User talk:Wadewitz/Sandbox
The FAC process[edit]
I dunno about the sentence: "Think of FAC as a discussion about how to improve the article as well." Do you mean after it becomes an FA? Isn't it self-evident otherwise? – Scartol
- I was thinking of the FAC process as an improvement process, not an evaluation or rubber-stamp process (ideally) – Awadewit
- Hmm. See, I get frustrated when FAC becomes a peer-review session. This probably isn't what you mean, but "evaluation" is pretty close to what I have in mind. Maybe we could use: "Remember that FAC isn't a simple rubber-stamp or tally process. It's a way to improve the article in minor ways, after the major kinks have been worked out through peer reviews."? – Scartol • Tok 18:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think FAC should be more friendly and peer-review-y, actually. Encyclopedia Britannica is a good example of an FAC that was extensive, but improved the article dramatically. I've seen this happen quite often. It all depends on the state of the article when starting. I don't think it is a good idea to go into FAC thinking "this article deserves to be an FA". Many tears and much frustration comes of that. I think it is always best to go into it thinking "now even more people will get to read about this fascinating topic and help us/me make this a better article". I don't know how many FAC reviews you've done, but there are clearly people only in it for the star and they will change anything just to get it - it disturbs me. They should be in it for the sake of the article. I don't like it when editors say "I'll change whatever is needed for FA". I wonder, then, if they thought very deeply about the article - its structure, sources, etc. In a sense, nominating editors should defend their productions quite vociferously at FAC. If they don't think they are high-quality, they shouldn't bring them. If they do think they are high quality, they shouldn't be so quick to alter everything. That said, that doesn't mean reviewers don't have good ideas. End of soap box speech. Awadewit | talk 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I definitely see where you're coming from, and I totally agree that fewer egos need to be involved in the process. I guess I see extensive reworking at FAC as a sign that the person is star-struck. (Hey, that's a pretty funny way to put it.) They want endless detailed comments about what specifically needs fixing – and when they're medium-sized issues (thus the word "serious"), seems like FAC is the wrong place for it. Using FAC as a second-tier peer-review-y thing is fine, but I get annoyed when it's a first-tier attempt, and a "get the star or die trying" approach is adopted. – Scartol • Tok 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I understand their frustration, though. Peer review is over-burdened. Unless you know someone to ask for a peer review, it is hard to get one. That is why I try to do peer reviews over there. Many articles sit there for over a month and get nothing but the bot review. That is very discouraging. Awadewit | talk 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, no doubt. I'm really lucky to have found some folks who (even though they claim to be too busy to help) always come to my aid in reviewing my work. =) But I can't condone putting it up, getting no help, and then skipping to FAC. I didn't realize at the time how wise you were to counsel me to be patient for the HdB FAC. – Scartol • Tok 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but some of the editors appear to be (ahem) rather young and fail to grasp this. :) We just have to teach everywhere we go. I guess I would rather give help on an article than bother about "the correct process". However, that has its limits. I reached that at To Kill a Mockingbird because I felt my message about redrafting wasn't really getting through. Awadewit | talk 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
... research[edit]
These can be excellent sources for...research Is this intended as a placeholder, where some other word will be added? Maybe "casual" research? – Scartol • Tok 18:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)