Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

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

Shortcut

WT:FAC

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

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

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

The History Review Department

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

2012 WikiCup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

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

Candidate RfC issues

Note: Since posting the section below I have archived the main earlier section discussing this topic for space reasons. That section can be found here and may be useful to anyone wanting to read more opinions about the issues below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're right; my proposed timeline was too hasty. I will wait. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, regarding the comments about TFAR, it is indisputable that in the four years I've followed the page, it has never been off as it is now, not even close, and never even during the holidays. No analysis of data is needed to know that it's hit a record low. Now, whether or what can be factored in to an RFC on that is another matter-- perhaps if the negative factors leading to the decline at TFAR are addressed, it will pop back, but my concern is that it's the "high page views" TCO thing that put nominators off of TFA (and thank you Carcharoth for attempting to deal with it, appreciated)-- I was hoping to get feedback on what we could do about it, but don't see what we can add to an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Succession

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

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

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

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

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

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

While a shortage of delegates is not a problem, it is a genuine concern that delegates are leaving but we do not know why, and therefore cannot take steps to retain the remaining delegates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Raul can dismiss us" - then who can dismiss Raul? Apparently he's been doing this for years, essentially serving for life. Is this true of anywhere else on wiki?PumpkinSky talk 02:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some arbitrators who by the end of their current terms will have served 5 years (Newyorkbrad, Risker, Roger Davies), in one case (Kirill Lokshin) 7 years, but those are elected positions so that is slightly different (I personally still object to even elected positions being occupied for more than 5 years, but at least there is a fresh mandate there every two years). Some of the earlier arbs were around for many years as well. Not sure how long the Featured Picture Director has been there for (or was, if it has changed, I don't follow that closely). Some people may have been bureaucrats or functionaries (checkusers and/or oversighters) for a long time, and some more obscure groups (e.g. bot approvals group, mediation committee) may have people who have been there a long time as well, but that is all that springs to mind. The only WikiProject I know of that has elected co-ordinators is the Military History one - not sure if any of those have been around for that long, and they have elections. Signpost editor is another 'position', but that has seen turnover recently. Admins, of course, are 'for life' (currently), but that is going a long way down the structure. Going outside en-wiki, some stewards may have been around for more than 7 years as well - though they too have elections. Not sure who at the WMF has been around for more than 7 years - a couple of developers, I think (though possibly with sabbaticals and similar breaks). Jimmy (Wales) has been around since the year dot, obviously. Some editors still around from the early days as well, though that is rare. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's very frustrating and disheartening when a delegate goes missing without an explanation, it leads to concern about whether they are well IRL, I don't believe such situations on Wikipedia can ever be foreseen (to wit, same situation with Iridescent as an arb), I'm sorry that this is causing so much angst "in here", I don't believe FACs have been impacted, but regardless of all of that-- I know that we all extend our best wishes to those who, in the past, dedicated selfless time to helping others get their articles promoted, and keep them in our thoughts with whatever they may be facing in real life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with you, for the most part, and certainly in extending good wishes to those who have moved on in their lives, as most of us will one day. Or at least move on. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandy, just because you put yourself in a box of saying you can't provide a summary, doesn't mean that it is impossible or unthinkable to do so, doesn't mean that it is a physical box. For instance, closers of RFCs routinely summarize the discussion. I have value for a statement when an FAC gets failed. The writer has put in huge time and the reviewers have as well. It is incredibly strange not to comment on what the major issues were and why failed and how far away it is. I don't mind that tough calls need to be made. And I don't expect them all to be right. But the entire rest of the editorial universe would make a comment. Just because you've always done it a different way and are self-sold on it, does not mean it is the only way to fly.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, TCO-- as most observors here already know, whenever I've had to make a difficult or controversial close, I've always provided a long rationale on that FAC's talk. If I were "campaigning", I'd go dig some of those up for you, but rather I've got several FACs to read today, so perhaps others can direct you to their whereabouts. I'm relieved to see you've made one or two posts here today without incivility or personal attacks; that's progress! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers and issues with FAC (TCO comments)

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

TCO's comments temporarily redacted; will ask him to rewrite them. See his talk page and below for details. 00:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC). Update: TCO has stated here that he stands by what he said, won't rewrite the comments he made and agreed to my follow-up suggestion (also in previous diff). The comments TCO made are here. Suggest anyone wanting to discuss the points raised there, extract them, de-personalise them, and post them somewhere in this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sandy (and others, blabla don't redact me) thought DYK sucked well before QPQ. I have not seen any analysis showing the "suckitude" of DYK changed because of QPQ. I mean MAYBE it did. But no one has shown me that. It's just prior beleifs which adherants automatically say must be true. Like not being willing to try a pilot of QPQ on FAC. I mean if it sucks you can change BACK. It's not like the Earth will open and dragons will come out. That's actually a great example of a set POV and just not changing. I was initially pretty anti DYK...but I've kind of changed my mind. I mean...who cares if they are on the big, holy "main page". I mean, heck I expected WikiCup to be a huge driver of cruft at GA and FA, before I analyzed it and when I did, I found they had the same importance level as the average FA and GA. Sometimes data can drive new understanding...that is what a curious mind looks for.

You know almost all of Wiki's readers come to our articles through Google right? And we have nonbolded links all the time (even in FACs) that go to poor content. That whole thing feels more like competition for page space than caring about the Wiki. And in any case...it's only stated in a NEGATIVE fashion. ('Look...at all the scandals...let's stop them' rather than 'let's do X with the main page because it will drive Y POSITIVE CHANGE'.) So they are hitting lots of imperfect content...all the time. I actually think DYK kinda brushes up people's stubs/starts a bit. I just made some stubs...and I would have done a better job if it was for DYK.

People at this place get so set on a track. "DYK is evil"...let me bang the drum on that for 5 years. Or WP Aviation is evil, buncha crufty kids. And then we just chat, chat on talk pages. Like this. Saying the same stuff. Over and over. Lather, rinse, repeat...Instead of more debate, why don't we TRY QPQ. Heck, at least we learn something. Even if negative, we learn. REally dragons will not emerge from Hell. And I will buy the room a beer if it doesn't work.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case. I nominated a larger than usual number of DYKs during 2011, many of behalf of newbie editors. The problem was not QPQ but a movement during 2011 to lift the standards on DYK. There was no evidence that there were more articles that were faulty or plagiarised than usual, but a whole lot of heartburn over whether or not highly technical articles contained instances of close paraphrase. This was not only setting the bar too high for newbies, especially ones with detailed technical knowledge of the subject areas, who found it very off-putting indeed, but resulted in me having to rewrite portions of the articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't frequent TFAR and took the statement at face value. If others agree that TFAR has no issues that need discussion, then I'd say we don't need an RfC on it. In any case I don't think it's likely to be rise to the top soon, given the other issues listed above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see TCO's comments above until earlier today (I was focused on the section below), but I'm dismayed at the tone of some of the things he has said there (he has clearly crossed the line again, and something needs to be done). Giants2008 is absolutely right to stand up and call TCO out for those comments, and to say that Sandy should be shown more respect. Even more damaging is the atmosphere such comments creates. Those that normally comment here are hardly likely to do so while the tone of the discourse is at that level. I already know of one user talk page where two editors have stated they don't want to participate in this discussion in the current climate: [1], [2]. I don't know if it is just TCO's comments that is putting others off, but I'm going to start with those and (a) temporarily redact them; and (b) ask TCO to retract or rewrite them, starting with removing all the personalised stuff and toning the language down. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of Brian's and Ealdgyth's reactions, as well as yours, I'd like to encourage readers here to focus on what to discuss next, and not to focus yet on what to say about that topic. This page has many committed editors reading it and discussions here can grow very lengthy in less than a day. If we're to keep all the players engaged and willing to participate in a discussion, the discussion has to be focused. Please, everyone, think about what the important topic is to discuss, post a brief comment saying what you think the RfC should be about and why, and hold on to the rest of your opinions until we get to a good time to have that discussion. I think this will lead to a better result and less frustration. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think an RfC (indeed a series of RfCs) is needed, but beware RfC fatigue in the later ones. Not sure which of the proposed topics should have priority. I would point out that some of the perceived problems (which may not be problems) can be dealt with by people taking action now, rather than waiting for an RfC, and those who intend to (e.g. do more reviews, recruit more reviewers, write guides for reviewers, do something for the Signpost) should speak up now and state they are doing that. Some elements need data to be collated and presented - suggest leaving those until later. One thing that is needed is input from Raul, if that will take time, maybe delay that. Also with regard to the latter point, have previous RfCs of this nature been advertised widely, or only here at WT:FAC and WT:FA and similar places? On balance, I would say tackle the issue of getting more reviewers first, and then the leadership one. FAC page structure design RfC should come after someone comes up with concrete proposals. On the other hand, the leadership issues may be contentious, so maybe get that out of the way first? Difficult. What would be bad is if activity declined further while lots of discussion happened about leadership. That would indeed be fiddling while Rome burned. So I'd say get some publicity/recruitment drive going now, and then move on to the other topics. Carcharoth (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two months to get an article through FAC, and you can only have one at a time. By contrast, A-class articles take only a month, and MILHIST GAs currently take less than a week, and both allow multiple articles to be submitted. When an article sits there for a long time, you can wait for it, or ask for it to be withdrawn. I would like this to be reviewed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to cut back on wikipedia this year, but I have plenty of FAC-ready articles. Should I place a priority on nominating articles of "high importance"? Will reviewers and delegates give such articles a higher priority? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you are proposing, Hawkeye7, the one-article limit rule be changed, or is it something else? Just seeking clarification.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one article rule should be changed. It need not be abolished entirely. I think the original purpose was to stop people flooding FAC with poor-quality articles? (Maybe someone can remember?) But it also holds up the more prolific creators of featured articles. At the very least, I would propose that a new article be allowed once the last one moved into the "older nominations" pile. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this, Hawkeye7-- the "older nominations" marker is now set by bot and is unrelated to how the page is doing overall, or how any one FAC is doing. It has always been the case that if you've got a FAC that is mostly "mature" (most issues addressed, most reviews done, good level of support, just waiting for an image review, or spotcheck, or something minor to be resolved), you can ask for permission to post another FAC, which is likely to be granted if the page isn't backlogged. Yes, the provision was put in place because of a handful of abusive nominators (and problems with the WikiCup-- see the 2010 RFC and the leadup to it), and since that time, the new issue has become a lack of reviewers, but if a nominator consistently puts up well-prepared FACs, and they are only held up for minor niggles, then please ask permission to put up another. There is still the problem of independent review on MilHist articles, as many reviewers find them dry-- to be resolved. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read TCO's redacted remarks. If you remove all the WP:NPA, you're really left with less than half of the original post. The only thing that I strongly agree with is that FAC reviewers and delegates should be deliberately, intentionally, regularly circulating around out in mainspace and wikiprojects sending warm thoughts and words to potential new reviewers, and inviting them to join. I have already said elsewhere that comments about "not enough important articles are FA" are completely out of place in this forum. TCO should start a "Vital Article" article improvement WikiProject. FAC absolutely should not be engaged in controlling/limiting/encouraging any specific variety of articles among its nominations; it is simply unfair and perhaps even unethical for the reviewers to also be the cheerleaders. QPQ... sorry, I am among those who see it as a deeply destructive path to go down. As for !voting to replace Sandy... with who? With TCO? The biggest virtue of that suggestion would be that Sandy could then be a reviewer again, which would be a net gain for FAC. But FAC should not be "blown up"; its conservative approach to article quality is necessary, since the term FA ceases to have meaning if it is not defined by high standards. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhhhh ... quiet, Autumn, don't let the cat out of the bag ... don't tell these folks that it would be net gain for me to be a reviewer again ... some folks here seem to believe there is power in being a delegate, and haven't realized the real power is in the Oppose button ... which I always used amply. :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of joking about how much you could use the oppose button, why not contemplate all the great articles you would write or the things you could copyedit to get good product made or the like. Quality control is not the only important department in the factory. What matters is output of good product. Why not thing about some articles that are just missing the bar that you could help clear it?TCO (Reviews needed) 04:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh, young man, you seem to know so little of how FAC works or why good reviewers can make ample use of the oppose button and still be highly respected (note Nikkimaria, and you're welcome to review my history as a reviewer) ... a reviewer reviews, thoroughly, which takes DAYS, the nominator responds, fixes, learns, clarifies, the article improves, perhaps to FA standard, the reviewer then supports, and voila-- we have an FA. That's how you get the output of a good product-- try it, you might like it. You get bonus points (translation, highly respected) if you can do all that without rudeness and incivility, and help avoid having the nominator become defensive. Sometimes the nominators you initially opposed are so happy with the work that you find yourself suddenly a delegate, where some folks who don't either write or review get to poke you in the eye. Goes with the job-- beats me why anyone would campaign for that when reviewing and improving articles is so much fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC works?^{{{citation needed}}} Alarbus (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I know this isn't Facebook, etc, but if we had a "Like" button, your post above would earn it. Alarbus, yes, it works. Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See {{Like}}. And WP:RS. Alarbus (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re QPQ: the short answer on experimenting with it is found at this link. Long answer: primum non nocere. While I agree with part of Hawkeye7's comment on DYK (the fairly objective issue of cut-and-paste copyvio+plagiarism getting muddled together with the more subjective one of close paraphrase), it's hard for me to see QPQ generating the kind of detailed, thorough reviews delegates need to make promotion decisions. If we want an initiative to grow reviewers, why not point them at WP:PR first? It won't crash FAC if the reviews turn out to be perfunctory, and if they're good, many of those articles are there to be groomed for FAC. Choess (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth experimenting with, but only under a leader with the backing of the community who's willing to call out a lazy reviewer. Mark of leadership, to do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing posts

I'm posting a section here to note that while following the page history earlier today, I noticed a post by Sandy that got removed with an edit summary saying it was as unhelpful as TCO's post that I redacted above. Since TCO's post is still viewable through the diff provided in the comments I made up there, I'm making a similar record of Sandy's post here (it is in the diff above behind the word 'removed'). I presume Sandy won't object, as I saw her posting a link to the same edit on Raul's talk page. I hope no other major posts to this talk page are being silently removed like that. It might not be anyone's finest hour, but let's not sweep things under the carpet. Carcharoth (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, here is the clear path

I am in mind to run an RFC (posted here, but prominently advertised ALL OVER Wiki...not just "regulars") to see if we want to change to a system of elected directors similar to Milhist (same number of positions as now, annual elections, one person director, 3 FAC helpers, 2 FAR helpers, 1 TFA helper). Not specifying the exact paramaters (and not allowing monkey wrench nitpicking as a delay tactic...if agreeing in principle is too hard...vote oppose). If the Community votes that they DON'T want elected positions, than that was their call and I respect it. But I think we should put it to the test. The acid test.

Any kind of other kvetches (how many directors, the criteria, who gets elected, how to do outreach, etc.) can come after the leadership is figured out. Heck, I think even if you DO vote back in the same leader (and Sandy is the leader, not Raul), it might be good for the place to have some process and might be good to have more moral authority for the leader. And maybe you change out some of the non-participators. And then, given there would be yearly re-elections, it would be more of a community...less one person owning the thing and dominating it. And I would not sweat the drama. The second year we do elections it would be pretty ho hum and mostly regulars voting anyway. But at least there would be a check and a balance.

Watch Twelve O'Clock High. The squadron has issues. Leadership is the path. (And no, I am absolutely not angling for the job. It's not the way my motivations work. Besides, I am not qualified...have not written enough FAs...and have been too much a focus of bad blood.)

TCO (Reviews needed) 02:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Sounds good to me.PumpkinSky talk 02:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I prefer electing the director under the current system of him dealing with the delegates, thus insulating the delegates from political action. This would be consistent with the precedent set with Raul's election in 2004. But we really need some sort of solid proposal to build around.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years? he's been doing this 7 years? I am pretty darn sure that hasn't happened elsewhere on wiki. Why is this slot so special? Also, something needs to be done about the hostile environment and excessive expectations at FA. PumpkinSky talk 03:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile environment? Excessive expectations? Sorry, but obviously you don't grasp the meaning of featured article. What do you expect? For us to give out bronze stars to poorly written and researched articles? For those who have difficulty producing the excellent work required or FA (I myself have had difficulty in promoting one), there is something called GA. I suggest you look into it. Also, FAC usually doesn't turn into anything hostile unless (from my experience as a nominator and reviewer) the nominator either sends off a premature article to be reviewed, or is just hard-headed and doesn't want to understand that his quality or work just simply doesn't cut it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, excessive expectations, like "spend hundreds of dollars on photo equipment to get a professional level photo or that article won't be FA" (paraphrased, see image threads). Yes, that is excessive.PumpkinSky talk 03:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may not agree with making any bar for photos, but there definitely should be an issue with posting poorly taken photographs for featured article candidates. This should be noted specially when it illustrates the subject of the entire article, such as a precious stone.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that will be the definition of poor, which will vary from article to article and photo to photo. Nothing on wiki is firm or clear. I learned that very quickly.PumpkinSky talk 03:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, however, I think there is a wide line to cross from "decently taken photo with a regular good camera" and "crappy cell phone quality". Feel me?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. This is going off topic. Can we please keep the image issues in that section? Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could work and it wouldn't mean having people give poor quality reviews to stuff they didn't. PR is in need of reviewers too. GAN/GAR is a bit better off because of the way they deal with things.∞陣内 Jinnai 03:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ reviewing, et al

Here is the most recent RFC on FAC; delegates don't decide or not to use QPQ reviewing. The community does (and did). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lesson from RFA

For years, when we'd build momentum toward some issue at RFA, everyone would pick that moment to bring up their Incredibly Important Point. That more than anything ensured that we were rarely able to reach consensus on matters of importance. I expect Mike Christie is going to be an acceptable choice as temporary facilitator to anyone who knows his work ... any complaints? If not, I suggest that when Mike has picked a topic that seems to him to be "up first", he create a separate page for that issue so people don't have to watchlist this page to follow whatever the current !vote is. I also suggest we give Mike some leeway to move comments from that page back to this one, if they don't seem to be related to the question of the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 04:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike is experienced-- there won't be a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on RfC topic

In order to provide a clear place for people to indicate what they think the RfC should be about, here is a list of the candidate topics, compressed from the version above. Although some editors have given their opinions above, I don't want to list them in the support sections below, so instead I've listed them above that section to indicate what I take to be their preference. I've also created separate support and discussion sections so that support for given topics can be quickly evaluated. The exact wording of the RfC can be discussed once we understand what topic it will be on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have shifted somewhat. Are we now being asked to opine on each? And now what we'll be considering first determined by what? Percentage? Was this what you intend, Mike?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally intended that people post only supports, but I think it can work with opposes too. I'll do my best to extract a consensus from whatever is posted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership structure and current leadership

Includes issues of elections for director and/or delegates, role definition, and behaviour of delegates.

Editors I read as supporting this: WereSpielChequers (who suggested delaying the RfC), TCO, PumpkinSky, Wehwalt

Support for an RfC on leadership structure and/or current leadership.

I don't know if you want us to sign again. I think the question of the leadership is so important that we should settle that first and then have the guidance of a full panel of an actively engaged director and a full set of delegates. You want the RfC to give the director a chance to sell his policies, the ones he was elected on, to the community. I think it's fundamental.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By far the most important question. Sort anything else afterwards. Alarbus (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate statements within elections will drive new thinking. New people here will help build the program (Uca has been good.) Elections will give moral authority--I could not imagine morally wanting to hold onto a leadership position and trying to avoid being subject to a vote.TCO (Reviews needed) 04:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support tackling this first, because getting this off the table will turn the volume down and help us tackle the other questions. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support an RFC on the leadership structure, particularly on whether or not elections should be held. Other RFCs could then follow on the other topics of concern.--Dianna (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think that we need elections (IMO, the current system is working and we shouldn't screw with what's working while so much else isn't working), there is enough of a call from the community above to include this topic in an RfC. Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether elections would be the best way forward or not, but FAC's "leadership structure" needs to be addressed in a meaningful way. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say that I have any problems with the leadership at FAC, but since a fair portion of the community has concerns I don't think it would do any harm to have an RfC cover these topics. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Way overdue. PumpkinSky talk 01:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not fundamentally opposed to the current director/delegate system, but I'd like to see an RfC on it to settle the matter. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for similar reasons to Ed17. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Giants2008 (if not his username!): I have no problem with the way FAC works and no problem with any of the delegates. That said, I don't see the harm in discussing things and trying to find room for improvement, as long as it doesn't turn into a battle of personal grudges. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, virtually everything on Wikipedia works by consensus, I think an RfC on this subject is entirely appropriate and necessary. Dreadstar ☥ 20:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sold on the idea of elections, but I think it would be helpful to have an Rfc so the issue can be settled. I think this debate will keep coming up until then. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There is obviously controversy here, so as per any other dispute resolution process on Wikipedia, it makes sense to have an RfC to see if that helps bring some clarity to the situation. Right now this discussion here at WT:FAC is a fairly limited venue (I definitely wouldn't have noticed it except that I've currently got an FA candidate under review). So a community-wide RfC is definitely the way to go here. --El on ka 17:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who oppose:

