least broadly coincided with it".

Pausing again, you mentioned Speyer being credited with an economic movement, however this again predates his appointment to the Privy Council.

In 1909 Speyer put Chancellor of the Exchequer Lloyd George in contact with Paish.

This appears to be the last mention of Speyer in the article, and again does not mention his Privy Council membership. While the article does indeed have some information which is lacking from the Wikipedia article, this is of Speyer's activities before his appointment as a Privy Counsellor. Even if they had been during this period, I hope I have explained clearly enough above that there is political power associated with membership of the Privy Council. To try and be even clearer, I would support, on grounds of comprehensiveness, the inclusion in the article of relevant information about Speyer's life while he was a member of the Privy Council, but I don't believe (for the reasons given at length above) that he undertook any actions as a Privy Counsellor during this period. Dr pda (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Dr pda for that detailed explanation and analysis. As I said above, I am more than happy to add information to the article to expand it further. The 1909 budget agitation mentioned would be with regard to the People's Budget, which precipitated a constitutional crisis when the House of Lords rejected the budget and eventually led to the Parliament Act limiting the power of the House of Lords to veto legislation. --DavidCane (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr pda - regardless if you can attribute the various political and economic actions that he was able to accomplish (setting policy is rarely something a non-politician can do) to him being a member of the PC, those five years that he was a member saw many, many things happen that were prompted by Speyer or that Speyer was involved in. He would have been know that time as a member of the PC. Regardless, those five years are utterly missing. There are a lot of details missing. WP:UNDUE would require us not to have 40% of an article taken up by two negative events, especially when there are sources devoted to other time periods. My point is simply that it doesn't matter if the author of the wiki page thinks that the events are "boring" or not. It is not an encyclopedia editor's job to edit it so that a life only appears interesting. We are not a tabloid. We should report the times, dates, and events of a person's life that are important to the person. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For curiosity sake, I put in Edward Speyer and Privy Counsellor to see what is found at google. Privy Counsellor/Privy council and comment. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many references there which indicate that this article also falls short on background information about German-Jewish financiers of the period. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do now seem to have gotten away from the original purpose of this thread which was the matter of whether "only notable events should be brought up in an FAC". As this was raised on a misreading of my comment and there does not seem to be a disagreement as to what is to be included and what not then there is probably no more to be said on that matter. Will Ottava Rima be striking his/her Oppose as he proposed?

On the matter of what Speyer's role may have been in the Privy Council, I submit, in further support of Dr pda's comments above, the following extract from the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica published in 1910-11 (volume XXII, p. 372) which discusses why a person might be appointed to the council and how it operated in practice. This is contemporaneous with Speyer's membership, so seems to explain most appropriately what he might have done in that role - i.e. nothing:

Although the true privy council is the cabinet, the name is to-day given collectively to a large number of eminent people whose membership and position are titular only. All members of the cabinet if not already privy councillors become so on appointment to cabinet office. Occasionally, subordinate members of the ministry and some of its private supporters are made privy councillors as a special distinction. The lord chancellor, the lords of appeal in ordinary, the president of the probate division, the lord president of the court of session in Scotland, the lord justice clerk and the lord advocate of Scotland are always privy councillors, as are the archbishops of Canterbury and York and the bishop of London. In 1807 all the premiers of the self-governing colonies were made privy councillors. Of recent years, retired ambassadors, judges, retired civil servants and persons distinguished in science, letters and arts have been appointed. The custom seems also to be growing of using the honour of privy councillor to reward political supporters who do not wish for hereditary titles. The collective title of the council is “the Lords and others of His Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council” The members are addressed as “Right Honourable” and wear a state uniform. The appointment is informal, the new privy councillor simply being invited by the king to take his seat at the board. He is then sworn in, and his name placed on the list. Office lasts for the life of the sovereign and six months after, but it is the modern custom for the new sovereign to renew the appointment.

Meetings of the whole council are held at the beginning of a new reign or when the reigning sovereign announces his or her marriage. The lord mayor of London is then summoned to attend. The whole council might also be summoned on other occasions of state and ceremony.

The formal meetings of the council are attended by the few councillors concerned with the orders to be issued These are generally ministers or officials. The chief officer of the council is the lord president, now a cabinet minister of the highest rank, but without departmental duties. The office of clerk of the council dates from 1540 and his signature is necessary to authenticate all orders.

I will be adding clarification to the article to make it completely clear that the appointment was an honour without responsibility.

Regarding Ottava Rima's most recent comments; please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I did not say that the information left out from the article is "boring" - that was your word - but minor gloss which could be considered trivia. I could, for example, have:

included names of many other charities of which he was a board or a committee member: the Royal National Pension Fund for Nurses, the City Council for Organisation of Charity, the Research Defence Society, the Invalid Children's Aid Society, the Royal Amateur Orchestral Society, the Association of Subscribers to Charities and the Royal Society of Musicians of Great Britain, etc.
listed numerous appearances in the court circular listing his trips abroad with his wife
listed dinners and functions he attended
listed very many small donations and subscriptions to charities which are recorded

But this would not be especially interesting.

Thank you for your helpful search of google books, of which I am already well aware. I have already trawled this several times just searching on "Edgar Speyer" looking for useful information and you will note that three of the books listed in the references section already link to that. Yes there are a many matches for Edgar Speyer, but when they are investigated you will find that most of these are passing references of minor interactions with other people who are the subject of the linked book.

There are two new pieces of information gleaned from the first of the lists of matches that you offered (probably because new stuff is added all the time) - that Nancy Astor was "quite fond" of Sir Edgar but thought his wife a "tiring noisy woman" and that Lady Speyer was asked to remove her daughters from their school after the war broke-out as other parents were threatening to remove theirs and she was ostracised from a number of societies that she had belonged to. The first is trivia, the second I will add to the article.

The second, longer list of 192 matches appears at first to provide a great number of links but a substantial number of these are of no use because they provide no access to the text ("no preview available" or "[ Sorry, this page's content is restricted ]" messages are shown) or because they provide links to snippets with just his name and a few out of context words. Please also note that, as structured, your search finds any book or article which included any Edgar and any Speyer and any Privy and any Council. "Edgar Speyer" "Privy Council" produces 20% fewer matches. Of those for which brief summaries can be read, something like 90% refer to Speyer in the context of his being removed from the Privy Council, which the article already has plenty on. There are a number of new documents listed which might have additional information for inclusion and I will read these to see if there is anything worth adding.

