Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

FACs needing feedback view •
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
Galileo project	Review it now
Worlds (Porter Robinson album)	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Borobudur	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Polio	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now
Edward III of England	Review now
USS Wisconsin (BB-64)	Review now
Doolittle (album)	Review now

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

For a list of foreign-language reviewers see FAC foreign language reviewers.

FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

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

Another example of Brian's excellence and leadership. How is this page intended to gain traction in the absence of something like the old {{FCDW}} which produced content relating to the FA process for the Signpost ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

FAC source reviews

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

Brian Boulton has passed away

I received an email notice from his daughter. I assume others have as well. He was definitely one of the nice guys. I remember Ceoil once referred to him as an angel. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I winced when I read this. A colleague in every sense of the word. - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a gut punch; I so dearly loved our Brainy Brian. May he rest in eternal peace and his family know how much he was loved and appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I owe him a great deal. And much like Browning's Grammarian, he kept at it to the end. A deeply felt loss.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I greatly appreciated his kindness and courtesy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

He touched all of our lives and his articles touch the lives of so many. Still, this is devastating news. Condolences to his family and so many belated thanks to Brian for the help he offered me and apologies for the many times I was grouchy and cranky, peace be with you. Thanks Ling for posting this. Victoria (tk) 22:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oy. This is sad news. And to think that this was only a month ago... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Devastating. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Brian is one of the many people around here whom I have never actually met, but has helped me become a better writer, and frankly a better person. He will be missed.Dave (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a fixture here, and definitely a great positive. He will be missed, condolences to his family and friends. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 03:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm deeply grateful to have worked with Brian at FAC and peer review and elsewhere. He was incredibly erudite, incredibly productive, incredibly steady: a great editor. Finetooth (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is very sad news. His contributions here were enormous. I really appreciated his help. Moisejp (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am so sad. Brian was so giving of his time and talent - it was such a pleasure to have worked with him. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brian for all the source reviews you conducted to keep the FAC process moving. Unfortunately, those were my sole interactions with BB. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Brian was unstinting in his help to other editors, a great guy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this. I didn't know him well, but he was extremely conscientious and helpful in any review of his that I saw. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I was shocked when I learned of it, and left a message on his talk page. Should we perhaps move the above to there, where his relatives will be more likely to look? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Very sad, FAC will not be the same. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear this. Brian was a thorough and knowledgeable editor who helped me out at FAC on more than one occasion. Kosack (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear about this. It is a very sad loss. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There ought to be a fitting epitaph borrowed from some Antarctic explorer but (to quote Brian instead), most of them are "Zzzzzzz" when not exploring. Yomangani^talk

Dear colleagues; please know that Brian’s family have posted a message of appreciation at his user talk page, yesterday at 13:03, also informing us of the creation of a new account: Brianboulton's Family. With kind regards;
Patrick. Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 13:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

All of us who interacted with him can testify that he had a positive impact on this community and wikipedia at large. His legacy lives on here.Iry-Hor (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This is just heartbreaking. There are very few editors (if any) who have done more for the FAC process, or Wikipedia in general, than Brian. I'd go even farther than FunkMonk and say the site won't be the same without him. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sad to hear this - I didn't work closely with Brian, but he reviewed a number of my articles at FAC over the years and he was always pleasant to work with. Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sadness has conquered my heart after I got this news. I hope he had a happy life and it's sad to hear another great editor has to go away from us. I've never known him or worked with him but I hope his soul will rest in peace amen. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The WikiCup

It has been suggested that a contestant in the WikiCup who makes a significant review contribution to an FAC should be able to claim points in the WikiCup, a similar number of points to those available for performing a GA review. On the whole I would say having contestants perform GA reviews has been of benefit to the project, most of the reviews are of high standard, and the WikiCup judges (theoretically) reject poor quality reviews. A featured article scores highly in the WikiCup, and it is disappointing for the contestants if their FAC fails because of insufficient reviewers. Having some extra editors performing reviews would mitigate against this happening. Would the FAC community object to WikiCup contestants scoring points in this way? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of FAC's business what the WikiCup people want to do; after all, anyone is welcome to make a review and we don't enquire as to their motivation. In any case, FAC is hardly in a position to be choosy, overwhelmed with the number of participating reviewers as we are not.* ——SN54129 19:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

*Including, of course, yours truly. ——SN54129 19:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I second my learnéd friend's observations in toto. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Me, I am a little concerned that it'll lead to quantity-over-quality issues with the comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it needs to be well defined, but any extra FAC contributions would be more than welcomed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why; FACs that currently only receive cursory reviews are still held over for promotion until they recieve some of depth. So no, any reviews that are determined to be lacklustre ("done for the sake of doing them") will be treated as non-reviews by @FAC coordinators: -coords; and, note that the Wikicup would also, from their point of view, also reject those FAC reviews they determined to be of low grade (well, "theoretically", anyway!). So the reviewer would not win, nor the FA candidate get an easy pass. ——SN54129 20:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

While FAC could surely benefit from more reviews and reviewers, one thing it doesn't need is more sub-par reviews (of the type we got from many WikiCup participants in the past); those can be tremendously frustrating to nominators (and particularly off-putting to new nominators, who don't always know which reviewers are experienced at the FA level). While the coords are fully empowered to completely ignore reviewers who don't engage WP:WIAFA appropriately or correctly, it is nonetheless a chore for the coords to have to sort through poor review commentary and to remember every year to go over to WIKICUP and see who is participating so they can be on the lookout for unexperienced nominators, reviewers, or quid pro quo.

At any rate, as mentioned above, FAC is not empowered to tell WikiCup what to do. What FAC can do and did do in the past was to make it a requirement for all WikiCup participants to declare their WikiCup participation in their FAC declarations or reviews. So, while FAC may not be able to prevent WikiCup participation, it should be noticed on each FAC, so that nominators and coordinators can then decide if the reviews are up to snuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems a sound suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I intended my post to reflect the reality of the WikiCup culture; I am not optimistic, based on experience, about the effect this will have on FAC, which already suffers a lack of quality reviews-- something that will become much more noticeable without our beloved Brian. The coords are likely to be stuck with lengthy noms full of sub-par reviews. But I don't see that there is much that can be done besides requiring that WikiCup reviews be noticed, and reminding the coords they are empowered to archive a FAC even with dozens of supports, if they deem them to be invalid reviews ... as I once did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I have indicated in the past that I am willing to disallow reviews that were not substantive enough. This is a little harder at FAC, because reviews don't have to cover all aspects of the article as they do at GAN, but if anyone is concerned about the quality of a specific review, I encourage them to bring that to the judges' attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Gamification as a motivator of interest in a process is a well-studied academic discipline at this point. There is a risk, of course, of substandard reviews but I for one welcome some fresh participation in this process. I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the other coords, but I think we have enough checks in place that there shouldn't be any issues. --Laser brain (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I take that WikiCup keeps a record of all actions taken as part of it? Because if we have a list of FAC reviews carried out as part of WikiCup we could check if the reviews tend to be substandard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I am unsure how we would define "substandard" in that case, since so many of the reviews are substandard now, even if not coming from Wikicup. In the work Mike Christie now does (posting stats), I used to do those stats from the FAC delegate point of view, where I rated each review as helpful, neutral, or unhelpful in my promote/archive decision. This gave me data regarding who was helping and hindering the process, but that info is known only to the person doing the promoting and archiving. I think the coords will know if a review is substandard, but the community must continually empower them to ignore those reviews, by pointing out when they occur at the FAC, and begin to again more consistently enter on substandard FACs a declaration of Unprepared, suggest withdrawal, so that the coords can get the sizeable number of unprepared nominations off the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea that reviewers coming from the Cup should declare their interest. It does mean more subjective judgements as to a review's quality by the Cup judges, but I think that we can handle that. Would it speed things up for the delegates if we were to post any judgement of ours as substandard on the review page?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wording like "does not adequately engage the WIAFA criteria" might be less off-putting to novice (and some experienced) reviewers-- the idea being to begin to grow back a cadre of expert reviewers the likes we once had in Tony1, Malleus, Karanacs, Laserbrain, and too many others to name. Goodness, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches is over a decade old; what is FAC doing today to address the reviewer problem? How much of {{FCDW}} Might be updated and used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A general comment on disallowing substandard reviews: if you deem a review to be substandard, consider taking the time to mentor the reviewer. I have done that from time-to-time at GA and it resulted in more GA reviewers. Have not really had the opportunity at FAC because we have less participants in general. I would be willing to help some substandard reviewers increase their standards. But we have to get them here first :). Kees08 (Talk) 15:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

While I strongly support Brian's Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC, I historically found that not all WikiCup participants are motivated to become better FA reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This claim surprises me. Since FA reviews have not been part of the scoring system before, I'm curious how many you've encountered and how you knew why they were there. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

FA nominations have long been part of Wikicup. I knew they were there because when I was the FAC delegate, I regularly monitored WikiCup to be on the lookout for quid pro quo, etc. and to be certain that nominators and reviewers from WikiCup noticed their participation on the FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