Strong Oppose on the grounds that this looks like a vendetta, and/or a crusade by an editor who clearly does not like this project, the leadership here has done an excellent job. I am in favor of attracting new people to create Featured articles and more people to review, however, and that is the real issue...Modernist (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC) moving this to Discussion for the purely technical reason that Mike set up that section as "support only" - Dank (push to talk)[reply]
Oppose any election process for FAC delegates or director. Because this point is worded muddily, combining "role definition, and behaviour of delegates" with elections, my opposition to politicking and elections is much stronger than my ambivalence about or support for role definition and behavior. --Moni3 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on – Where did we lose our trust in Raul, Sandy and Uchucha? Albeit I may not agree with some actions with Sandy, she does her job fairly. This isn't an urgent problem and arguably, what's broken in the system? This should not be the focus of the FACRFC at all. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 21:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Mitchazenia. Wikipedia has many problems, but I don't see the way that FAC is run as one of them. I do agree with Sandy's point below though, about the first order of business being to ratify or not Raul's position as director. Everything else would flow from that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
leaning oppose - I just don't see this as where the problems are. I feel the FA process is one of the best-functioning parts of the 'pedia and am concerned that focussing on this aspect may be missing the picture entirely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the current "community interest" cited by dana boomer, giants2008 etc. above is not community interest; it's pure vendetta. Actions undertaken in this context are almost guaranteed to have poor outcomes... –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not against having a more clarrified chain-of-sucession to prevent a crisis incase no one is around, but that doesn't mean we need to bog things down in elections when they've been working fine. If anyone has an issue with Sandy, Raul, etc. they can solve with a talk, there are ways to deal with it.∞陣内 Jinnai 03:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Modernist, I'm supporting, and I don't have a vendetta against anyone. Even if you believe that there's some mob here who just wants someone's head on a platter, that would be the best reason to support that we get this discussion over with first, because if true, that would hopelessly muddle all the other discussions until it's resolved. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dank I appreciate your input - however I said what needs to be said, whatever happens will happen, someone needs to put it out there. As for the vendetta - he knows who he is...Modernist (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the biggest problem is lack of reviewers. Leaders like Sandy are doing an outstanding job, and should be applauded. So I dont see a huge leadership deficit. On the other hand, where is Raul? Is his absence impeding the recruitment of reviewers? Perhaps an RfC on the Leadership issue could lead, indirectly, to resolving the "lack of reviewer" issue. --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to Mike Christie to decide if this qualifies as a Support or Oppose, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the first order of business is to establish via RFC Raul's historical mandate to lead the FA process,[3] and from that will flow how to address remaining concerns, if any (for example, whether introducing politicing into the process via "campaigning" will be a net positive or a detriment). As to all of the other topic areas for another RFC, there are multiple statements on this page re the day-to-day business of promoting and archiving that are contrary to the 2010 RFC, so in the meanwhile, I'll continue to promote and archive according to the established consensus, unless there's a really borderline case where current commentary on this page might be a factor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus very prophetically saw at the time of your appointment, Sandy, that this would become an issue in time. I think that is a very fair way to go, although I see no reason why you need to come here to discuss promotion or archiving, nor does Ucucha. And I know we have differences, Sandy, but I sincerely do appreciate all that you do, much of which is little-noticed even by our "backstage" standards. We all believe that the project is worth working on, and the FA area in particular. That puts us in a very small minority, which I would hate to see divided.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may see no reason for me to take into account community concerns expressed on this page, but I do-- goes with the job. As I said, in the meantime, unless a case is contentious, I'll continue to pr/ar according to the 2010 RFC, so FAC business won't stall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have a community-wide up/down vote on if we are going to have periodic elections or stick with the enherited system. I don't want a talkie-talkie, delay-delay RFC. It is odious that someone would want to hold a position of "power" (Sandy's definition [see the redacted anti-Wehwalt rant in page history] should be "service", but oh well) and not WANT to be subject to elections. I think we need to put this in front of the community and get it voted on. If they say "everything is OK in FAC, those peeps rock, leave it be" than fine. Realio trulio. But I want to make the community face that option and decide. And have the responsibility of having chosen the anti-democratic option, if they do. That is the acid test to which I referred. And I could care less if we had elections and Sandy "won". It would be a different dynamic with periodic elections and we would have some new people in here. Heck, even if we made it official that she is in charge, not Raul.TCO (Reviews needed) 16:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to someone else to move these comments to the discussion section where they belong,^Done but TCO presumes I would "run" for "election"; in fact, I am opposed to the concept of introducing campaigning or politics into this process in any form, as I believe that will compromise the ability of reviewers to Oppose for all the reasons I've already listed elsewhere. The notion of ratifying the director is already on the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I thought you looked at the actual content of the reviews. If substantive issues are brought up and not resolved, you should fail it regardless of the "oppose" is bolded or not. Similarly, worthless supports should be discounted. And worthless opposes. Look at how real journals do peer review. The editor looks at the content of the review and then makes a call. If the reviewer says publish (or don't) that is a little bit interesting and helpful...but it is much less crucial than what issues they raise. And I'm still shocked how your mind automatically turns only to quality control and not to production capacity.TCO (Reviews needed) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to a ratification vote on Raul, if he asked for it and made a case that he deserved it (engaging with us to answer any questions the community may have on the administration of the FA process, for example) and if there was an opportunity for discussion after wide notice, and perhaps use SecureVote. With a review date set for if Raul is successful and a procedure to follow if he is not. But Raul has to start this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answer questions that are left on my talk page. This discussion is, frankly, an unreadable mess. For example, Mike Christie's list above contains 17(!) questions under simultaneous discussion here. But there are a few general points that I'd like to add into the discussion:
Contrary to what has been said above, I am in charge of the FA processes, not Sandy. As Sandy already said, if I'm not happy with how a delegate is doing his (or her) job, I can replace him. I've done this a couple of times in the past with delegates who went missing.

Contrary to what has been said above, Jimbo did not appoint me to the job. The short version is that I just started doing it, the community was happy with the job I did, and about a year later we had an RFC that confirmed me in an official sort of way.

The reason we don't have elections for delegates - that I pick them myself - is because I want people whose philosophy vis-a-vis FAs is the same as mine. This gives the process consistency -- the results of nominations are the same regardless of who closes it; the people running FAC and FAR agree on the basic rules of the road for how the processes should operate, etc.

I'm happy to stand for reconfirmation, if there's sufficient desire to have that process. So far, though, I see two or three (very vocal) advocates but not a whole lot of support beyond that.

The attacks of Sandy and the rest of the delegates are unhelpful, to say the least. I'm very happy with the job they do. Less heat and more light would be appreciated.
~~On a side note, Karanacs asked to resign last month, but I've been procrastinating on accepting her resignation. Raul654 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
And happy I am to step aside anytime Raul requests it, whether to make room for new blood, to get back to reviewing, or to placate the "vocal advocates", but for now, considering Karanacs' situation, I've got work to do. Update: I've read through the "older nominations", some have pending issues, the sudden boon of reviews in the last two days (a hearty thanks to all who have pitched in) has meant there's a lot to get through today, and I'll resume after lunch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WOW. The more I learn about you the scarier it gets. You want people who think like you? What are you doing-building mindless cult followers? You replace people you aren't happy with-what happened to what the community wants? What about consensus. AFAIK nothing else is run like this. All the projects on wiki I know of elect all directors. I must say, FA-dom is looking more and more like Raul's personal fiefdom. PumpkinSky talk 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to not participate? Your hyperbole is really not advancing the quality of this discussion at all. Essentially he wants people that have broadly similar views to how much quality, etc. needs to be in an article before a promotion. Yes, most of the other project elect directors, but FAC has always stood apart from the other projects in both operation and quality control. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, stood apart because Raul clearly considers it his personal kingdom to be run however he sees fit, the community be damned. More people would particiapte in FA areas if it weren't oppresive. There is nothing special about the way should be run and I puzzled about why people think it needs to be different; other than the fact old timers are just used to it because Raul has controlled it lock stock and barrel since day one. PumpkinSky talk 03:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~FAC page structure and review structure~~
Includes concerns about the size and structure of the FAC page, reviews, and methods of reviewing such as checklists. Also may include suggestions about bot-assisted processes.
Editors I read as supporting this: none so far.
Support for an RfC on FAC page structure and review structure.
Yes. If I have a dream, it is that I will open FAC one day and it will be a set of varied article titles, with short, engaging, inviting (even humorous!) summaries of the article's topic, including a history of its reviews, & a little set of colour-coded areas that require attention. Even keywords to alert reviewers which categories of interest it flags. The page will load super-fast. Perhaps like this? It should be the most appealing page to visit on Wikipedia. Iridia (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern here is why people are wary, even scared of the FA process. Users should not have to feel that way about improving an article to the best it can be.PumpkinSky talk 01:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth looking at how FAC information is imparted to article writers and reviewers, even if we don't make any changes. As a community we can do this without worrying about who the leaders are or how they are appointed or elected or whatever. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~
There is certainly work to be done in this area (for instance, the processes for PR, GAN, and FAC should be much more similar) but I'm afraid that doing an RfC on this now would dilute the efforts in the more important issue (getting more reviewers). --Noleander (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to considering any other issue but leadership first. Open to election or retention vote, subject to caveats about openness and publicity. Also advocate SecureVote.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~
I do agree this does need to be discussed and imo some substantial changes should not be off the table, but I have to agree with NoLeander that this isn't the time. One discussion at a time where this can benifit from detailed analysis of all the options - including a complete rewritting of the structure - should be on the table where they can get a more through and fair review instead of being clustered in with the election thing. Because of that, I can't say I'd be for or against it because it hasn't been given the room to be argued without being shadowed by the election discussion.∞陣内 Jinnai 03:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Discussion~~
What you want sounds good, but given that Wikipedia is resistant to change, I see this as something that can be done with an energetic director who sees this as the right thing to do. I don't see elections as a panacea, after all replacing King Log with King Stork is all well and good, but eventually King Stork gets tired and spends most of this time at the Stork Club. Thus, the value of regular elections, which gives the King the opportunity to stand down, or if he won't, you elect King Frog.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't see this at all as a director issue. I see a need for a heavy-lift coder who is prepared to tackle the complicated task of bringing the page up to good usability standards while, most importantly, keeping the page fully operable for the delegates & reviewers. Doing reviews is not enjoyable when the page gets in the way. Who do we ask, or who do we ask to go find such a person, to undertake first the design (hence a RfC to create the design brief) and then the implementation of such upgrades? Iridia (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we need King Log, or King Stork, Raul and Sandy are fine - we need more reviewers and we probably need more quality articles, and more good writers. Above all we need a better dialogue and/or code of conduct between reviewers and writers. The difficulty is accepting critiques and/or defending against them. It can be painful...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reviewer Issues~~
Includes reviewer recruitment, feedback, and issues such as quid pro quo reviewing, COI of delegates reviewing, and nominators who do not review FACs
Editors I read as supporting this: Carcharoth (recruitment). TCO supports quid pro quo reviewing but said the RfC should be on leadership.
Support for an RfC on reviewers
Support – Personally, I prefer focusing on this first, then leadership second as we need one to get the others to do stuff in my opinion. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 05:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems relevant and important - no 'King Log' here - but valid concerns...Modernist (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Recruitment and retention of reviewers is the biggest issue facing FAC at the moment. Dana boomer (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The lack of reviewers is the most important problem. --Noleander (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This is the most significant issue with FAC at the moment, and it's important that we discuss it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – but this is the secondary problem. Leadership of FA is more and more becoming the glaring problem to me the more I learn about it. PumpkinSky talk 01:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fear and trembling Support. Why oh why did you lump QPQ with recruiting new editors? I think something something bold and energetic (and constructive!) needs to be done to accomplish the latter, but QPQ is bold and energetic and inherently destructive. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support biggest issue is the review process. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is FAC's biggest problem, but outside of quid pro quo, I don't see a solution (and QPQ would be a terrible solution that would result in terrible pro forma reviews, nothing more). So, why not have an RfC? Someone might find a better way to recruit reviewers without the coercion of QPQ. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this is where the real work needs to be done. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An RfC here, to include reviewer issues, and also perhaps even criteria for review, would be helpful. --El on ka 17:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~
Oppose for now as it is current written, ie reviewing a FAC article to have an FAC article done. I would loathe my article failing because some editor, with all good intentions came by because of QPQ and gave shitty comments that end up bogging down the review and having it not be promoted. If it were one that might be fine, but with everyone having QPQ you could get every reviewer coming to you being the same quality reviewer and have your article fail not because they ask questions like "i don't know what that means", but rather state items that are mixing their opinions into things that are above and beyond the criteria. When that becomes a majority of what the reviews are, it can be hard for the delgates to pick out what's a legit argument and what is some reviewers POV argument that isn't backed up by policy or guidelines.
Furthermore, because of that it can make it so that good, quality reviwers I'd want to review my article skip it because they see "oh he's got plenty of reviews. I don't need to stop by". I know because I've done that before. People have to manage there resources which includes time. Yes, its possible to have an FAC go through without a review or only a single one, but if that happens a few times, you can let it be known and someone will come by.
Now, saying all that, if there were some way that we could make it easier for the QPQ reviewers, such as a template, that makes it clear its a QPQ review and also has some easy to fill in boxes that would be better. Not sure I'd be heartily endorsing it. I'd also be okay if QPQ meant reviwiwing another FAC or 2 PRs (PRs aren't nearly as intensive) and make it clear that QPQ with a FAC review would only be considered acceptable if it was accepted somehow (again I don't want people half-assing these reviews to get their quota).∞陣内 Jinnai 04:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
There may be some useful wording/pointers in the 2010 RfC (which included discussion on QPQ, nominators not reviewing, etc). It may be useful to have a couple of straight questions ("should we have QPQ reviewing" for example) and then a section for brainstorming ideas for reviewer recruitment. Dana boomer (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be an oppose section. These issues are important, and should be considered, but leadership first. One issue for discussion in the retention vote or election can be what Raul or whoever wants to do about reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Nominations and reviews~~
Includes discussions of prose standards, length of time a nomination should stay on FAC, what to do with unreviewed nominations, and ill-prepared nominations.
Editors I read as supporting this: none so far.
Support for an RfC on nominations and reviews
It would be useful to get a feel from the community as to how long the delegates should be leaving articles before they are archived. I personally think that the delegates have been doing well at walking the fine line on this issue; however, a community consensus to point to when they are challenged would be useful. I don't think the issue of prose standards is as necessary at this point, and hopefully we will be able to come up with something on reviewer recruitment/retention that will help with this issue as well. Dana boomer (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the one who brought this up. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though perhaps this would also be covered under the "Reviewer" section above? --El on ka 17:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~
~~Too detailed matters for an RFC to be much use, plus the chicken & egg question with the "leadership" issue. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Discussion~~
~~Other~~
Any other topic. The two suggested are the activity level at WP:TFAR, and the use of Dispatches as a way of publicizing FAC.
Editors I read as supporting this: none so far.
Support for an RfC on TFAR or Dispatches, or any other topic not mentioned above.
~~...~~

~~Discussion~~
~~Closure of straw poll~~
Closing this was made a little tricky by the multiple locations in which people expressed opinions. I looked at the comments for this straw poll, Wehwalt's "Bottom line" straw poll, and TCO's RfC. Several people supported or opposed in more than one place; here’s a summary of what I found. I’ll put a detailed breakdown by username on a subpage of my user page if anyone wants to see it.
16 users directly supported an RfC on leadership

7 users directly opposed an RfC on leadership

1 user supported a process to “establish via RFC Raul’s historical mandate to lead the FA process”.

An additional 24 users who had not commented in the first straw poll commented in the “bottom line” straw poll in support of electing the FA director, or on TCO’s RfC. Of these:
4 supported the bottom line straw poll, so I assume those users would also support an RfC on the question of elections

20 either opposed the bottom line straw poll, or opposed TCO’s RfC, or opposed both; I can’t assume these would be opposed to an RfC on leadership, although some of them may be. For example, many of those who commented on TCO's RfC said that they were opposed to forking the discussion that was already under way. Some did specifically oppose elections, but nobody explicitly opposed having a different RfC on leadership.
The result is that I saw 20 commenters supporting an RfC, with one partial support, 7 who are opposed, and 20 whose position was not stated. Hence I think there is a clear preference for an RfC on leadership.
There were also 11 supports and 2 opposes for an RfC on “reviewer recruitment, feedback, and issues such as quid pro quo reviewing, COI of delegates reviewing, and nominators who do not review FACs”. Although this is an even clearer majority in favour of an RfC on those topics, I think the fact that significantly more people chose to comment on the leadership topic means that we should address it first. I also think that if there is any question about which should be addressed first, the more fundamental issue should take priority, and the leadership structure is clearly the most fundamental issue raised. The reviewer topics can follow, if there is still interest in an RfC on those after the leadership issues have been addressed. Historically those topics have not been subject to an RfC, but have instead simply been discussed on this talk page. However, if an RfC is useful on those points we can set one up.
I will close this section and open a new one below to discuss the framing of the RfC. I unexpectedly have to go out this evening, so it may be 10 or 11 p.m. US eastern time by the time I get a draft posted; I will try to get it done in the next half hour as I have some notes already. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not parsing your statement "20 either opposed the bottom line straw poll, or opposed TCO’s RfC, or opposed both; I can’t assume these would be opposed to an RfC on leadership, although some of them may be" in terms of where you put those 20 opposers from Wehwalt's poll (some of them are opposed to any RFC), so that breakdown in your userspace might be helpful before you close this, just to make sure we all can follow where you put each voter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put the breakdown together and post a link, but a brief explanatory note: there were 24 users who didn't comment in the straw poll I set up. The 20 users I'm referring to are a subset of those, and does not include those who opposed the first straw poll. It's complicated; I had to set up a spreadsheet to sort it out. More in a bit (I've just discovered I'm not going out this evening so I have some more time now). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~After writing it up I realized it might be useful to have the breakdown here, so here it is. Here is the count I posted above, with user names attached, followed by a bit of explanation.~~
16 users directly supported an RfC on leadership. Users: Wehwalt, Alarbus, TCO, Dank, Dianna, Dana boomer, J Milburn, Nick-D, Giants2008, PumpkinSky, Ed, Hchc2009, Coemgenus, Dreadstar, Mark Arsten, Elonka

7 users directly opposed an RfC on leadership. Users: Modernist, Moni3, Mitch32, Malleus Fatuorum, Casliber, OneLeafKnowsAutumn, Jinnai,

1 user supported a process to “establish via RFC Raul’s historical mandate to lead the FA process”. User: SandyGeorgia

An additional 24 users who had not commented in the first straw poll commented in the “bottom line” straw poll in support of electing the FA director, or on TCO’s RfC. Of these:
4 supported the bottom line straw poll, so I assume those users would also support an RfC on the question of elections. Users: Ched, DocKino, HurricaneHink, The Rambling Man

20 19 either opposed the bottom line straw poll, or opposed TCO’s RfC, or opposed both; I can’t assume these would be opposed to an RfC on leadership, although some of them may be. For example, many of those who commented on TCO's RfC said that they were opposed to forking the discussion that was already under way. Some did specifically oppose elections, but nobody explicitly opposed having a different RfC on leadership.
Users who opposed the bottom line straw poll but did not comment on TCO's RfC: Ceoil, JNW, Johnuniq, Kafka Liz (4 users)

Users who opposed TCO's RfC but did not comment on the bottom line straw poll: RSchen7754, Grondemar, Johnbod, MONGO, Doc James, Titoxd, Guerillero, Bulwersator, Brianboulton, Warden, Epeefleche, Colin (12 users)