Regarding Malleus Fatuorum's most recent comment, I will see what I can do, but this is a biography not an economic history.

Can I suggest that further discussion goes either on the article's talk page or the FAC page--DavidCane (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nominating

THis may have been mentioned -> but the instructions to re-nominating a FAC is flawed.

The instructions are wrong, and the pre-loaded templates won't load if there is an archive already stored.

This is to do with the {{fac}} tempalte, and should be fixed. The Windler talk 11:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still need image review

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 ACC Championship Game~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to attract new reviewers?

One constant refrain I hear on this page is that FAC needs more reviewers, and I don't disagree. However, the question I have always wanted answered is this: what, if anything, can we do to make the pool of reviewers larger? We can bemoan the lack of reviewers all we want, but the truth is that FAC is the least inviting place possible for beginners. The standards are subjective, even for experienced reviewers; newcomers have little chance of understanding them right off the bat. I also feel that potential new reviewers are concerned that they will be criticized by fellow reviewers if they make a mistake, such as supporting an article with problems. I'm not the first to complain about this, but I've seen few suggestions on what can be done about it. Does anyone have any ideas that can improve the situation, which is causing strain for everyone here? Giants2008 (17-14) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: Every nominator must review another FAC for every one they've nominated. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Even if one is not a "good reviewer", there are so many things to look for on an article that it is impossible to not find something to improve on. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that most FACs have maybe 5-6 pundits, so that wouldn't make up the whole balance. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm concerned that implementing requirements as Dabomb suggests will lead to a lot of commentless support !votes, since those are easiest to put down (or, if we implement a comments requirement, support !votes followed by "prose is excellent, all references in order"). Wikipedia as a whole is pretty short of reviewers (see WP:GAC, WP:PR), but to the extent there is a solution I think it involves approaching people who are good article writers and encouraging them to given reviewing a shot, especially within their areas of interest. I actually think that FAC might be less intimidating than GAC, since you're not unilaterally responsible for promoting or rejecting the nomination. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it that way. I see GAN reviews as a one-on-one relationship, with the reviewer and the article's nominator. In FAC, when a comment is made, sometimes the nominator will respond, and sometimes others will respond and perhaps criticize, too. Gary King (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think an issue with GAN is that because one person holds the verdict, a person from within the wikiproject/knowledge area is more likely to abstain for want of looking or being accidentally biased. Probably why my cricket FACs are always faster than my other FACs, but for GAN, it's the other way around because cricket can be a bit hard to understand for outsiders. I know some guys who nom at GAN put a note asking specifically for outsiders. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could carrot them with awards etc, which might not excatly feel pleasant, but it works. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the archives, it seems like there were way more reviewers in 2006 than now. Gary King (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a larger problem is that FAC has gone through gone through a culture change. We have gone from a make a few tweaks and !vote to the Write-an-FA workshop (I am not saying all FACs are like this). I think the fact that we now have dedicated source-checkers and image-checks gives some nominators the idea that "Oh, they take care of the source and image issues there [at FAC], so we don't have to worry. Maybe they will copy-edit the article and do research for us too!" An overstatement to be sure, but I think there is an issue with this. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, which is why there's been talk that reviewers need to be less reluctant with outright opposes, instead of just comments; those allow Sandy to archive nominations that aren't ready, rather than leaving them languishing there awaiting copy-editing and the like. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that people not opposing is really the problem here. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobody checking is the problem, becuase they know that it takes a while to check if a good looking articles really is good. The weaker FACs normally get singled out with 5-minute opposes really quick. Back in 2006 anmd before, five minutes was all it tooked to reach the good/bad verdict. It's more the fact that relatively sound articles aren't being inspected. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any reasonable way to attract reviewers. People are either drawn to it or they aren't. Forcing noms to review won't work either for the same reason—the FA writers who are inclined to review content are already in here doing it. What we can do is work on retaining good reviewers by self-moderating the nom pages and making sure the review process is reasonable for all parties. If an article is way off, multiple reviewers should send that message right off the bat so the article doesn't languish here while people make attempts to pull it up to FA standard. If it can be fixed up in a day or two, great. If not, build a consensus to get it out of here quickly. This process of using FAC as a peer review and copyediting service is single-handedly responsible for over-taxing the system, and it's not fair to reviewers or nominators. --Laser brain (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Institute a quick fail procedure. Institute some form of training help for new reviewers (I've been nagging about this at FAC and GAN for 2 years). Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have the dispatch. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped reviewing FACs because of the many baseless opposes. Back in the day, people would vote according to the FA criteria. Now, it's "Oppose - too boring", "Oppose - Too short", "Oppose - OMG how dare we have an FA on a road?". I think it's easily fixable issues like this which lead to an unfavorable atmosphere that drives reviewers away. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Oppose - too boring", "Oppose - Too short", "Oppose - OMG how dare we have an FA on a road?" I don't see how this has become a recent epidemic. These kinds of opposes have been around since I started reviewing. Sandy/Raul know to ignore these frivolous opposes. How does this drive reviewers away? BuddingJournalist 15:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, that has been bothering me lately. FAC is not AfD. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that might be a reason to stop nominating if it were true, but not to stop reviewing. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems is that I'm not sure how much weight Sandy assigns such comments, and as a result, I'm uncertain of the affect that my participation will have on the discussion. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this issue doesn't require fixing because I don't think it matters. I've yet to see Sandy or Raul fail an FAC that had substantive support over non-actionable opposes. It might fail for not attracting significant support, but I doubt it would fail for the reasons you mention. --Laser brain (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it." Says it all. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfavorable atmosphere" is a code word for "no one liked my nom". FAC is not a hand-holding, kumbaya-singing social event. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but "unfavorable atmosphere" is a code word for "why should I contribute to this hell hole?" –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if essays were created, such as Wikipedia:FAC is not Peer Review, so reviewers could just link to them when necessary. Gary King (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)mmmmmmmmmmm I saw one about GAN not being triage.. written by ElCobbola? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three ways of looking at it