We will not have a 100% conversion rate, but it will likely be better than 0%. Hopefully is a good venue to get editors who have been too afraid to participate because they are not ready to cross over, then we can make them ready. We will see, if this is added as points for the wikicup, which I support. Kees08 (Talk) 16:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is somewhat inconclusive, but with the 2020 WikiCup due to start in the new year, I am proposing to allow scoring for FAC reviews in the Cup, with the requirement that all WikiCup participants declare their WikiCup participation in their FAC declarations or reviews. If you find that substandard reviews are being done, the decision can be reversed next year. Oftentimes, the article creators and expanders who take part in the WikiCup are motivated by the contest to work to a higher standard and may venture into featured territory for the first time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: This thread might have become a bit buried since there's been a lot of activity on this page in the last two weeks. I'd like to ensure that Ealdgyth and Ian Rose have an opportunity to review and chime in as they see fit. I feel like we'll be able to work together on a case-by-case basis if someone comes in and starts posting farcical or unhelpful reviews to get WikiCup points. --Laser brain (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ealdgyth and Ian Rose's views would indeed be welcome. Actually, I am surprised at how good many (but not all) of the GA reviews are in the WikiCup, and many of the editors who have commented in this thread and on this page have been WikiCup contestants. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

My concern is with Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#What's changed from last year? - "There is no longer a requirement that you state your WikiCup participation when reviewing a FAC." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That has been there for three years and can be changed. It was introduced by me with this edit, there previously having been a rule "You must declare your WikiCup participation if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC", which was widely disregarded and the purpose of which was unclear. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

A better rule would be "If you perform a FAC review for WikiCup, you must declare in the review that you are doing it for WikiCup, and the review needs to address the Featured Article criteria", perhaps? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Overall FA process discussion

I have been anxiously pondering if and how Brianboulton's shoes can be filled in the FA process. Reviewing Mike Christie's monthly stats does not fill me with hope that FA has the editors to fill his gynormous shoes. And reviewing WP:WBFAN reminds me that we now have way too many FAs with no main editor still watching over them, yet no plan to process older or unwatched FAs through FAR.

With those concerns as the backdrop, I have also been following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article, where several esteemed FA writers are expressing some considerable frustrations, and feeling like "lambs to the slaughter". They express those frustrations as an aspect of how TFA is working, but I see it not as a TFA issue, rather how all three pages (FAC, FAR, TFA) should/could/once did work together. Multiple editors in that discussion expressed the idea that TFA is supposed to make sure that "articles are ready for mainpage".[1] Where does this idea come from? That is FAC and FAR's job. And while resources are combing through every TFA to make sure they are "perfect" and "ready" for mainpage day, resources to assure we are promoting worthy FAs, and demoting the unworthy, are lacking. Many expressed the idea that there are now "too many cooks in the kitchen" at TFA. How can we get some of those cooks more involved at FAC and FAR? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by putting up blurbs a month in advance and trying to "fix" every FA at TFA?

WT:FAC is by far the most watched page in the FA process, so I am starting a new thread here. A broader conversation, including all @FAC coordinators: @WP:FAR coordinators: @WP:TFA coordinators may help us all generate the questions we need to ask ourselves, particularly as we go forward without the stalwart of the FA reviewing process, our beloved Brian. As Victoriaearle said, "My sense is that the either the TFA coords, or the community, need to have a discussion in terms of workflow to make things easier, not more difficult for the editors who research, write, and bring to FA-standard any article ..." Let's do it. Starting by looking at some stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Monthly reviewing stats

• November
• October
• September
• August

Well ... as long as we have Nikkimaria, we have image reviews at least. Source reviews will suffer. Content reviews are already suffering, and have been for some time; one can read through the entire FAC page at any sitting, and find unqualified Supports for ill-prepared articles all over the place-- why aren't other reviewers calling those out? Who is doing/will do copyvio checks and MOS reviews? Not only is Brian gone, but many of Wikipedia's best copyeditors have not been present at FAC for years, and that shows in the level of prose that routinely passes FAC now. Brian was a leader: what is being done to promote his much needed Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC?

The GOCE coordinator said, "I will remind folks that the FAC process is not infallible and things have slipped through. I've seen recent FAs with typos, double negatives, and overly complicated sentence structure. These are not world-ending issues, but neither would I call these examples of 'the best writing on Wikipedia'. Spelling errors shouldn't pass a B-class review, but nobody wants to call an FAR over a typo." Well, yes, I've seen this too (in FACs right under six or seven supports, or in FAs promoted only two weeks ago, or in FA writers who have multiple stars but no FAs); the solution is not to have GOCE going through TFAs of even our accomplished and diligent writers; it is to strengthen FAC and FAR so that they will promote only the worthy and demote the deficient.

I am also concerned about the complete lack of Opposes shown in Mike's stats; we now see as many opposes in a month as I routinely entered in one sitting, each day. The fastest way to an FA is through vigorous use of the Oppose; we can see by the stats below that the environment had a vibrant participation level even in the days of the heavy oppose to move the ill-prepared off the page, so we could better focus on the more likely to succeed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

FACs and FARs by year

How is the overall process doing?

Year	Promoted	Archived	Total	% Promoted	FAs demoted
2018 G	235	147	382	61.5%	29
2017	338	125	463	73.0%	12
2016	227	138	365	62.2%	11
2015	303	182	485	62.5%	51
2014 F	322	183	505	63.8%	24
2013 E	390	261	651	59.9%	29
2012	375	261	636	59.0%	39
2011 D	355	310	665	53.4%	47
2010	513	412	925	55.5%	115
2009 C	522	469	991	52.7%	157
2008 B	719	609	1,328	54.1%	143
2007 A	773	706	1,479	52.3%	192
2006	560	920	1,480	37.8%	201
2005	437	682	1,119	39.1%	61

• ^A. Through 2007, Raul654 handled FAC and TFA alone, but had two FAR delegates (processing 500+ uncited FAs when the inline citation requirement was added)
• ^B. Jan 2008, SandyGeorgia to FAC, Raul654 only at TFA; four director/delegates in total processing 1,328 FACs and about 300 FARs (143 demoted)
• ^C. Mar 2009, Karanacs added as FAC delegate, SG and Karanacs handled all of FAC except rare recusals, Raul handled all of TFA
• ^D. June 2011, Dabomb87 is added as first TFA delegate, later replaced by Bencherlite
• ^E. Sep 2013, FA director position is eliminated by RFC
• ^F. Dec 2014, change to three TFA coordinators
• ^G. In 2018 there were 382 FACs, and less than 50 FARs (29 demoted).

As of the date of this writing, 2019, there are eleven people handling about 1/4 of the overall FA activity relative to 2008, when one person handled FAC, one person handled TFA, and two people handled FAR. The current 365 daily blurbs and considerably reduced activity at FAC and FAR are handled by three FAC coordinators, three FAR coordinators, four TFA coordinators, with Johnboddie also helping write blurbs.

We know one number has stayed the same throughout the years: 365 mainpage blurbs have to be written every year. Raul654, DaBomb87, and Bencherlite did that alone. FAC then was expected to produce a LEAD that could easily be used to generate the mainpage blurb; that was a main concern in reviews. Karanacs and I alone processed around or more than 1,000 FACs per year; Raul, DaBomb and Benherlite rarely complained that the leads weren't adequate for them to quickly generate a blurb. Seeing that we now have four to five people working on every TFA blurb, we might ask if FAC is doing an adequate job of turning out appropriate leads. Seeing that we now have GOCE combing through TFAs, we might ask if the demise of FAR has not come home to hit every TFA, even when it is not deserved.

When FAC processed annually between almost 1,000 to almost 1,500 articles (2005 to 2010), about half of those FACs were promoted, while FAR was also a vibrant page, reviewing deficient FAs and saving the star on a good number of them. Many FAC reviewers and FA writers participated at both pages. As the number of FACs has dropped (to around one-fourth of its high point), the promotion percentage has increased, FAC pages have grown impossibly long, articles are being pulllllllllled up to standard with excruciatingly long commentary, while FAR has gone moribund, and both pages are lacking reviewers. What can be done to address this? Are resources being allocated correctly? Would it be worthwhile to focus more on getting the less prepared noms off the FAC page faster, as we once did? Why is TFA being used to get FAs "mainpage ready", while FAR is moribund? While I understand the frustration of some of our finest writers at having their work criticized unjustly, if the overall pool of FAs is declining (because FAC is turning out less quality, and FAR is not removing the truly deficient), all FAs are judged to that standard (lowest common denominator).

When the FAC and FAR pages were more vibrant, TFA did not expect FAs to be perfect for mainpage day. Running a TFA that needed some fixing was a good way to incentivize editors to join in at FAC and FAR. Now we are dedicating a large portion of our talent pool to writing blurbs and cleaning up FAs to make them "ready" for mainpage day-- but FAC should be producing good leads, FAR should be processing the deficient FAs. FAR has a rule disallowing nomination of an article there within three days of mainpage day, because exposure to the mainpage often results in FAs being improved, and issues being addressed. By putting up TFA blurbs a full month (or more) in advance, are we extending the time that FA writers must devote to dealing with uninformed commentary from people who don't have the sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I posed a lot of questions: I don't have the answers. But it does concern me that, yes, the coordinators need to take leadership of this issue. Coords need to keep stats, observe trends, start discussions, and call out problems in the process, so writers and reviewers aren't "lambs to the slaughter". We have several frustrated FA writers, and the stats above tell an alarming story of the FA process. FA is only as strong as the worst FA out there, and over half of them are deficient. Where to start? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments vs. opposes

