Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive81

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Page ranges?

Quick question (please direct me to a better place to ask it, but I think FA standards are top of the line): when citing academic journal, is it required to narrow page ranges to a specific page or two? I know that it is recommended to add small page ranges when citing books, but I've always thought this not required for journals. Of course, narrow page ranges are best practice, but would it make sense to object to a FAC or such unless short page ranges are added to a journal citation, or would it be going beyond our current standards? PS. In my experience as an author of peer reviewed academic articles, most academic / journal MoS don't require page ranges for journal publications, occasional exception is when providing a direct quote (which frankly is counter intuitive, as the reader can just CTRL+F a quote...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive80#When are page numbers needed... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about objecting to the FAC in toto, but you could certainly ask for the precise page number(s). Ask again and again if you need to verify something and the nominator is dragging their feet, which they might if they have been sloppy. It is not your job to trawl through the article. You are a reviewer who is volunteering. Journal articles are generally written in more concentrated prose than books. Consequently, it is harder to find information of interest in a journal article than it is in a book. If a journal article is more than four pages long, or if a cited book page range in an FAC is greater, I would ask for a page number. Given the commonly poor paraphrasing at FAC, it is important to narrow the page range down so that it can be tested. Your experience is irrelevant here. FAC is not an academic peer review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see a good reason to not provide as narrow of a page range as possible, especially as it's already enshrined as a content guideline to abide by. It's also common sense: why would we want to make it more difficult for FAC reviewers and regular readers to verify the content being presented? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I would oppose an article for not providing page numbers unless the paper is very short or it's for a good reason (the paper is pasted to a webpage without page numbers, for instance, and even then there are often workarounds |loc=section_name) buidhe 11:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
In medicine, and I think much science, it is normal not to give page ranges - in theory readers are supposed to either just read the abstract, or the whole paper. I think their removal has been demanded by FAC reviewers in the past. Normally what is being cited should be in the abstract. The humanities are different, often with digressions or side topics over certain pages, which should be given. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
That would seem to argue against MEDRS, specifically, WP:NOABSTRACT. ——SN54129 12:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
No, that says not to cite a paper after only reading the abstract. If you look at their examples citations (WP:MEDPRI section for example) they just go to the whole paper). Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
At the moment I personally would not make page numbers a requirement at all, simply because we don't have a satisfactory technical solution for them (this could change once we have m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing enabled in the English Wikipedia). And while page numbers would not hurt, I'm not sure if they should be required when citing papers. We also have to consider that they cause considerable work for (in the case of papers) little gain, and will set the bar for writing a FA higher. Requiring them – against the customs of the fields of science and medicine – also has the potential to discourage editors from participating. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what citation templates you are using, but there are plenty where it is no harder to insert them than for a book. Or you can avoid templates altogether - much better, imo. I don't think they should be required as part of the FA criteria, but there are many cases where it is reasonable for reviewers to ask for them (and, as above, some where their removal can be reasonably requested). There are many citations where the whole paper applies directly to the point being referenced, for one thing. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The Sfn template leads to two separate lists of references, which is far from ideal and potentially confusing for the reader; using these also requires a lot of work, and they are quite committal and inflexible. Rp templates are much easier, quicker, and flexible to use (and are therefore usually my choice), but they clutter the text and it is not necessarily obvious for the reader that they present page numbers in the first place. If we do not want to use templates, we could repeat the full citation for each cited page of a work, resulting in a very long reference list. Or using the "pages" attribute in the "cite journal" templates to give precise page numbers – this can't be a solution either because this will be confused with the full page range of the paper, which are always given in paper citations in science. All of these are not ideal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
"If we do not want to use templates, we could repeat the full citation for each cited page of a work" - yes some beginners do this, using templates or not. But if we are not a complete idiot, we could just put the full details in a references section, & give name & page number for each citation, which has many advantages, in particular being easy for the editor and allowing bundling, so avoiding ugly cab-ranks of individual references. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@ The ed 17, the page you reference (WP:PAGENUM) says, When citing lengthy sources ...; how is "lengthy" defined? (I suggest we know it when we see it, and use common sense.) For example, this source is cited about 60 times at Dementia with Lewy bodies (meaning pretty much the entire article is used). Pubmed lists it as a 12-page article, and probably half of that is in Appendices: Supplementary material, Acknowledgements, Glossary, Author affiliations, Author contributions, Study funding, Disclosure, and pages of References. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