I think standards have gone up and that requires more reviewer effort. The supply of reviewers hasn't gone up to match, so when Awadewit and Ealdgyth volunteer to take on the image and sourcing reviews, they are in danger of burning out -- and in fact Awadewit has just decided to take a break from the image reviews. Looked at as an optimization problem, you can (1) increase the supply of reviewers, or decrease the effort needed from reviewers by either (2) simplifying the review process or (3) reducing the number of FACs to review. I don't know a way to do any of these without some negative side effects. Solving (1) is just plain hard. (2) requires us to get away from FAC-as-PR; (3), if implemented as some form of queue, would cause frustration among article-writers. I've argued in favour of (3) in the past (and I still like the idea), but how about formalizing (2) -- putting some rules in place that require discussion to happen on the article talk page, and only the !vote left on the FAC; plus (for opposes) the FAC criteria on which the oppose is based. One downside of that is that it's harder for Sandy to scan the discussion and get a sense of what's going on, but might it be worth it? Mike Christie (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna fight tooth 'n nail for credit for the queue idea. I think I suggested it first. Na na na na boo boo. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)}

Yes, that was Ling's idea. Mike Christie (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about PR-as-PR instead of FAC-as-PR? Editors frequently take articles to PR before bringing them to FAC, especially first-time FAC nominators. In fact reading through WP:PR just now, the vast majority of articles are listed there with statements of the form "I want to know what needs to be done to get this article to FA standard" (or FL or GA). There is obviously a recognition that extra work needs to be done to get an article to FA standard, a willingness to do that work, and they're even advertising the fact before taking the article to FAC! Therefore why not pre-emptively review such articles while they are still at PR, and do the necessary article building there? PR has no time limit, which avoids the problem of articles failing and having to go through several FACs because the work needed cannot be done in time. If the articles arriving at FAC basically meet all the criteria, reviewing there will be much easier (and faster). Dr pda (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the terms I used above, the answer is that initially this would increase the workload and decrease the workforce. Speeding up PR would cost effort from reviewers who might otherwise be here, and to start with the result would be faster flow to FAC from PR. I suppose eventually we could see better prepared FACs and hence less effort needed here, but I'm sceptical that we'd ever get to that point. Instead I think it would encourage more FACs, which is not the problem we are trying to solve. Mike Christie (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Begin weary explanation>People continually nom articles at FAC because they can wow their buddies and score points at RfA and so on by having an FA article (even if it was entirely passed by members of the relevant wikiproject, with no other reviews.. integrity means nothing). However, no one can score points by bragging that they are a FAC reviewer. It is—or it should be—a labor-intensive task; it requires saying "no" to those fragile egos and thus being labeled a WP:DICK, and it requires real writing and research skills (whereas if you nom a FAC, you can let folks with real writing and research skills—known as "reviewers"— fix it up for you). In short, reviewing at FAC requires both work and skill, yet has NOTHING TO OFFER IN RETURN (sorry for the all caps), while nomming at FAC requires less work and less skill, and carries a high probability of receiving many good returns, from PR-style help to the coveted Bronze Star</weary explanation> Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote scripts

Is there any script tool to automatically re-order grouped citations so that it is numerically ordered, eg [14][5]->[5][14]? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me an example of what you're talking about? Tks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally considered ideal to layout cites "The literacy rate is 99.5%.[1][2]" not "The literacy rate is 99.5%.[2][1]" so that the multiple cites are in numerical order. I was wondering if there was a script that did this. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could do this fairly easily with Python (programming language), but that would be offline. I have always wanted to write a Wikipedia script... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a job that a script like User:Gimmetrow/fixRefs.js should do, in addition to what it already does. Perhaps talk to User:Gimmetrow about that. Gary King (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic, but perhaps required, idea

Has anyone thought about just stopping any more FACs being submitted for a few weeks (or however long) until the current backlog is cut down a fair bit? Crikey, at this rate there'll be 50 FACs in a little while. I have a few articles I want to put in the queue, but there's no way I'm doing it at the moment. Please, can't something be done? Skinny87 (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had 60 FACs a while ago. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been as high as 100 before. The something that needs to be done is more reviewing. Lots more reviewing. Karanacs (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100 must be pretty rare; I don't think I've seen that in the past year. The average seems to be around 40. If we stop submissions for a period, then once that period is over, the submissions will just balloon from all the submissions that were held off during that period. Gary King (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC logjam

The FAC list (48 as I write) is longer than it need be, because of absentee opposers, who do not update their comments even when comprehensive efforts have been made to address their concerns. This is particularly the case with two FACs I have reviewed: John Wilkes Booth and Edgar Speyer. The Booth article was opposed early in its candidacy on various grounds (prose, comprehensiveness), and rightly so. It has since been worked on to a considerable extent and is now a different proposition, yet the old opposers have not revisited to comment on the changes. If they are maintaining their opposes, fair enough, but they should update their reasons and provide a basis for further improvement. Allowing two-week-old opposes simply to stand, regardless of the current state of the article, helps no one. The Speyer article has four supports and a single oppose dated 28 January on a point that excited no one else, and the opposer has not commented since 29th.

I raise these two as examples, not to start a discussion here on their merits. They are articles I have been tracking; there may well be others. I agree reviewers should be prepared to use the oppose button more readily, but as a way of seeking improvements, not just as a means of shooting articles down. It is incumbent on every opposer to monitor the progress of the article they are objecting to, and to make clear the grounds on which the oppose is being maintained. If opposers did this I am sure that several of the longer-standing candidates could be shifted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then frankly the nominators need to put out extra effort to ping the opposers and ask them to revisit. I can't pay attention to all the FAC pages, especially when they grow longer like JWB. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can and should pay attention to pages where you have registered an actionable oppose. Pinging opposers doesn't always work. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Brian, one that is often not considered in the discussions about FAC backlogs. In the past, I would sometimes inadvertently forget to revisit an article becuase I didn't see the nominator reply on my watchlist. Pinging doesn't always work; I ignore the new message bar if I am busy. To amend this problem, I created a list of articles that I have reviewed or am in the middle of reviewing, which really helps me to keep track of where I am. Then again, I do quite a bit of reviewing, so I have gotten used to checking up on articles that I have opposed / commented on. I think that if a nominator is motivated enough, they will get the opposer to revisit the article eventually. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I feel that an article is deserving of FA but is stalled by stale opposes, I don't mind notifying the opposers myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC quick-fail