Reducing the number of pages folks have to keep track of is a start. Just not sure how that can be streamlined. I think there has been a pickup in activity at FAR from 2018, which is a Good Thing (could still use more eyes though). When did we transclude the FAR page to the bottom of the FAC page. Also Sandy you have to be mindful that many comments at FAC can be read as polite/diplomatic/temporary opposes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that (about the new politeness trend-- I didn't have a hard time making FA friends even though I was the highest opposer). This new "method" is obscuring to new nominators just how much work their FACs require, and leaving the impression that FAC is a place for pulling quite deficient articles up to standard. Put two opposes on the page and see the coords archive right now, so that more resources can be devoted to the more prepared nominations. And start calling out the deficient reviewers, so that the coords are empowered to ignore them (Mike Christie's work reveals that some of our top content reviewers are reviewers who consistently fail to engage the criteria appropriately.) Even with all of this "pulling articles up to standard at FAC", some pretty serious garbage is getting through, and that effort is a misuse of a considerable number of resources, which FAC no longer has sans Brian, Tony, Ealdgyth source reviews, Laser content reviews, Malleus, etc. So now GOCE considers it their remit to copyedit FAs ?? We see over and over at FAC, long lists of prose issues, replacing one short list from Tony1 that would have led to archival and off-FAC copyediting. THAT is how the GOCE should be used-- the nominators can go ask GOCE to copyedit after their FACs are archived. FA writers are clearly giving up, as the stats show; leadership is needed to shine a light on the critical issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We've had several (now archived) discussions about the trend towards not opposing, and it's never come to any conclusion. I could explicate my views on why it is so, but it'd make some serious issues for me as a FAC (and TFA coord). I do wonder if my time might be better spent doing source reviews but the last few times I've started back up, I got a lot of flack and not much support from other reviewers. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, one of the reasons for having multiple coords is that each of you can recuse when necessary. Do it! If you see a remiss source review, show how it should be done! I did it all the time. Remember that I once went over a Karanacs support ((IIRC?) on our dearest Elcobbola's first FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oliver Typewriter Company), took off my FAC delegate hat, recused, and lodged a serious oppose even after Karanacs supported. It was quite an awkward thing to do, and yet we are all still friends, and Elcobbola turned into our most knowledgeable and trusted image reviewer.

The other thing that must be highlighted is that the coords continually and always need support from reviewers to be able to do their "job". We should never lose an Ealdgyth source review. I can understand how you feel, because I feel pressure not to lodge Opposes now even when I see disastrous FACs having multiple supports just above my review demonstrating significant deficiencies that should have led to immediate withdrawal. This trend is not a good thing; if the FA process had booming stats, I would say "great, keep doing what you're doing". But the process continues to do what does not appear to be working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

With regards to the oppose question, perhaps it might help if people were to put down "preliminary oppose" or "hold" for each time they see problems which must be resolved before promotion but can be resolved during the course of FAC - say, a problem with the sourcing of an image - and a plain "oppose" for all instances where the problems can't/shouldn't be fixed during the course of the FAC - as a signal to coordinators that archiving should be considered? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Oppose early, oppose often. It can be struck if issues are quickly addressed. It is not reviewers job to pull ill-prepared articles up to standard, and this weasly polite approach has had a disastrous effect. It is reviewers job to give nominators feedback for improvement, and coords feedback for promote/archive decisions. If we are here to make friends and avoid plain speech, maybe we would be more useful elsewhere. The endless re-discussion of what is clearly not working is divisive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

A good example of what Ealdgyth mentions above is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ghostbusters II/archive1 (and, the earlier Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ghostbusters/archive1, both from Darkwarriorblake). If you oppose over legitimate concerns, you're often met with snarky harangues and demands that you do the work to address the issues you noticed, until eventually you want to walk away. I'll post more thoughts later on but I believe poor nominator–reviewer relations are part of the systemic issues the FA process has faced as a whole. --Laser brain (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Along similar lines, I opposed a FAC, it was archived. It was renominated with few changes. I attempted to be helpful and pointed out some areas of deficiency and how they may have arisen. A thread was started on the FAC talk page suggesting that I was being condescending. Despite an experienced editor rebutting this I have not commented on the FAC since. Laser brain has a point. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the poor nominator-reviewer relations are an obvious given at this stage (and have been for quite some time). Without quality reviewers, the star is meaningless. And so we end up with GOCE combing through even the most worthy of FAs, with the resulting risk of losing even more FA writers.

Laser, you are not only a coord here; you are historically one of FACs finest content reviewers. Yet, many of the finest have either left, or moved into coord positions, so are no longer available to review. Now we've lost Brian, who at least was trying to get a mentoring scheme launched to help new reviewers. I don't see that being promoted, or working at all-- many of the newer reviewers simply don't engage standards.

I am really hoping participants here can-- rather than re-hashing history of how we got here-- begin to come up with a list of questions we might ask ourselves about how the overall process is functioning, how we can improve on the stats above, and how Brian's shoes will be filled. One question is, what has happened to the Oppose button? Another is, are we shooting ourselves in the foot by preparing blurbs over a month in advance? There are many more. Could we focus on those and think of some things we can put forward for discussion, without having those devolve into personalizations as below?

Another issue that is coming to fore as I read through past discussions here is that the coordinators are also being disrespected by FA writers. Why is that being allowed to happen? (Read judicial notice btw; if editors are routinely objecting when the judges are clearly saying "the sky is blue here", there is a problem.) One reviewer actually suggested that a former coordinator (Graham Beards) entered a comment that did not engage the criteria and was not actionable? Threads are being closed by non-coordinators? Seriously? The coords cannot do their job if the community does not support them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A lack of some university employee's interpretation of ghosts as immigrants is not a legitimate concern. I legitimately tried to take on NikkiMarias comments on Ghostbusters 1 and they continuously either didn't answer the question asked or didn't answer at all, so I never had the information I needed to do what they were asking. Then I nominate the second one and you want analysis, of which only essays exist, by people who can't even get character names write who talk about ghosts representing climate change. Interesting and informative analysis is like what is already on Ghostbusters 1, talking about the obvious political ideologies, or at Shawshank Redemption, which I also worked on, talking about the obvious religious implications. The rest is just purely made up abstract nonsense. Each article being brought to FA, at least for me, also takes months of investment of time, so making a high-competence article over MONTHS and being told "Well where is the discussion on how the red bricks making up the buildings represent whether or not there is a God?" is asking me to waste my time on fluff information that adds nothing. There seems to be a distinct lack of respect for the amount of effort a nominator must put in to actually get something to FA level, and a huge lack of inconsistency in how personal perspectives are applied when reviewing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"Now we've lost Brian, who at least was trying to get a mentoring scheme launched to help new reviewers". No he wasn't. At least not directly; as is clear from the thread still at the top of the page, Brian's mentoring was aimed at new FA nominators, not reviewers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator role

(←) I would suggest (and have previously suggested) that in addition to reviewers who Oppose FACs, what we also need is coords who Oppose reviewers... or rather, who take the time to actually weigh the merits of reviewers arguments. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As SlimVirgin pointed out in earlier discussions, the coords need data (even more so with the disrespect aimed the direction of coords these days, where apparently judicial discretion no longer applies). Maralia and I used to generate exactly that data, but it was an extremely time consuming effort; it meant going through every single FAC every single month and assigning a value to each reviewer comment, and then tallying and averaging the values. I rated reviewers not only by number of reviews, but by quality-- more points assigned for reviews that actually contributed to the eventual promote/archive, zero points for negligible effect, and negative points for those that did not engage criteria or supported a FAC that was eventually archived. In other words, I had data to state that editor X was a great content reviewer" in terms of quality, editor Y was a busy reviewer in terms of quantity, and when a quantity reviewer did not show up in the quality category, you can do the math without me having to single out any individual reviewer. It was possible for me to do this when I was (alone) reading 1,300 FACs per year. With the delegation split three ways, I am not sure it is now possible to apply such a metric. (Part of the bigger problem is that we have split the process so many ways that the buck no longer stops anywhere, diluting the authority of the coords,and leading perhaps to the disrespect noted.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No need for such statistics. Just... you know... read the FAC. And shut down spurious Opposes. 'Nuff said. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I fully agree with you. But if the coords are not getting support, they are not empowered to do this. The question to be asked here is, why are the coords not getting the community support they need? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"Community support" and "coord empowerment" are apples and doorknobs. Coords should explicitly say whose arguments are horseshit. Was I plain enough that time? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As you can see in previous discussions, that is no longer working here. IMO, a sense of entitlement has settled in. How can we restore some authority to coords? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I started a thread once to suggest giving coords the authority to evaluate Opposes and call "Bullshit!" on bullshit. The responses ranged between "Meh" to shudders of horror. I have no idea why. Reviewers – especially the old hands – are currently empowered to abuse nominators... You want a concrete suggestion? I suggest a "Howzat Rule", where reviewers are allowed to call on a coord to strike a spurious argument (one or more specific Oppose reason(s), but not the Oppose itself). You'll say, "Chaos will ensue!" But the sore redness of my anal region after the previous FAC that shall remain unwikilinked testifies for the necessity of such a rule ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ling, but this is incredibly outrageous and out of bounds. You're insulting one of our female editors, you've been doing it for years, ceaselessly, and it's unacceptable in my view. Please strike or apologize.