Users who opposed both the bottom line straw poll and TCO's RfC: Imzadi1979, Nev1, Tony1 (3 users).
This review revealed that I'd miscounted in one place: I've fixed that in the numbers above.
The users whose opinion on the RfC topic wasn't directly expressed are the last 19 listed above. In some cases they expressed opposition to elections, but unless I missed it none of them specifically stated their opposition to framing any RfC on leadership issues.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Bottom line straw poll on electing a Director, keep discussion above please~~
"Shall the position of Featured Article Director be subject to election at regular intervals?"
Support:
As proposer.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current (titled) director is inactive and better to have re-elections.TCO (Reviews needed) 19:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why not. If Raul is doing a good job (which I believe he has done in the past) then this is no issue to the status quo, but it opens the system up a little and prevents (potential) claims of ownership or despotism over the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What is in place now is a dictatorship-for-life of a single philosophy. Wikis are supposed to be open. Alarbus (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 7 years is way too long in power for anyone, especially a wikian. Raul is not a FA God. He is not irreplaceable. Even worse he's essentially MIA the last few months and "leadership" in abstentia will doom an organization. What makes him so special? Nothing...The more I learn about Raul654 the scarier it gets. You want people who think like you? What about consensus the community and divergent views--this sounds more like you want groupthink. You replace people you aren't happy with-what happened to what the community wants? What about consensus? AFAIK nothing else is run like this. All the projects on wiki I know of elect all directors. I must say, FA-dom is looking more and more like Raul's personal fiefdom. PumpkinSky talk 23:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Leadership for life leads to stagnation, even if benevolent. --Dianna (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The current dictatorial director is out of touch, out of time. Democracy = good. "The reason we don't have elections for delegates - that I pick them myself - is because I want people whose philosophy vis-a-vis FAs is the same as mine" = not so good, not so good at all. DocKino (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical. We are a consensus driven community, and fresh air is usually a good thing. I have no complaints with Raul, simply because I very seldom see him. Full disclosure: I am not a FA writer. I understand that it's only a small percentage of editors that are capable of filling this role, but I think it's a good idea to rotate the responsibilities around at times just to keep things fresh and aboveboard. I'd also note that I think it is reasonable for Raul to be able to be considered in any !vote as well. Let the community speak. — Ched : ? 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a reconfirmation, it'd be good. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For something so essential to the project, it makes sense to check community consensus on this. --El on ka 16:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose:~~
I support Raul, leadership isn't broken, so let it be...Modernist (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This will introduce the kind of pettiness already inherent in this discussion most often seen in political advertising. It will create factions and parties where none exist now. Article quality will decrease for the sake of individual popularity. It will shift FAC's priorities. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The leadership system is working, so why change it. Other areas (both at FAC and in all of Wiki) need to be focused on first. Also, why are we having two separate sections on this? The poll Mike started above (to have it be part of the RfC) seems to be working just fine. Dana boomer (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An effective means of shortcircuiting the more deliberative RFC that was underway, allows the designer to link folks directly to this section, bypassing the first RFC-- as if someone is in a hurry. And those responding here instead of the RFC already underway above helped move along that distraction. Moonriddengirl or Mike Christie can probably sort it by putting a pointer back to the RFC that was shortcircuited above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no. Gave my reasons in the straw poll above. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 21:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar concerns to Modernist and Moni3. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, for all the reasons given above. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with editors asking for Raul to be reconfirmed, if that's what this is about. However, I don't think elections at specific periods are a good idea, for two reasons. First, I share others' worries that FAC would become overly politicized with regular elections. FAC has done well enough without politics, and I'd like to see that continue. Second, I do have a fear that editors who have had numerous nominations rejected may tend to vote against the incumbents, skewing the results. Maybe I'm wrong to think that way, but FAC inspires a great deal of passion and I wouldn't rule out such a scenario. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The first step would be to establish that there is something broken. After that, offer how-to-fix suggestions. There is no corner of human endeavour that is free from excited critics, so a small number of people with generic complaints is standard operating procedure and is not a reason to disrupt extablished procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No — at least not in the current context. There are actually a very small number of people whom I believe would be just fine as a successor to Sandy and Raul (please see "Johnbod" in the section below), but the time is not now. Currently there is a knot of editors who have something bitter eating at them. I was not around to see the genesis of this particular tangle of ill-feelings [PLEASE do not provide diffs to historical context! I won't look and don't care, and it would start further arguments]. However, I am persuaded that decisions that are essentially reactions to feelings of bitterness are, almost without exception, poorly made decisions. I fear that the those who are currently discontented would somehow magically find a way to elect one of their number rather than a genuine steady hand... Can we get one thing out of the way? Just because FAC is deliberately intended to filter and promote the "elite" Wikipedia articles does not mean we are elitist per se, and by God does not mean that we should adopt rash or anti-elitist policies (as an emotional reaction to past rejections or whatever, but see the word PLEASE above) that would send FA quality into a tailspin. Things change slowly here for a reason: change is not always automatically for the better. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently no - focussing on this issue now will be (a) time-consuming (b) divisive, and (c) divert energy away from more vital issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward 'no'. I don't have a problem with Raul's directorship, and I don't think snout-counting will magically produce a perfect director, or even the best director. If it does come to an election, I'd likely vote to reelect the incumbent. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't like the idea of introducing or increasing the level of politics here. And as Casliber points out, it sounds like a recipe for a huge, divisive time sink. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it opens up the management of the process to the political class and will become attractive to the hat gaterers and thoes with big voices and nothing to say (which is exactly what is happening here). Note RFA is fucked beyond repair. There is a lot of instutional knowledge and trust in place here, which is why it one of the better functioning and enjoyable areas on wiki. The current system favours merit over popularity, and thats no bad thing. As Johnbod notes below "we don't see other elections overrun with candidates with strong content experience." Exactly. What frightens me is that this came from a play by Diaanna and her attack dog Alarbus, two people whom it seems willfully misunderstood the Lecen situation, and misrepresented it to members of the WMF, after the incumbants here had already handeled the issue with dilligence, tact and skill. Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, for many of the reasons above. There are editors out there that just can't created featured content. They have avenues available to them to shore up their weaker areas, but so many take a failed nomination as a commentary on themselves instead of being a critique of the article or specific editor skills. Instead of working to address skill deficits, I foresee them instead ganging up to toss a member of the leadership team out of office. The FAC delegates, and to a degree, the director, are not like our President and Congress here in the US. They don't set policy that requires a regular mandate. They interpret criteria and policies, and they deal with the arguments placed before them in a nomination page like justices on the Supreme Court. Our judiciary is insulated from politics with appointments that last "during good behavior", for that reason. Some courageous justices of the Iowa Supreme Court ruled not long ago that the state constitution required the legalization of same-sex marriage. For that decision, they were voted out of office in a confirmation election. The better option would have been to change the constitution. The analog here is that if you don't like how articles stack up against the criteria, start an RfC to change the criteria, but don't fire those people who capably interpret it in specific nominations every day. No, politicking and elections have no place here. (And yes, justices can be impeached and removed as needed, in the rare cases it might be necessary.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the reasons I mentioned in the above poll. I wouldn't mind a clearer chain-of-command incase of emergencies, but that's it. Sometimes its best not to leave things to ~~mob rule~~democracy.∞陣内 Jinnai 04:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the Iron Lady once said: "no, no, no". Tony (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sometimes I shake off the retirement dust long enough to find something remarkable here. I can't imagine better contributors in this arena than Raul and Sandy. But I've seen this before in academia, and know how it ends. JNW (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the current system is fine as argued so eloquently above. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relectantly no. I say "reluctantly" not because I'm opposed to Raul or any of the delegates continuing in their jobs (more the opposite if anything) but because I would prefer to think that this project could benefit from elections of key personnel. Moreover, as a MilHist coordinator it's good to see that particular election process held up as an example to aspire to, and if FA project elections ever do take place I hope that model is followed. Unfortunately, however, the level of passion here (to put the best spin on it) leads me to believe that elections will only create further division and rancour than is already evident. Sorry, but there it is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no opinion – good, bad or indifferent – of Raul, I find it troubling that supporters of this proposal have not been able to provide arguments more substantive than general notions of “democracy=good” and the corresponding “dictator=bad”. If it is believed that the FA director has the power to shape the perception of Wikipedia through the selection of TFAs, and that Raul’s scarcity is detrimental to that perception, then simply bifurcate that function. Consideration of consensus, however, is not a leadership role (generally the circumstance contemplated by democracy as a philosophy: those being led have a fundamental right to select their leader). Contrarily, in fact, the FA director leads no one, and is beholden to (led by) reviewers. Эlcobbola _talk 20:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - per Casliber. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral or other:~~
Don't really feel strongly: I think Sandy (certainly) and Raul (probably) would win, which should reduce grumbling. It would be a disaster if someone really unsuitable were elected, but we don't see other elections overrun with candidates with strong content experience, do we? And even the wider WP electorate will realize this needs such a person. But evidently the process is likely to cause a lot of bad feeling locally, which is a strong downside. Sitting with a fencepost up my arse, as so often. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a RfC where we discuss the issue of "leadership" properly. I am sure there are plenty who do not feel that the current situation is ideal, but do not necessarily want to jump straight into elections and such for the reasons outlined. J Milburn (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much depends on the term of office, annual elections as I believe are proposed are a great way to keep people on their toes and under pressure to please their electorate. Obviously that isn't a suitable model for FA anymore than having driving examiners annually elected by the local holders of provisional licenses. If the proposal was for a more realistic multiyear mandate then I would be more comfortable. Remember we need some way to appoint a director unless we can upload Raul to an Artificial Intelligence program and make his role permanent; Elections are the only way that anyone has suggested, the real divides are whether it is election for life or election for a long term or election for a short term, and whether the delegates are the directors appointees or should be chosen by the community. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on this. I will try to find the right place (above) to outline more concretely what I think. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion:
Brief statement: I fear all this is getting lost and I'd like some idea of community view, please. I'd be grateful if people could be brief so this doesn't get lost too.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems odd to think that, if everything's so brilliant, we couldn't just allow a regular examination of FAC leadership to take place by the community. ~~Still, Kim Jong-il had many fervent supporters too.~~ Most democratic-minded people would allow discussion/re-election as a matter of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I support Raul or Sandy, and I've said that neither position should be held "for life". The dictator comments and comparisons to Kim Jong-il are bizarre. If someone else proves him/herself worthy to do the tasks and is dedicated enough, super. Politicking and elections will turn FAC into something else entirely. Perhaps a place where editors find value in the difference. I would not. --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the dictator comment (and certainly my comment) were related to the idea that there should be some idea of accountability and re-evaluation of the individual responsible for the most important content publication in the whole of Wikipedia, and I suppose the third (?) most visited website in the world. In my mind, the position (i.e. which dictates the success of Wikipedia to the outside world) of FA director supersedes all other positions, Arbcom, crats etc. It shapes the whole of the website. There should be some regular way to define this role, just like there is for admins, crats, Arbcom etc. After all, if the main page isn't working, Wikipedia isn't working. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is accountability, just not in the form of elections. A dictator would silence all dissent, and this entire discussion, plus the stuff found regularly on Raul's, Sandy's, and Karanacs' (when acting) talk pages certainly appear to be clearly worded statements of displeasure about many of their decisions. I'm sure you know Wikipedians can move very quickly en masse and protest vociferously in a variety of ways, evident in this discussion, but more vividly apparent in other forums. At some point Raul and Sandy will have a life away from this site and they will be replaced. If the majority of FAC regulars and other interested parties want that to happen sooner, then that's what they want. I just object to elections, democrat that I am. Elections work for some positions. It would not work for this one. --Moni3 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly accept that Wikipedians can move en masse but when it comes to this sort of unaccountable position, there's usually a mountain to climb, a mountain of "in-folks" who know what FAC's all about, who know each other, and who are quite satisfied with the status quo. It's somewhat inevitable therefore that this whole leadership thing becomes a bit stuck in the mud. All I'd suggest then, as a minimum, is a regular "Is everyone okay with the way that I (Raul etc) run FAC and essentially control how Wikipedia appears to the normal universe?" and maybe that regularity is just an RFC or an informal straw poll. It would be nice to see some kind of regular forum for that kind of debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree that quick action is not really possible in the current format of leadership, but should it be? I'm not suggesting a tortoise-like process where it may take months or years to find someone while an incumbent continues to abuse power, but it would seriously destabilize the FAC process to get caught up in a furor and remove the director or delegate, say over a weekend, because someone got really pissed off that their article wasn't promoted. Generally what happens (by my observation) in a complaint is that someone complains either on this page or one of their talk pages and Raul or Sandy explain why an article wasn't promoted or such, citing the standards given in WIAFA or an unfortunate lack of reviews. If that's not enough, then the discussion turns to "If the decision maker isn't the problem, then the criteria are" and the community as a whole responds either to uphold the criteria or change it. I've seen it happen a couple times so it's not a frequent thing. It works, but slowly. I don't have a problem with re-confirming Raul or such, but I have a huge problem with making a position either entirely or very dependent upon quickly changing opinions from editors who are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that decisions to promote or archive are based on criteria established at WIAFA or scarcity of reviews, and not something at which they should take personal umbrage. --Moni3 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny that admins and 'crats can be hauled up "because someone got really pissed off", and it takes a goliath effort these days to be elected as an admin or crat. Meanwhile, the people responsible for the way the entire website appears to the rest of the world are just tacitly accepted. If everything's brilliant, there should be no problem in the odd wiki-wide re-evaluation of performance. After all, most professionals are evaluated at least once a year, why not those who dictate our presentation to the rest of known universe? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pull back in this discussion because I do not wish to dominate it, and other editors should speak their opinions, but I'll leave it by saying that no one here seems to be tacitly accepting anything. Our robust discussion about the FA director and the delegates speaks to that. There are as many opinions on how FAC functions best as there are interested editors participating here. I don't quite know how a re-confirmation process would be much different than an election, but if someone can come up with a way to ensure that the director and the delegates are not chosen based on popularity and the same bullshit null communication found among politicians running for office, I'd like to see what it would be like as an idea. Otherwise, if any process is dependent upon gladhanding and the Internet version of kissing babies, combined with attack ads, it will turn FAC into an entirely different forum where article quality is no longer top priority. --Moni3 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: elections. Let's not get misguided by saying "democracy=elections=good". In the UK we don't elect our Prime Minister. I believe in the US you think you do (ha ha ha). I didn't elect my boss at work. My daughter didn't elect her dad. My in-laws didn't have a say on who should be their daughter's husband. Some of this discussion is as naive as my daughter thinking if she had different (better) parents, she could stay up later and not have to finish her tea. TRM, I think you should strike the comment about Kim Jong-il; we really don't need such arguments. Colin°^Talk 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think wether it is just the director like Wehwalt wants or all of them Milhist/GOCE style like I want, we need to put it up to the community to at least have an opionion. I see a request from the general community, posted at VP, and spammed to everybody who is on the WBFAN list. Not just the regulars here. Even people like Garando that haven't been hear from in forever.
FAC is getting tighter and tighter. Do you really want to be big frogs in a dwindling pond? The program is shrinking instead of growing. Do you really want that?
Besides, would you want to be in a position and have to say you are scared of standing for election? Heck, you have all kinds of good things lined up. You can say how great you've been over the years...can say TCO is an evil, stupid troll who has less stars and gets blocked a lot, whatever. You have lots of good things to put forward for getting elected. But you should STAND for election. But you should at least put yourselves forward to YOUR WRITING COLLEAGUES. That's how every other thing on Wiki works and is really core American and democratic.
And let's be brutally frank: Raul is not performing the job of FA-D. I don't agree that Sandy is strategic, but at least she is engaged with the day to day. I've never seen Raul here at FAC at all and have been here for a year with this place, now. Yes, he was kind and I interacted with him once wrt TFA. That is IT. (And we missed a couple days lately and had to add a helper at TFA...and we've lost two other delegates from walking away entirely sans comment.) Are we going to do what is best for FAC and Wiki and READERS? Or let some guy from 2004 have a fancy title? We need fresh blood. I would love it if we even had some of the different sides working together after a GOCE-Milhist election. Diversity is GOOD.
TCO (Reviews needed) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raul has made 250 edits since 27 October last year, most of them not related to WP:TFA, so it's not exactly as if he's around day-to-day. Can someone explain what he actually does do? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FAC isn't shrinking because of Raul, Sandy, or Karanacs. I've said it before: Wikipedia accepts the absolute very least. Don't piss anyone off. You don't have to have any knowledge or motivation, just stay out of most people's ways. This site needs to ratchet up its expectations. I shouldn't have to defend an article because it's an FA. Every editor should be defending excellent content. I shouldn't be accused of owning an article because I ask on the talk page if someone complaining about POV has read the sources. That's preposterous and intellectually bankrupt to jump to ownership when someone challenges you to justify your POV accusations with sources. On an ideal site, FA shouldn't even exist. The FA criteria establish the highest standards for assessing material. Every last article should meet that criteria as best it can. It is a battle to maintain FAs sometimes because other editors are so painfully unaware of what a reliable source is, or an excellent sentence. Expect more of editors and you'll get a lot of conflict, but in the end, you'll get a lot of much better editors. --Moni3 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
where one exist[s] now. Alarbus (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(my above post was not made "here", it was made in another context where it *had* context. It was "buried" here by Moni3 who has long been antagonistic towards me (said I only speak in the language "asshole"). This is the whole point of the concerns about this place; it is *hostile* and brooks no input from outsiders. Hell, Wehwalt's an insider and is calling for change. But this zoo is just about out-editing the critics, controlling the message and hoping that it will blow over. FA is a failed process; it has produced far too few quality articles. It is all about us-vs-them, and controlling the access to the main page. Time for change. Wehwalt for FA Director. Alarbus (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

What is your point and why are you using this space instead of the discussion area below to not really clarify my thoughts? What are you trying to accomplish? --Moni3 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raul: I want people whose philosophy vis-a-vis FAs is the same as mine i.e. Single-Point-of-View (single party state). SandyGeorgia replied inline, just below; outsiders may not? I'm trying to effect change. Alarbus (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replying below, where you should have sought to clarify or comment on my opinion. --Moni3 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single party state: again the comparison to a dictatorship. Is there a way we can discuss this without the use of hyperbole? Do you have specific examples of dictator-like behavior? Here's a tip: your argument will be better accepted when you cease depending on hyperbole and use concrete examples of problematic trends or behavior. That Raul is not frequently engaged at FAC is a valid observation that he should respond to. That he or Sandy are dictators or God is ridiculous and replying to it is foolish. We should start ratcheting up our expectations right here. --Moni3 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Just a comment on this section: it is similar to the section in the straw poll above, as Dana boomer points out above. Wehwalt, the reason I didn't frame the question the way you did in this section is that there are other ways to frame it that might be as productive. For example, some might ask if the role of director is necessary at all? If we have elections, why not just directly elect the delegates, and skip the director position? Or it might be worth clarifying the role of the director before holding a straw poll on whether such a role should be reconfirmed at intervals. It's clear there are several people who feel that regardless of how the role is framed, and whether the role is subsumed into that of the delegates or remains separate, some form of election or reconfirmation is necessary, so perhaps there's not much practical divergence between this poll and the one above, but I wanted to clarify why I didn't pose this question directly above: I wanted to get there by stages and make sure we had a clear understanding of what was being asked.
Incidentally, since I don't think I've said it so far on this page, I will try to avoid expressing any opinions at all on this RfC. I do have opinions about most of these issues but I think I can be more useful in organizing the debate than in contributing to it. I will post factual information (e.g. about prior discussions) if I see some benefit in doing so; please let me know if I step over the line and appear to be non-neutral. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, that is why we need a RFC on leadership, so that we may consider those options. However, Raul has stated that there's no call for elections beyond two or three loud people. I am not sure what he would see as a significant number of people; accordingly we need to have some indication. For everyone's guidance.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Setting the terms of an election to your own position? Now THAT'S evidence of dictatorship.PumpkinSky talk 01:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting in the poll above on principle, because I doubt it has been widely advertised enough outside of this page (if at all). Sort out what is needed in an RfC and then advertise that properly. Then you will get more input than you are getting here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A request was made above for an example of "dictator-like behavior". Here is such an example: The FA dictator--and that's not "hyperbole", that's plain English--just rejected a main page nomination of an FA (Elvis Presley) with 6 "points" (in a nominating system where 4 "points" is a lot) and a ratio of 8 supports to 2 opposes without explanation. Yeah--it's time for an election. DocKino (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elvis, isn't that TFAR? Why are arguing about TFAR here? –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. Part of the problem here is we're dealing with contributors who are not fluent in English (e.g., "Why are arguing"; e.g., not understanding what the ordinary word "dictator" means). One Leaf Knows Autumn, this is the primary venue for the discussion of whether an election should be held for the position of FA ~~dictator~~ director. At present, one of the primary tasks of the FA ~~dictator~~ director is the determination of which FAs will and will not be featured on our main page. That makes it a very relevant topic of discussion here. Understand? I do hope my English is plain enough for you. DocKino (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll read Wikipedia's article on Linguicism carefully, you'll quickly come to the conclusion that on-Wiki instances are clearly in violation of WP:NPA. Alas, violations of that policy are as common as dandelions in this discussion. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, instead of whining and lecturing us about policy and defending your poor, poor self, you could address the substantive issues. Do you or do you not understand how the FA director's handling of TFAR is entirely relevant here? DocKino (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues at hand: First, I thought that this was solely about ejecting Raul and Sandy from FAC leadership, not the former from TFAR. Second, I am not lecturing or whining. I am genuinely disappointed in the ad hominem tone adopted by several individuals in this discussion. I surmise that they all feel they have been aggrieved, and have decided to band together to extract revenge. They have apparently also collected the support of a few other editors who (dispassionately, and absent the WP:NPA violations) seem to think it's OK to proceed with an RfC based on "community interest". I have repeatedly stated that this is a misperception. At present, "community interest" is a euphemism for "hanging party". The RfC will be yet one more bitter on-Wiki gorefest. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to TFA – WP:TFAR is clear: "Requests are not the only factor in scheduling today's featured article (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with Raul654. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not mean the article will appear on the requested date." (my emphasis) This is how TFAR has been run for years now, and there have been relatively few complaints about the FA director's role in selection of the Main Page FA. If you would like the community to reconsider Raul's (and his delegates') role in selecting TFA, perhaps that is another topic for the RfC. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Paging up past the unfortunate statements on all sides, all I see is a request that Raul say why Presley wasn't run. I think a good approach would be to ask why on Raul's talk page, or if you scheduled that date, on yours. As I have said often, TFA/R is purely advisory and aimed at making the life of the schedulers easier while giving the community a voice in the process. I think TFA/R is well-run, and responded well to the one problem, which was that one day wasn't scheduled until 20 minutes late. Everyone came up with a procedure to deal with the situation and I don't think it is likely to happen again. I really don't think TFA/R is an issue, it (and you) work job competently. I have taken pains on this page, if you can find it, to say so.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I scheduled the Brad Pitt article for the wrong date (I was going to schedule it for next open date, the 7th, but Dabomb scheduled the 7th and I put Pitt into the 8th. Someone else came along and deleted the Elvis request) I have now fixed the problem. Thank you to those people who suggested asking me about it rather than simply assuming this as an example of me being dictatorial. Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the explanation of what happened in this specific case. But the broader issue remains, and I'm afraid that the substance (rather than the eminently reasonable tone) of what you affirmed here is what is prompting, and will continue to prompt, such unpleasant "assumptions". DocKino (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Elcobbola's recent assertion above, "Consideration of consensus, however, is not a leadership role (generally the circumstance contemplated by democracy as a philosophy: those being led have a fundamental right to select their leader). Contrarily, in fact, the FA director leads no one, and is beholden to (led by) reviewers." This reveals a serious misunderstanding of the "circumstances contemplated by democracy." It is by no means merely "leaders" who should be subject to periodic election, according to those who esteem democracy, but, crucially, representatives as well. And the position of FA director is a representative position with, or with the potential for, considerable influence. DocKino (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~You appear not to have read the word "generally". Understanding it is crucial to understanding the point. Эlcobbola _talk 20:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
Spare us the sophistry, please. Your point, quite clearly, was that FA director is not a "leadership" position and thus is not of "fundamental" concern to those who believe democracy is a prima facie good. It's okay to be wrong once in a while; no need to dig yourself a deeper hole. DocKino (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Fortunate, then, that you are so comfortable with and amiable to being wrong, as that was not the point. Эlcobbola _talk 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Point of advice~~
~~I was thinking about trying to get West Pier to FA. Do you think I should put it through Pier Review first? --John (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
That's the best way to make sure it's ship-shape. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, get it all Bristol fashion, fore shore.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for that ... boys... I'm not touching that with a ten-foot bargepole. Bad editors, bad bad! No puns! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need more than ten-foot, I think! Jezhotwells (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image quality in FA candidates?~~
~~Moved from WT:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
File:Yogo1ct.jpg
Yogo sapphire
Yogo sapphire is heading towards FA. However the quality of the gem images has been questioned. Are these adequate? Is a notion of image quality even within FA's remit?
See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Pre-FA_feedback. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I noticed this today. I'm biased because I encounter professionally produced images in my line of work (stuff that people actually pay to use), but I have to agree that those images could be, um, better. Note the image description for that one says 'taken with blurry cell phone camera'. To be honest, if I took an image like that on my camera, I'd delete it immediately. To balance this (I noticed one of the editors of that page getting upset about the image criticism) the text looks great. To answer the question, if I'd been looking at that article at FAC, yes, I would have raised the issue of image quality. Normally in a more diplomatic fashion, but here less so as the images do stand out as being so out-of-focus. Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is the best you got. Getting coin images, I remember, was an utter nightmare. I do not imagine conditions were better with the gemstone.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I do sympathise. I took the photograph at Lister Medal after I wrote the article and was surprised to see that the medal was being awarded again after a gap of many years and ended up attending the lecture (most lectures and awards like that are open to the public, but it was still very gratifying to be there in person). It is not a very good picture at all, but it is difficult to walk up close and stick a camera in people's faces during an award ceremony. Thought of something else, but will follow that up on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is we are too digital. Because we can't be perfect...we don't strive for good. I would have no problem with allowing something worse than what Sports Illustrated or National Geographic puts out for images. But we've taken that allowance and then converted it to anything goes. An article on a gemstone, sure as HECK should have an appealing picture.TCO (Reviews needed) 04:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: (1) The article does have some nice images; (2) The real blurriness of this image is only apparent when you click on it and look at it at full size. It is clearly the worst image in the article, but do go and look at the other images as well. Carcharoth (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to beef up certain pictures, maybe you could try Flickr. Just a couple days ago I asked a guy there if he'd mind re-licensing a certain photo of a medieval effigy I was interested in for an article. He was totally OK with it, and I think he probably felt good that someone noticed and liked his work.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I just looked at it. That article is adequately illustrated. We have much more serious issues with FACs lacking images at all or with submitters thinking they "don't have to" write and ask for donation requests when there is no image. The one image is blurry even small...but the overall article is decent. One step at a time. Maybe eventually we get to professional quality. But for now, that article is fine.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the gem images is much good at all. The one you pick should probably be dropped. In totally different ways, I shall have rude things to say about the images in Bulgaria if I get round to reviewing it. The same excuses won't work there. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~I have better mineral images in an article on a non gemstone than in that thing about a gemstone. :-)~~

Notable fluorine-containing minerals

pink globular mass with crystal facets

Fluorapatite

Fluorapatite

A white rock on a black background

~~TCO (Reviews needed) 05:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
I'm not claiming that images we use, even at FA, have to be of excellent quality. My point is that they need to be good enough (which I don't see these as being) and that given the constraints today, it's acceptably easy to achieve much better images than this. Bare cell phones don't work for close-up like this, but that $100 compact you took photos of the kids with over Christmas is certainly capable of doing far better - especially with decent lighting. Even if a gem is in a shop and we're relying on the goodwill of a shop owner to let us spend a few minutes photographing it on their counter, we can still achieve this. Then if we didn't get it right, we do it again - and the article isn't up to FA standard until we've achieved it.

If these are the best image that have been achieved, then the article isn't up to FA. If these are the best images that can be achieved (probably for historical reasons), then the article might be up to FA, because we've still got to remain pragmatic. In our case today though, the images can be re-photographed (neither subject access nor technical complexity or equipment cost seem to rule this out). Before we think we're at FA, then IMHO, we have to do that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a photograph of a small object through glass while standing and with the lighting uncertain can be difficult, notably an object that reflects. Especially since many museums ban cameras but don't make you check your cell phone. Been there, done it with uncertain results. Worth keeping when the alternative is no image. One of the reason I gave up on coins (besides I was trying the patience of FAC) was the difficulty with images. US coins are popular, high grade ones can be pricey. I got tired of using pre-1978 catalogues and asking for the indulgence of dealers and museums, who were suspicious of me to begin with and who are understandably obsessed with security. And, yes, I tried several routes to get high quality images, including asking the coin grading services and appealing on the coin boards. I got some help, but not enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Objects through glass - buy yourself a polarising filter and hold it over the front lens.