OK, I'll be the lamb to the slaughter. I propose quick-fail criteria for FAC. Not sure what those criteria are yet, other than WP:COPYVIO. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- How about 4 opposes in the first 24 hours = quickfail? Or were you thinking of something more quick? --maclean 04:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should still depend on why those people are opposing. We shouldn't straight out just fail an FAC because a number of people opposed it so soon. Gary King (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about just encouraging people who think a candidate is too far from featured quality to make it there during the review to !vote "quick fail", thereby allowing Sandy to do so? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My personal criteria: Copyvios, articles that have cleanup banners such as {{refimprove}} or {{expand}} (unless they are clearly not applicable) and articles that are completely without / seriously lacking inline citations. Also, articles is lacking a major section (e.g. a hurricane article missing a meterological history section or video game article missing a gameplay section) should be quick failed. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those criteria seem, if anything, too narrow. Given that so much FAC reviewer time is taken up with improving prose, I think quick failing articles where the prose is nowhere close would help ease the backlog more than anything else would. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not like to see people voting "quick fail". If an oppose is for good reason, and the reason is stated, I think it's up to Sandy or Raul to determine if there is no reason to allow the nomination to continue. That is, articles can be failed quickly at the director's discretion, but I don't think reviewers should make assertions that they should do so. I believe Raul once requested that we stop posting "Snowball opposes"; please don't make me find the diff but it'll be back in the FAC talk archives, probably around mid-2007. I understood his post as a request for civility; "quick fail" and "snowball oppose" aren't easy for a nominator to accept without irritation, and there seems no need to use them. Mike Christie (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I am not advocating any type of "quick fail" criteria. Common sense will dictate which FACs should be archived early and which should be allowed to run. As for previous discussions, they are all over Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive23. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of some sort of "quick fail" system. It should be made clear to nominators that there are some problems that cannot be fixed in two weeks or four weeks. For example, if an article has no citations, this cannot be fixed. The main reason for this is that the nominator does not have time to gather the available material, read it, and rewrite the article. If an article is missing citations, the nominator cannot just "fill in" refs, serious research must be done to see if the current state of the article is even appropriate. Also, if a the sourcing is poor throughout the article, the article can easily be quick failed for the same reason. It means that the editor needs to do serious research to see if the article needs to be rewritten. The idea that we just "replace" sources is a flawed one. I see no reason why articles which will require extensive work should sit at FAC for weeks, giving the nominator false hope or leading to an extensive peer review. Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Awadewit's comments above but I want to throw in another angle to consider. Some people,(like me), learn from the FAC process. Even if an article fails, the comments generated during the review help article creators learn more about what Reader's want to see in that particular article regarding content and sources. We also gather interested parties that are willing to work and help with the article who might never have come across it without the FAC nomination. I think it might be in the best interest of Wikipedia overall if we leave the process as is and expect that some new editors, who might or might not be experts on their particular subject, will be encouraged to hang around and become part of the permanent process if we don't toss them out too quickly. NancyHeise ^talk 21:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sarcasticidealist has a very important point, above, and it shouldn't be buried here: Most articles don't have quick and obvious problems once they get posted here. If they do, they usually earn several early opposes and get archived pretty quickly anyway. Quick-failing on copyvio or gross MoS issues would affect 1 in 25 noms, if that. The biggest issue is that articles come here with major prose issues that didn't get treated at peer review or GA. Speaking to Nancy's point above, however, nominators are often broadsided by being told the prose is substandard because it's usually the first time they've heard it. So, do we say "quick-fail" and send them back to the very place where they didn't get substantive prose feedback? We can leave it here to get more feedback, but if there are major issues, the burden on FAC is too great. Ho hum. --Laser brain (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a particular need, because if any article is very weak, there will be a lot of 2-minute/1-lines reviews with strong opposes and it won't take up reviewer time, unless the reviewer is a bit naive and pastes a big long list...Any other person comes along later will take a scroll up and down the article for a minute and probably come to the conclusion. The same guy improving the article won't lost much as they are improving the article all the same. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to Ling.Nut's first example, is it agreed that FAs which violate copyright should be immediately failed? Theft of intellectual property should not be a hard case; editors should know that if they nominate articles which contain copyrighted material, those nominations will fail. Kablammo (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nominating a GA

I've just had a Good article passed. I feel there is nothing else I can do to the page and want to nominate it here, but is there an unspoken rule or anything about how long one has to wait? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary likes to nominate them ASAP after passing, but you don't want to follow his example :P No, there's no unspoken rule, but just make sure that you believe it meets FA criteria, especially prose, as GAN is rather lax on that score. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no prohibition. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that after an article passed GAN, you only had 24 hours to submit the article to FAC, otherwise you could never submit it? Gary King (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such rule. In fact, I always encourage people to get a peer review in addition to a GA review and often do so myself. The point of peer reviews that other editors see things what we cannot. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add a <sarcasm> tag to my comment :) Gary King (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always throw mine through a peer review between GAC and FAC; in general, those are more in depth than a GA review (though it's a crapshoot in each case), and I've never had a peer review that didn't improve my article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, just ask someone nicely who hasn't seen it and might be interested in taking a look. Folks won't bite (well, most won't) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Queue and QF" option