This thread was started because one of our colleagues died, during the holiday season no less, and this is what we get? In his memory let's try to be the gentleman he always was and as collegial. That will get us a long way on this road we're all traveling. Victoria (tk) 00:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

'Read the FAC'. Don't stake out positions without all facts in hand. I am not being un-collegial. I am protecting others from similar gross abuse. And apologies should flow from others to me, sorry, as you would know if you actually took the time to... read the FAC. Which you haven't.... I see Appeal to emotion, Appeal to consequences, and possibly other kinds of appeals (is there an Appeal to solidarity?). What I don't see is "the facts have shown that you are wrong". ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE involvement and prose

Regarding the GOCE. My concern with them regularly copyediting upcoming TFAs is in the potential for conflict (as we have seen already) and greater reluctance by FA writers to have their work run at TFA. And of course their work would be more eagerly accepted at FAC. But I understand that the main page is still an attraction to many, though it is faded from what it once was. My initial thought was to wait and see.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If mainpage day continues to be as frustrating as some have expressed on TFA talk, we are going to lose more FA writers and reviewers. I was hoping the TFA coords could answer Victoria's concern about the new month of mainpage hell, and this new idea that TFAs must be "ready" to "perfect". I was hoping for a discussion about how mainpage day used to be used as a way to find competent editors and reviewers and invite them to FAC and FAR, and where the nitpicky perfection was accomplished (or not :) Is "mainpage readiness" a good use of limited resources, or is it leading to a decline in resources that could be employed at FAC and FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Wearing my TFA coord hat - I don't consider nitpicky stuff as an issue before deciding what goes on TFA. I do make sure anything isn't into obvious FAR territory, but I don't expect ANY article to be perfect. I suspect a lot of the "TFA must be perfect" stems from WP:ERRORS and it's culture of ... well, I can't really say how I regard some of the stuff that gets reported as errors at ERRORS, but that area needs to be looked at as a huge chunk of what is driving the issues with expecting TFAs to be perfect. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Trying to be careful not to enable some of the behaviors seen at ERRORS, we should never stifle criticism. A lot of what I've read as criticism of FA prose could have been written by me. I don't think the problem is ERRORS; I think the problem started with the WP:QAI drive that diverted resources from FAC and FAR and promoted the idea that articles should be "ready" to "perfect" for mainpage, and having a TFA coord dedicated to copyediting mainpage blurbs (rather than focusing on making sure leads are ready when they leave FAC) is exacerbating the trend. TFA should do what you do (schedule articles that are above FAR level), not attempt to make them "perfect". We should be careful not to live in a bubble and ignore external critics (although some of them may be quacks) when there are demonstrable issues that could be addressed within the FA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot to unpack and discuss here (that I hope to get to later this week), but I want to second Ealdgyth's suggestion that much of the 'TFA and the associated FA must be perfect' stems from ERRORS. Not taking a stance on whether they should be or not, but I think that's where the idea stems from. Kees08 (Talk) 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the idea that FACs must approximate to perfection stems very directly from the earlier (but, thank goodness, now deprecated/erased/expunged) Brilliant Prose™ requirement. Which ironically is harked back too, IIRC, by some of those people in this room. Plus ça change. ——SN54129 16:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"Some of the people in this room" could show you multiple recently promoted FAs that not only do not have "brilliant" prose; they are full of pure gibberish that doesn't even rise to the level of GA. It is little wonder we have GOCE people crawling through the wrong articles by the wrong writers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

1a is still a criterion. (well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;) --Izno (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct. "Brilliant prose" is not being argued; adequate writing is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If this discussion is going to have legs, we need diffs for some of the more—florid?—assertions. ——SN54129 17:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No we don't need diffs for opinions that are not targeting any individual. I have no intention of pointing fingers at specific articles or writers at this juncture. The problems are more appropriately identified at the FAC stage, going forward. Since this is an opinion shared and expressed by many editors in many places, it is better dealt with openly than denying it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"we don't need diffs for opinions that are not targeting any individual" If you're challenged to back up your assertions, and refuse to do so, then don't be surprised if people are disinclined to believe you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to disbelieve me, as I have no intention at this stage to have this topic devolve into a personalized discussion of the work of individual editors or reviewers, when there are broader issues at hand. Do either you or Serial Number 54129 have any feedback regarding the two sections of data I have posted above, in relation to how FAC, FAR and TFA are to continue forward, particularly in the absence of Brian, who was doing a considerable share of the work, along with Nikkimaria? Are you unable or unwilling to address the data above without personalizing a discussion in a way that will put both writers and reviewers in an uncomfortable position? Do either of you have any suggestions of questions we might be asking here that will improve those stats and help fill Brian's shoes? If you want a current example of reviewers who rank high in Mike Christie's stats, but whose Supports do not appear to engage the criteria, anyone can see my most recent review, backed by another experienced FA writer, after two supports were entered, but focusing on that one specific example will not be helpful, as there are many just like it every time I look at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with PotW and SN here: adding a third voice here as someone who wants to see examples of recent "failures" that have passed. Without examples then we're picking at straws in the wind without anything useful to add and not knowing what is reality and what is perceived. Stats can show and mislead a lot without anything more concrete that people can examine. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I answered your question at 14:55. Here is a diff in case you are unable to find which recent review I referenced in that post.

If you have an example of the stats misleading, please expound. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Obviously it wasn't an answer, as my post came afterwards saying there were no examples that we could examine. At least you have provided something we can look at now. Yes, two people supported this before Gog spotted problems and suggested a withdrawal; but isn't this a case of FAC working? It's not like GA reviewing when one slack review gets an article through, but more of a 'team sport' where it only takes one (possibly two) opposes to sink the nomination. In this case I suspect Gog would have opposed to ensure the article was withdrawn (he will be able to confirm/deny), and this wouldn't have passed the process. You opened this thread to talk about "deficient" articles being passed, but where's the evidence of this please? Not from articles that are still going through thre process and can still be opposed, but the ones you claim are being promoted in a deficient state. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I answered your question at 14:55.

The sample is an example of opposes (not worded as such) being provided only after I weighed in. I have little doubt this FAC would have been promoted had I not; it is not atypical of many recent FACs.

Are you able to discuss the problem when reviewers who lodge premature supports figure prominently in Mike Christie's content review data, and yet no one addresses those issues at FAC talk? Are you able to discuss the issue that FAC nominations are being prolonged unnecessarily because of samples like this? Are you able to discuss whether this trend clogs the page and impedes indepth review of more prepared FACs? Those are broader questions, yet you insist on personalizing and at this stage, I think you are evading discussion of broader issues.

Serial Number, Do not edit other person's posts.

Are you willing to offer any of your reviews for third-party (F&F) analysis? If not, please don't expect me to start pointing fingers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1. You obviously did not answer the question I posted after 14:55.

2. I am glad you have a crystal ball and can predict which articles will be promoted. It had only received TWO reviews before you joined in – and you have absolutely no idea what other reviewers would have said.

3. No, I'm not able to discuss them, because you haven't provided any evidence of any problems. I'm not being obtuse, or awkward, or trying to claim all is right with the world, but without hard examples all the complaints are just walls of talk bemoaning the passing of the glory days. I don't have those rose-tinted spectacles, but I do want to discuss things when we have identified the problems properly, and that hasn't happened yet in 7,833 words of prose. I am not talking about personalising things and I'm not evading anything: waffling around generalisations without agreeing on what are actual problem rather than people perceived ones, ends up with over 7,500 words of piss and wind and nothing concrete to work on.

4. I apologise profusely for correcting "Johnbod" to "Johnboddie"; I thought that was being helpful.

4. Just like everyone else's, my reviews and FACs are, obviously, all a matter of public record. It is not for me to select which should or should not be reviewed by anyone for whatever purpose. – SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC) (Post EC edit at SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC))

SG, Bold claims needs strong sources, as they say: and that does not just apply in article space. So: {{cn}} to your claim that there are multiple recently promoted FAs that...are full of pure gibberish that doesn't even rise to the level of GA. I do not undertsand why you feel the need to insut the FAC coords like this. ——SN54129 17:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Cat, Sorry for the edit conflict; I am unfamiliar with SN or the numbers after their name, so was not specific enough.

The FAC I gave as an example was nominated on 7 October. When I engaged on 18 Nov (over a month after it should have been a quick Suggest withdrawal) it had two supports. Gog engaged on 13 Dec … almost a month after I did, and more than two months after nomination. If you believe this is not an indication that there are problems in the FA process overall, then we will have to disagree.

Meanwhile, complex, interrelated and long-standing issues often require lengthy discussion to generate consensus as to whether there are questions we should/could put forward to the community to help improve the stats I gave above, and fill Brian's shoes. If you disagree, at least please stop filling the page with posts and bytes that basically demand that I personalize the discussion, and impede discussion of broader questions, when I have explained why I will not do that now. (I interpret your response as, no, you are not willing to volunteer for F&F; please correct if I am wrong.)

@SN, I am beginning to wish I were still unfamiliar with your name and tactics. You are welcome to disagree, but I am not going to continue to answer questions already answered.

I have no intention of insulting the FAC coords; rather, this discussion is intended to ask if we are giving them what they need to keep the page moving optimally. The example I give in this post suggests reviewers are not. Do you have any helpful suggestions regarding the length of time ill-prepared noms are staying on the page because of lack of review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not demanding you personalise anything. As SN has pointed out above, I'm just asking for examples of "multiple recently promoted FAs that ... are full of pure gibberish that [don't] even rise to the level of GA". This isn't about the individuals involved per se, but the review process. I am sorry that we appear to be talking past each other on this point, but the sweeping generalisations don't help identify if there is actually a problem. If we don't identify if there is actually a problem, there is no way we can act to overcome that problem.

"I interpret your response as, no, you are not willing to volunteer for F&F": I have not said that. I have said that all my reviews—like every single other review undertaken at FAC—are available for access by anyone. If anyone wants to revisit them for whatever purpose, there is nothing I can do to stop them. My words have been released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I encourage both of you to substitute my "gibberish" with F&F's better defined "content-specific usage, coherence, and encyclopedic accessibility". That a competent prose reviewer raises the same issue might suggest something (beyond my poor use of an ill-defined colloquialism)?

OK, I take your response as a "yes"; I encourage both you and SN to lead the way on this, as suggested in the section below, so that my personalization concerns are resolved should we do an in-depth analysis at some point (Which Is Not Now) after the broader issues are addressed.