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

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

I'm too far from Montana to see many Yogo sapphires, or I'd just offer. I've also got enough past mileage through Commons that I get to say stuff like that with a straight face. Yes, I've driven to other towns with cameras, lights and ladders just to get that one weird photo for a gap in a wiki article. In this case though, the original photographers seem more interested in bringing FA down than in lifting the images up. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not assign motives.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking about a unique object where it is being held in a location that forbids photography, there is no way we can reasonably expect a free image of the object, and one can argue that even if one gets a good image of the object via cell phone camera, that could put Wikipedia or the uploader in trouble should the museum find out (we're not talking major trouble, but enough to try to avoid that problem). In such a case, a non-free image provided by the museum or previously published before going into the museum would be acceptable presuming that the article in question is about that object specifically. We can't expect editors to break laws or private entities' requests to get a free image just because we can to try to replace the non-free image. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have "snuck shots", like at the Matthew Boulton exhibition in Birmingham a couple of years ago, but I hate doing that and generally won't. Besides, I'm generally concerned about "next time". I try to keep good relations with archives and museums. And in this day and age, word gets around so easily ... it is not worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the article talk, these are stones that the photographers either own, or have gained reasonable access to. They aren't working through cases.

If I can't get the photo angle I want, I ask the museum to move the furniture. If you look like you've a serious purpose, and you're flexible about just what and when you're after, then it's surprising just how flexible a museum will be. Even better is when they already know who you are, because you photographed something there before, and afterwards you thanked them and showed them how you'd used the images. We're both on the same side here, and decent museum staff recognise that. Few museums forbid photograpy anyway - they either forbid excess lighting in textile galleries, or they forbid arrogant jerk photographers trying to block up a gallery during busy opening hours. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are in such a comfortable position with the museum to manage a free shot of something that they have generally disallowed the public from doing, great!. However, this is an unrealistic expectation if the museum broadcasts, in general, that photography is disallowed but they allow you to do such. A "freely available" image means one that any random editor at that place (and time?) with a camera could grab without breaking any laws or requests; if you have to make special deals to do that, that's not the same thing. We'd still love the free image, and if you can grab it, heck yes, use it over a non-free, but in the generalized case, the non-free image would pass NFCC#1 if obtaining the free image was restricted like this. And to tie back to the image quality issue, it would be the same thing: if the only free image you can get is going to be a washed out, blurry mess because you have to turn to a camera phone than a good digital camera, due to the nature of the display of the object, it is not an equivalent free replacement for a non-free image of the same object taken under high quality conditions. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed in part. At the Money Museum in Colorado Springs, I was allowed to shoot between visitors (if they see you doing it ...). The only thing I could possibly adjust was myself and the camera. Both are somewhat antiquated and worn with time. I did my best. Note though that we don't consider images snuck or with special permission less "free use".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a museum or gallery that bans photography. The tightest ones (and this is usually the case with art galleries) are where they want to own image copyrights, so they restrict photography to themselves. This is (IMHE) insurmountable. Even then though, photography still goes on, it's just restricted as to whom. In most cases though, those "no photography" signs are only there to keep the crowds flowing, not to stop your evil glass eye stealing their souls. If you talk to the museum staff (and this can often take weeks), things become so much easier. It's disruption they have a problem with, not imaging or copyright. I've sometimes paid money to museum staff as overtime, to keep access to buildings after hours, when the public have gone. Most often though, I've been working in the museum myself - lots of small museums or libraries have voluntary projects, especially if you have some skill to offer (I have a little training in paper conservation). This is the sort of interworking that the WP GLAM project is about.

I'd have to disagree about the rigours of NFCC#1 though. Usually I encounter this when arguing against image deletion, and the deletionists there take a far more stringent view - usually that if someone could take the photograph then a free image is needed, not that if anyone could take the photo. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that there's several different ways that a ban on photography can be taken - the copyright issue (for modern works, at least, but that means that a picture won't be free regardless), issues with flash photography impacting the art directly, and as you mentioned, crowd control. We do have to consider that museums may or may not be public places, and there are laws that impart copyrights on photos taken on non-public places depending on numerous criteria. You may be able to sneak a camera photo of a work of art of great quality, but if it is a private collection, that may no longer be a free image.

On the second point, I think we have a problem and inconsistency if editors are arguing that if at most one person can take a free image, then a non-free is inappropriate. NFCC#1 is written to follow the Foundation's resolution on non-free media, which contains this line An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose.... This implies that the ability to take the free image has to be of an Wikipedia editor, aka someone interested in promoting free content. For all purposes, these are members of the public at large; if a free image could be taken but requires access above and beyond what the public can do, it is not responsible to expect the free image could be made. This is why we have limited exceptions for non-free photos of living persons that are incarcerated or known to be recluse; the public (and ergo a WP editor) cannot easily access these to get the free photo. Similarly, if there are out-of-copyright works of art kept in locations where photography is outright banned, even if they allow a lone professional in once in a while to take photos, the free image cannot be reasonably expected. Now, if it is the case that we know of a specific active Wikipedia editor that has good ties to a museum and can easily gain access to spots the public can't to take free photos, that's a different story. But generally that's just not an assumption we can make. If people are making the argument that it can be anyone, not a random member of the public, that just needs access, that's the wrong point to make, and we may need a separate discussion on that. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I had another editor wet the bed over this image:[4] in the Dagger article for being too good. The typical people who never served in the military but edit military articles wanted a "Real Fighting Dagger" and were going to use a horrid B&W one from the commons. So I took this picture:[5] which I think sucks, but it makes the kids happy.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you are scary. With you and then TTT and his "farming implements" (and a set of 105 db bench press!) Oh, well...I can say that the M-1 rifle makes a great sledge hammer. It'll crack gemstones probably with the right amount of torque and ass driving down on something. Definitely pops a combo lock well. Um...that is the limit of my knowledge. Very good for breaking locks when you lack bolt cutters.

~~TCO (Reviews needed) 05:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
Actually the best thing to pop a combo lock in my experience is a spent 105MM Howitzer casing. Just the right weight and the brass usually doesnt leave a mark on the lock. Most of the time the combo still works, which is why it comes in handy when you want to put a live goose inside someone's wall locker the night before Inspection.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm convinced this should be part of the RFC process, if only to make clear our expectations for images.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that-- another one bites the dust. The work is hard, draining,[6] and with Elcobbola gone, there are precious few image reviewers anywhere on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Criterion #3 just says "Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." Without wanting to be very prescriptive, it is odd there is nothing at all about quality. Is the Rfc the place to deal with this though? For the other side of the coin, on the infrequent occasions I look at featured pictures or their selection process, I am frequently appalled at how little attention is paid to the blurbs, which are often very shoddy. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to modify WIAFA #3, I think a RFC is a proper route for that. Personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the quality aspect has generally fallen to NFCC#1 in terms of equivalent replacement. We can presume that given a blurry, poor quality free image of something, there will always be a very high quality non-free version. The question we have to ask is when these are put side by side, does the poor quality of the free image impact its use as an educational tool over the non-free image. Arguably for the OP's photo of the gemstone, I would say, "probably not" in this case, ergo making the free image acceptable, but that's highly subjective and one of those things that really can only be resolved through consensus. But the discussion's framework is set by the equilvalency clause in NFCC#1, and thus I don't think a change to WIAFA is needed (though certainly pointing to NFCC for clarity on the image quality issue). --MASEM (t) 16:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about totally different things, deletion criteria & FA criteria. Most of WP consists of stuff that should not be deleted but also should not be featured content. Rather alarmingly, Commons seems to have no clear deletion criterion for poor quality, but that is different again. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm speaking of FAC criteria. NFCC#1 is used for deletion of non-free content when equivalent free content exists, but it can also be used if there is a free image and a non-free image (already used elsewhere) and deciding between those. Quality of the image is related to the "equivalent" aspect of NFCC#1, because a poor quality image cannot be said to be equivalent to a high-quality non-free one. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! You're clearly not talking about FAC criteria, which can't depend on some other discussion somewhere else. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does and it doesn't. If the MOS shifts, we shift with it, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WIAFA specific addresses all non-free images meeting the NFCC. NFCC addresses that a non-free image is inappropriate if a free equivalent will do the same job. But a free image is arguably not going to be able to do the same job if it of very poor quality. Ergo in such cases, if it is otherwise impossible to reasonably get a better quality free image, we'd use the non-free over that free image. It does apply to the FAC process, though not to this current present discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The BEGINNING of the criteria says this "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes." So...I think that covers some expectation of quality in images. Note the word PRESENTATION. And the word PROFESSIONAL. Not JUST having the right license and following the period MOS caption nit. Also, we might think about what the actual impact is on readers. Not only "wiki law" criteria mode of thinking. And I'm NOT trying to say we need to immediately jump to National Geographic photographer standards. I'm reasonable. But we ought to at least consider the actual impact on the reader. And visuals are a huge effect. No reason why we can't try to up our game just a bit...TCO (Reviews needed) 21:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the wording "has images where appropriate". So that certainly puts an expectation that unillustrated topics (where an illo is needed for identification or understanding or enjoyment) are unsat. And really stepping back from the "what is in the rules" game. Think about what we are trying to do in terms of presenting things to readers...that is the end goal. If the reader "should" (qualitative judgement) have an illo and it is lacking...then the article is not up to par. (TCO, unsigned)
~~I am finding myself coming around to that point of view, and I think it is the words "professional standards" which is doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Andy--no need to live in Montana, buy a Yogo from ebay and have your gf take the pic. PumpkinSky talk 01:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
Bids are already in on a few, and some rough stones too. Any reputable sellers you'd recommend? I could use a few sapphires, if these are as well coloured as the article claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know some. Some I would even buy from over the phone. Are you seriously buying some? If your gf takes photos as good as you claim and the stones are good samples, that'd be cool. PumpkinSky talk 03:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Answer the question~~
Someone please answer the question, where does it say, other than in people's varying opinions, say images have to be of a certain quality? All FAC criteria says is "It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status." Nowhere does it say an image is even required. Nowhere does it say "if andy doesn't like it, it can't be FA". This is merely Andy making up his own standards. Yes, they should be as good as we can reasonably get. But expecting people to go out and spend hundreds of dollars on equipment, or to buy anything for that matter, is complete bullshit. You want pro photos, give me the money to buy the gear. If wiki wants pro levels, it should pay the volunteers, not rely on the goodwill and expect them to spend their own money. Before we started taking this free Yogo photos, there were none. And what to we get for it? A bunch crap from certain users. And you want us to volunteer more time and money? We should go delete our images so the article has none. If you other users think it's okay to spend your own money, buy a Yogo from ebay and take your own photo. PumpkinSky talk 01:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the general FAC criteria, but I can say that if I reviewed that article at FAC, I'd object to the image taken with a cell phone (not currently in the article the last time I looked), and grouch about some of the others (but ultimately accept them). If that cell phone image was the only issue, I'd be unlikely to oppose, but I could understand if others did. If the cell phone image wasn't there, and the rest of the article was OK, I'd support. I certainly don't think professional standard pictures are needed (that is expensive, as you say), but you've been given good advice on how even amateurs can get better pictures if they understand the limitations of their equipment and the lighting conditions, and are alert to little tricks that can help (you pick these little tricks up the more you experiment with the equipment you have). But I do think some images can fall below the minimum standards you would expect in an online encyclopedia, let alone the examples of its best work. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What really pissed me off was no appreciate of the money and effort we'd spent to get what seems to be the only free pictures of Yogos on the web. Did anyone give a crap? no. Andy came in saying they were crap, more or less, and expecting us to buy even more equipment when the FAC criteria say not one specific word about image quality. Yea, I could reacted better, but Andy's acting like his as innocent as a newborn, which is far from the case.PumpkinSky talk 02:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer, PumpkinSky, is that WP:WIAFA doesn't speak specifically to the issue because it's a matter for reviewer consensus. I've seen similar situations in the past where it truly was not possible to get any other image, so low quality images were accepted. It has to be weighed on a case-by-case basis, and one of the factors reviewers consider is whether it might be possible to go out and get a better image somehow. Now, having said that, someone will say the delegate shouldn't opine as it will prejudice the discussion-- but there you have it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, a straight answer!--though it proves what I suspected, wishy washy standards that people with stronger personalities defacto set. If we deleted our images, wiki and the web wouldn't have any free Yogo pics. Consider that. The way we were attacked for being lousy photographers doesn't encourage trying more or spending more money. I was wary of trying FA for this very reason--hostility from the FA regulars, no wonder so many people avoid it. Extrapolate to all of wiki, and I see why so many people leave. I'm really not motivated to get this to FA anymore. PumpkinSky talk 03:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has de facto set anything (and it seems to me that tempers are flying all 'round this topic, including the article talk page, not just in here :). Folks can argue all day long on a FAC, but until/unless a clear case is made one way or another, an article is not going to be promoted or archived based on a guideline-- it is almost always other issues in the article (prose, neutrality, comprehensiveness, reliable sources) that determine the fate of any FAC. I don't see any consensus in the discussion above because no one has yet asked the right questions. Calming tempers is a better way to get to the bottom of this, but it strikes me from reading the talk page that y'all were already pretty upset about this well before you approached this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the stated goal and ideal, but reality is quite different. PumpkinSky talk 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You know, you whine a lot more than I'd expected people from Montana would do. What happened to that whole "big sky country" thing? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, please adjust that comment a bit. Let's keep this civil.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Wehwalt; in fact, remove or redact, please and thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, Did I say I was from Montana? Maybe I am maybe I'm not. And you're a whole lot more pompous than I'd expect people from Wales to be. I guess that makes us even. PumpkinSky talk 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've had quite enough of PumpkinSky. I offered help, and all he's responded with is sarcasm and whining. His photos are still crap, and with an attitude like his they're unlikely to get better. Nor do I appreciate him posting to this page and lying to misrepresent what I said on the article page. At no point did I ever suggest spending hundreds of $, but rather how to do it without having to spend that sort of money. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is, both of you please strike those words. If we are going to get personal about this, we'll never make it through an RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt, I've had enough of him too, unless he's seriously buying some as he mentions above. And I shouldn't have to spend any more money at all.PumpkinSky talk 03:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing is, yes I am buying sapphires. I'm a bit short on blue sapphires right now, so why shouldn't I try these yogo ones? Funny thing is, I get increasingly disinclined to have anything to do with you, or anyone you recommend. I'd rather stick to Yellow Pages, even if that does give the obvious risk that I'd end up with Burmese lab fakes instead - that's why on the whole I'd rather buy rough stones, not gems. I can cut cabs myself or have faceting done for me. There's also a couple of grands worth of Leitz microscope waiting to be used for the photography (if I can learn how to drive the thing, it's a new acquisition) Hadn't mentioned it before because that really is an unreasonable thing to expect article photographers to find access to, but as you claim you can't afford a loupe, then what's the difference? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta admit, I admire someone who puts his money where is mouth is. See post above I made where you said you're buying. Bedtime for me now, I can barely keep my eyes open. PumpkinSky talk 03:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that worked out happily. I got engrossed in reading John Tyler at FAC and starting a review and forgot all this. We can always use another president at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly be ready to oppose an article if there was one or more really unsuitable images, in whatever way - but all I would be asking is for them to be removed from the article, not deleted. When it comes to opposing an article because it is under-illustrated, then arguments as to the difficulty of getting images come into play, but in principle I would be ready to do this, though reluctant. Before I started both Royal Gold Cup and Holy Thorn Reliquary we had no images of either piece, and it would have been wrong to bring either to FAC unillustrated. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can heart someone having tried and just can't get it done. But I hear people say they should not even have to try. If you are not writing for donations, scouring flickr and Google. Not having the Graphics Lab improve your images...you are not putting forth best work for the end customers.
And...the Image Peeps are like the nicest people in Wiki. They are not nasty alligator snapping turtles like me. They are incredibly helpful and sweet and kind. I'm just a newb, but I've already come across Fallshirmjaeger, Materiacientis, MissMJ, Dcoetze, Carl Lindberg, Jack whateverhisnameisatCommons, Jwkchui, and whoever flipped my organofluorine pic. I mean there are some great peeps there. Several even have Ph.D.s but like to work with images. If you are doing any writing and putting images in, you'll come across them. It does not have to be that hard to find Faschua Nua replacements.TCO (Reviews needed) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TCO you have no idea what you're talking about. Not you nor anyone here have any idea how much money I spent and how hard I tried to get decent photos of my own gems. PumpkinSky talk 23:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~I wasn't talking about you.TCO (Reviews needed) 23:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
I removed this image from Everglades National Park, an FA. It's a bad photograph period: it's date-stamped, unattractive, and not well-framed. The name also does not identify what kind of turtle it is (soft-shelled, btw), making me think the photographer does not know what it is. In the absence of all other images, it may at one point have been appropriate, but in an article where there are already extraordinary photographs, it is clearly below the standard of images in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That pic was humdrum, agreed. Commons shows several Florida turtles, including some saying from the Everglades. I thought we had a FL softshell FP, but can't find it now. Anyhow...maybe this one, better for you (says from the Everglades)?

~~TCO (Reviews needed) 22:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
I'm not pro or anti-turtle image for that article. Someone I think took the image, loaded it, and thought it would go well in the ENP article. It doesn't. There are much better images--and a lot of them. If there were a section about turtles in ENP (as there are about wading birds, crocodiles, panthers, etc.) I'd be glad to get a good image of a turtle. The image I removed just seemed like a pic someone took on vacation and loaded it without considering the quality of the article in totality. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Obviously an alligator is much more important. I'm honest not pushing the turtle. Just saying if you want one, there are some available. Your choice if you want one at all, for illustration. I would probably not bother if there is not discussion of turtles in article. Well...except they are fricking cute. But...I'm not pushing. ;-) TCO (Reviews needed) 23:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And videos on this site...really need work. The entire civilized world uses mp3 and the like. Since we have Jpeg, I don't buy the whole format kvetch (and if the content is donated, different versions can be hosted). We are way, way, way behind blogs or websites in terms of normal video. (can dream about Youtube embedding as really radical.TCO (Reviews needed) 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The video problem, I believe, is more an issue with the patents behind most popular video formats; they simply aren't open enough that while we can freely distribute the video content, the player for that specific codec may not be available in an open manner. That's also why we want OGG audio samples. --23:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I've heard it, but it doesn't hold water. We routinely get donations of mp3 stuff and then rip it and put it in ogg. The content is the actual content, anyhow. It is just snobishness with the video thing. We can put both versions on our site and let the vast amount of browsers be able to access it. JPEG is also proprietary. And this is a huge deal. We are way behind the times and not engaging in multimedia the way people expect any site to do, nowadays.TCO (Reviews needed) 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am very rusty in that specific area, but I thought that the last time I read about it, JPEG compression is patented, but JPEG decompression ( as would be needed by viewers ) is unrestricted for distribution. MP3 audio is patented in both directions, as well most video formats. The compression/encoding side, we don't care about, but its the viewing/decompressing/decoding side that is of concern. See this [7] where this policy was set for the project. This is all issues in addition to the actual license of the content of the work. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it is still snobishness. Who cares if the algorithm is patented. We are providing the CONTENT. If the user has the ability with his machine to read that, then we help them. And the vast majority of readers DO use that format and DON'T use ogg. I did a survey and less than 10% of random readers to Painted turtle could watch the ogg Wiki video. Every single one could watch the patented one. If we have the content, you could even make a rule that we have to have both version (ogg and mp3). But there is not licence required for us to just have that file on our site. the patent is different from the content.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And as soon as you exclude some fraction of the readership from being able to access the material, you fail the Foundation's mission. Unless you can change the Foundation's opinion on the format for media files, we're stuck with serving them in open formats that reach 100% of the readership. We use formats that may be someone more obscure but easily obtaining without any legal issues, which reaches 100% of the audience. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A. We are totally falling down on actually providing the content than. I mean...it's as if we wrote the English articles in Church Latin or something. People can NOT access the videos. I won't even try to use them any more in FAs. This is a huge, huge problem.
B. Provide both formats at least. Make it a requirement that every person uploading a wmv or whatever format, also upload it in ogg. I would still like to provide both. For the rare 1% of people who lack the ability to watch the industry standary codecs, they would have an ogg fallback. But I want to provide something for all the other people that can't use ogg, that can use normal formats.
C. And as far as re-use, the content is the content and is downloadable and re-usable (and with work, convertable). I mean...when I got a donation from state of Oregon, I went on Commons and did my OTRS and someone ripped it for me from Youtube and converted it. The same thing applies in reverse. We licenced the video...not the format of it. The format is not copyrighted.
TCO (Reviews needed) 03:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no one that, if they have the ability to play any other media format, to play the open-source versions, that's the point. 100% of the audience can access it with software that is freely available (free as in thought, and likely as in beer); they may have to install certain pieces of software but because the formats are open, there's no question that they can acquire this software legally. There's no reason to provide a second format to that, nor does the Foundation allow these other formats for these reasons. The Foundation has made this requirement, including restricting what formats we can offer, so you'd have to convince them to change that, not at en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 07:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is NOT ON THEIR COMPUTER, we are not serving them. Be real. We are trying to actually provide content to people that are not all Linux gear heads. And can give you direct and practical example (video at Painted Turtle) where people could not stream the ogg. Not a single one went and uploaded some new browser or the like to solve the problem. You are living in some free software theoretical land that completely ignores real people and what they read and how they behave. And it does NOT include downloading new software to read our site.TCO (Reviews needed) 14:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And when I go to YouTube, et al., and get told that my Flash plug-in is out of date and that I have to download a new one to play a video, how is that any different? Anyway, this isn't the forum to argue your opinions because FAC is powerless to change Foundation policy on acceptable file formats. Imzadi 1979 → 17:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
an interest perspective so why arent we offering a link to an ogg viewing software as part of the description of the video ie Video of turtle crossing the road download an opensource viewer from here Gnan garra 02:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reshoot of Yogo sapphires~~
~~MOVED to Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires per Carcharoth's suggestion. `PumpkinSky talk 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Reviewer guide~~
Per Carcharoth's comment above, I've created a sort of "guide for reviewers" at User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates, as a supplement to the Dispatches article already linked on WP:FAC. This is a draft only at this point, and any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd be willing to help out with Dispatches articles if the community decides to go that route. In partnership with someone else, preferably. I am giving some thought to suggesting a column, rotating among director/delegates, those who mostly review, and those more into writing, giving practical advice, pet peeves, or just ranting for 500 words. Possibly we could begin to build a reference library (I didn't mean it about the ranting)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki! I've left some inline comments. Wehwalt, what prevents me from writing Dispatches is the need for a good copyeditor-- otherwise, I've got plenty of potential topics bouncing around the back of my head, and have for years, assuming The Signpost is now willing to let us publish without deadlines to assure content is well-reviewed and accurate. I doubt they will let us promote/mention ongoing FACs there, but if someone can convince them, grand! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki, for addressing the inlines. The review Dispatch is linked in the FAC instructions, so I've added your guide as a See also to that Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, write a draft of one in your copious spare time, and I'll have a go at it. I am generally good at tightening language and the like.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No we are not willing to let you publish without deadlines, and will snobbishly hound you into shooting your ducks early. How impertinent of you to suggest otherwise; who do you think they are, common editors just like you? What a ridiculous notion. ResMar 04:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one Nikki. Can we give promonince to this at the foot of the talk here. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Source and image checks pending~~
~~Moved from Ucucha list above (now archived for length): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
WP:Featured article candidates/Plateosaurus/archive1 – spotcheck