DLB sample

Allright, here's a sample for discussion purposes, as I hope to bring it to FAC if That Other Thing is ever resolved: Dementia with Lewy bodies. (Please don't start editing it yet ... the final lead is not in, and that is a matter of ... some contention ... it is not the best time for others to start picking at content, prose, etc.) As you will see, I have gazillions of citations to a few, free full text articles that are typically around 10 pages long. If FAC expects me to go in and add a precise page or page range on every one of those (when said is not standard in medical publishing), then I give up. It's not that hard to find the items in the text of the journals, there is nothing controversial, and if someone identifies something as controversial or hard to find in the source, they can request a quote for that specific text. It is hard enough to produce a medical FA (perhaps harder than any other area ??); does Wikipedia want to make it even harder, by adding a requirement that is not present in standard medical publishing? On the other hand, I did cite a 100-or-more-page source in a different article, and did add pages on that one (but with inline comments). Also, does the FA process want to defeature every medical FA? DLB has been a two-year effort, with collaboration from a couple dozen editors; is it now deemed not FA material because it does not cite precise page numbers, even when almost entire journal articles are used, and one would presumably read the entire article if they questioned sourcing anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

As a source reviewer, I'd typically not question journal cites that provide the full page range of the article, unless (a) the article is unusually long, which on a quick glance yours are not, or (b) if I was trying to verify a particular fact and couldn't find it. I don't think this example is problematic in terms of page ranges, absent an actual verifiability concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikki! Now this, on the other hand is a journal citation, but needs to be treated like a book because it's so long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So people, please speak up soon if DLB is going to be an issue at FAC. If I have to add page numbers to (I dunno, maybe ...) 1,000 citations, it will take me months, would render the article unwieldy, and would make FA frankly not worth it. I am planning next to ask for help in adding alt-text, and unless That Other Thing flares again (impacting 1e, stability) DLB is otherwise FAC ready. If someone is going to insist on thousands of page numbers, I can save myself and us a lot of trouble by no longer trying to write medical FAs. Feedback from @FAC coordinators: would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, rest assured that won't happen. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The easier you can make it to verify the information presented in the article, the better for readers. It is subjective and there are no requirements on making it easier to verify the material. There will likely never be a policy/guideline for an upper limit on page ranges, as page size varies based on the source. When I have worked on FAs in the past I have decreased the page ranges and split them up more to make the content easier to verify. In my case there are also NASA books that are published in web format; I typically change them to the PDF link so I can help interested readers find the information that supports the text. No one can force you break up the page ranges for verifiability purposes, so if you feel FAC criteria 1c is met by the page ranges you are using, then that is sufficient. Kees08 (Talk) 19:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Although I once knew neurobiology reasonably well at the level of that in AP biology—in Campbell and Reece, for example—resting membrane potentials, Nernst equation, ion channels, action potentials, and their conduction, the chemistry of synapses and neurotransmitters, ... later, I read Eric Kandel's introductory neurobiology, and still later some more about special topics such as the Hodgkin-Huxley equation, the experimental verification on the axon of the giant squid; and neural pathways of certain sensory systems, I no longer do. This article is well beyond my level of knowledge or ability to judge, whether you provide page numbers for every citation or not. So, I won't be reviewing it when it does reach FAC. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I hope you find the lead digestible; if you don't, it's not FAC ready! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I can do better than that. I can read many parts of the article without clicking out, but I am not up to vetting it with respect to the sources. The lead is very accessible, at least for me it is, written with your characteristic lucidity. That I can judge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Whew, thanks .... but lucidity is not my characteristic ... that comes from Outriggr, Ceoil, Yomangani and Colin !! I just chunk in the facts, and they fix my prose :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have changed my position on this, and am working to add page ranges; enough with the odd exceptions for medical articles.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Preventing Wikipedia's Misuse as a Military Propaganda Engine