This thread is a supplement to the QuickFail thread: Speaking frankly, I think the current system is very heavily (and probably deliberately; I'll explain later) slanted in favor of producing quantity over quality. People used to explicitly link to WP:100K (argh! Beware of WP:BEANS!), using it as the rallying cry for some sort of Noble Quest. Well, bah! And humbug! If quantity over quality is what you want, then I say "Let them eat Big Macs!". But I, for one, have no desire to see a Big Mac Bonanza when I look at WP:FA. I do not want FAC to be a mass-production line. Speaking frankly again, I have subzero sympathy for folks who would cry that a slower FAC process would make those poor, poor persecuted FAC nominators have to... what's that word? .. oh yes, wait.
Once again I say: adopt a queue format. Ten or even fifteen (I'm being generous, write that down please) Active Reviews at any one time. Everything else sits in a FIFO waiting queue. If you wanna have a time limit for active reviews, you can. But every time one or more article(s) are removed from the active review pool, the same number are popped from the stack ot the queue and placed in the active review pool. If reviewers want to peek at articles in the queue, that's on them, but NOTHING can be promoted until its time.
This format would be more congenial to the use of a concomitant QuickFail system. That would help move articles out of the active review pool more quickly.
As I said, the "quantity over quality" is probably a deliberate move that involves an element of self-deception: people buy into the idea of "those poor nominators, waiting, outside, alone in the bitter cold, with no shoes on their feet, in the knee-deep snow, and nothing but frozen grubs and worms to eat" without realizing that this is an explicit request for quantity over quality.
Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I doubt 100K was taken seriously by anyone, it would've taken 50 FAs per day every day from 2006 to 2012, even with the 2006 standards and those who wrote the essay don't even write much. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a moment's reflection, a 21/21 system sounds reasonable to me: 21 articles in the Active Review pool; 21 days to sink or swim (maybe some allowances made for holidays such as Christmas, but not too many)....But one of the advantages of this approach would be that it's congenial to recalibration: if we don't like 21/21, we can try 10/21. Etc. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I think of this idea. Working closely with nominators could excite them - it could demonstrate the wonders of research and revision. We could really show them how to improve articles. It could produce those epiphanic teaching moments that I crave. :) On the other hand, waiting in the queue could annoy people to the extent that they won't nominate articles - I have noticed that editors seem to have very little patience on Wikipedia. The timelines here are very short. No one can wait a week for something, for example. (I'm definitely for restricting editors to a single nom, but I'm on the fence about this idea.) Awadewit (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People will nom no matter what – they want that bronze star. As for working closely with noms, better quality noms will have 3 weeks to drum up collaborators and co-conspirators. :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the promise of a bronze star only goes so far (just like the promise of a good grade only goes so far - not every student tries to get an "A"). Also, what do we do with topics that no one knows? I can only really help on a limited number of topics, the same as everyone else. There are going to be topics that we lack helpers for. Awadewit (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Huh? I don't understand what you're getting at. Why do we need any special helpers? We get along without them now... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Awadewit means is that there are noms that need an SME to come by and figure out if the article is comprehensive and if the best sources have been used. If one of those gets active, it could hold up one of the finite spaces for a long time. Also, how is this fair to noms who really do bring their articles here ready to go? They have to wait behind people whose articles need a lot of work? --Laser brain (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"People whose articles need a lot of work" get failed— either by outright fail, or by quick-fail, or by hitting the wall of the pre-determined time limit for remaining in the Active Review pool without gaining consensus for PASS. Reviewers would need to be a lot BOLDer about explicitly stating Not Pass for articles that do not deserve to be a FA when the time limit is reached, but are better than an outright FAIL (and could be Passed after more than a little work, see your comments). The outcome is the same (article Not Promoted) but some folks have fail-a-fac-ophobia, and so may have need for a kinder, gentler terminology. ... we could also have Productive Reviewer points or Productive Reviewer awards, moving people up the queue in return for reviews. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think this proposal could actually decrease the number of articles that some of us review. I review articles that interest me for some reason or another, and frankly, some article subjects don't hold my interest long. As an example, if a large portion of the the currently available nominations were centered on cricket, wrestling, or car races, I still wouldn't review them (no offense to the people who write those articles - I think the articles do deserve a shot at FAC). If I don't have interesting-to-me alternatives to peruse, I'll go write an article rather than try to review one. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFO - Ling nut are into accounting? What are you doing on Wikipedia? Just kidding - I read your proposal and I think it is inventive but I don't agree that it would help. Because some reviewers know more about certain subjects than others, they are more likely to review those articles they know something about and I think having all of the articles up for FAC as opposed to some of them will maximize the review process. For example, I, as a reviewer, might take a look at the FAC nominations on Sunday when I have a bit of time to kill. If I find an article that I might be able to help, I will review that article. If that particular article is not on the review page but on another "FAC in waiting" page, I might not be around much when it finally does make it to the review page. NancyHeise ^talk 19:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)

The largest two of the snarls that I am trying to address here are:

fan-club passes (that is, articles that do not see any serious reviewer attention—yes, Virginia, they do exist), and
the backlog.

I think we need a system that focuses reviewer attention on a small pool of articles, along with incentives for reviewer attention on unpopular articles. Our only alternative is the current system. Would you like me to start compiling a list of fan-club passes, in order to elucidate the current problem? Beware the dramaz! On the other hand, a queue would preserve a backlog, in a sense, but it would be a managed backlog – no articles sneaking under the cordons with fan-club passes just because everyone is busy with one or two articles... If we had a queue and Productive Reviewer points etc., the FAC director (or someone) could designate one or more unreviewed articles to rec'v an extra point for reviewing.. but don't panic, a point system could still be kept both simple and manageable. It just requires some forethought. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Deckiller/FAC urgents serves as a way of focusing reviewer attention on a small pool of articles that urgently require reviews (there's one on there now that has not seen any new reviews in a week!). "Fan-club" FACs often end up on the list and are exposed to more critical eyes. I would not like to see any sort of point system introduced. As you say above, quality over quantity. We should emphasize this trait in both nominations and reviews. BuddingJournalist 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The FAC urgents thing helps, but there are still fan-club passes. Points would only be given for good-faith reviews, not for "Support as per <insert username>" Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The queue seems a workable idea to me. Nancy and Karanacs' points about a shorter list restricting the topics seems to me to be balanced by the need to focus limited reviewer resources, and by the possibility that nominators who find themselves in the queue might go ahead and review FAC articles. That works for good article nominations, after all. I think the Productive Reviewer points is not a bad idea in theory, but it is unworkable in practice; Sandy's efforts in the past to identify top reviewers were very time consuming. The effort needed would be better spent on reviewing. Mike Christie (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your comments. I envision a lightweight Productive Reviewer process: Every reviewer can receive either 2 or ~~4 points~~ 3 points per week, but no more: ~~2 points~~ 1 point for one or more Good Faith reviews of a ~~non-distressed~~ regular FAC; 2 points for one or more Good Faith reviews of a ~~distressed~~ "low activity; needing feedback" FAC. So max ~~4 points~~ 3 points per week. You don't get 2 + 2 + 2 = 6 points for 3 ~~distressed~~ "low activity; needing feedback" reviews; only the 2 points. Each point is one slot in the queue. Altruistic folks can decline to use their points from time to time, if they want, so the top reviewers won't always have something in the Active Review pool...[On second thought, maybe only 1 point for a ~~non-distressed~~ regular FAC. It can be tweaked.] All Sandy needs to do is eyeball a review and make a call on whether or not it's "Good faith." ... and GF doesn't mean "they voted their conscience" it means "they did a conscientious amount of work"... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have three important questions about this idea:
      - 1): Would reviewers have to look at articles twice (once in the queue, and once at FAC), or would reviews carry over? The former option would be a hard sell for some; there's only so much time that reviewers have. Personally, I have enough trouble keeping reviews updated as it is.
      - 2): Three noms per editor per week? Give it a while and the backlog will balloon out of control (see WP:GAN).
      - 3): How will this stop fan/project supports? If a couple project members offered quick supports, wouldn't an article be moved to FAC anyway? Giants2008 (17-14) 14:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giants, and thanks for the questions. The answers are:

Not only would no one be required to look in the queue, the unstated assumption would be that reviewers are mildly discouraged from doing so. Anyone can do what they want, but no articles can be Promoted until they hit the Active review pool. Moreover, no points are awarded for reviews done on an article while that article is waiting in the queue. Whether or not points would be given for those comments at the time the article hits the active pool is a matter for further discussion. I personally would be against it, as it seems to me that it would more or less undermine the whole rationale of the system.
I'm sorry, I must not have been clear. Anyone can review as many articles as they like—and we hope they will—but they can only get points in two categories: "~~distressed noms~~" "low activity; needing feedback" noms (two points) and regular noms (one point). If they do one (or two, or five, or...) GF reviews of regular noms in a given week, that gives them one point for that week. If they do one (or two, or three, or...) reviews of ~~distressed~~ "low activity; needing feedback" noms in a given week, that gives them two points. In other words, the first regular review counts for one point and the rest do not count for anything; the first review of a ~~distressed~~ "low activity; needing feedback" nom counts for two and the rest count for nothing. This may be a mild incentive, but it is an incentive nonetheless. Currently we have no real incentives.
Nothing can stop fan supports or fan-supported Promotions. If no one reviews an article other than its WikiProject members, then it gets a fan-supported pass. The goal, however, is to narrow the pool of articles that anyone can review at any one time. The hope is that conscientious reviewers will hold their noses and review articles that they otherwise might not, simply because they have already reviewed all (or most) of the other articles in the Active Review pool

Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a reviewer and as a nominator, I think this system would do nothing but annoy me. Idon't think this will solve the backlog; instead, it will push the backlog out to the queue, which will eventually get really long. It may or may not solve the fan support issue. I'm still probably not going to review articles that don't interest me at all. I'll just stop reviewing until more interesting-to-me articles appear. Other points:

Also, this system seems to encourage people to nominate articles that aren't ready for FA. I suspect our complaints about writing/researching articles during the nomination will only get worse. That in turn may drive off nominators.
As a nominator, I am going to be pretty aggravated with the wait to actually get on the list. When I nominate an article, I usually also take into consideration my real-life workload so I ensure I have time to take care of the nomination. If my articles have to sit in an ever-growing queue and will turn up in the main list at some point I can't predict, then who knows whether I'll actually have time to address any concerns. If the queue is very long (which I think it likely will end up being so), we run the risk of nominators deciding that they don't care by the time the article finally reaches the main list. Or, nominators like me may have already moved on to writing other articles and may not have the sources easily available anymore.

We need to remember that we're all volunteers, and we mostly just participate in things that interest us. Making the process too bureaucratic may scare off the nominators, and making it too restrictive will likely drive off the reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karanacs:
"This system seems to encourage people to nominate articles that aren't ready for FA". That's why it works well with a Quck fail scheme.
"If my articles have to sit in an ever-growing queue". If you've built up a stockpile of reviewer points, those points can pop you to the top of the queue.
Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question for you.. how will you handle reviews like mine or the image reviews? They are needed and necessary, but are they a GF review? Also, I dont think adding a burden of keeping track of points to Sandy's plate is very fair. Who decides if someone earned a point? I certainly can't say that I want to or need to review articles that don't interest me. I don't do it at GAN, why should I at FAC? Like Karan, it'd probably make me less likely to review articles than more. (I'm very mulish, if it's obvious that folks are trying to force me to review things I'm not interested in, I'm not going to do it.). And like Karan, I have to time my FAC noms to make sure I have time to attend to them, I don't want to be at the mercy of some queue. This isn't to say I think the current system is perfect, but I'm not seeing this one being an improvement. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with just about everything Karanacs has said right above this. I don't like this idea on so many different levels it would be difficult to know where to begin in enumerating them. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy determines what's GF. I would say, set the standards at a very modest level, but higher than "Support as per Whomever". I would also say, save up review points 'til the time when you can use them. :-)
Moreover, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. The small active review pool amounts to... silent nagging, at best, to use a negative characterization. "Moral suasion" would be a positive term. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more significant point is that it may well discourage reviewers, rather than persuade more participation, as ha already been said. Certainly it would discourage me, and I've no doubt that I'd end up doing even less at FAC than I do now. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent). I was wrong; if points only accrue to reviews done while in the active review pool then it's more than nagging. It limits your set of articles that you can review.. unless you don't care about points..
It does seem to rely somewhat upon reviewer commitment to reviewingLing.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SO my conclusion is this, and forgive me if it seems pointed (it isn't meant to be); There is a tradeoff between reviewing only articles that you like, and preventing fan-club passes. The system is undermined to the same degree that we value the former more than the latter. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is the same trade-off that we have right now. There is nothing stopping me from choosing one of the pop-culture articles at the bottom of the list over a history article at the top, except personal preference. I'd love to find a way to convince or train the people who do enjoy those articles in how FAC noms are supposed to be reviewed. This proposal doesn't do that, however, but relies on forcing, to a certain extent, reviewers to look at articles that don't otherwise interest them. It seems like at least some of the existing reviewers think this would actually decrease our output. There may be other types of editors who would respond more to a system like this, and then it would balance out. The problem will be verifying that the other pool of editors exists and would like this proposal. We shouldn't let our existing reviewer pool speak for everyone, but we shouldn't take measures that might shrink our reviewer pool unless we're sure we'll be able to make that up. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent question. It's 1 am here, though. G'night. :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backlogged?