~~WP:Featured article candidates/White-necked Rockfowl/archive1~~ – spotcheck
~~Done, thanks Dana boomer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~WP:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive5 – spotcheck~~
~~Would anyone have time to do a spotcheck on sources at:~~
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 767/archive1~~
~~Thank you Sasata. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mathew Charles Lamb/archive1~~
~~Thanks again, Dana! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feast to famine-- the above list still needs attention, but thanks to all of the ole regulars who dug in (you know who you are :)-- I've now got more than half a dozen maturing FACs, articles to read, and no archivals today! Thanks to all of you-- without our hard working and valued reviewers, we wouldn't have FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Spotchecks done on Lamb. Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
General note to nominators on source checks: if you've had a spotcheck of sources for accurate representation and avoidance of too-close paraphrasing elsewhere, it is helpful if you mention that in your nom statement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and got Ontario Highway 401's mostly covered in my review of it. Some problems do need fixing, but it was in need with one. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keeping up with MOS; images~~
~~WP:MOS#Images used to say not to sandwich text between images-- it no longer seems to say that-- has that changed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
donno. MOS is subject to change and edit warring like most of Wiki's layers of made up rules. Better question is what is best for the reader. I use centering a lot to good effect in laying out pages. It is an available tool in the software and sometimes a great way to show detailed maps and the like. I think we should stay flexible. No reason why every single image is best displayed as text wrapped.TCO (Reviews needed) 07:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See here for a table of images in a grid: [8] or here for a large detailed map: [9]. (I know in book layouts and website layouts sometimes graphics are embedded in text and sometimes sandwiched. Just options available to best serve the reader. No reason to rule out a choice.)TCO (Reviews needed) 07:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but my question is whether anyone knows if MOS has changed or if I'm just missing it in the typical page changes at MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed in this edit. Goodvac (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Goodvac; I'm glad to know it's a fairly recent change and not a case of losing my mind :) Since it's so recent, I've queried the MOS talk page. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk)
People sneak changes in there all the time, so it is hard to keep up (like someone softened the overlinking a few months ago). Anyhow, this section on the main page talks about not sandwiching: [10]. (Page you linked is a summary of more detailed guidance, Sandy.) They are referring to left right sandwiching, not top/bottom. Not sure which you meant. I do think it is hard to follow their not sandwich versus image and infobox for species and elements, where there is a very long infobox. (I know we violate that routinely.) I do try to avoid normal left-right sandwiching otherwise though.TCO (Reviews needed) 08:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~It seems like centered panaromas or centered large maps are allowed from that text. They seem more woried about left-right sandwiches.TCO (Reviews needed) 08:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
The edit summary in the diff Goodvac provided looks like the edit is intended to be housecleaning, but that edit has actual consequences. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Autumn-- I've worked closely with that editor for many years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that people have stopped complaining about it and removing it, compared to a few years ago. Many of us, like me, have moved to wider screens in the intervening years, where it is much less of a problem than it used to be. But of course many haven't. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep-- but alternately, a lot have also gone to reading on smaller personal devices-- even I finally got one! Thanks, Johnbod-- keeping up with MOS has always been a task :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually "still in" the MOS, if you want to cite a rule. As I said above, and as Sandy was answered at MOS, the page she referred to is a summary of a larger page, that still contains the same wording about not left-right sandwiching.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a wide screen, with personal image size preference turned up to 11 (300px), you get a large number of partial overlaps, which aren't usually a problem. I tend to hope and believe that people on narrower screens, with a default 220px image size, aren't experiencing these. These days rules on this sort of thing don't mean much unless they are related to particular kit, sizes & settings. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If it's already super wide, who cares about some sandwiching. The issue with the sandwiching is not having enough room for the text. Not that it is intrinsically wrong, like crossing the streams on Ghostbusters.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I find that on wider screens sandwiching is acceptable, and on smaller ones, the text wraps enough to resolve the issue in of itself. I work on both a small (netbook) and a large (desktop) screen. ResMar 15:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~If you told me...~~
~~...I would get a medal for reviewing five articles, I would do it. Wouldn't you? ResMar 04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
Pegging a barnstar to a set number of reviews might not be the best approach, but promoting a barnstar for continued work on reviews without a fixed quota might be better. Five rubber-stamped reviews aren't going to be worth much to anyone, especially compared with two or three solid and in-depth ones. GRAPPLE X 04:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FAC reviews are rather hard to rubber stamp, and I'm sure it would reign some people into contributing a bit. I certainly would do it; it's not that reviewing is hard, it's that there's no definite reward to it. ResMar 04:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Director of Community Outreach~~
This idea struck me while I was standing in front of a urinal (did I reveal my gender?), so perhaps that explains a few things, but here goes: since people have Election Fever, and since everyone on every side of every issue agrees that we need more reviewers, why not elect a Community Outreach Director or Coordinator (or some better title) to be the coordinator for that issue? You know, focus on pulling people together, maybe start some project or other, whatever seems best. But elect someone to be the leader on that issue. I am not going to argue for my own idea (not even one post); I'm just throwing it out there... PS I nominate User:Johnbod, but would also support User:Mike Christie. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find someone courageous, patient, impartial, amiable, admirable, interested, and conscientious enough, and then you can color me surprised. In all respect I don't think we need a bloody delegate in the proceedings. Maybe a codifier, but no more. ResMar 04:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
elect?? Why that would be contrary to Raul's entire philosophy, where everyone in the FA kingdom serves at his sole discretion. PumpkinSky talk 13:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has barely commented here - I'd like to point out that the above comment with its hyperbole isn't exactly inducing me to want to comment or take anything the commenter says seriously. I not opposed to looking at all aspects of FAC and how it's run in order to improve it, but I prefer not to have to deal with this sort of discussion where it's all hyperbole and picking sides. Let's calmly discuss what the problems people see in the process and once you've made your point - it's probably best to let others point out what they see rather than beating the drum on your own opinions over and over and over again. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Subpage for all this stuff?~~
I hate to bring it up,. but all this talk page discussion is getting littered everywhere on the page, and its getting rather confusing with multiple discussions up at once. Could we possibly subpage the RFC proposal stuff? At least there it would be less of the mess it already is. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 06:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that like burying it where no one is watching? Being seen by many is kind of the idea here. Alarbus (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but this page is already well over 265KB, and its also getting cumbersome to have to read 7 discussions on different parts of the page. Plus, there's unrelated stuff going on with the FACRFC stuff. Trying to just get something done before ghetto computers like mine start having trouble loading this page. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 06:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then enough foreplay; time to get the RfC on FA's leadership out there in front of everyone. Maybe we could get one of those fundraising banner's re-done? Get the general readership in on the discussion. Alarbus (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I figured a geonotice works as well, such as the one on the top of my watchlist. Also, might want to get word out on the Signpost report this week. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 06:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ABSOLUTELY. I have great respect for those like Giants or Dank above who support an RFC even though they aren't trying to change leadership. They are no allies. But men of honor. Not proud of those who want to vote (here) to not ask the Community to vote (the RFC) on voting for leaders (the election)! That is just trying to win the battle by preventing the question from being raised. That is using a vote 3 steps away from the real decision, by a small group here. This thing needs to head to the general readership. I realize Christie was picked by Sandy, but I would like him to be fair and not try to spike this thing somehow. I am sensitive to not just pushing the thing through myself. Not scared or timid. But wanting a neutral party to put it on the table. But it needs to get there. It needs to go forward and get resolved. Not be bollixed by a small clique, here.TCO (Reviews needed) 06:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tossing around words like "respect" and "honor" is again profoundly counter-productive, to put it mildly. More to the point, it is a back-handed insult to everyone who disagrees with you. Please do re-read WP:NPA... –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's suffer with the long page for the weekend; we've agreed to keep this open thru Monday. Hold the RfC(s) on a subpage, widely publicize it before opening the page, a few days for everyone to catch their breath would be good anyway. OLKA, let's not get that deep in analysis of people's contributions because if we go there, we'll never get anywhere. I have been studiously ignoring sniping by all in this discussion, and plan to keep doing so, and I certainly would have reason to take offense. However, that would get us nowhere. At some point, Mike, since your views are valuable and we want to hear them, I suggest you bow out in your role, with the community's thanks and be freed to comment. Can we ask a mediator or someone to guide the discussion forward at that mutually-agreeable point? I am trying to eliminate distractions and side issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll set up a subpage if there's a consensus that's a good idea; to be honest I'm concerned about visibility of the RfC if we do that. Perhaps instead we can (a) archive some or all of the discussion above as soon as we settle the topic of the RfC, and (b) manage the RfC to keep it focused. However, we do have a little more discussion to do before the RfC -- we need to formulate the questions to be asked, once we know the topic.
As for me commenting, I'm fine with not commenting and staying in the organizational role, but if there are doubts about my neutrality for closing the RfC then it would be best to know about that before we start it; as you say I could get it started and we could then ask someone else to close it. I'm OK with either approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A subpage would be less visible. I don't buy the long page complaint. This is important stuff. And both the people who want change and who resist it, realize its importance. Maybe in the end, it will need to come down to the change-wanters proposing the RFC as the change-resisters already have a side on the issue that makes them want to avoid having the Community consider the question at all.TCO (Reviews needed) 14:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you don't "buy the long page complaint", but at 285k this page is starting to load slowly even for me, and I have a fairly fast connection. Either a subpage or some serious archiving of this page is needed before the RfC, so that users who don't have new computers or fast connections will be able to load it - you're very concerned about not leaving any part of the community out, but seem to have no concern with leaving out the (fairly significant) group of people without the most up-to-date technology. Dana boomer (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the sort of thing I was thinking, start it and then jump in the boat. If some voice has to be excluded from this discussion to run it fairly, and given your accomplishments at FA, I don't want your voice not to be heard in the debate. That was what I was thinking.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everoyone seems to have pretty much had their say. Time to move on with whatever will be: election or not, RFC or not, absolutely nothing, whatever. PumpkinSky talk 15:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was suggested above that the straw poll on the RfC topic should run through Monday evening, and I still think that's wise. As someone pointed out, this is a holiday week for many, and I see no harm in waiting a couple more days to ensure that the consensus is clear and that everyone has a chance to participate in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, this page is getting too long... and the noise from some issues is drowning out the signal here. I'm on a DSL connection, but I'm having time delays in attempting to 1) load the page and 2) even edit the page at points. I shudder to think if I were loading this page over a cell phone's data connection with its limited processing power. (And before anyone says anything, I do and have edited from an iPhone frequently depending on my situation. I'm not the only one that does so either.) The point: the discussions about having a discussion about FAC reform are drowning out discussions related to active or soon-to-be-nominated FACs. Imzadi 1979 → 17:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could perhaps archive the FAC 2012 section; there are recent comments in it, but it's largely subsumed by the following section. Any objections to that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you do so, a separate archive for all RFC business (as in the last RFC, making it easy to find, separate from other FAC business), and prominently link that archive with a See also at the top of any subsequent or new sections or the RFC, as the issue of Wehwalt's aspiration to be FA director-- subsequent to his mentee TCO writing an attack piece on FAC and its leadership-- is revealed by reading how the previous discussions proceeded, including that Wehwalt pretended to be notified when I launched a FAC checkup in the New Year, and that he has avoided reviewing FACs for "risk of alienation" and because "he finds it hard to judge other people's work"-- strange credentials from someone pushing for elections, to introduce "campaigning" and politics into the FA process, and aspiring to be the FA director. Unless the previous discussions are included with prominent links to any new discussions, no, I don't think they should be archived-- they are most revealing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HA! Play it cool, Sandy. That is a better strategy. People may start to think there is something to all this chatter about "holding grudges" from years gone by. Stick to blaming evil former permabannee TCO. Wehwalt is a prince of a man, epitomizing the ability to be fair. Writing a story about a famous Nazi without a bit of his sincere disdain for them overpowering the writing. The complete opposite of sophomoric Koskid POV "helping the world not be evil". The opposite of a social faction type (Essjay, Bisho, SlimV, etc. the mind wearies from reading all about it and seeing you all line up for friends over the years rather than for principles...or gosh knows...for readers.)TCO (Reviews needed) 20:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been a loss here. This page is now over 320KB, and becoming harder and harder to load, we have no consensus to do anything to alleviate this problem. Sandy, is there any chance you can archive everything else but the FAC 2012 and subsequent RFC threads and tell them to finish the rest of the unrelated stuff there. At least its a temp solution for now, until we can try dividing this up by focus. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 04:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tone of the conversation~~
A few days ago I struck this comment hoping I would be wrong and we could keep this conversation from becoming acrimonious. However that hasn't happened. In my view the tone here is having a chilling effect on editors who might want to comment but have no desire to wade into a conversation that's become this polarized. Just saying. I think toning it down a bit, all around, would be helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bowing out because I think nothing concrete will come of this, just like all the never ending talk of RFA reform.PumpkinSky talk 15:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is lot closer than that! PurpleSky, I hope you will stay, but respect your choice if you don't. I also join in the call for civility. And. That. Means. Everyone. That means no more snide remarks. Please--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Snide is in the eye of the beholder; you called for the campaign, and it started as a dirty one with Alarbus and TCO. Perhaps if you had attempted to reign in those nasty comments before Carcharoth stepped in and did so; it's nice of you to call for civil discussion now, after turning a blind eye to all that your mentor and others did and said in the leadup to this campaign (none of which caused you to ask them to reign it in until the last 36 hours or so). PS: my apologies to Mike Christie for asking him to oversee what I thought would be a routine FAC RFC: at the time I proposed him to do that, I wasn't aware of Wehwalt's campaign to be FA director. I feel badly that Mike has to sort this mess, but trust that he can and will, if he's allowed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest with the conspiracies, Sandy. Seriously, you will do fine if you let your friends back you up. As far as the Alarbus coordination (meatpuppet accusation, remember?), I put that along with saying I'm a WMF or Croaton High School plant. I could win some money for ski trips myself if we want to bet on some of your theories...TCO (Reviews needed) 21:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...and this thing is headed to an advertised Community-wide RFC no matter what. I'm fine with "losing" it. But we are not going to do the chatty, chatty thing, with no vote by the Community (at least a vote to have a vote). This is just chatty, chat, before we do that. This is a Wiki and there is nothing stopping advertising an RFC.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re, this edit summary, I'm a bit confused about why Wehwalt called a deliberative discussion "snap", and then put up a "snap" RFC in the middle of a deliberative RFC. How many, and which, RFCs should we put up and advertise, TCO? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Wehwalt said or you said, Sandy. I have enough work keeping track of me.
I will put up an RFC for "elections versus continue same governance" (subpage and notifications), tonight. It makes sense for the side posing change to put the question, not the side resisting it. You have lots of people who support you, so don't worry about that. But I'll put create a subpage tonight and advertise it to the entire Community. I'm just a simple newbie who doesn't even know about notice boards (honest), but I'll figure it out in terms of mechanics and advertising and all that. I'll use the whole "be bold" Wiki philosophy and muddle through. Don't worry about how I pose the question. If I do a crappy job, it will just make it that much easier for you to get votes for the keep things the same side of the governance debate.TCO (Reviews needed) 22:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, please DON'T write it - let someone else do it, almost anyone else. I'm sure most on both sides will agree with me here. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Any RfC you write about FAC, TOC, will ultimately be more about you. If you want to improve FAC, leave the RfC to someone else. --Moni3 (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. You can just vote no. If I dork it up and it is about me (rip me for that a bit, it's a good strategy...way better than slamming Wehwalt) and a trainwreck, so much the better since you favor status quo. It will help you, actually. But one thing, I won't do is wiff and not put the question. I'll try to make it dispassionate though, Moni. Well, I'm not good at it. But I'll try. Going for a walk, first.TCO (Reviews needed) 23:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the call for you not to be the one to write any RfC. TCO, anything you do around here has an edge of it being about you in the end, no matter what. The fact that you start it will engender opposition to it on that basis from many people, even some that might agree with you otherwise. So please, step back and don't do it.

As a second comment from me, you really need to change your signature. Pointing people to a section of your user page that includes your current FPCs and a DYK nom of yours is really out of line. I believe it would be called spamming or canvassing because you've singled out only your nominations and not the rest of DYK or FPC. At best, it's annoying because anyone that might want to leave a message on your talk page can't find a link directly to it. Imzadi 1979 → 23:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No RfC on FAC will assist me in any way. Your motivations in bringing this RfC will be called into question immediately. The RfC will, I predict, WP:Boomerang on you. There may be discussion about how leadership should be refined at FAC, but a majority of the RfC will be about your actions since November, painting you as someone with an axe to grind. Regardless of how valid you think that view is, it means fewer people will get involved to form solutions to legitimate problems. You will be the distraction in your own attempt to improve the process. If you want any RfC to achieve something, let someone else create it. Otherwise, I hope I've been clear enough here to illustrate what will happen if you create this RfC. With that knowledge, if you do post it, I can only assume you really want the RfC to be about you. --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Imzadi: I'll change the signature. I think it is reasonable in general, but inappropriate at this time. (I think Wikipedians should interact and draw people in, sig was from Mav who is an old hand, plus I have an essay on bringing your own reviewers, plus I think the Kabuki theater about canvassing is silly...interaction is good.) But the whole thing is a side issue and I'll table it for now.
Moni: Raul has had 7 years to call for elections. Sandy has had 4. Plus, you've already said above that you want no changes. I will just do my best and try to be calm in the RFC. I want to put this question. It is natural that the proponents of the status quo resist an RFC (or attempt to shape it). But the "side" (sorry TK) favoring change to elections should craft the proposal and then you can react and say it is crap or whatever. You always have the option to vote no (or start any kind of allegation you want). I do appreciate your comments about my narcism (and admit it). I will really try to tame the thing down. We need to have a proposal though. And have not had it for years. Let me run. At least I won't let the thing get bogged down in red tape but will force the Community to vote for elections versus status quo. It will be good to have the matter at a crux. P.s. I really do like your posts (no kidding, not kissing your ass) and how you are blunt.
Going off line to work in MS Word. Not hiding, just easier to think, will try to fix curly qoutes this time, Sandy. ;-)
TCO (Reviews needed) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Presley TFA needs eyes~~
Could I ask everyone to keep an eye on the Elvis Presley TFA in a few hours? It is likely to be high profile. At present it is semi-protected, that may well change as it is not customary to protect the TFA. Five hours to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Whats this? An island in the madness? ResMar 04:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~New Year's greeting and a semi-outside view~~
Wikipedia:Featured articles is a wonderful process. A New Year's greeting made here, on its most active talk page, will reach, among 1000+ watchers, many of Wikipedia's most highly regarded and productive editors. Greetings!
I'm not one of those watchers most of the time (I only watch about 60-70 pages; I review FACs when asked, mostly technical stuff, which happens only a few times a year), but various rumblings drew my attention to the current activity here. On the one hand, it is a good thing that editors want to discuss ways to make FA even better; on the other, I am sad to see such turmoil here, with helpful and unhelpful views/comments intertwined, misunderstood, and/or polarized. Being unsure of my credentials to contribute to some discussions and polls above, I chose to make a few comments here for others to take or leave as they think best.
Mission. First and foremost, any discussion about improving FA should be based on a clear understanding as to what FA is about: why is it such a great process and how did it come to be that way? Some of the brilliant things about FA, in my view, are that it: highlights just how good a free encyclopedia article can be; defines and encourages an aspirational high standard of quality; motivates and inspires our very best work; showcases this work so the world can see what Wikipedia, and hence humanity, is capable of.

Origins. Everyone who has contributed to FA deserves credit for this achievement, but two editors stand out in particular. First of all Raul: when FA began, Wikipedia was still an unproven idea, and widely ridiculed; his determination and leadership in driving the production of quality content has been instrumental in bringing Wikipedia to its current position as the world's second port of call for information (with a brief stop at Google on the way here). The second is SandyGeorgia, with her total commitment to quality and standards. She is substantially responsible for the fact that FAC is one of the few processes on Wikipedia which is genuinely not a vote, or a !vote, or whatever. All that matters is whether the article meets the criteria or not, and those standards should be exacting and evenly applied. She can surely recall better than I how much resistance she first met in reforming the more club-like atmosphere of the early days to the professionalism we aspire to now. I was just a newbie at the time, but the basic principle informed my own approach to GA reform profoundly.

Featured content. Many of the perceived problems about FA are a result of editors wanting it to be something that it cannot possibly be. The creation of other measures of article quality has led to the idea of a quality ladder in which every article should become an FA one day. That's completely unrealistic. The very exacting standards that we value FA for, and the associated need for rigorous quality control, mean that the process is never going to be able to generate more than about 30 new featured articles per month. But why should it? The clue is in the name: not all content in any publication is featured. The point of featured content is to highlight the best: it provides an aspiration which inspires article improvement, but it is not always a realistic end-goal.

Good content. We have another process that delivers content review and article improvement, namely GA. It has lower standards, and its procedures for quality control are less reliable: it relies upon and permits, far more than FA, editors spotting substandard GAs and bringing them up for review. However, this different approach means that it has more throughput, the current average being about 250 new GAs per month. And it is increasing. I was intrigued by comments above that "we cannot expect GA/FAs to increase as a percentage of total articles because it is much easier to write stubs than GAs or FAs". On the contrary, the GA percentage of total articles has been increasing consistently by about 0.05% per year since 2007. The GA percentage of total articles will likely hit 1% before 2020. Asking anything remotely similar of a more exacting process with higher standards is a pipe-dream. Article creation is declining, as there are fewer new things to write about, but the current percentage of 1 FA per 1000 articles is likely to stay that way for a long time, and any target beyond 1 FA per 500 articles is unrealistic. Part of my time contributing to GA involved resisting it becoming more like FA without good reason. I would similarly resist efforts to make FA more like GA. The encyclopedia needs both, and it needs them, along with many other processes, to work together well.

Reform. Wikipedia has outgrown its early days, where consensus and mutual respect sufficed as a form of governance. For better or worse, that has changed. 2011 has seen a new Arbcom policy which barely mentions Jimbo Wales (and also saw revelations about the problems inherent in a conflict of roles) and 2012 will see a further clarification of Jimbo's role and associated powers. I believe Jimbo would like to be a constitutional monarch, with only the power to interfere when things go wrong. There are evident analogies with Raul's position, which is partly constitutional/historical in that he delegates most of his responsibilities, but not entirely, because of his TFAR work. As the years go by there will be increasing pressure to clarify the role. An alternative to elected positions is a TFAR delegate. This may not be the right time to discuss it, but it needs to be discussed soon, probably in the next year. And the aim should be improving FA and setting it on a firm long term footing, not the politicking of the moment.