You did not answer my query as to whether in your view the time the FAC that Gog and I reviewed was on the page is indicative of ways we could begin to generate suggestions of questions to put to the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we're still going round in circles here. Do you have any examples of "multiple recently promoted FAs" which have "content-specific usage, coherence, and encyclopedic accessibility" problems "that [don't] even rise to the level of GA"? Again we're back to needing evidence of what the perceptions of the problem are. I will quote Andy Mabbett, (which isn't something I do often): "If you're challenged to back up your assertions, and refuse to do so, then don't be surprised if people are disinclined to believe you". I'm going to disengage from all of this now because getting turned down over and over again with a fairly simple request is not helping anyone, least of all the FAC process. Let me know when you've redesigned the process and how it has changed. Until than, I'll keep buggering on with whatever else I'm doing. - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Content-specific usage, coherence, and encyclopedic accessibility

In my experience, which lately has been limited, the bigger "prose" problems at FAC are those of content-specific usage, -coherence, and encyclopedic accessibility. In other words, they are not always of syntax, where GOCE can clearly help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. How is your time in the New Year? If I were to subpage for you some samples of recently promoted FAs with specifically those issues (with some basic GOCE stuff as well), would you have time and would you be willing to take an indepth look at these samples? There is a problem in how this might be done in a way that avoids personalizing the matter, but we have to start somewhere. With an absence of the type of prose scrutiny FAC once had, and your participation being limited, I am hoping that your voice might be heard. With the types of FACs they are having to read through now, the current coords have my sympathy, and are doing the best they can, but some examples might help reviewers and writers alike. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sure. PS I do have some time over the holidays. I could try reviewing a few FACs. I won't oppose or support, just comment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Thanks, but it is a different question that I am asking-- one that you might not be willing to do. If I were to provide sample recently promoted FAs that have (IMO) the very problems you mention, but are slipping through FAC, would you be willing to engage those? I will understand if you say, "not a chance" :) :) Just above your post to this thread, you will see an insistence that examples be provided, and it's hard to see how to do that without the risk of personalizing the matter. As your prose is quite competent, perhaps your voice will be heard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry, I should have said something more than just, "Sure."  :) Yes, that was in response to your question: I'll be happy to critique those samples. As for the personalizing bit, you could ask people to volunteer their FAs, and then look for samples in them, or I could. Such people might feel less defensive about being under scrutiny. The PS was something related, but not the same. I could, in addition, critique some current FACs for similar issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Great! I am hoping we could work towards something like the writing tutorials that Tony1 created years ago, but looking specifically at the problem areas you mention. It would be grand if FA writers here generally volunteered (as in, "sure, take any of mine"), but we need specific examples, and I know where to find them if no one volunteers. I am thinking of a subpage format.

But, I would like to first see this general discussion of overall FA process issues cover better ground, as I am concerned that as soon as examples of one issue only (declining prose) are provided, the discussion will degenerate to the specific without having addressed the general ... so I am in no hurry. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Main page blurbs

A lead is not the same as a blurb. MOS:LEAD: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Whereas a blurb has to be between 925 and 1,025 characters. A blurb normally has to be a condensation of the lead, covering only some of the most important points. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, presumably everyone posting on this page is aware of that. I have seen leads get through FAC that are so poorly written that it is no wonder that the TFA coords are having to work so hard to extract a blurb. I don't recall that Raul or DaBomb or Bencherlite had that problem to that extent.

What questions do we need to be asking on the topic of leads coming out of FAC relative to what the TFA coords need to write a blurb? Is it really necessary to write blurbs over a month in advance? Is this trend helping or hurting the process? Raul chose articles on average three to seven days in advance (my impression, I have no stats to back that up), and "mainpage day hell" began at that point, sometimes leading to article improvement; regardless of the other problems (the times when TFA was scheduled at the very last minute), is "mainpage day hell" overly prolonged now as a result of greater lead time?

Is the drive to improve articles at the TFA stage helping or hurting the overall process (relative to what the role of FAR is supposed to be)?

Are the rules at FAR now too strict, considering we have finished processing the 500+ uncited articles, but now have thousands more FAs that are likely out of compliance, many unwatched by their original writers? When an article is scheduled a month in advance at TFA, it can't be brought to FAR in that interim (if one accepts the spirit of the FAR rules, which is that TFA results in article improvement). So, for example, I am now watching a November promotion that is an extremely deficient FA. That can't be brought to FAR for six months. But it is already being proposed for the mainpage. Yikes. And yet, if I bring forward the problems now, that creates a different problem: GOCE editors combing through a TFA, making things even harder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I'm going to be fucking blunt here - if folks expect me to do TFA selection like Raul did, I'll be stepping down. I find it's much easier to do a whole month in one fell swoop and it lets me balance the month in regards to topics being more evenly spread out. It also was something that a lot of folks wanted - more lead time and notice that an article of theirs was going to be on the main page. With regard to articles I've shepherded through FAC that end up as TFA, I haven't noticed any difference in how hellish the whole time is compared to the old system. It's not the experienced editors that are usually teh trouble with TFAs, it's the well-meaning idiots who know nothing about the subject and who show up only while the article is actually on the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Эlcobbola _talk 16:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

To both of my esteemed colleagues, I don't believe I (or anyone) is suggesting that. An analysis of what is currently not working would be more helpful. Is a month really needed? The article that is currently being combed through by GOCE is nowhere near the poor quality of the problematic FAs that could warrant that kind of scrutiny. It appears that having attention brought to that article for weeks has made the situation more difficult and extended. Suggestions for making this process work better? Or questions we can put to the broader community? If FA writers and reviewers are leaving the process, what can we propose that may help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think a month is useful as it allows for certain fixes that don't happen on TFA day - updating the article with new sources that were published in the interim for example. We need much better behavioural expectations; for example, nominators need to be aware that reviewers are under no obligation to fix any issue by themselves; reviewers need to consider commenting on earlier comments by others, such as on issues pointed out by earlier reviewers. Drawing more people to review FACses might allow us to find someone that can replace Brianboulton and could also resolve the FAC-is-slow issue that is sometimes complained about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Response to "Now we are dedicating a large portion of our talent pool to writing blurbs ... but FAC should be producing good leads" Regardless of its origins, it isn't stated anywhere that a lead should also act as a blurb, which has separate criteria for acceptance. So a new blurb would have to be written in any case for each TFA, as few leads are as short as what's required, not because they aren't well-written. And that's why they are written months in advance and worked on by various editors, because they have to be re-purposed from the leads in any case. If we don't want that extra work, we need to consolidate the lead and blurb criteria. At present, that seems impossible, since lead-length logically depends on article-length, whereas blurb length is maximum 1,025 characters, which requires heavy cutting (and compromise, hence discussion) once an article hits TFA. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• If the reasoning for past practices is no longer clear, then we really do need to consolidate as you say. But I suspect that WIAFA already says what it needs to say. While they aren't around to confirm, I am more than fairly certain that earlier mainpage blurb writers took the blurbs from the LEAD. In fact, I am fairly certain that Raul stated once that the reason that WP:WIAFA emphasizes the lead is to facilitate mainpage blurb writing. Was this not helpful? Is FAC focusing enough on leads? If TFA coords are having to go beyond the lead to write a condensed blurb, then I can see why we have issues occurring, and perhaps we need to discuss this specific aspect in depth. @WP:TFA coordinators , are you currently taking blurb content from more than the lead? If so, does that practice acknowledge that the FA writer already put (in theory) the most significant summary info in the lead? Or are you finding that the leads don't give you enough to work with and you are having to make significant changes or additions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't say why the two have diverged over time, but Dank has worked extensively on the blurbs, so might have some thoughts. I also remember pretty much copying leads to the TFA requests rather than re-writing them like today, so I think the main issue is that blurb length range has become much shorter relatively recently. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, for the last 2.5 years maybe. (I could look it up). The aim was to make blurb length more consistent, to reduce the number of times we got an earful from the Main Page people (and just generally to avoid jerking people around). Since a fair number of blurbs were short-ish, the only way to be consistent was to make all of them short-ish. Trial and error eventually got us to blurbs of 925 to 1025 characters, and people seem to be remarkably happy with that. To Sandy's question: for everyone here who's ever compared a blurb with a FAC you nommed or worked on (which is probably everyone): has there been anything substantive that showed up in a blurb that wasn't in the lead that didn't seem right to you? If so, did you raise the issue then (or would you like to raise it now)? I'm not saying it never happens, but it's rare, and generally the reason is transparent, I hope. - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know of a case where we're included material that wasn't in the lead (although I would like to be able to do so) but there is frequently a lot of to-and-fro over what should be omitted to bring the word count down. The blurb is usually written from scratch. Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Buzz Aldrin/archive1 contains a good series of blurb candidates that illustrate the process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the input. So it sounds like you are saying there is not a general problem with the leads coming out of FAC, insofar as having what you need to write blurbs. Is that the case? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No complaints here. The leads almost always give me enough to work with. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As I have a FA coming up onto the mainpage in a couple of days, and as I have already expressed my uncertainties about the added value of the GOCE in the other discussion, I'll take this opportunity to say that I have no issues with Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Brothers Poem/archive1 – it looks fine to me. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where exactly to put this, but as a new FACer, I think the way Dank has been writing blurbs is more transparent and allows for nominator feedback while they are still around and fresh on the topic. I also have not had problems with GOCE copyedits changing the meaning of articles I have asked them to work on, though I am sure the experience varies based on the topic and the copy editor. Kees08 (Talk) 16:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Nominations page