Based on the discussion above, it would seem that some more reviewers are needed to help with FARs. I'd be willing to help out whenever I can, although I'm not sure if I should. So far, I've nominated three articles which failed their FARs (and I have another review active). I feel like I have a good idea of what makes an FA and what doesn't, especially after the helpful comments in the failed reviews, but I don't want to review something incorrectly for FA-Class. Should I try to help out, or would you guys rather that I work on other things to avoid making mistakes at this (important) location? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DEFINITELY help!!! I had no idea what I was doing when I started reviewing, so I paid attention to other reviewer's comments and gradually learned. It has helped me a great deal in writing my own articles, too, because I now have a better idea what reviewers are looking for. Don't feel like you have to always enter a Support or oppose either - you can just put down comments for now. The best thing about this process is that it takes multiple opinions to get an article promoted to FA, so even if one of us is having an off day and misses some big problems in an article, the hope is that another reviewer will pick them up. Reviewers can have different opinions on whether an article is of FA-class, too, and that is okay. Just wade in, and if you have any questions, ask here or at the talk page of any of the regular reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the same way my first reviews. I'm not a regular reviewer, but I try to help out when I can. And every time I review I get a better idea about what standard to apply. It's definitely a learning process, so don't worry about making mistakes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Great, thanks! I just wanted to ask first. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs isn't quite right I don't think; the best thing about reviewing is that you learn so much more about what your own articles ought to look like by looking closely at others, and seeing what other reviewers have to say about them. Makes your own FACs much easier. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Karanacs comments both here and immediately preceeding this section. NancyHeise ^talk 21:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More help is needed with FAR. The back door is too low there....especially if one proper reviewer is arguing with a few article owners who just go "keep" without bothering to improve it. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Drilnoth was referring to FAC, although I agree that FAR could use with more activity. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Script for removing date-autoformatting and date-fragment links

Just to let nominators and reviewers know that the temporary injunction by ArbCom against the use of this script applies only to "mass delinking". Nominators are welcome to continue its use to satisfy Cr. 2 (compliance with the style guides). Tony (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotions and archiving, 10 February

The FAC reviews of candidates removed for promotion or archiving on 10 February appear to be still open. Can these be closed to avoid the addition of further comments? Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy is back soon; if Raul has not been asked to step in, we should probably be willing to hold on. We have the luxury of a list that is fairly well under control. Tony (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note for Gimmetrow; I'm unsure why he hasn't run the Bot yet. I've had some internet access the last three days, but will have less until perhaps after the 16th. In the event there is a problem with GimmeBot, Maralia (talk · contribs) knows the drill. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody might want to put {{FACClosed}} on the closed reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As an interim measure the templates {{FACClosed|archived}} or {{FACClosed|promoted}} or {{FACClosed|withdrawn}} can be added by anyone to all of those FACs that are in archives as withdrawn, archived or promoted but remain unbotified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dabomb87!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again ! (Perhaps Maralia or you can follow up on what happens with Gimmetrow/GimmeBot). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will follow up. Sorry I didn't pick up on the problem in the first place; I was only watching one of those, and I must have missed it on my watchlist. Maralia (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Gimmetrow has since botified. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching photos...OK? (Henry Cornelius Burnett)

Can someone point me to a policy or guideline that says whether or not retouching PD photos is ok? Because that photo of Henry Cornelius Burnett is just butt-ugly due to its deterioration. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's allowed as it's public domain, as you stated? Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started on it (at least his face isn't suffering from plague or something any more.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit more on the sleeve and upper background. That's probably enough, I think. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it acceptable for a reviewer to make minor edits to an article, e.g. fixing puncutation and copyediting, including to resolve concerns raised by other reviewers, or is that generally not a good idea? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely okay. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I just want to do some fixing of These are the voyages... after numerous minor problems were pointed out, and wanted to make sure that my review would still be valid and fair. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some nominators will get feisty if you list minor problems that you could just as easily have fixed. If the minor problems are all over the place, though, I'll usually list one example and ask them to check throughout. --Laser brain (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Laser, but with isolated grammatical issues, if I have the time, I make the edit and put "suggestion" in the edit summary. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accident, please help?

I'm afraid I accidentally created a FA nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Adele, when I meant to create a FL nomination. I went ahead and created the FL nomination, but I am not sure how to delete the FA nomination (in other words, this page still exists). Can someone please assist me with removing the FA nomination, while leaving the FL nomination? Sorry for any confusion. -Whataworld06 (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it for speedy deletion, hope this is consistent with your interests. Skomorokh 04:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -Whataworld06 (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Sarcasticidealist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small things make a difference

I've been doing some work over at DYK and lo and behold a little welcoming template was dropped on my talk page, thanking me for my recent work and explaining the basics of DYK to me (see User talk:Awadewit#Welcome to Did you know...). I was wondering if we should create such a template or at least make an effort to welcome newcomers to FAC. It might make reviewing seem less intimidating if we provided a contact for new reviewers. Awadewit (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are always hordes of folks eager to make a template for every purpose. They will now approach. Let them go ahead... Sure, why not? :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea (as long as someone actually uses it to welcome those who contribute useful reviews ... not looking for another task myself :) ... our version should link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea for those who contribute valuable reviews but Sandy is right—who will "award" them? Graham Colm ^Talk 17:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates featured new reviewers candidates, obviously. Physchim62 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK template is located at Template:DYK welcome FYI. Gary King (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can give this out - it is a welcoming template! Let's make something and the community of FAC reviewers can give it out. Let's not get bogged down in making a welcoming committee! Awadewit (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: {{FAC welcome}} Get to it! Gary King (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty spiffy. --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to leave a personal message for nominators who self-identify that it's their first FAC nomination. I thank them for getting involved in the process and, when opposes have already popped up, explain that some of these issues are common to new nominators, and they shouldn't get discouraged. I haven't been doing this long enough to see if it will encourage nominators to come back, but I figured it couldn't hurt. Too often FAC is seen as a fight between nominators and reviewers when it should be more of a partnership. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of anything that makes FAC a friendlier place for nominators, particularly first-timers. We have at least one teenager nominating for the first time at the moment and there are more to come. And, although I don't think we should make a special case of them, or even worse become patronising, we should recognise that FAC can be scary. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge

Hi all. I'm gonna start a thread at WT:WIAFA about adding another requirement—that applies to FAC but not to Wikipedia.. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, it's already there! No need. here is is "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On third thought, that phrase is ambiguous. Starting a new thread at WIAFA. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting proposal

See User:Physchim62/Sandbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC symposium