Ideas. In reading through the above threads, I saw some good ideas. Here are a few:
Delegates should provide reasoning when they close nominations. From what I read above, they do this when the close might be controversial, so why not do the same with uncontroversial closures? This is not a conflict of interest, as it does not affect the result. That would provide feedback to reviewers as to whether their comments were helpful, and the best way to learn how to review is on the job.

Delegates should pro-actively encourage reviews and reviewers. Given that the role of delegates is to make an unbiased decision as to whether an article meets the criteria, they need all the help they can find to do this. I know this happens already: I would just say that it should be encouraged, and not regarded as a conflict of interest.

Do we need more delegates? If we ask more of them, then maybe, but a delegate gained is a reviewer lost, except where delegates recuse in order to review. Perhaps more delegates would allow such recusals to become more common?
As a final remark, let me add a vote of confidence for Mike Christie, as one of Wikipedia's and FA's most thoughtful, reasonable and valuable editors. If he cannot sort out what matters and might lead to productive discussion and improvement of process, then nobody can. Geometry guy 01:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these thoughts Geometry guy. I'm glad you've posted them, and I agree with everything you have said there. Some of what you have said has prompted a few thoughts of my own, especially as I've just been reading through the documentation associated with the Good Article system. Would it be right to characterise Wikipedia:Good articles as a mostly decentralised process, with FA being a more centralised process? The reason I'm asking is because at FA there are visible 'positions' and 'roles' such as director and delegates, and processes such as the 'today's featured article' page (and request page), none of which GA has (as far as I know). How both processes handle change also seems to be different. I know that GA underwent a period of change a few years ago (I think you refer to that in the 'origins' section of your comments), but is mostly stable now. Was there anything that could be called leadership provided at that stage, or was it mostly effort from the existing GA community that thrashed out standards? Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GA is almost entirely decentralized. For some years I worked on improving and stabilizing GA, which involved some leadership: I acted as a kind of "community GAR delegate" for much of that time, but I only maintain the archives now, and other excellent editors have stepped up to the plate at community GAR. Geometry guy 02:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't completely answer your question about change at GA. It happened largely through existing members of the GA community seeing eye-to-eye, and working together. There was an external pressure to make GA more credible, and an internal wish not to undermine its basic principles in the process. Editors such as Nehrams, Malleus, Jennevecia (Lara) and Ruslik did astonishing work driving through the "Sweeps" program to ensure old GAs met current standards. These same editors and others introduced and/or supported other crucial changes, such as the introduction of review subpages, and the rebalancing of the GA criteria. The stability GA enjoys now is founded on their efforts. Geometry guy 03:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GG-very good job at getting to the heart of the issue and very astute observations. I only have two comments--things haven't quite as peachy as you seem to paint it and to everything there is a season. This is the season for change. That this flail occurred shows that a large portion of the community agrees. Is it a consensus? Maybe, maybe not. Therefore I strongly agree with those supporting an RFC to work out the issues. PumpkinSky talk 02:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geometry guy, one minor point of correction: Raul already appointed a TFAR delegate a few months ago (Dabomb87).

Otherwise, I think your analysis is excellent, and your ideas for improvement are worth considering. Ucucha (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction, but does Raul still take an active role day-to-day at TFAR, or is this now left to Dabomb87? Geometry guy 02:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit TFAR directly too often, but I do schedule articles on a several-times-a-week basis. Raul654 (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply: I'd be very interested how you view your role now, and how it might evolve over time, particularly in view of the comparison I made with Jimbo's role. Geometry guy 02:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a larger question, but my take on why we have the idea of featured content, at least as the present process is set up, is to assume that ultimately in time we will have a complete encyclopedia full of articles and other content that has been well-edited, well-researched, fully covering a topic, with standardization against internal formats, and all that. All of our policies and guidelines on article content, sourcing, media use, style, and the like are geared to assuring that to some degree every article that is created will be able to meet that metric; if they can't, we shouldn't have that article in the first place. Note this is a goal and pretty much one that is waaaay long-term , but one that is meant to guide the approach for policy and guidelines to make sure it could be met giving an infinite number of editors to do that work.

The impression I get from the above (and in previous discussions) is not that; that only a fraction of articles can ever become featured.

Obviously I'm not saying this is wrong, since this seems to be the more prevailing opinion when reading through this, but to me, that creates a gap in quality assessment. We have GAs, yes, but because they are performed by a single person and without a larger "management" process run by a few people to check the work, they don't assure the quality that I'd think we'd want out of each article. We have A-class assessments, but those tend to be project specific and in the projects that I see do them, this often is also a single-person, no oversight decision, and generally this is based on the content relative to the project, ignoring things like style, sourcing, etc. It feels like we need something that is not geared to make an article "featured" (appearing on the front page, which is as much recognition we can give to an article), but to assure it has some of the highest quality that WP can give it. The comparison I make is a peer-reviewed journal - they may call out an article as a featured article to highlight a seminal work or an important discovery, but the rest of the articles have had a similar "rigorous" review before their inclusion. (I know how "rigorous" those peers can be at times, but go with me on this for a bit). GA nor A-class doesn't quite have the assurances that a peer-review gives. And no, WP's own concept of peer-reviewing doesn't work either, since generally only one editor does this, and the PR is often aimed at specific points.

It just feels like we need what is effectively the FA process to not be targeted at what we're calling "Featured" but to work to assure that we are and can continue to generate high-quality articles, featured or not. Only an idea, but one way to get there is to separate the FA process; one part, which would be to assure high-quality articles, would have aspects of source checks, image reviews, style issues, topic coverage, and some aspects of prose review and the like; the other part, which would aimed towards what we want to call "featured", would aim to nail down perfect prose, assure reliably of the sourcing and information, and double check on the elements of the first part. Both parts would need to be run in a similar manner as FAs are done now to make both effective tools. Of course, this only complicates the current process, and strains a process that is already hurting from a lack of editors. But I feel we should reconsider the purpose of FA relative to producing a high-quality encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to address a larger question with substance and thought. I agree with you that one of the purposes of FA is to inspire the production of an encyclopedia with high quality content across the board, but share your hesitation about stretching review processes further: we surely don't want yet another review process, even as part of FA. The good news is (a) a lightweight stream at FA wouldn't achieve what you want; and (b) we don't need one anyway.

The central issue we have to face is that with any reasonable definition of acceptably long timescale (e.g. "for our great great grandchildren"), creating a complete encyclopedia of high quality content through a process like FA is a mathematical impossibility. FA itself produces about 30 articles a month, and can't really handle more than about 50, which amounts to at most 600 articles per year, probably fewer. At that rate, we won't even have 100,000 featured articles until the year 2178, and we'll have to wait until the year 3678 to reach a million. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is currently creating about 30,000 new articles a month. That figure is now declining, as there are fewer new things to write about, but it is unlikely to fall below about 1,000 new articles a month (as there are always some new things to write about), and in the next few years Wikipedia will have more than 5 million articles. With some thought, a lighter weight version of FA could be designed, perhaps with a throughput of 1,000 articles per year, but we would still have a century to wait for 100,000 articles and that would amount to less than 2% of Wikipedia.

Okay, that's the central issue. Why do I think this should not be a worry for FA?

Firstly, I firmly believe your view of GA is 2-3 years out of date. Secondly, your analogy with a peer-reviewed journal, while useful, misses a key distinction. The distinction is that journals publish their articles in final form, and then are done with it. If someone writes and complains, they may publish a correction. In contrast Wikipedia articles are in a constant state of flux, which drives improvement (and unfortunately, also, degradation, but that is another topic): there is no obligation to get everything completely right the first time, because all mistakes can be fixed. Now to your concern about GA:
We have GAs, yes, but because they are performed by a single person and without a larger "management" process run by a few people to check the work, they don't assure the quality that I'd think we'd want out of each article.

I agree with you that each individual GA review is performed by an individual reviewer, and does not assure the quality that we seek on its own. However, there is a structured process around these reviews: WT:GAN is very active at catching problems with individual reviews, and community reassessment is maintained by a small and slowly evolving team of experienced reviewers, who provide a more FA-like form of reassessment where it is needed. The principle is that 98% of the time, we don't need more than a single independent review to ensure article quality, so let us focus our effort on the remaining 2% of cases (percentages here are guestimates). In those cases, the article receives much more than a single review. Any query about the quality of a GA article leads to at least one reviewer looking at the article again to check it. The idea is that an article that remains a GA for 10 years or more is one in which we can have some confidence about its quality.

Returning finally to the mathematics, the benefit of the one nominator, one reviewer model is that it scales. This is why GAs are able to grow as a percentage of total articles. At the moment, it produces about 250 GAs per month, i.e., about 3,000 per year, but that figure is increasing: nominators are encouraged to become reviewers, so as more editors contribute, more GAs are produced. GA growth might reach 5,000 articles per year by 2020, and overtake article growth sometime mid-century, but these are speculative extrapolations.

The message I want to leave here, however, is not that GA is great. Indeed I should apologize for spending so much time extolling its virtues (I would do that, wouldn't I?!), as I am fully aware that (like all processes) GA is far from perfect. Instead the message is that even a GA style process cannot build a moderately complete high quality encyclopedia (say half a million articles) until the end of the century. In other words, GA only just satisfies the "great great grandchildren" criterion. A more refined process will inevitably take much longer. Geometry guy 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to say the GA process is broken, but (as someone with a lot of successful GA under the belt) it just doesn't feel like it has much teeth knowing what happens. Note that I know that GA's requirements have stepped in line with FA in terms of larger-pictures issues like NFC, BLP, etc. so its not GA lagging behind what we expect of quality, but just the fact that all you need is a few editors to be lax to allow nearly any article through, that seems to throw a wrench to the works.

I agree on the points on FA, and GA's relationship to it. As I said, I'm just tossing the idea out there. This might be a question to the GA area, but I'm wondering if GA needs a management type of idea to it as well. Nothing like what Raul, Sandy, etc. have done for FA, where they have to be critically involved in making sure each FAC is appropriately handled, inserting their own commentary, etc. But more a small set of editors selected by community and/or appointed by a respected GA leader, where, once an editor completes a GAN review and asserts it passed, one of these editors performs a very casual review of that review to make sure its not bogus, purposely expedited, or the like. I know that GAR is meant to catch these cases, but at the same time, with the very de-centralized process, an article in a very bad state can be put to GAN, promoted to GA by a disinterested or a COI editor without serious review, and then never be noticed until the next GA-review drive. Having a double-check by community-approved editors, to me, would strengthen the concept of GA to be what I initially discussed, that being a metric that we want all articles to strive for, leaving FA to be the best of everything. As it is now, its difficult to see that.

I'm going to pop this idea over at at the GA project, so I'll leave discussion of that specific idea over there. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to suggest improvements to GA: all processes can be improved. For some years I informally managed the community GA reassessment process, encouraged small improvements to GA, and even sat in a chair for a couple of days, but I found the chair uncomfortable (see the link!): GA's vitality depends crucially on its community of active reviewers, and my view is that a flat structure is the best way to support that.

Opinions on what might improve a process, indeed on whether a process is broken/flawed/ineffective or effective/successful/thriving, depend essentially on what is considered to be the purpose of that process. That is why my greeting began with the question: what is FA about? For GA, my answer would be something like "improving the encyclopedia to a respectable quality standard on as wide a scale as possible". In particular, it is an attempt to deal with the fact that the vast majority of our articles are very poor. The point of the math above is that addressing that issue inherently involves making some compromises in quality control. GA works by only dealing with quality control issues when they arise, saving the work involved in checking a product that is 98% okay for factory flaws.

If you believe that GA status means "This article meets the GA criteria", then that is a serious problem: as you say, there are many ways to game the system. However, what GA status means to me is "To the best of our knowledge, this article meets the GA criteria; if you think it might not, please let us know". If nobody notices or complains about a GA status article, then fixing that article is a low priority compared with fixing the millions of other articles which do not meet the GA criteria. In any case, articles degrade: no amount of quality control at the factory can deal with that. A really cunning POV-pusher could write a neutral article up to GA (or even FA) level, get it passed, then gradually insert a POV slant.

Here we confront again the math, which you did not comment on in your reply. It is impossible to make a content review process both 100% reliable, and wide-ranging in coverage of the encyclopedia: the reviewer-hours fall short by an enormous factor, even if you could control them. That is why I find the GA criteria a realistic aspiration, and the GA process a reasonable way of trying to raise a large proportion of the encyclopedia close to that standard: not always at the first review, and sometimes not for many years afterwards, but eventually, and in a more realistic and useful sense than "by the year 3678". Geometry guy 20:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am purposely avoiding the math not because I disagree with it; I fully recognize that at the rates of either process, and article creation, that getting everything to GA is a task beyond our lifetimes. What I'm trying to say or at least encourage is to define what this ultimate goal of WP (over untold generations) should be, such that we refine and create processes in all other aspects for content, sourcing, etc. to assure we're always heading to that goal. If the goal was to make all articles featured (which it appears it is not) there should be a certain amount of rigor in our policies and guidelines to aim towards that that are not there now. Similarly, if the goal is to make sure all articles can meet the GA standards, our policies and guidelines are already geared towards this but we need to make sure there's continual improvements in both general P&G and WIAGA to assure they continue to match.

In other words, my issue is not getting every article to GA or FA (not even trying), but that that is actually to assure what our goal is in the overall scheme of GA/FA/article assessment, as this should influence how our policies and guidelines develop. A case in point: because I (at least presently) believe that getting every article to GA is a recognizable goal, this means that we should have policy and guidelines discourage articles that likely will not get there. This would be reflected back into guidelines like WP:N - in that we should be discouraging articles where there's no significant coverage as such to get to a GA. It is not that these processes or other policies/guidelines are broken now in this manner, however; it is only a minds eye to the future. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of what you say here and admire your ultra-long-term vision. However, one only needs to look backwards in time through untold generations to see that things that were important then have become meaningless now. I'd like to think that Wikipedia will be relevant and important to society in a century, but in five centuries anything can happen. This is why I want to temper your ideals with realistic timescales. How about the following summary?
The FA criteria provide an excellent aspiration for article quality (and hence for editors working on them).

The FA process should encourage that aspiration by bringing many articles to FA standard and showcasing them as exemplars of our best work.

The GA criteria provide a realistically achievable quality standard for almost all articles (and hence for editors working on them).

The GA process should realise such achievements by bringing a substantial proportion of all articles to GA standard.

I realise this is probably just a discussion between the two of us now, but I'm finding it very interesting. Geometry guy 21:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~FAC delegate resignation~~

It has been a privilege to serve some of Wikipedia's finest writers and review some of their best work for four years, but first and foremost, I was and remain an editor of medical and Venezuelan articles. I always intended to return to active article editing, and to that end, I made a vow to my colleagues in the medical realm when I accepted the position as FAC delegate. It is encouraging to see that the comments above are devoid of criticism of articles I promoted, and only three of over 1,400 promotions have lost featured status. Since meeting my vow to fellow medical editors some months ago, I have hoped to resign as FAC delegate, but held back pending appointment of other delegates during absences. Out of loyalty to Raul654 and to the many fine editors who have brought articles to this Featured Article process, I have continued my service as delegate beyond the time I promised my colleagues. Other events on Wikipedia have led me to offer my resignation now.