I unfortunately do not have time to fully flesh out my thoughts on this due to being busy IRL, but I want to get the discussion going. I was doing a decent number of image reviews, but I found I was searching for image reviews to do more than actually performing them. If there was a way to see on the nomination page if an image or source review had been started or completed, that could facilitate others to join those areas. I imagined a template that would be updated on each nomination page, and not transcluding the entire nomination on the FAC page as we do now, but form it more similar to the WP:GAN page. I have trouble getting the FAC page to load as it is. My main point of these rambling thoughts is a way to determine if source/image reviews have been performed while on the nominations page would help people like me who want to do it occasionally but not consistently enough to keep a subpage like Boulton did. Kees08 (Talk) 16:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This could potentially be integrated into WP:NOMV, though I wouldn't mind seeing a bot-updated summary table on the main FAC page that highlights nominations in need of specific reviews. SounderBruce 03:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Would a bot updated FAC page, with reviews occurring on subpages of the article talk pages, which is how it is done at GA, be an appropriate direction to take? @Hawkeye7:, do you have any thoughts or ideas on this subject? Mostly concerned about overall page size of FAC (I have decent internet and a decent computer, and have trouble loading it), and denoting whether source/image reviews have been performed. Easiest path is probably updating the nominations viewer as SounderBruce suggested, but making it so all reviewers have to install a JavaScript extension to review brings the barrier to review up, and hurts our efforts to increase the number of reviewers here. Seeing what we can do to increase reviewer participation from a UX perspective. Kees08 (Talk) 16:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

FAR and FARC participation

I do not participate in these areas. The last time I tried, I looked at discussion in both places and was confused at how they worked. I did not spend the time to get familiar enough with how they worked to participate. While the obvious answer is 'spend more time figuring it out so you can participate', is there any way for us to make it more obvious? Would there be any benefit to combining the two processes? Kees08 (Talk) 16:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in there, Kees08; it is my opinion that the moribund FAR is the single, biggest problem affecting the overall process.

On the matter of combining the two processes, I believe the summary of old (and in my case, current) thinking is that FAR must be a very deliberative, methodical process in ways that significantly differ from FAC. While FAC is more, "is there consensus that this is article is ready", FAR must allow for the possibility that even quite deficient bronze stars can be saved, and about half the time, they are. Do we want to open up to a process that encourages the loss of a star in the timeframe and consensus manner that we confer a star, rather than repair of a deteriorated article, which can take months? Hence, a very different process. Because of limited participation, FAR is seeing the same issue as FAC, which is reviews dragging on much too long. But for coordinators to be empowered to boldly close FACs or FARs, they need community support, which they aren't getting now IMNSHO.

I am glad you raised something I have been concerned about: is it time to change the FAR process instructions. But before attempting that, it is important to understand the historical reasons the instructions are what they are, and the typical problems that led to the instructions. Before 2006, FAs were not required to have inline citations. When that requirement was added, a strict application of WIAFA would have meant that half of the FAs lost status. And, it would be unfair to bring ten articles written by one editor to FAR at one time, as adding inline citations is so time-consuming. And, it is unhelpful for FAR nominators to bring an article to FAR without having attempted discussion to address issues on talk. And, it is unwise to bring a FAR around mainpage day because much improvement happens during mainpage exposure. Many considerations in a process that was set up initially to try to save stars when the FA requirements changed. So, while it may be time to change the instructions, it will be of little use to tweak instructions on a page that right now no one is paying attention to. If we can re-invigorate the process, then figuring out what instructions are needed would help.

The key problem now is that, because there has been no attempt (since Maralia and I gave up in 2015, see Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox and Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox/Archive 1) to systematically look at which older FAs need to be evaluated, we don't know what kind of process might best facilitate review of older FAs. One thing we had started to do was figure out which original writers were no longer active or no longer updating their articles, and we got pretty well into that before we quit, and that only scratches the surface. We took three years to get inline citations added to 523 FA identified in 2006; now I estimate that there are at least 2,000 FAs that need to be looked at.

Contrasted with the 2006 to 2011 period, when so many of the active FA writers and reviewers were also active at FAR, there seems to be no motivation to clean up the older FAs; the best I can tell, that is because most of them have already run on the mainpage, so no one cares, while we are overly focused these days on cleaning up only that which is going mainpage. That trend, in and of itself, means FAR isn't being used as it should be/could be ... let the deficient FAs run, so that the broader community will start to use FAR. By running articles only after we have combed through them, we deceive ourselves and the community about the overall state of the FA pool. The latest star is no better than the worst star, and the entire process loses credibility and prestige when we allow a huge percentage of our FAs to stay on the books when they are not up to standard. And we constantly see editors pointing to an older FA as an example, even when that FA is deficient (so have to go through the usual WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument). Aslo, having spent the better part now of six to eight years working outside of our "FA bubble", I am realizing that FAs are just no longer held in high regard, because so many are deficient. In my area (medicine) it is quite clear that editors are no longer interested in producing top content, and for a project that historically saw considerable growth in its annual FA production (see some of the stats I kept at the talk page of WP:FAS, which by the way no one concerns themselves with anymore), has not had an FA for almost five years-- several over there scoff at the very notion of working an article to FA standard. This is a problem affecting all of us, as well as overall quality-- FAs are supposed to be an example of Wikipedia's best work, and to many of them no longer are. Unless we recognize the impact and extent of the problem, it seems premature to start tweaking the instructions, although they are certainly too cumbersome for the number of deficient FAs we are facing today.

Appreciate that you asked, hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't sure where to factor this comment, but I use the cleanup listing of good articles to find what needs work in that project. We could have a listing created for featured articles if desired. I discussed with Aircorn at some point creating a custom cleanup listing that would only list articles that do not meet the good article criteria, but we did not get anywhere with it (even if such a listing was created, it did not seem like there was an appetite to work on it). Kees08 (Talk) 21:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

One already exists for Featured Articles [2]. I would still be keen to create a better designed one for Good Articles, but lack the technical expertise. AIRcorn (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Holy, crap; 20% of FAs have cleanup tags? But many of those are in minor categories, so I'm not sure if that will lead us to the most problematic FAs. It's a start, but no list will do us any good if we don't find a way to incentivize the FA community to participate at FAR. Saving a star was once a source of great pride among the old FA community. That no longer seems to be the case. So how can we get people to realize that an effort to review the older and unwatched FAs is needed? As the FA pool ages and deteriorates, the lack of quality associated with FA affects us all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It is usually a good start; I clicked on one and was led to Comet Hyakutake which has a lot of citation needed tags. Could be due to inline citations not being required at the time of promotion. The next I clicked was Titan (moon), also missing a lot of citations. Not sure what to do with it, but it is a good starting point. Kees08 (Talk) 03:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I looked at Comet Hyakutake; it is very old and probably unwatched; none of those editors are around anymore. There are indications on talk that some text is inaccurate, and there are citation needed tags. FAR requires that you give notice on article talk, in case someone will work on it. I have done that: [3]. The process is, you wait a few weeks, and if no one engages, you nominate it at FAR. Then you notice all Wikiprojects and involved editors. Someone may engage to save the star. If improvements are made, the FAR (featured article review) can be closed without a FARC (featured article removal candidate), which is the phase where editors !vote to Keep or Delist. So, that's the process; when you see a deficient FA, the first step is to leave a talk page notice.

My broader concern is that with thousands of FAs needing review, we need to discuss how to engage people and speed up the process. Maybe some clever person can make a bot notice all the talk pages of FAs on the cleanup list. A few weeks after notification, anyone can nominate them to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The cleanup list looks worst than it is. I know for example that the {{asof}} template triggers it. At the good article one I ignore most categories with over 100 entries as they are usually too minor to worry about (although the standards will be higher here so they may be more of a concern). BTW I instigated the Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches page. I remember manually checking the FA mismatches but after not finding very many mistakes didn't bother persueing it. Given some of the converstaion here it might be a useful addition. You could probably get it transcluded at the top of the talk page like the wikiprojects do with article alerts as I would imagine there would only be the odd one every now and again. AIRcorn (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

PS, I left of another helpful piece of history. (If you read some of the old {{FCDW}} you can find lots of FA process history-- so disappointed we have no such initiative today as the Dispatches, which kept the community informed about content review processes via the Signpost.) There was a period (I think 2005?) when "Refreshing Brilliant Prose" was launched to look at every FA, but there were less than 1,000 then. In the "Refreshing" phrase, there was a straight-up consensus !voting process to simply remove the deficient stars. Whether we are at a point of needing to go to something like that, as opposed to trying to "save bronze stars" could be discussed. Apologies for very fast typing, I am hosting a big holiday party tomorrow ... if anyone wants to fix my obvious typos, go ahead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I suspect one reason why FA is no longer looked up to is because there isn't much focus on the content. The impression many outside the FA-bubble get is that FA is only concerned with prose styling and MOS nitpicking. Even many of the source reviews spend more time worrying about whether or not the formatting of the citations is okay without worrying about whether or not the citations support the text. And there is considerable push-back when reviewers try to point out missing sources. Frankly, I'd prefer it if we dropped the worries about the prose style (and the endless laundry lists of prose tweaks that many times are not actually improving readablity but rather are pure style) and actually tried to engage a bit with the content. But I've been bleating about this for years and for years my concerns are ... well, I can't say brushed aside but at least not taken up. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Aye, when one looks at FACses today one often seems much more commentary on text rather than content; laundry list of style issues are much more common than laundry lists of source issues. Perhaps that's coloured by me writing in a off-the-beaten-path area of Wikipedia, but it's easy to get the impression that it's all a prose matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is finding subject-matter experts to do those content reviews. I'm willing to tackle most historical articles, but my fragmentary memories of college biology and astrophysics don't qualify me to evaluate those kinds of articles, so I can only really evaluate prose on them if I'm not doing a source review. And I expect that most, if not all, reviewers are in a similar boat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing from the current cords how they handle content area experts. My process was to make sure there were many different kinds of reviews. We needed a topic area expert on, for example, physics before I would pass an FA. We also needed non-topic-area reviews to make sure the articles were digestible to those not familiar with that content areas. And, whenever there were groups of similarly-focused editors who always supported each others' work, I tried not to promote until someone from outside that group had looked in. When a topic-area expert had not showed up on a FAC, I kept a list in my back pocket, and openly requested on their talk pages a review from them. That is, I had go-to reviewers in physics, chemistry, film, and so on. Is this still done? If content area experts are reviewing FACs, other reviewers can focus on other things-- like, is the article coherent and accessible (the Fowler&Fowler list above, which I agree is missing). I didn't care that I had to ping reviewers to a FAC: I did not want to promote without a topic expert reviews. Example: Venezuelan film, hello! Old-timers all know I speak Spanish, and edit Venezuelan topics, but neither Steve (a very competent film editor who authored The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)) nor I were pinged or emailed. For a coord to neutrally ask for a content area knowledgeable FA reviewer or writer to look into a nom is not canvassing, and we should be doing that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Back in 2016, there was a lot of pushback from the FAC writers over the increasing complexity of the MOS. There was a perception that some people were attempting to control the Featured Articles through changing the MOS. In fact, I thought we had agreed to no longer require full MOS conformance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Ealdgyth, hear hear. Personal preference for , "oppose, prose is not up to snuff, here are a few samples, get an independent copyedit, come back and we will examine other significant matters," but no I am not going to pull your article through line by line when we have thousands of FAs that need review, but that kind of oppose is rarely seen today. So, at least by the time I get to a FAC these days, a ton of that has already happened, but no one has looked yet at the issues that should have been looked at before the prose was nitpicked. FAC is not peer review (yes, I realize peer review is dead; by doing that work at FAC, are we exacerbating the problem?)