I've read the Physchim62 thing etc etc. Only one thing jumps out as being something that is really needed: I've seen hard science articles struggle with non-expert reviewers.
Would it be worthwhile to have a FAC symposium with folks from CHEM, MATH & PHYSICS Wikiprojects (and possibly others)? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has could lead to good results. There don't seem to be a lot of those types of scientists willing to review articles, and I'm not sure if they don't know how, aren't interested, or are completely disdainful of the process. The only way to find out is to ask. Karanacs (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be an excellent idea, regardless of my proposal. If you draw up a list of five to ten questions you would like people's opinions on, then post a link to the talk pages of the science projects, I'm sure you will get replies, and a variety of different opinions! I promise to shut up on such a symposium, at least until others have had a chance to post their opinions, because I'm as interested in the result as you are! Might I just propose one question? "Do you think that articles from your field are improved by going through the FAC nomination and review process?" Physchim62 (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this idea is interesting and timely. I think the aim should be to attract editors who contribute extensively to math/science content, which is not necessarily the same thing as WikiProject members. When I first contributed to Wikipedia, my perception was that FAC was unsuited for advanced mathematics articles. I still have a test case in mind, but I need a large window of free time to try it. I think interesting things could be learned by asking content contributors in these areas about how FAC could better support their efforts, and how they might in return better support FAC. I think the idea is timely because there are now editors who want to bring advanced content to FAC. The shining example in mathematics is Jakob Scholbach, but there are others. Geometry guy 20:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issues I see with some of our math/science FAs and FACs are problems with clarity of prose and accessibility; I think we need more layperson reviews as well specialist reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just about reviews in my opinion, it is also about contributions, especially as contributors can also be or become reviewers. Experts are actually well trained to assess clarity and comprehensibility, because they referee articles for journals on a regular basis.

One of my earliest contributions to the FA process was Equipartition theorem. That's not an easy concept to understand, but my main (perhaps only) contribution to the article was to make the mathematics easier to understand: the article is still pretty damn hard going, but it doesn't defer to unexplained mathematics unnecessarily.

We desperately need experts to make our technical articles as good, and as accessible, as they can be, so we have to find ways to encourage them. Geometry guy 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experience has been this: By and large, I'm willing to trust the domain experts on the content of the (largely incomprehensible, to me at least) body of the article. But as I continue pushing for the WP:LEAD to be written in the most accessible manner possible, which may in fact lead to some simplification, I frustrate the science folks. I feel for them, actually. I think both sides (mine and theirs) have valid positions, but their long training in the field makes my side seem... I don't know what word to use, but it's an adjective and it isn't a positive one... perhaps "stupid", although I know they would never say actually say that. That's an issue that we need a meeting of the minds on, in my opinion. I also think some sort of a symposium could potentially have more than a few other benefits. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with any system that relies on WikiProjects. Perhaps the math and science WikiProjects are full of quality contributors, but my experience with the Novel and Film WikiProjects has been dismal. I discovered when I joined them twoish years ago that they were full of fans. The guidelines that the projects had developed for writing articles bore little resemblance to the way films and novels are studied. A while ago, I tried to add a section on "Themes" to the film guidelines and met stiff resistance at the project. I have long since given up working with these projects. Having these projects determine quality literature and film content would lower the bar that we have set for these types of articles here at FAC, in my opinion. I agree that we need to find expert reviewers for all topics, but we can't assume that they congregate at WikiProjects. Awadewit (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint about "inaccessible" science articles comes up again and again at FAC reviews, but are they really any worse than, say, House of Gediminas (to take a recent example)? To write about the history of Lithuanian nobility, you have to us lots of Lithuanian names and lots of history which is not usually taught in schools in English-speaking countries! Even some of the military history articles can get hard to follow in thick of the battle… Physchim62 (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Most of the talk above seems positive (though not without at least one splash of irony). Is this something that folks would like to make happen? If so, how? What is the scope (if any is to be defined)? Who will be involved? Where will it take place? etc. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a subpage of WP:WFA. Scope determined by the boss. Purpose informed by this thread. Advertisements posted to relevant WikiProjects (but see above). Perhaps also give a definite time (this weekend, or is that too soon?) Geometry guy 07:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/FAC science symposium (or somewhere else, that's not the most important). Ling.Nut should define some sort of scope to channel the discussion. This weekend is probably too soon, but next week would be OK. Discussion needs to be open for several days to give everyone a chance to comment. Open to anyone who's interested: dropping invitations at the main WikiProjects in the physical sciences and maths is a good place to start. I should also drop a note at User talk:Greg L: he's done a lot of work at kilogram, and doesn't want to see it nominated for featured article under any circumstances… Physchim62 (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review drive?

With the current success of the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive, does anyone else think that a similar system could be used here to help empty the current backlog? -Drilnoth (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog is quite a bit larger than normal right now because both Sandy and Raul have been off-wiki for an extended period of time. Usually we hover at about 30-40 nominations at a time, which seems to be working out okay. Sandy is back today, so hopefully the list will shrink soon as she gets caught up! Karanacs (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... gotcha. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still catching up IRL, and am hoping Raul will be able to get through tonight; if not, I will over the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with page?

I'm not sure if this is an issue or not, so I figured I'd just ask here. WxGopher (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange request...

My nomination, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Million Dollar Homepage‎, is getting plenty of support but no comments. I'd hate to think it became featured without being properly reviewed—and I'm not saying those who have haven't done it properly—and I'm sure someone will be able to find a mistake somewhere. Please, can somebody please review the article The Million Dollar Homepage‎ and find something wrong with it! I'm getting a bit worried! Thanks, :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's a pretty good article, I couldn't see anything which would be an automatic fail on the current criteria, but I'd like to read you replies to my comments before I commit myself that this really represents Wikipedia's very best work. Physchim62 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC backlog

Hi. I've posted along these lines before. I don't have the time for regular FAC and FAR reviewing any more, but am happy to be called on to review a particular article and I'll try to find the time, if the requests are not too frequent.

I'm sure there are other experienced FAC reviewers like me and perhaps a register can be kept. We may even have started one, once. --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just pop by once a week and pick something from the Urgents list? --Laser brain (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have been trying to do as well - the list at the top of this page is very handy :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can watchlist User:Deckiller/FAC urgents to keep track of the latest articles needing review. BuddingJournalist 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find the urgents list difficult to work with. Probably a deficiency on my part, but when I pop into one, it often looks like it's already adequately manned. --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure why you say that, Dweller; typically, those listed on the Urgents list do need additional review (I can't speak for the last two weeks, as I've been traveling). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I'm just a simple soul. If you need me, just give me a shout. --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

I have created two new userboxes so you can express your views on whether FAC standards are too high or too low:

{{User:Szyslak/UBX/FAC too strict}}

This user thinks the featured article candidates process is generally too strict.

{{User:Szyslak/UBX/FAC too lenient}}

This user thinks the featured article candidates process is generally too lenient.

szyslak (t) 02:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there one missing? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's like Goldilocks! Aptery gial 02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user thinks the FAC process should not be subject to the arbitrary whims of popular opinion, but guided by well-reasoned standards.

Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]