Chief among these events is the continued threat to our medical articles by uninformed student editors, working with scanty supervision from their professors and without adequate oversight from established Wikipedians, recruited via programs promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation with little regard shown for the impact these recruitment efforts have had on quality of articles or established editors. Many people get medical information from Wikipedia articles; their importance is akin to that of BLPs and it is imperative to make-- and keep-- those articles accurate. That task is made much more difficult by the apparent intent of WMF to emphasize quantity over quality, and to offset declining editorship by encouraging amateurs to edit articles they have no business editing, with little motivation to edit besides a course grade. The assault on our medical articles has been a source of concern for many months; in order to keep up with my FAC work, I've had to unwatch many of these articles, while declining numbers of medical editors struggle to deal with the deterioration in those articles resulting from the recruiting efforts of the Wikipedia:United States Education Program. (See the analysis of just one of these programs at User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, Part I, and more at the talk page of WP:USEP). WMF is increasingly employing people who are out of touch with the unpaid volunteers, and they have done little to support article quality or editors who produce top content. In my other area of editing, POV dominates almost every article in the Venezuelan suite of articles, and I haven’t had time to engage Wikipedia’s lengthy dispute resolution processes.
Faulty medical information spread via one of the most popular websites on the Internet is not something I wish to ignore while my colleagues editing medical articles struggle to confront the problem. While the recent events on this page have not caused me to resign, they have affected the timing. I am reminded that this is not the only area of Wikipedia that is straining under the push for quantity over quality, the one that I long promised to return to is one where I can make a difference to our readers, and it would be unfair to the FA community for me to resign after an RFC endorses leadership and the absence of politics at FAC.
So as not to leave FAC short of delegates now, I will continue to serve as delegate for no more than 30 days, or earlier if another delegate is appointed or Raul asks for my resignation sooner. Thank you to all who have supported me and the quality work we do at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can honestly say that I was shocked to read this. Though our encounters at FAC were relatively brief, you have taught me an immense deal about the FAC process and inspired me to become a better editor. Looking forward to your content work, however, and I hope we still run into each other from time to time. Cheers and all the best, Auree ★ 05:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for waiting 30 more days, but right now we have no idea what's going on in how long this might take. For four years of FACing articles, I've might not agreed with most of your decisions, but I feel if you need to step aside, do what's right inside.Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.) This is a great loss, but I understand your reasons, and I actually look forward to your work in those two nominated areas. I entirely agree with your complaint about the Foundation's blinkered focus on quantity over quality. It would be most helpful to see you weigh in on this when it inevitably comes to a head again (last time was when they vetoed our community's decision to stop non-autoconfirmed editors from creating pages, only months ago).
Sandy, let me say that you are one of the most important editors in the history of Wikipedia. You have driven the push for higher standards for more than five years. Your work has been hugely successful, not only in promoting a culture of quality at FAC, but through a ripple effect. Even where you may believe your efforts have not been immediately successful (one instance is DYK), your efforts have had impact beneath the surface in making the seeking after quality within the core community culturally desirable, and in some cases imperative, which it wasn't, frankly, when you and I first met at this forum.
I congratulate you. Superb. Let us hope that you stay around to offer your expertise at FAC, as much as you feel able to. I will gladly support your strategies to improve the reliability and quality of medical articles, and you have my complete moral support in addressing the opaque goings-on that have plagued our Venezuela-related articles for as long as we can remember. Tony (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see you go, Sandy, good luck in the future. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions in this role Sandy Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sandy. You were remarkably effective as a delegate. I hope you enjoy editing medical and Venezuelan articles and welcoming students to Wikipedia. maclean (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very, very sad, but I'm sure a huge relief for you. Thanks for the tremendous amount of work you've put in over the years. Johnbod (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto on all points. Fingers crossed it will result in big benefits in medical and Venezuela articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; I doubt we'll easily find someone who is willing to work as hard at improving FAC as Sandy has. However, as Doc James says below, this is excellent news for other areas of Wikipedia, and I hope we see plenty of reviews from Sandy at FAC. That will make a big difference to the reviewer shortfall we perennially complain about. Sandy, thanks for your dedicated work on FAC for the last four years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These is exceedingly exciting news for us at Wikiproject medicine and I am sure a lose to WP:FAC. To re add such a excellent and dedicated editor to our midst I am sure will do wonders. Would love your help with this Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project. The effort is basically to improve 80 top importance medical condition in English to GA or FA, translate them to simple English with the help of a third party company who is donating their time, and than translate them to as many other languages as possible with the help of Translators Without Borders and integrate the content back into that language wiki. Let me know what you think :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This was unexpected. Sandy, we don't see eye to eye on a few issues, but you leaving is not a step in the right direction for FAC. Such is life, though. Thanks for all your hard work, and I hope I'll see you around in the future. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto above. Good luck and I hope you continue your efforts to improve Wikipedia in other ways.∞陣内 Jinnai 07:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may not believe this, but I will miss your leadership. You have been a cornerstone of wikipedia.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your efforts so far - you've made a major difference here. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see you go but I don't blame you at all. You've been so dedicated to the job that I'm sure you've enjoyed a lot of it, but no matter how well you handle the aggro (and you handle it well) you don't need this forever. I look forward to seeing some of your work at FAC, and to others' noms (including mine) benefitting from more of your insightful comments. Good luck to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let the official record show that I was the very, very, very first of hundreds to come: "Hey Sandy, here's a piece of chocolate, will you help me with my FAC nom?" :-) –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best for you in the future, thank you for all the many things you have done for FAC and the project in your current role and expect you will do many more in your future work.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sandy. Alarbus (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for everything. I look forward to seeing your work in the medical and Venezuelan articles. Cla68 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you will be missed here and very difficult to replace (let's just try to do that democratically). Thanks for everything you've done on behalf of the cause of quality. DocKino (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch ... my mind is spinning trying to figure out how FAC is going to cope with the loss. Everyone's entitled to pull back, everyone should pull back from time to time ... but Sandy, please don't disappear entirely from FAC, we need you :) - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a spectacular job, thank you...Modernist (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work at FAC up to now; we have too few decent editors for too many worthwhile jobs. J Milburn (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the kind words, but the real work here of promoting FAs is done by reviewers! I see some comments about "strain on FAC" or whether I'll disappear from FAC, so I've bolded the portion of my first post lest it is getting lost. So that there will not be undue strain on FAC until I'm replaced, I stated that my resignation is effective in 30 days, or sooner if another delegate is appointed or Raul has another idea (I know that Brian boulton has said he is not interested in serving as delegate, but is willing to help out in a pinch). I do intend to be more active after that at both FAC and FAR. Of course, I don't intend to close any of Wehwalt's FACs during the "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign-- I can stay on to help for up to 30 days if needed, also recusing as usual where appropriate. Best regards to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Well, fuck. --Moni3 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Moni: this sucks balls. María (yllo submarine) 14:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hairy green donkey balls. --Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Those fucking cunts started with me with Hemingway and wouldn't let it go until they did massive damage. Fuck them. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Truthkeeper, I've been thinking this for a while, and today seems to be the kind of day to say it. You are my kind of crazy. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, the entire FAC process as we know it is indebted to you. Whomever replaces you will have very large shoes to fill. Thank you for everything. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I agree that the FAC process is deeply indebted to you, and your work on FAC will be missed. I wish you all the best, and if I can ever do anything to help you, please let me know. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you can concentrate on more important things, eh? Also, I love how cunting is becoming a discredited trope and inside joke among us Wikipedians. ResMar 04:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thank you SandyGeorgia for your contributions to the FA process over the years!!! I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~RFC to make FA leaders elected, not appointed~~
An RFC is underway to consider a proposal to make the Featured Article leadership elected.
TCO (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorry, no, I object and will not participate. See my comment at WT:Featured articles/Make Featured Article leaders elected (RFC). Geometry guy 05:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
Disruption of not one, but two RFCs already underway or in progress (by an editor with a long block log of disruption and harassment), also the new RFC violates multiple RFC rules such as but not limited to "brief neutral statement of the issue" and should be removed from the Central discussion template, also he's over at the Help desk asking how to canvass. The RFC is likely to endorse Raul's leadership just as the other two have above (forum shopping, too). In short, disruptive editing from an editor with a history of same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have brought this up at WP:AN/I. Geometry guy 06:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing at DYK (unrelated to this RFC, but presumably posted there because I've taken them on over plagiarism). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He put neutrally-worded notices on a lot of pages, Sandy. I highly doubt any of them were chosen specifically in opposition to you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to read what he wrote, but suggest we all just sit back for a while. I will let my current nomination mature (it seems ripe for promotion, more or less) but to avoid strain on the system in this time, I will withhold further nominations and stick to reviewing We agreed to wait until end of the day Monday, let us see where we are then. Perhaps we should all just pause and take a deep breath and reassess until Monday night. Join me in reviewing articles. TCO (I still haven't read it, I make it a point to read nothing substantial until my second mug of coffee) may want to retool. Obviously this raises issues, but can we postpone them for 36 hours as a mark of respect, if nothing else?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could we stop the politicing, please? I'm around for 30 days if Raul wants me to and if needed to close FACs, there is no crisis, nothing new, and please stop fiddling with RFCs underway and putting up "snap" RFCs of your own to affect the outcome. There is no succession problem; there is no change; there is no reason for the RFC not to continue as discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent the last twenty minutes writing a detailed response, read it over, realized how divisive it would be, and deleted it. What do you want to hand your successor? Please think what you are doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Easy peasy: a consensus driven RFC, without dirty politics, shenanigans, and manipulation by someone who is campaigning for a "job". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, the atmosphere around here is so polemic and whether you have any direct bearing on these events I don't know. I'll assume good faith here and say that other editors such as TCO, Alarbus, Diannaa, and those pushing so forcefully for elections are acting on their own volition. However, it certainly does appear like a pathetic internet version of a coup d'etat. TCO declined to heed my advice and went through will his ill-advised and doubly polemic RfC, which will do nothing to help FAC. The most vocal supporters of elections have the least amount of experience in writing FAs, save you. I'm pleading with you very sincerely--there are editors here (I am not one of them) who are qualified to be FAC delegate, to replace SandyGeorgia. I'm asking you officially, if there is such a thing, make public that you will decline, or are not interested in the position of FAC delegate or director for the sake of the process at FAC. To ensure the transition to SandyGeorgia's successor goes much more smoothly than what has occurred within the past couple months. If you are really interested in the integrity of this process, let Raul choose someone who is not a lightning rod for controversy even before getting into the position. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moni, this has not been a good morning. I do not play political games and resent the implication that I do. When you came to my talk page yesterday, you accepted, or at least seemed to, that I was not doing that sort of thing, and you seemed to agree with my decision to archive the joking discussion and that's an end to it. I did not prompt TCO's action nor Sandy's resignation, and I am appalled at the implication that I targeted Sandy. I several times expressed my willingness to give Raul a mandate, if he gave us more of his attention (a minimal amount frankly) and that would naturally carry Sandy with it, but felt it important to establish the principle of community consent. My interest in this has been expressed before TCO's report, for example, my comments on Ucucha's appointment were support for him, but reservations about the process. I dismiss the rest of what you are saying as the anger you expressed by concurring with an obscenity in your edit previous to this, and forgive it, this is a bad time for everyone. I have tried to be reasonable and respectful through the process, if that has been mistaken for politicking, well, I shall take pains to act as a raving partisan next time (probably not).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can assume that means you're still campaigning. OK, at the very least, could you try to reign in the disruption here from your mentor, TCO, the campaign manager? As to "this is a bad time for everyone": projection. I'm glad to be freed up to edit more and review more; it's a good time for FAC-- reviews are picking up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to get Murray Chotiner or Mark Hanna, but they are not presently available :). I'm not answering the question because the question is a political game I refuse to play. Find some other game to play, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leadership, my dear man! If your campaign succeeds, you're going to have many bad mornings-- you'll have to deal. Ever seen the orange bars on my page after I archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am again sincerely asking you to consider the integrity of this process, Wehwalt. Any intention of yours to act in a leadership position at FAC will disrupt FAC more than help it. Please make this promise for the integrity of one of the last forums on Wikipedia where article quality is a top priority. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moni, to be honest I think integrity sailed away a long time ago. The only issue now is that any motivation to write good content has evaporated. That is Wikipedia's loss, and the loss of the readers. Editor retention? Pah! Retaining female editors? Double pah! Anyway, Sandy asked me to not to drag this down, so that's all I have to say. I tried yesterday with the post about the tone of the discussion, but it was way beyond salvage at that point. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TK, I understand and agree with many of your points. However, there are fine, fully qualified, conscientious editors with much experience at FAC who have not been the focus of (let's AGF here and call it disorganized and unplanned) campaigns to place them in a leadership position here. Sandy has bowed out gracefully, it would have come at some time anyway, but there is simply no reason why someone else other than Wehwalt, who is fully qualified can quietly and boringly take Sandy's place and continue the job she was doing. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moni, you raise this in the wrong forum. Raul is presently solely responsible for the appointment of FAC delegates; his talk page is open to you if you care to advise him on his choice of FAC delegate. I expect the call to come from him to me right after the one from Rome asking me to be Pope. Now, if that process changes, we can have a discussion at that time. Anything else is an attempt to slant the process, and I will not play along. Please do not push this further, I find this discussion unpleasant and has put me in such a dark mood I doubt I will be able to accomplish very much today. I have a number of reviews in process, and I must have a clear head to be able to grapple with the nuts and bolts of someone else's writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tough gig, isn't it! You gotta keep that clear head while under fire from anyone whose articles you archive, setting aside personal biases and disruptive editors so you can promote without bias, and even doing that no matter what events, issues and campaigns are unfolding off-Wiki. I do wish you a better rest of your day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm raising it here, in front of you and all FAC regulars. Recuse yourself, please. Do the right thing. Go to Raul's talk page and tell him you have no interest in any position at FAC for the sake and integrity of FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I will say this, and this is part in response to Giants' comment: The director should not appoint new delegates until after the RfC. Sandy did mention that Brianboulton is willing to pitch in on a temporary basis if needed, and that would be fine. Between Ucucha and the community pitching in (I hope), we can make do for a bit, especially as Sandy has stated an intent to remain 30 days in her role. It's also possible Raul may involve himself more.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TCO, I also think you should withdraw the RfC. When the questions are as complicated as they are here, building consensus can't be done by jumping to the end of the process and trying to identify a proposal that answers all the questions raised. Even if your proposed approach were the best way to go forward, the right way to get there is to get the community to agree as we go. There's a risk of discussion fatigue if we go too slowly, but I think your ideas will fare better if you include them in the conversation that is already going on.
If the topic for the RfC is the leadership, then I'll put together a note on how to frame that topic and ask for discussion. I'll include some of your input in that framing, and we'll see how people want the RfC to look. That is likely to be the hardest part of all of this -- getting an RfC formulated that asks the right questions and doesn't include distracting secondary issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TCO, while I am the camp that change is needed at FA, I agree with Mike Christie. You're not going about this the right way, and I know you were advised to wait yesterday. Then when I woke up I saw Sandy had resigned, making this even more of mess. PumpkinSky talk 16:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To help clarify the comment below, Giants' self-reverted this post. I'm not sure of the propriety of referring to a removed post like that. My view is that once said, you can't unsay things. And if someone else is going to comment on it, the least that should be done is linking to it to avoid confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After edit conflict, response to Giants' now removed post: You missed a step, Giants-- the campaign is not for delegate, it's "Wehwalt for FA director". That is, shortcircuit the hard grunt work of being a delegate, even though he's admitted he's reluctant to review and oppose for fear of risk of alienation,[11] and that he finds it hard to judge the work of others. It's difficult to understand how that qualifies him to be either delegate or director, but the campaign shortcircuits the part about doing the real work of reviewing FACs and judging the input of others.[12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Sandy, if I am inclined to lean back on my divan and allow peeled grapes to be popped into my mouth, I would have the wrong job to be Featured Article Director after the RfC. Whoever has the job then is going to be under intense scrutiny. So are the delegates. Very likely, the sniping will ~~not~~ be nonstop. It would not be consistent with a lazy lifestyle.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Word "not" struck after reply.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And we thank you for leaving that legacy for the FA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The scrutiny, I think, will be beneficial anyway. And Sandy, I think you are misinterpreting the first diff, the one about being afraid to alienate people. The reference is to the work of reviewers; I am afraid sometimes of giving honest feedback on the quality of reviews because our reviewers are volunteers and may say "Well, if you don't like it, I'll go do something else." Whether or not you agree, it is a perspective. Frankly, the delegates should be evaluating the quality of reviews and guiding reviewers, not me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second diff, about my being reluctant to judge the work of others, is certainly true. But I've come to see reviewing, not just as helping to push the sleigh for a while, but as beneficial to my own writing, it gives me insights, so there's personal as well as community benefit. It is hard, and very time consuming sometimes. But I do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest with the anti-Wehwalt stuff, Sandy. Everything does not need to be about several year old grudges. When I debate something about the Washington Redskins on a forum, it is not the reaction to try to think of who disagreed with who in 2007.
Maybe go write some articles or upload some pictures (when was the last time you submitted a pic to the Graphics Lab for improvement)? It is not all about "voting oppose".TCO (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a defect, TCO; I don't take direction very well from people with limited credibility. Now, back on topic:
Wehwalt claimed in the now archived discussions that he wasn't a big part of the now moribund WP:TFAR. That, and his views on the FAC process, seem to have changed since he used those to advance his campaign for ArbCom in 2009. Then, he was an integral part of the smooth functioning TFAR page, and gave all credit to the Featured Article director. I am glad though, that after years of not helping review FACs, that Wehwalt has learned that it may help improve his own writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Archived section~~
I've temporarily halted the automated archiving of this page, in order to be able to do a coherent manual archive of sections related to this discussion. The archive section for FAC RfC issues is Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55. I've posted a note above at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Candidate RfC issues to point people at the archive, but if there are additional sections that would benefit from a link, please add them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike-- if you need to manually archive any routine business, could you make sure the RFC is in its own archive, regular business elsewhere, so we can find things in the future? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that's the way to do it -- I was planning to use archive 54 for any non-RfC-related manual archiving; archive 55 for the RfC, and will restart MiszaBot on archive 56. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe put this pre-RFC discussion in 55, the RFC itself in 56, and restart the bot in 57. The RFC, for future readability purposes, may benefit from being by itself. Either way would work though. Thanks also.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that would be manipulative, since the campaign runup is seen in the pre-RFC discussion (as well as at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive54#Other topic and even more if we go back further); it should stay intact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Campaigning against someone is itself a campaign. Or put this another way, if Raul mentioned some names and asked for your opinion on who would be suitable for being a FAC delegate, would you give him your opinion or not? This strikes to the heart of the whole way in which FAC delegates are appointed. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let Wehwalt campaign if he wants, but my campaign is against a biased, orchestrated RFC and sustained attack on FAC, going back to November in the runup to this campaign. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that avoided the question nicely. While you continue to post about Wehwalt, I'm going to avoid the resignation section above and put my thoughts on your talk page when it takes effect (the '30 days or sooner' bit). The TCO issues are valid, IMO, he does need to change the approach he takes. Right now, though, it is probably best if everyone concentrates on the RfC issues Mike Christie is pulling together, and of course reviewing and matters like that. Carcharoth (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the last time you put something on my talk, it was so objectionable, and led to even more objectionable feedback, that I archived it so as not to be a host of such language. Try to keep it above board if you want me to keep it. I have full confidence in Raul's appointment of delegates, and will be happy to share opinions if asked. To me, what makes a good delegate is apparent in their work in the FA process-- someone who understands the criteria thoroughly (usually as a result of being a long-time reviewer), notices and does the hard day-to-day work (most of which is grunt work, time consuming and tedious), can handle criticism, is everywhere all the time doing a bit of everything even without being asked, recognizes their own weak areas so they can compensate for them, is widely respected in the FA community, isn't likely to go "off", has proven impartiality ... I can think of more, but yes, I'm happy to comment on those areas if I'm asked. Now, would you like to address the points you've avoided answering nicely? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering the question I asked, and for your thoughts on what makes a good FAC delegate (that should also be part of any RfC, probably). If you are going to characterise posts I made to your talk page, the least you could do is link to them, or to the section you archived, and let people form their own judgements. I have criticised actions you took in the past, or inaction on your part in the past (I can link to those discussions, but now is probably not the best time). That is in part why I've been making the point about delegate feedback to reviewers, here and elsewhere, and/or a mentoring process to bring in new reviewers and bring them up to speed and impart the parts of the skills that can be pick up with some form of 'on the job' learning. There might have been other times I criticised you as well, but in general I think you do a good job at FAC, though I'm not going to be unconditionally supportive. I think the right moment to thank someone for their service is when they actually step down, not before. I'm not sure what you mean by points I've avoided answering. If you mean your "biased, orchestrated RFC and sustained attack on FAC, going back to November in the runup to this campaign" comment, I agree that the RFC was poorly put together, but I think the pressures on FAC are deeper-seated than just those that resulted from that report. Essentially a bottle-neck in finding, mentoring, and keeping reviewers, but debate on that should be left for those pending RfCs. Carcharoth (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could go look for those in archives, but don't even know what keywords to search on, since I only saw edit summaries that disgusted me, so I archived it without reading it. Delegate feedback to reviewers is a good and desirable thing, until those who want "power" or to disrupt the process use feedback from delegates to claim there is a "clique" of "chummies", making it very hard to praise others for good work. And that is part of the problem in keeping reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed a point on what you've avoided answering: those who directly perpetrated the disruption on this forum have one thing to answer for, but all of those who were silent are complicit, even worse so. You enabled it. It took a long time for a mere handful of people to visit disruption on FAC, and to all who turned a blind eye, including you Carcharoth, you have a role in whatever becomes of FAC henceforth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then separate the functions. Get experienced reviewers to mentor and give feedback. But please, let's keep this to an RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ask The Signpost what happened to my sustained and productive efforts to do just that. You see, Carcharoth, naive minds don't understand that those who perceive (wrongly) that there is "power" in being a FAC delegate will attack regardless of what one does, which is why the FA community-- who has been silent while FAC has been under attack-- is complicit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unwarranted. ResMar 04:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~FA director history and job description~~
There seems to be a lot of confusion about my role here. I've been answering a lot of questions recently on the history and role of the FA director. I thought it might be useful for to point everyone to my answers to these questions. Ed asked me about the history of the position and the process by which I select delegates. I've answered his question here. Mike Christie asked me to wrote a job description for the role of FA director, which I did here. Raul654 (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably putting it...eh...here...would make more sense than a user talk page. Also, there was a previous comment from you that you "answer things on your talk page". HUH? If you are going to actually lead this program, you ought to be at THIS talk page more often. Especially...eh...now.
You're really not functioning as a leader to the bulk of the volunteers (writers and reviewers). Maybe there is some super secret, important, supervision of the other delegates. (Doubt it.) But it's not leadership of the masses. Real leadership needs to be about running and growing the program. Thinking about strategy. Motivating. Etc. Not just having a fancy title cause it seems cool or because you were more involved in the past. [And I'm sure someone will be aghast that I "went there" or call me a thug. But it is just "emporer is naked" from a child. Just the plain situation. Think how this looks to someone new to Wiki, but with normal outside experience in volunteer groups, companies, etc. when they see you unelected and asleep at the wheel.]TCO (Reviews needed) 19:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TCO, you obviously have one intepretation of the job description of the FAC director. That does not mean it is the current accepted job description - or even one that the majority of people want to see. That is what the proposed RfC is for, no? Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agreed. TCO (Reviews needed) 19:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Trends in FA's promoted and readership of new FA's~~

Year Total FA Sampled Median

promoted articles articles page views

2003 27 1 365065

2004 79 8 84919

2005 156 25 10597

2006 388 42 4224

2007 725 70 7432

2008 690 63 4632

2009 522 54 1878

2010 515 49 901

2011 352 15 863
This table contains some data about featured articles, sorted according to year promoted. The first column shows the year of the start of the first successful candidacy. The second the number of articles from that year that remained at the end of 2011, as ocularly counted in pages like Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2003. A sample containing every tenth article in the list was taken, counting strictly but manually through the list. The third column shows the number of sampled articles from the years respectively. The fourth column shows the median number of pageviews in September 2011 for the sampled articles, using Wikipedia article traffic statistics. My expectation is that trends in median number of pageviews closely follow the trends in average number of pageviews. My interpretation is that from 2007 till now there is a strong negative trend in how many FA's are produced and even more in how many see the average FA. Is there something in the FA process that drives the editors away from the topics that the readers are most interested in? Is this what we want or are there problems with the design of the process? --Ettrig (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sampling only one for 2003, and then happening onto one with over 365,000 page views skews your data quite a bit. In short though to answer your question, editors will work on the articles that interest them, and you can't force them to work on pages with more page views if those articles don't interest them. As a side note, the "bigger" articles that attract higher page views also attract more vandalism and low-quality editing. They also require a wider range of effort to be "comprehensive". Imzadi 1979 → 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So there is an incentive to avoid readers?! Am I reading this correctly? Should we avoid the readers to better maintain the quality? In my view, the central point of an encyclopedia is to serve information. Do we disagree on this? --Ettrig (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm still awaiting the first paycheck for my work on featured articles - so you'll forgive me if I'm not jumping to obey orders to write on what others tell me to write on. When I get paid, then I'll work to order .. until then, I will be quite happy to work on whatever interests me. Obviously .. you want high view articles.. so I say this will all respect - go work on them. You're not my boss. Amazingly, we get the idea from the drumbeat ya'll have done - so the first step is to WP:SOFIXIT yourself. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC) (As an aside .. I have a number of "high view" articles that I've worked up to FA, as well as a few that are GA - but wait, I forgot, I'm a "star collector" ... so I don't count and my knowledge that it's about five times as hard to maintain a high view article at high standards not to mention research it and get it up to high standards is just not worth anything compared to the great knowledge of two folks who between themselves have.. how many GAs and FA nominations again? Refresh my memory...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Good stuff. They have really dropped off a cliff in the last couple years.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
Note, this is an independent sample versus what I did (so two samplings gave similar results). I saw 2011 FAs (I surveyed all from JAN-SEP) at ~1000 views, verus a sample (~40 datapoints) of the overall bank of FAs being ~3400 views per month.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also include the total number of pages that Wikipedia had, including the total number featured on the main page, including ITN, DYK, OTD please? Thanks. i.e. it would be useful to see if there's a reduced readership per FA per increase in number of FAs, plus does this take into account traffic visiting Wikipedia in that time? It's totally unclear what you're trying to "prove" here. As one would expect. As it stands, this list of stats is trivia but statistically useless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sampling seems to have been done incorrectly. "A sample containing every tenth article", that is one tenth of the articles from each year should mean that 35 articles were sampled from 2011. A tenth of the 2005 figure (156) is 16 (rounding to one significant figure) not 25. In light of this problem regarding methodology I'd be very sceptical of any of the data. Nev1 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, if you can't divide by ten accurately, how are we supposed to trust your calculation of the median? Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took him to mean he went and took the tenth article on WP:FA, then the 20th, 30th, etc. And as it happened only one was from 2003. Am I correct?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with such sampling is self evident when you are taking one article to be representative of 27 (2003). It shows a rather naive approach. Nev1 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the median here seems unjustified to me: I'm not a statistician, but this looks to me like the median is sampling the tail of the distribution. Geometry guy 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing this connection between a low number of FAs (which needs to be quantified) and the FA process, and both Ettrig and TCO are here and have previously connected what they perceive as a low number/percentage of FAs and the leadership, writers, or processes here.
What can we do to encourage more people to get FAs in the current climate? Lower the standards. It's very simple.
Now, what would that help if there were 3 million FAs and they were shitty? I don't think so.
The reality here, and what I've been consistently flummoxed by the attitudes to go after FA writers, reviewers, and delegates, is that this attitude completely misses the problem and proposes solutions that do not improve article writing nor encourage anyone else to write FAs.
This is simply a matter of expectations. Each person, regardless of background, comes to Wikipedia not knowing anything about its standards. No one needs any expertise in anything to edit here, which is admirable in one way -- it's how I started editing. However, Wikipedia expects so little of editors that many of them see FA as an unattainable goal when it's not. The majority of people here do patchwork: crisis and response, everywhere. Very few articles, projects, etc. are thoughtfully deliberated with published knowledge.
When I ask on a talk page if someone who is trying to prove an article is POV if they have read the sources, the answer is to accuse me of ownership. The cult of laziness is pandemic here because no one expects anything different. This is not a top-down problem. Dumbing down FAs and getting people gung-ho about recruiting more editors to write and review them is a patchwork fix that does not solve the overall problem. The overall problem is that the vast majority of editors do not understand that they are able to go get a book, go to the library, buy books, read books, and discuss them here with others to form higher quality articles. Currently, articles are constructed out of what people know and how they want to shape the article, not on what the current body of literature says about a topic. Disrupting FAs and this process is senseless. The effort to improve the entire site needs to be about ratcheting up the expectations of all editors--a bottom up, foundational, basic mindset shift. Shutting down the kind of editing that Wikipedia has known since its inception and weeding out the deliberately lazy passersby to get more people who realize they can read a book, summarize it, and voila! Part of an article is born. Now go read another book or find someone who has it and discuss it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good analysis of the problem and it doesn't have much to do with FA. Regarding the above statistics, whether they represent a problem or not depends on what one believes the Featured Article process is for. As noted in my new year greeting, FA cannot be expected to have much to do with the vast majority of Wikipedia's c. 4 million articles, because it only handles about 30 per month. In the context of overall usage of Wikipedia, arguments about which 30 articles FA should be handling each month seem rather parochial. Geometry guy 22:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issues raised here are hardly new, and have been very extensively debated, including a large burst here a couple of months ago. Standards at FA have risen very considerably since 2003, though I think we now have had the same standards since about 2008. Most FA noms are on very "small" subjects, and so get small readerships, because FAs on large subjects are very very hard to write. Mystery solved! That is where the blockage in the process is, not at FAC. "Is this what we want?" - no it isn't. "Are there problems with the design of the process?" - no. Is there anything we can do about it? Nothing very quick or easy; it ties into the whole decline of content editing, the emphasis on new articles, and so on. The only thing we could do is lower the standard required, and I don't believe that is what people want, or that a small lowering would make any great difference. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is there is an implicit assumption that every article is as important as the other...and that numbers are what matters. If we used page view weighting on the WBFAN, there would be different articles done. Same with Wikicup. People LIKE lining their user page with the stars. And I don't begrudge them a little token. Really...I don't. My point is that we should give a bigger token for a bigger achievement. It will drive results. Look at how a bronze star and 24 hours on the main page (that most readers don't go to anyway) drives all the sturm and drang we have to date (and the substantial work product, too). TCO (Reviews needed) 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TCO, what is it you are really, actually trying to accomplish? I'm hard-pressed, as someone with a background (and oh shit I'm bringing up my background, so it's going to be ^{[citation needed]} everywhere) in education, that baubles, awards, trinkets, colored pixels, and words from strangers you never met before will overcome the massive deficiencies that Wikipedia expects nothing from you as long as you don't piss people off. Awards do not improve quality work, in anything, here or in the real world. They serve as some incentive, but people are not rote machines that are driven by behavior modification and external reinforcement. Go give me 30 barnstars on my page for whatever you think of, regardless of if I've done it, and I still won't write an article unless I'm very intensely interested in something.