@Jo-Jo, considering what we just saw the GOCE do to one TFA, I am going to focus on reminding frequent nominators of the MOS things they need to do before approaching FAC, with the idea that we shouldn't have to focus on those things among the knowledgeable, and we shouldn't have GOCE editors of the opinion that FAs need significant MOS and copyediting. Ugh.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we still want feedback from reviewers who are not topic-area experts or knowledgeable, and may not feel qualified to examine issues of substance, but can offer a MOS or citation formatting review. We don't need to discourage those; we need to mentor and encourage the correct type of content, sourcing and prose reviews.

@Hawkeye7, I did a ton of MOS-y stuff to make sure articles were OK before promotion ... but … I also ignored a lot of MOS stuff, which I thought ridiculous. but don't tell anyone I said that :) I think we need to be practical wrt MOS, and I believe we once were. IF some nit-pickers want to comb through every TFA and fix every item, let 'em do it! But we can't openly ignore MOS: we are supposed to be Wikipedia's best work.

But we are getting off-topic on how to re-purpose FAR to deal with the many older FAs, who may no longer be watched or updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I can have the FACBot go through all the Featured Articles and identify the worst ones, but we have no process for correcting them. FAR is different from FAC. Consensus that an article meets the standard is good enough at FAC but not at FAR. No amount of good faith efforts can save an article at FAR, so it is pointless to even try. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Really? I am pretty certain I've seen FARs closing as "keeps FA" status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you have a painful experience with an article, there, Hawkeye, and I sympathize. But my response at WT:FAR stands. I believe there are still issues identified in the FAR that you could correct, and re-submit the article to FAC. I know that was a most unpleasant experience for you, and I'm sorry. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

PS, I just had a look at Albert Kesselring, and it is still showing as a GA and an A-class article. The bot used to strip all assessments, and new assessments were needed. Is that still done? I don't see a new GA or A-class review on talk... what has changed in the bot processing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:They were readded by Hawkeye7 in this edit, which I don't think is correct - my impression is that passing FAC removes something's GA status and losing FA status does not restore GA status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Losing FA does not involve losing A-class status. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks … that reminds me of another maintenance issue I regularly did and am not sure is still being done … check the category for FAs and see if the tally there matches the tally at WP:FA, that is, did someone add or remove a star. Also, check the category for FACs to find untranscluded FACs (that is, the number of FACs on the page does not match the number in the category). Is someone doing these tasks, to help out the coords, these days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The FACBot checks for untranscluded FACs and reports them to me. I normally chase them up. There is one or two every week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; is anyone routinely checking that the number of FAs at WP:FA matches the number that carry the star?

Back on the FACbot issue; it is not historically trued that losing FA status did not involve losing A-class status; GimmeBot stripped all assessments, and it was up to Projects or GA to reassess.

Are you going to remove the GA you reinstated at Albert Kesselring or should someone else do that?

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: , if the MilHist coordinators have decided A-class can be reinstated on demoted FAs, that is one thing, but what about the other WikiProjects, eg Bio, Germany, Aviation? You restored A-class to several assessments,[4] and you can't assess an article you wrote. When FACBot removed the star at Heinrich Bar, it did not reinstate A-class.[5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

We have sharing agreements with WP:AVIATION, WP:SHIPS and WP:AUSTRALIA. Starting in the New Year, the FACBot will automatically restore A-class to FAR articles that been delisted, and qualify for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: is anyone routinely checking...

Hi Sandy, it's me, Outriggr. You might remember me from FAs such as <cough>. You inspired me to compare the FA list with Category:Featured articles and Category:Wikipedia featured articles (!), and all it took to reconcile all three to the 5,686 total was one correction to an ArticleHistory template. (Never mind the numbers given in the category(s); apparently they are permanently stale and wrong.) I was surprised at how consistent it all was. This was a one-time deal. Enjoy the party. Outriggr (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatdya mean, one-time deal, Outriggr? You bum, how is FAR to get re-invigorated without you? Seeing you and Yo-man show up in the same week rocks. Thank you for doing that, dear Riggrs; a big (dead) tree attached to a hammock knocked whatever sense I had left out of me a while back, and I forget how I used to do such things :) :) Wonderful to know you and the family are still following here, and thanks for the reminder of how much help we all gave each other in keeping the shop running. I imagine it took you a while to find that error, and the work is appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I found an error on Guy Burgess: it was on the list but not in the category. I run this check if I notice that the number of articles at https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Featured_articles.html mismatches the number on the list. (Burgess had been removed from the category by mistake on 10 December.) DrKay (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(←) So in all seriousness, why don't we just skip all the discussion, nominate you to be an additional coord, and get it over with? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You would not like to know how I would answer that fully, so I’ll keep it brief. No.

And it is not my impression that there is a problem with coords. The stats above indicate to me that there is a problem with process. If noms are staying on the page for months, those nominators cannot bring forward other noms, and there is a lot of misuse of resources, and output declines. This will only get addressed if everyone cares enough to take an impersonalized look at the issues, and productive discussion leads us to items we should put forward to each other as an RFC ... ways to change FAR rules, initiatives for mentoring, better support for coords to move ill-prepared noms off the page, re-launch the Dispatches, whatever ... but these things come out of active discussion among engaged participants. This community needs to work for itself rather than thinking eight, ten, eleven or tweleve coords can invigorate a page that has process issues. Four coords processed over 1,500 FACs and FARs in 2008; eleven coords are processing less than 500 today. More chiefs are not needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Good answer!  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll note that standards back in 2008 were considerably lower than they are now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Past discussions on subject matter experts: Wikipedia novice subject matter experts as reviewers, A proposal for WikiJournals to become a New Sister Project. More may exist, trying to add what I can to facilitate discussion. Kees08 (Talk) 21:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

One nom at a time

We already went through this. The coords were not willing to drop the one-at-a-time rule. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Those who were around at the time know that the one-at-a-time-and-a-penalty-if-it-doesn't-pass rule was introduced for good reason. Certain people—and one Wikiproject in particular—were taking a "fling everything that's over a certain length at FAC and see if anything sticks" approach, which led to a lot of reviewers wasting a lot of time reviewing huge stacks of articles that weren't ready. (This was the RFC that led to it.) I wouldn't have an objection to removing the requirement provided we kept the "if it fails you have to wait" part to discourage inappropriate nominations. ‑ Iridescent 20:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Some 'one-at-a-time' discussions RfC - Proposal to relax the "one at a time" rule, Query re: one-at-a-time rule, and many more. Kees08 (Talk) 21:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"One nom at a time" is not what is holding up to the page, or at least, should not be if the Coords are using their discretion. As Iri explained, it was quite necessary when it was instated to curb the abuse of some nominators. It has always been possible for the Coords to grant exceptions for nominators who are helping keep the process moving forward. Prime and top examples are/were Cas liber and Brain boulton. Cas invariably digs in to the tough reviews that fall to the bottom of the page, and is often the only experienced reviewer to dig in. Brian was doing the lion's share of source review work, and doing content review as well. Both of them brought prepared nominations to the page: either of them could likely have gotten permission any time they want to nominate five FACs at a time, because a) they could handle it, b) they didn't put up work that had to be pulled through, and c) they did more than their share in reviewing to help the lesser prepared noms.