As a community we must raise voceiferous objections to topics of militarism, atrocity, and warfare, given their misuse for warmongering, propagating history over herstory, chronicling institutions of murder over the societies they massacre, and the glib transformation of Wikipedia into a military propaganda engine for white westerners. Given that Wikipedia is suffering a verifiable deluge of military propaganda (8 Featured Articles in January, and 5 Featured Articles each in the months of February, March, and April 2020 alone), I propose that we as the Wikipedia community limit Featured Articles on military subjects to absolutely no more than one per month, if not one per year, and that if an article on a military subject is permitted in a given month, the Wikipedia community will mandate the inclusion of at least one Featured Article on a major global peace movement in that given month. I exhort the Wikipedia community to be vigilant and not let this treasure of public knowledge be misused by white supremacists, western militaries and institutions of death, nor extend the reach of their propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herantifastory (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have never seen "topics of militarism" being used for warmongering; racism and xenophobia are used for warmongering. Remembering the history of war only sensitises people of the destruction it causes, making them less likely to repeat it. Have you never heard the phrase "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it?" TryKid [dubious – discuss] 17:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The user has started the same discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I'd suggest continuing the discussion there. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
That version of Herantifastory's rant has been closed in favour of this version. Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Oops, yeah, sorry . This one was posted first and had a moe substantive reply first, so I figured it made more sense. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's important to note that nothing about being a featured article implies that we endorse the topic; in fact, to the contrary, becoming a FA requires rigorous compliance with WP:NPOV. Limiting our ability to designate high-quality military articles as such is not going to do anything to address whatever military propaganda might have found its way onto Wikipedia. (Pump discussion has been closed.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I propose we close this discussion since it's rather obvious we're dealing with an WP:SPA with an axe to grind. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The only thing that I could see is a request that the military people expend some time reviewing non-military FACses on top of their own. I certainly get the impression that military FAC people primarily review military FAC items and little else. But that's far removed from a general complaint about military topics having lots of FACses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel that makes as much sense as requesting that physicists spend time reviewing medical articles or classical music articles. It's fine to have specialization. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
People generally review in areas where they have general or special expertise. I know bugger-all about physics, so my input in a FAC of Atmospheric physics would be about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. I would add that, with few notable exceptions, editors from outside the Milhist project very rarely review Milhist articles either. Horses for courses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
No, because then you end up with a segregation between topic areas with many reviewers and these with none, and with a tendency of people to review each other's articles. Plus, clarity problems in writing are more easily spotted by unfamiliar reviewers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have a suggestion: The OP has, within their power, the complete ability to fix this without even having this discussion or making this proposal, and doesn't need to involve any member of the Wikipedia community. All the OP needs to do is to improve articles about other topics to WP:FA status, and if we have more of articles that aren't about military history to choose from, we'll end up with less articles about military history on the main page. It's an easy solution, and one the OP could fix if they just put some time in making articles better. --Jayron32 18:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Blocked or no blocked, s/he is pointing to FAC having broken up into mutually disjoint circles of mostly male mutual admiration societies the articles of whose common male interests, or obsessions, being promoted in easy passes, the articles outside their pale of interest or obsession commonly ignored. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that there is maybe one female for every couple of dozen males frequenting FAC. The excuse, "It is outside my area of expertise," has little meaning when the reviews within the areas of expertise seldom rise above copyediting. Contrast the rigor brought to bear by non-experts here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
And the gender of FAC participants is relevant how? As for these mutual admiration societies, you'll have to point to specific examples where articles got "easy passes" in your opinion. I tend to review articles in which I have an interest or knowledge thereof, if that makes me a member of a "mutual admiration society", I'll wear your label with pride. My ability to contribute to FACs outside my competencies is pretty much limited to copy-editing in the broader sense (including problems with scope, jargon and inappropriate audience) and source or image reviews. What else do you think that I or any other reviewer could add? We've had this discussion about the need for subject-matter experts at FAC before, unless you've something new to add, please review that discussion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Glad that block happened. No FAC should be promoted without independent review from editors outside of that topic area, as well as reviewers from within that content area. MilHist reviewers should be looking at Dementia with Lewy bodies, just as medical editors should be looking at MilHist articles. I have been consumed for months with That Other Thing, but that is how it is supposed to work. I will review the MilHist FAC of any MilHist editors who reviews Dementia with Lewy bodies. We ALL need to make sure that our content area is digestible to those outside of our content area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