Think of it as the point of diminished returns in economics. There comes a point where a business dumps so much capital into a project to get better results but continues to lose money. Awards in essence does the same thing: it entices editors to become a part of this community by offering a standard and reinforcement, but it really offers no incentive to make quality better. This has been tried previously and it has failed on Wikipedia. To get more awards, which you are accusing people of collecting so how this will discourage that I don't know, they work in concert with each other to promote crap articles, and then they give each other awards. It's a real thing. People have written about this phenomenon. Check it out. --Moni3 (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Actually, this is one of the few points (perhaps the only one), where I partially agree with TCO: modifying incentive schemes such as WBFAN (or creating alternatives) would be harmless to most of the encycyclopedia, but might have a small effect on which articles some editors choose to work on. Geometry guy 22:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's human nature that some people are motivated by some awards, and I also agree that folks like collecting stars, making cookie-cutter articles about the same thing, just the names and other small facts changed so they can say they wrote 12 really important things that weren't really important. This is part of the reason why I stopped writing FAs: I wanted to see how I would do without any article assessment at all. Not too bad. I lose the challenge of folks criticizing the articles I write, and the articles I don't get assessed aren't as protected as FAs are. I'm still interested in the same topics, though. But the basic issue here is that the majority of editors will not be persuaded with awards if they are unfamiliar with the amount of work that goes into FAs. Writing an FA by itself, with just the bronze star to prove it is very hard work (most of the time--not so much on that 13th article that changes the names and other facts). If you are confident in the knowledge and prose in the article, it's frustrating to fail at getting an FA. If your motivation is attached to awards and comparing your awards with others and your confidence in your own work is weaker, it's maddeningly frustrating to be denied what you think you deserve. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i made a suggestion involving increased readership of FAs in 2008:MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar/Archive_1#add_to_navigation It was sadly lacking in political machinations but some may find it interesting nonetheless. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ealdgyth has the argument exactly right: people write what they want to write. If this were Encyclopedia Britannica, the editors would pay writers to write the articles they need, and that would be that. But it's not. It's a volunteer project, and people don't write things they don't want to write without some sort of reward. I write lots of boring shit at work, because it's my job and they pay me. Here, on my time, I write things that interest me, as do we all. I don't give a damn about page views, but if that floats your boat, by all means get started. This has all been said hundreds of times already on this page and others.

As to the problem of bigger articles being harder to write, I suggested a solution here. It's a crappy solution, but it's at least better than putting up a chart and telling everyone to just do better. If anything, this whole discussion makes me want to focus more on obscure topics. Why? 'Cause fuck it, that's why. It's the internet. I'll do what I want. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that standards for FA are much higher than they used to be. Couldn't this be a huge part of the reason for the drop in FAs? higher requirements = harder = fewer FAs. I've read participation in wiki is down too. Is this true?PumpkinSky talk 00:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the number of active editors is declining. Nev1 (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Higher standards for FA certainly could have resulted in this, but other things could have been a cause as well. Higher standards are certainly not the only plausible explanation. --Rs chen 7754 00:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations, following the image policy to the letter, higher standards for sources and prose, have all been enacted in FA since I've been on Wikipedia. It makes perfect sense that as standards get higher for FAs, and the rest of Wikipedia's enforcement of everyday (non FA) standards remains nil, people will certainly be surprised to find a very tall mountain of high standards among a grassland of doing nothing. So you can either make FAs easier to achieve, which means they won't be FAs, or get the rest of Wikipedia to enforce its own standards of content. If it's a common assumption that you better know what you're talking about and should have read a good portion of the sources before editing a specific article or engaging on the talk page, it would seem less a huge jump to get an FA. --Moni3 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Carelessness that was once acceptable no longer is. It is a good thing, generally, but it makes it hard to get over the threshhold!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moni3 is correct, there is an extensive literature on the damaging effects that extrinsic rewards can have on intrinsic motivation. For anyone interested, there was an excellent review published by Deci and Ryan in Review of Educational Research in 2001: doi:10.3102/00346543071001001 plus a response from Judy Cameron (who disputes the review) in doi:10.3102/00346543071001029 and a response to Cameron's response in doi:10.3102/00346543071001043. All three articles can be seen in this table of contents for the issue of RAR. The classic paper Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions was published by Ryan and Deci in Contemporary Educational Psychology in 2001 and has been cited more than 1900 times since; it is also informative on the benefits and hazards of rewards. EdChem (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis is meaningless for several flaws, but including:
Data from before inline citation requirements were added to WIAFA in 2005 after the Siegenthaler incident cannot be compared to the standards after inline citations were required, and we lost hundreds of FAs at FAR when they had to be de-featured to account for that.

After the 2010 plagiarism incident, every FAC started getting a copyvio check. In practical terms, that has weeded out a lot of articles that made it through DYK or possibly GAN (although DYK is slowly improving its plagiarism checks in spite of the resistance of the regulars there).
Comparing data from before hundreds of FAs were defeatured in the years after the Siegenthaler mess is useless, but then if one doesn't know the history of FA, one can't really make useful analyses, can they? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, well. I'm prone to stating the obvious here. We're explaining stuff each of us found out through experience, or reading the archives. That such basic foundational misconceptions, and even the question that Wikipedia is really losing editors? are present here is more shameful evidence that WT:FAC is being abused by people who have no idea what they're talking about. This is information that should have been gleaned ages ago from anyone keen on improving FAC in interviews or questionnaires. Instead, sham studies that present specifically manipulated data to prove unintentionally humorous conclusions, demands for democracy that destabilize the entire process, propositions to award people to avoid having them collect awards...what the everloving Jesus are we doing here? --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere in the original TCO manifesto was something to the effect that Wikipedia doesn't value experts, and yet we've seen discussion dominated by multiple sets of data that raise real concerns about what kind of scholarship is employed and what kinds of "experts" are involved. Irony? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ucucha~~
I'm not faulting Mike at all, he's saying perfectly reasonable things here about his expectations for the RFC, given what the community has been saying, but I'd like people to think for a moment about how unfair it would be for Ucucha to shoulder most of the delegate work while we all have a long, merry discussion that casts a cloud on the process that got him there. It's above my paygrade to say whether he's a good or bad delegate, but it seems significant to me that with all the yelling, no one has said anything negative about Ucucha's performance so far. I can't see any complaints in his talk archives since he became delegate, and everyone seems to have responded positively to his comments at FAC all these months. He's obviously got a much more difficult job after Sandy's announcement, a job that would be tough at the best of times. Could I suggest that we start off the RfC with a quick vote to clarify what the community thinks of his work so far, so that he can get his job done without a cloud hanging over his head while we're busy squabbling? - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What part of any of this is merry? --Moni3 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Dank ends his statement by calling the discussion "squabbling", "merry" may have been meant with a dose of sarcasm, but let's not get bogged down on a single word and miss the point of Dank's message. Nev1 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is confusing to me and I'm going to seem like a pluperfect asshole in posting this, but what the hell. I have no problem with Ucucha, but I had no problem with SandyGeorgia. While I agree Raul should communicate more, it doesn't make sense to me to reinforce Ucucha when there appears to be a very serious effort to destabilize this process, even to destabilize the processes to discuss how to improve the destabilized process. Even if we all love Ucucha, what does that solve right now? --Moni3 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lifevest (or even a plank of wood and whistle) can be mighty reassuring when circumstances seem bad. Geometry guy 23:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When it's by suggestion or order, it seems less sincere to me. Were I the recipient, I'd just think everyone had gone insane at the same time. --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Raul is available to do the work. It is, by his own statement, his job. No disrespect.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this meme keep getting repeated here ("Ucucha shouldering most of the work"). Now, The Signpost may be merrily putting up my tombstone or sending me to a rocking chair or giving me sundowner's syndrome or whatever, but as far as I know, I offered to stick around for 30 days precisely so there would not be a burden on Ucucha. Either I'm missing something, Dank, or you are-- please fill me in, because The Signpost doesn't release me from my work-- Raul does. And what cloud is hanging over Ucucha's head? Are you giving too much credence to a very very small but vocal group of folks here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Dank is asking for is a vote/statement that the FAs passed by Ucucha during this very tumultuous period will still be seen as valid even if the current structure is modified or replaced by the result of the RfC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How could anyone possibly know that? With this recent effort evident on this page, I have no idea if Raul is going to be FA director, and/or when he might be replaced. Shit, I don't even know if there's going to be an FA director. With the chaotic way this discussion is going, I wouldn't think it strange to find 3 RfCs about FAC, all of them trying to accomplish different things at once. Renaming the director, agreeing on a job description, setting up an election, electing someone new, disbanding FA. Who the hell knows? This could pop up tomorrow. Ucucha could be jobless in a week and the bronze star signifying an FA gets deleted because community consensus decided FA is unnecessary for all I know. --Moni3 (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandy. She is here, Ucucha is here. What Dank is saying is that they need our support to continue their good work over both the consensus driven RfC, which may result in change, and any surrounding disruptive activity. They certainly have my support. Geometry guy 00:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see Ucucha isn't mentioned in the proposed RFC structure. Delegates need support and feedback, and I've given both to Sandy, many times. I've given both above to Ucucha, I've offered Ucucha help on his talk page, and I've stepped up my reviewing. If anyone else is feeling charitable and wants to do the same during this difficult time, I'm sure he'd appreciate it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Framing the leadership RfC~~
Almost all the comments on both sides of the issue were about the nature of the director role: whether Raul should be reconfirmed, whether the role should be subject to election, and if so how the election should be run. Wehwalt’s straw poll – "Shall the position of Featured Article Director be subject to election at regular intervals?" – received 10 supports and 20 opposes, which is a clear majority against that idea, but there were over 20 other editors who did not comment there and did comment in the other venues.
I think this means that the first topic should be whether Raul is to be reconfirmed as FA director. If he is not reconfirmed, then some form of election of a replacement appears likely, perhaps even with Raul as a candidate. If he is reconfirmed then it should be made clear what happens in the future -- further reconfirmations, or elections? There was not a clear majority in favour of making the role elected, but if there is to be a possible outcome in which Raul is not reconfirmed, I think this RfC has to make it clear what is intended to happen in that case. The RfC should not directly address how elections might run; that would be a difficult and timeconsuming RfC, and I don’t want to put the community through that unless it turns out to be necessary, particularly since the majority of opinions expressed to date were opposed to elections. I considered the argument that elections have already been sufficiently rejected by the prior discussions, but I can't see how to have a sensible reconfirmation discussion without giving commenters some sense of what would happen if Raul were no longer to be FA director.
There’s a sense in which periodic reconfirmations can’t be forbidden – after all, any editor can start an RfC on that topic every year, if they wish. However, I think that’s different from a planned, periodic reconfirmation, and if we’re going to the trouble of a widely advertised RfC, I think we should ensure that we cover the territory properly. To be clear, I am using "reconfirmation" to mean a process in which no other candidates stand, and which is designed solely to express the community's opinion of whether Raul should continue to hold the FA director role. A process in which other candidates may stand would be an election.
To frame an RfC about reconfirming Raul as FA director, it needs to be clear exactly what the role is. Raul defined the role in a recent post: here is that post, slightly edited for context. (If I’ve screwed up anything by this editing, please let me know.)
The featured article director is the person whose job it is to:
promote and demote featured articles, and maintain the definitive list of which articles have featured status

select featured articles that will appear on the main page

write up the blurbs for the featured articles appearing on the main page

To that end, the featured article director is responsible for refereeing FAC and FAR discussions, for interpreting Wikipedia and FA policies as they apply to such nominations, and for deciding which objections are valid/invalid and actionable/inactionable. The featured article director is responsible for, in conjunction with the community, defining FA policies and processes. (“In conjunction with" is deliberately vague here because there's no single model for how that works. Most of it is done by discussion, but some of it by the featured article director’s initiative) The featured article director may choose to share some or all of these jobs with people whose judgement he trusts - the delegates.
~~Raul added the following note:~~
Now given all the recent discussion about changing how the position operates, it's worth pointing out that the above description is normative, not prescriptive. That is to say, it is not a description of what I or anyone else thinks the job should entail; it's a description of what it actually entails on a day-to-day basis.
I propose that we give the statements listed below as the headings for the RfC, with support, oppose, and discussion subheadings beneath them. In addition, I suggest that we add a section for "Discussion of the FA director role definition". I’m hesitant about this last one but it might provide some useful input to the other sections.
~~Raul654 is reconfirmed as FA director with his role unchanged from the given definition. (Followed by support, oppose and discussion sections.)~~
Assuming that Raul654 is reconfirmed, his tenure:
would not be subject to any set reconfirmation, but could be reconfirmed ad hoc. (Followed by a support section)

would be subject to reconfirmation at some set interval to be defined by further discussion. (Followed by a support section).

(Followed by a discussion section.)
The FA director role becomes an elected position. Raul is reconfirmed as FA director until the elections are completed. The timing and structure of the elections are to be defined by further discussion. (Followed by support, oppose and discussion sections.)

The FA director role becomes an elected position. Raul is not reconfirmed as FA director, and loses the role with immediate effect. The timing and structure of the elections are to be defined by further discussion.(Followed by support, oppose and discussion sections.)
~~Discussion of the FA director role definiton.~~
This would be accompanied by the role definition as given by Raul, and by links to the straw poll above. It would be made clear which options represent the status quo. I would include a definition of "reconfirmation" as given above. Some of the outcomes clearly would require follow up discussion, and that would be made clear too. Some explanatory historical material might be useful at the top of the RfC, but on the whole I think it would be better to allow users to include that sort of evidence in their support and oppose posts.
I’d like to get feedback on this wording for the RfC. Please also let me know how long we should discuss this before we go ahead and start the RfC; I’m aware some are impatient, but I want to be sure everyone who wants to can comment. I'd also like to know if it will be acceptable for me to close the RfC, or if we should ask someone else to do so.
This is just the framing; please don’t support or oppose anything yet. If anyone starts supporting or opposing before we start the RfC, I propose to move those comments into a subsection of this section to avoid confusing readers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an option regarding reconfirming Raul, then err...asking him to adjust the job description, i.e. communicate with FAC more often? Or something? --Moni3 (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That "err ..." is why I couldn't think of a support/oppose topic for the job description. I think that would have to be covered in the discussion of the role definition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Secure Vote~~
I would not support any public confirmation vote like that. We should not express a preference as to whether Raul should be reconfirmed at this stage, but rather, set a framework for a vote using SecureVote. To do it publicly will not address my personal concerns. Additionally, you need to allow time for community announcements, and opportunity to ask Raul questions and get responses. I also object to your straw poll characterization, it was defeated in part because I was out of process. Mike, I very strongly disagree with doing it this way. A public taking of a vote will attract only those who like cat fights. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've prepared this, btw, for discussion purposes on a possible format.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Obvious says, "What, this entire page since November hasn't been once massive cat fight??" When you're covered with cats, you know, you don't throw daisies at them. Something about this SecureVote thing gives me many apprehensions. It's quite obvious that if not the idea, at least many of the supporters pushing for these changes do not understand FAC in its most basic form and function. We're going to open this RfC or reconfirmation to a vote from all of Wikipedia, who probably know less about FAC than the folks pushing so hard for change here. I think I have a valid concern that there are too many shrouds: of ignorance, of silence, of inaction. Lots of things stink about this, and SecureVote doesn't make anything smell better. --Moni3 (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moni, so a public vote, where many things having nothing to do with Raul's merit, may affect how people choose to vote, is better than a secret ballot to you. The very fact, Mike, that people are starting to line up on this shows why this is not likely to be acceptable. Consider taking it back for a rethink. And do not assign validity to the expression on my straw poll that you don't assign to TCO's; both were punished for being out of process.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I didn't feel it was necessary to address whether some of the opposers in your poll voted that way as it was out of process, because I didn't eliminate the idea of elections from the RfC. I felt that made the question moot, and it would be divisive of me to speculate. The proposed RfC includes a question asking if the FA director should be elected; that seems to me the same as the question you asked. I feel it's necessary to ask about reconfirmation at the same time, since even if elections were not approved by the RfC there could still be a feeling that Raul should be reconfirmed. I can't see an RfC being efficient and successful without asking both questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems inherent in the FAC process, as explained by FAC regulars, who actually are aware of why FAs from 2003 should not be included in the same count of FAs in 2010, who know about the dearth of reviewers, who have had articles archived and promoted, should be brought to the director and delegates. It's unconscionable to accuse someone of being dictatorial without knowing what his job is. It's just stupid to demand he vacates his job without asking him to change his behavior. This talk page has been bullied into this RfC. It should be scrapped altogether, and a well-formatted range of suggestions as to how it can be improved, including the valid issues of lack of communication from Raul, should be presented. If nothing happens, and the director and delegates remain beyond communication, then seek to depose as you will. --Moni3 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, which is why I don't want to start this with a "All Hail Raul" vote! Before we do that, we have to see what the job of Featured Article Director should be. Raul may or may not want to continue if he doesn't like that decision. But certainly one option is giving it six months before any formal vote on retention to see if he, and we are happy with things. That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit. Monkeys just flew out of my ass. It hurt. --Moni3 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a visual I need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wehwalt, The idea that we should use secure vote for our one little corner of Wikipedia is astounding (do we not want to see people's votes for some reason?) If we do that here, then we need to do the same at every featured process, and why not also at RFA, and why not then also at XfD ... sheesh, where will it end. What is the reason for voting behind closed doors here, Wehwalt? Please stop stalling: Mike, we earlier agreed to a launch on Monday. It's Monday. Can you have it ready in a day? Someone who wants to be FA director can have a reasonable say, but can't be allowed to entirely define this conversation any longer. One real discussion, then one "snap" poll, now Secure vote-- keep moving the goalposts. It's not about Wehwalt. Or is it? We can't keep RFCing until we get the result that Wehwalt, TCO and Alarbus want. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could probably have the RfC in a form ready to post by tomorrow night, but one of the things I asked for above is input on how long it should be until the RfC is launched -- how much comment on the framing and wording there should be. I think we need to hear from others on those topics. I will try to post it as soon as I reasonably feel there is consensus, or when I think that no further progress towards consensus can be expected. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sandy, it won't do. You can't object to a forum as not legitimate, and then when it is in a forum you like, say the first one counted. Why do you fear the secret ballot? --Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not to say I would object to a decision made by a community process, if it were well-publicized and robustly participated in. But to begin, off the bat, with a quick reconfirmation before we even define what the job should be, is very much placing the cart before the horse.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, are you hoping for some disastrous RfC crapfest? While I appreciate that these processes are being used for some political reason, the opposite is also true, whatever that means. Despite the fact that a large pile of manure is covering a kernel of value, that kernel still has to be examined. I don't see how, as dramatic and polemic as the tone is right now that any improvement can actually be gained with an RfC running tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that SecurePoll (which is the correct term, I think) shouldn't be used here. This needs to remain public and transparent. There definitely needs to be a period of questioning. I would ask any incumbents to point to recent work done on featured articles or FAC or FAR reviews that demonstrate that they are able to judge what is needed for current standards for featured articles. Pointing to work done years ago is not enough, IMO. It is reasonable, in my view, to expect current incumbents to be in contact and to be visibly part of the process (this applies equally to delegates and director). If this recent experience is lacking, a simple commitment to do some reviewing or writing over the next few months would be enough for me. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by incumbents here? People participating in the comments and shape of the RfC (or whatever)? The FAC director and delegates? --Moni3 (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By incumbents I mean the current FAC director and delegates. I do think there is a valid point about whether those commenting on an RfC have the experience to know how FAC works, but I don't have a simple answer to that one. You could require those commenting at an RfC to disclose how much experience they have - I don't think that would be unreasonable. Those with little experience that make valid comments will be listened to, and conversely those with lots of experience who make silly comments will mostly be ignored. You would hope the strength of any arguments would carry the day, and those with experience of how FAC works would (politely) explain things to those who misunderstand things. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: As I have said, an open and broadly known RfC would be acceptable, even without SecurePoll (thank you). Frankly, I am not looking for more than you are, really, and would settle for Raul's word and a future review. But to begin a RFC tomorrow, with the option for a quick reconfirmation, might mean that the questions would never be asked. In my personal opinion, whoever is FA director from here on needs to be considerably more activist, and also consider how to use his bully pulpit for the benefit of the project. I think Raul would do that quite well, if he would undertake to do it, and certainly we all understand he has many real life commitments. But there's got to be more done than at present.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to go to bed, but will just comment that I don't see the RfC starting tomorrow, so that should not be a concern. As I meant to make clear above, I'll try to discover a consensus here on the wording and will wait till we get as close as we can to that consensus. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, and thank you Mike for your work. We're talking it out. But yes, starting tomorrow is not a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, following your clarification of idealistic notions that editors who have little experience and hence their comments have little effect has been proven on this fascinating Internet forum to be untrue. The democratizing nature of Wikipedia, in that everyone's signature makes them all look the same, fools the greatest fools. The majority of support votes in the "Bottom line straw poll on electing a Director" section--worded the most strongly, with terms like "God" and "Dictator" come from editors with very little experience at FAC. Those who said the most know the least. Indeed, I don't know how to make it exclusive to editors with half a clue and still be fair, but the snowball effect of that vote is ridiculous. --Moni3 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Break, secure vote~~
@Wehwalt, after 85,000 edit conflicts: Some folks should get serious; we/you had well over a week to propose all of these ideas, and you bring them in at the 11th hour when we're ready to RFC, as agreed, on Monday? No, you had a chance for all of those ideas, which is why I launched a deliberative discussion. Let's see:
I put up a deliberative discussion

Mike puts up a proposed RFC discussion

You object to what you call "snap" deliberative discussion, and then

You put up a snap straw poll (and don't like the results)

TCO puts up a snap RFC that went down in flames

and now, since you apparently don't like the results we're seeing from open voting, you want Securevote, after what looks like six months (or more) of campaigning. It appears that you don't want everyone to know the extent of the pre-campaigning. Why didn't you raise Secure Vote before?

FAC has already been damaged, politics have never been a part of FAC, I offered a good faith offer to stay on for 30 days, what do you want to achieve with another six months of negative campaigning? No FAs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did mention it several times, if not by name.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this another case of "it depends what the meaning of is is? Similar to above when you declined to answer questions about the "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign". Coy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In order to achieve any improvement of FAC, to avoid even appearing as if one is campaigning, make it clear that you would not be interested in any position of leadership at FAC, Wehwalt. I agree that it looks fishy and it could seem like forum-shopping or whathaveyou, but I'm more interested in constructive discussion. If your potential tenure in FAC leadership is a moot point, let's get on with it and discuss what really matters. --Moni3 (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please clarify "bully pulpit"~~
~~use his bully pulpit for the benefit of the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) [13]~~

~~Please clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Bully pulpit. GRAPPLE X 02:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example, be the point man in the efforts to get us resources like JSTOR.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coy and cute, evasion: now, please provide diffs, say six, but three will suffice, of Raul using his position as a "bully pulpit" not for the good of the project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]