I would go the opposite direction Iri mentions and ask the coords to use their discretion to help solve the backlog; do not grant an exception to any nominator who wants to put up a second or third unless those experienced nominators agree to review the bottom five (and call bullshit on 'em if they don't do a solid review, or give enough info to either promote or archive). It may be fun to dig in to the well-prepared, well-written articles and nitpick prose, but the backlog is in the problematic FACs that no one is engaging soon enough. When a FAC sits at the bottom of the page for two months with no feedback, that is six weeks of lost work. Archive soon, archive often, give the nominator some direction as to what to work on before they come back, so those people can get to work and bring back a better prepared article. Empower the coords to use their discretion as to who can put up multiple noms: we all know Cas can handle it, and we all know who is doing reviews to help the backlog. Keep the rule-- empower the coords to use it even more strongly and more effectively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea; get a second nom if you content review minimum three articles, ten image reviews, or such. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And not the easy ones at the top-- the tough ones at the bottom that require real engagement, not changing a few words here and there. This requires no change in instructions: the coords have the discretion to do this now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

A compromise position would be to allow an additional nomination once an existing nomination has three supports, and has passed image and source reviews, and has no outstanding issues. I would be surprised if the coordinators would refuse permission under such circumstances anyway. This at least helps with part of the problem noted above that articles sometimes hang around the FAC page for weeks, by all appearances ripe for promotion, without a coordinator looking at them. This has been a long term problem--I have in my email archives correspondence with Ian Rose from 2013 about this very subject--but it seems to have gotten worse this past year. Having "old" nominations that are ripe for promotion hang around often leads to reviews that would be more helpful with the next nomination. Sandy, to her credit, was very prompt about promoting (as well as archiving, as she noted) and I will join in the fulsome praise she lavishes upon the coordinators when they meet her standards for a good period of time. I don't recall a lot of requests for second nominations under Sandy, though no doubt there were some. Better prompt promotions (or the compromise I mention above) than either scrapping the rule or handing out blanket exceptions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

But, if we codify it, we may just reinforce this bogus notion that three supports is adequate for promotion. I've seen many noms with three supports and yet, one can read the article and know it's not there. Yes, I did try to go through every day, except when I traveled, and I tried to always get to withdrawals immediately, but I understand not all editors have the free time I had, or the energy, before the tree fell on me and sidelined my activity. I am so sorry I cannot ask Brian today if he was just too humble to ask for an exception, but he would have been granted as many as he wanted :( :( I fear we hamstring the coords if we codify the requirement in any form (eg three supports); we just need to respect and empower the coords and let them decide. Speaking as someone who walked in those shoes, I can guess that sometimes when a multiple-support FAC is sitting there, unpromoted, it's because the coords can see the problems that no one has identified. Perhaps I was less shy to ping people in for a look ? But again, I think the backlog is at the bottom of the page, with those two- to three-month long FACs, and I wish we could motivate people to take on the tough ones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Easy enough, just put in the instructions that "this does not mean that coordinators are bound to promote the article; they may ask for additional reviews" or some such.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Question for coordinators

Looking over this discussion, one of the recurrent points I see is the slow pace of promotion and archiving. Wehwalt talks about the FACs that have received the necessary support but aren't promoted, Sandy is pushing for more decisive opposes and more prompt archiving, and one of the conclusions from the Black Friday post-mortem last year was that earlier archiving could have avoided a good part of the acrimony in that FAC. I'm not accusing the coordinators of anything—you all work very, very hard—but I'm curious to know why promotion and archiving is slow. Is it because the FAC page is just too big and dense to wade through, because nominators get angry when they think their articles are archived prematurely, or for some other reason? And whatever it is, is there anything we nominators and reviewers can do to reduce the problem? A. Parrot (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, but the process of going through list to assess whether either promotion or archiving is warranted, or whether one of the many other actions needs to happen ("warning" the nominator that the nom is in danger, which is a relatively new thing; pinging the nominator or reviewers to pay attention to something; etc.) is quite time-consuming. Going through even part of the list can take several hours. If I do decide that consensus exists on a nomination for promotion, I still have to read the whole article looking for problems. If I find problems, I have to suggest that more review is needed, or decide if I should recuse and get involved as a reviewer. So, even nominations you might look at and think, "This has several supports and completed image and source reviews" still needs the work done. As for what nominators and reviewers can do: Nominators can action feedback with a sense of urgency and keep things moving. Reviewers can make definitive statements of opposition and support as warranted. The single biggest problem that makes such a quagmire out of this page is that deficient nominations aren't opposed and archived. I refuse to "supervote" and do this myself... in fact, any time we've asked the community over the last few years for feedback, we've heard that there is no appetite for coords acting in an authoritarian manner. We're empowered to assess consensus, that's it. --Laser brain (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Now that a pre-Christmas rush of work commitments is over, I can afford to wade in to this mega-thread, and it will have to be last things first I think.

I echo Andy's comments immediately above. Speaking for myself, there's no pleasure in archiving noms, but at the same time I've made use of all the options in the guidelines to do it: early calls by reviewers for withdrawal, requests for withdrawal by the nominator, little substantial commentary after weeks, clear consensus against promotion by well-reasoned/actionable opposes. One solid oppose can still trump a bunch of supporting reviews, because that oppose means there's no consensus to promote, but as we know there are many fewer opposes than supports around -- change that!

Cas mentioned early in this thread open comments without a definitive "oppose" delaying promotion, and that's also true -- the FAC instructions state that what matters is resolving critical commentary, so I try to make a point of checking all open comments to determine if there's anything there that should delay promotion. Three supports plus source and image reviews is the bare minimum to promote, it doesn't guarantee it.

I take no pleasure either in noms going on for extended periods, but they're all different and there are times when I would rather see the nom run to what I think will be a successful conclusion this time round instead of closing and seeing it back again for another round in a couple of weeks.

Finally, and I've said this often in threads like this, those who feel hamstrung by the one-nom-at-a-time rule, or who feel that their noms are genuinely close to promotion (say having reached the minimum of three supports plus image and source reviews) should ping the coords for leave to open a second nom. Unless the current nom is still very new, I pretty well always agree.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, Wehwalt, Sturmvogel 66, and Parsecboy: Anyone interested in multiple noms right now? Just listing off the people that I believe have a backlog awaiting nomination. Would you nominate more under the current structure or is there anything in particular holding you back? Kees08 (Talk) 13:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

In theory, I'd like the ability to run more than one FAC at a time (and actually, Sturmvogel and I have worked at maintaining the ability to have an individual article and a joint project to run at the same time), but I frequently find that trying to manage one (or two) FAC, along with several A-class reviews, GANs, and frequently an FLC while I'm still writing new articles to be tough to do at times, so I'm not all that worried about the pacing. Yes, I do have a backlog of A-class articles waiting their turn at FAC, but I'm not in any particular hurry. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm content enough with the current rule, as long as FAC is managed efficiently. Agree with Parsecboy, and we are short on reviewers. I think quality would suffer, not talking about me in particular but just generally.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm behind on responding to the comments in my one current FAC and have yet to fill my available co-nom slot so I'm obviously not too worried about not being able to nominate more. More seriously, if there were more reviewers around, I wouldn't mind being able to nominate more articles, but... Generally I'm content with the current limits on nominations. I could wish for other projects to organize an A-class system before a FAC nomination to review their own articles with subject-matter expert reviewers, which I think would improve the quality of nominations in general and reduce any necessity for the delegates to reach out to SMEs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I have several articles ready to go, but have been unable to fill the co-nom slot. I was thinking I might be able to persuade SkoreKeep into co-nomming British nuclear tests at Maralinga after it is finished at A-class in a month or so. For Project Rover, the article could not be nominated for A class, so it went straight to FAC. It took seven weeks to pass, which is about the same as the ones that went through A class. I have suggested in the past that the Bot set the "older nominations" mark at a more realistic six weeks instead of three. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Belated two cents: Explicitly weaken FAC prose standards

I'm not a FAC regular, take my opinion with a large grain of salt, I reserve the right to be wrong. But I feel that the FAC process has let the perfect become the enemy of the good. This is especially an issue for "pure style" / prose issues; as Ealdgyth's comment above notes, people outside the FA-bubble perceive FAC as excessively concerned with criterion 1a. One of the smartest policies Wikipedia ever adopted was WP:RETAIN for varieties of English, as well as allowing several different citation formats with only a requirement that an article be internally consistent with whatever style it picks. Well, what applies for national varieties of English should apply for all sorts of article styles as well. If you trapped Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Emily Dickinson, Strunk & White, and e.e. cummings in a room and forced them to write by committee and review each other's work, you're not going to get anything better than a certain level of baseline competence before the changes just start becoming "let's move it to my preferred style." There's lots of styles that can work; pick one and run with it, even if sometimes it is a dry and referential one for certain scholarly or controversial topics, or a more casual and flowing one for articles structured like "stories". I've seen a lot of prose comments at FAC that I feel don't change anything and don't matter, and even worse, other comments that I feel actively would make an article worse if implemented. When such advice is offered as a "Support, but a few optional suggestions...", that's fine. But when offered as "oppose on prose grounds", I feel that in many cases is asking more than what Wikipedia can offer. The crazy collection of writers mentioned above were probably better than what we have on Wikipedia, but we have the same "problem" of wildly disparate expectations and styles. Hoping for something more than we can deliver isn't productive. Additionally, even to the extent that there is a One True Improvement to a passage, there's no guarantee this will remain stable over time in more heavily trafficked articles. It's possible to hold the line on factual changes, updates, and vandalism over 5 or 10 years; keeping truly excellent writing in a popular article is much more difficult short of aggressive reversion of any new editor attempting to modify a FA.

I should add that this doesn't mean that aggressive, harsh, and searing prose reviews aren't needed or valid. Prose reviewers have caught major problems with articles before, and I'm not saying to abandon criterion 1a or criticize the excellent and necessary work many prose reviews do. I just think Wikipedia should be realistic with expectations here about what level to expect as worthy of a "support" vote. We aren't going to have novel-quality writing. If we can aim for classy-magazine level writing, or popular-audience nonfiction book level, that's still a success worth celebrating with a star, if the actual content is up to snuff. SnowFire (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)