It is more than just a problem of reviewing FACs on topics outside one's subject area. It is the areas themselves: we have relentless submissions of every little battle of World War II or I, of every class of warship, of American city neighborhoods, of pageant coins of those American cities or states, of (American) hurricanes (most copied with the minimally necessary alteration from NOAA, NHC, or actual field reports, which by being so copied are deemed secondary sources), in other words, unreconstructed nationalisms are populating FAC, and no embarrassment is felt at this embarrassment of riches. Look at the current lineup. I haven't counted, but I'll bet there are quite a few hurricanes, I'll bet that their sources are mostly what I've said they are. Meanwhile, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, which while not a hurricane or cyclone, was huge (in every respect), will probably never appear at FAC. It doesn't have NHC reports. It does have journal articles, dozens and dozens.. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
That some topics have high interests and prolific writers is just how the cookie crumbles. If you want more articles concerning 14th century fashion in the guarani tribes, then you only have to write that topic yourself. Or convince others to write it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, there is a gender disparity. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Blaming those who nominate these kinds of articles doesn't solve the problem. That won't turn them into women or make them write about other topics, it will only annoy them and drive them away. Whatever people who are already here choose to write about isn't the problem, we can't and shouldn't dictate or control that (I assure you the project will fall apart if we did, it is volunteer based after all), the problem is that we don't have additional people writing about different topics, and complaining about people who write about WW2 or ships won't change that in any way. FunkMonk (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Of course there's a gender disparity. Women-centric biographies will be exceedingly rare prior to the 20th century, by virtue of them being excluded from virtually every position of power, socially or politically. And most writers on Wikipedia are men, which means that topics that are nominally 'men aligned' will be over represented. But 'parity' achieved by kneecapping successful areas is a victory on paper only. If you've got 10,000 homeless person, they will still be just as homeless if you reduce the living quarters disparity by burning down a millionaire's mansion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The trope that military history glorifies war is a tired stereotype. While low quality/"popular" historians sometimes do this, most serious military historians discuss the human consequences of military activity and warfare. Many focus on this (for instance, major names in the military historian world such as Antony Beevor and Max Hastings go out of their way at time to highlight the costs of war, and to present its reality). FA level Wikipedia military articles generally reflect the literature in this way. I certainly try to do so in the military history articles I work on, and look for this in those I review - but of course, I'm sure there's room for improvement. From what I've seen, the FA coordinators do a good job of ensuring that military history FACs aren't promoted until editors who focus on different areas consider them, or the nomination has been open for so long that it can be assumed that such editors have no concerns serious enough to post a review. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Let's simplify this. Let us suppose that the "prolific" "FA writers" of the previous mention were writing FAs only on one of two topics: (female) cheerleaders in (American) football and battles of World War II, very good articles by their reckoning, but only on those topics, of which an endless supply was available. Suppose that the writing was abiding by the FAC criteria and the principles being espoused above. Would that be OK?
If a freelancer attempted to do that in the other avenues of publishing—scholarly monographs, trade paperbacks, newspapers, or magazines—they would be told, "Sorry, we have too many on those topics." Obviously, there is a problem with the FAC criteria. The standard retort, "Controls are not good. People will leave. FAC won't survive." are no different from other rationalizations of monopoly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
But again, those freelancers would be paid for their efforts, we don't, and that's the crucial difference. We mainly write about what we are interested in, or we don't write at all, it's that simple; it's a hobby, not much more. That doesn't mean we couldn't be persuaded into writing about something else, but shaming people for it is rather counterproductive. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
(ec) And for something to be a monopoly there must be a barrier to entry. I'm more sympathetic to the need for diversity than not, but I know that telling volunteers to do things they're not interested in doing is unlikely to produce results. I'd rather go out and recruit more editors to write more varied topics -- Women in Red, and so on. There are many FAC regulars who are willing, even eager, to mentor editors, and a little more diversity has probably resulted from that willingness. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Neither of you has answered the question of my first paragraph: would that be OK? Moreover, for how long would that be OK? Years, Decades? The hypothetical writers of those articles in the two topics could offer the same reasons. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it's one of those hypothetical situations that would require so much else to have changed that FAC would no longer be recognizable as such, so I don't think it's a useful question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Being a volunteer effort, we can't control what editors wish to write about, nor should we. Feel free to work on articles that you feel are important that don't interest you, but I'm not. Nor are most editors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Hypothetical questions by definition are conjectural. Mine is a simplification, similar to "guns and butter," which after all is only metaphorically the reality of any economy. So, would that be OK, I'm curious?
Volunteer efforts are not exempt from imperatives or obligations of egalitarianism and diversity. You cannot tell the Peace Corps, "I want to work only in the Blue Mountains of Jamaica," or Doctors Without Borders, "I will work only on malaria in the Hamptons." Wikipedia and FAC do have principles that distinguish them from a blog. Why are those principles producing such disastrous lack of diversity, more reminiscent in many instances of a pre-1960s America than a 21st-century world, such lop-sided gender disparity (15% female in Wikipedia, and 4% at FAC, the last by my estimation)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
But you are muddling up two very different issues: why there are few female editors, and why the editors who are already here write about what they do. I'm not sure how the two are related. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, dinosaurs could be superficially seen as a mainly "male" oriented subject, yet we have for example the FAC Deinocheirus, a dinosaur found by a woman and described by two other women. And it is historically significant for being found during some of the first palaeontological expeditions led by women. But on the face of it you wouldn't notice this, and one might write it off in the statistics. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not muddling two issues. There are two issues. Disastrous disparity, specifically, gender disparity (and very likely that among geographical regions) in nominators, and a similar disastrous lack of diversity in the product. A volunteer organization, which relies on public donations, is not exempt from obligations of egalitarianism both in participation and in a product which it advertises as its finest. It cannot produce between 600 and 700 Warfare related Featured Articles, and less than 40 on Education, very likely 0 on Gay or Transgender issues, and probably less than 10, if that, on women's issues. There is obviously something very screwy going on here. I hadn't really paid any attention to this until today. I'm sure this reality about FACs and FAs is not that well-known. It deserves to be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm a female editor. And I can't say that I've been discriminated against at FAC/TFA. Loki's beard, I currently have two of the three "hats" in the FA community, the only person since Raul to do so. I write about females when I can in my specialties - but there are few women ecclesiastics in the middle ages and I DO write about female horses (at least two of "my" horse FAs are on female horses). I've got several GAs on "women's subjects" also. But I gotta say, I resent the implication that women editors would or should be shuffled off into "women's subjects" - it just so happens I'm interested in medieval people and modern horses (and the Holocaust as a side venture). Should I not be allowed to write on those because they are traditionally seen as male-dominated? --Ealdgyth (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

<Strother Martin voice>What we have here is somebody who believes that certain articles have more intrinsic value than others. Mebbe so, but I think that everybody is going to differ on which ones are more important, so we achieve consensus by treating every article alike. If you want to see more education articles, forex, better get started writing instead of carping at us for writing what interests us. I grow weary of people telling us what we should be doing rather than doing it themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We know that FA-writing is very much a minority pursuit, even among "content" editors, and has its particular areas of disproportionate concentration, just as DYK (musical compositions, more bird species etc) and the overall distribution of articles (footballers, athletes, more footballers) do. We also know there isn't much that can be done about it. Women in red has been fairly successful at moving the dial at DYK, and a little on the overall picture, but not so much at FA. Nobody much notices the FA imbalances, for which we should probably be grateful. Among the FA-writing community, I think there at least as many women as in the wider editing community - indeed I think the usual 90%-ish figure for male editors is different for content-writers, which is what women tend to prefer. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not that some topics are more important than others, but rather than that our coverage of topics is not proportionate to the importance that the broader community would likely assign to those topics. Military history isn't less important than other aspects of history, but it has received more of the FA-writing population's attention. Gender is only one of the imbalances we see; our coverage is massively skewed toward the anglosphere, and towards recent history. That this is a consequence of the demographics of our editor body is true, but is also a bit of a cop-out (no offense intended); we're not going to fix the demographic issue anytime soon, but we can encourage people to write about neglected topics, and that encouragement could, I think, do just as much good at FAC as it has done for new articles (and more recently, for good articles). Vanamonde (Talk) 03:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You could encourage me to write outside of my interests all you want, it won't ever make me want to write outside my interests because I am not paid for my contributions, and have the freedom to volunteer in areas which interest me. I suspect this is the same for the vast majority of writers. I recently brought the Wu experiment to GA-status, but I didn't do so because this was an 'under-represented/female/whatever topic' but rather because it's a landmark topic in particle physics about really cool experiment, and more importantly, which so happened in my area of interest/competence. I don't see that experiment as being of 'higher' encyclopedic value than a hundred other landmark experiments in particle physics. That it happens to be an experiment led by a Chinese woman is incidental. I'd have written about it just the same if Wu happened to be an American white man. It's neither a 'male' nor 'female' topic as far as I'm concerned, it's a scientific topic. And I really couldn't care less if readership is 80-20 male/female, or 40-60 male/female. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
What Headbomb said. Are we trying to make volunteers guilty about their hobby? That wont work. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
For a lot of editors, "topics I could be interested in writing about" and "topics that are underrepresented on Wikipedia" are categories that overlap significantly. Awareness of that fact has been enough to produce a lot of high-quality work, and will likely do so again. Whether you, Headbomb, change what articles you work on doesn't concern me at all; our editor body as a whole, though, needs to expand its repertoire. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I'm interested in (traditional) folk music and Norman Rockwell paintings partly because they are dismissed as low-brow trifles by art historians --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 19:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
We as Wikipedia editors owe nothing to the general public but to obey the Wikipedia community's rules and the humanity of our fellow editors. The time all of us have given to the Wikimedia projects as gnomes, content writers, photographers, fact-checkers, grammar-fixers, vandal-fighters, and/or administrators was all given freely from our measured and finite lifespans. I do not owe anyone, as a student of the humanities, FA-quality articles on female scientists any more than a student of STEM owes anyone FA-quality articles on old Spanish churches. That I am involved in Women in Red just as much as I am in MILHIST or Architecture is because I, Vami, Wikipedia editor, want to be. You won't be able to herd me into writing that FA on a female scientist, but you can recruit and empower editors who are willing to. I assure you, there are legion potential editors who when mentored and rewarded will grab the chance to make those FAs real with both hands. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It should, I think, be a point of general agreement that it would be desirable if there were a broad and representative field of topics at FAC and that a US centric, Male centric or military centric over-rerepresentation of some topics due to systemic bias is not good for the encyclopedia. If that is the case, then a more useful discussion would be on how to promote such diversity, and not on whether the concern is even legitimate (of course it is) or we should just let people write whatever they want (of course we should). So how can we in a feasible way and in Wikipedia's spirit improve the breadth of topics represented at FA? I think this is one of the most crucial discussions for Wikipedia, and unfortunately one that always dies out in its infancy. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Anyone who is suggesting that my concern is not legitimate should look at the FA page of 2010—when I last paid attention to FAs and FACs, and when very tellingly the neologisms "FA writers" or "content writers" did not exist—and compare its sub-fields with today's WP:FA's. There is no denying that in roughly doubling from 2,907 FAs to 5,760, discernable trends have emerged in the knowledge represented therein, that moreover, these are not in consonance with the general evolution of knowledge during the last decade.
  • As for some other responses above, it is true that editors of FAs are not getting paid for their work, but their work is being advertised by Wikipedia, in various ways, as an example of its better content, and thereby through Google creating knowledge trends.
  • I am not saying females are being discriminated against once they are in the FAC community, or that they should write only about "women's topics." In fact, none of the women whose work I am aware of—not only Ealdgyth, but also SandyGeorgia, Awedewit, Karanacs, or Jo-Jo Eumerus—have written on women's topics. ( Awadewit's articles on children's literature might have a large share of female 19th-century writers, but the focus remained on children's literature.) And yet they have written on topics (medieval bishops, medicine, children's literature, or volcanoes) that buck the trend apparent in a comparison of the two FA links above. In other words, the presence of females, and in general of a more representative section of the demographics is desirable for the same reason it is in any other organization whose products purport to address and to reach all humanity—it has historically been seen to produce more diverse output.
  • No one, I note, has touched my "guns and butter cheerleaders" example above. So I'm asking again: Question 1: "Let us suppose that the FAs were being written unrestrainedly on only one of two topics: (female) cheerleaders in (American) football and battles of World War II, very good articles by their nominators' mutual reckoning, but only on those topics, of which an endless supply was available. Suppose that the writing was abiding by the FAC criteria, as well as the principles of Wikipedia, a nonprofit supported by public donation. Would that be OK? For how long would that be OK, years, decades, or until the public notices? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to play devil's advocate here, what have you yourself done to gender balance the topics at FAC? Perhaps it would be better to spend some time writing articles about such issues than shaming everyone else for not doing it? It would also be easier to take your complaints seriously. Lead us by example. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
F&F, I think turning this into a gender argument (and comparing with the FA proportion in 2010) completely misses the picture of what has happened at FAC since 2010. I do not see how you get any gender trend out of User:SandyGeorgia/FA growth. What you can get is, as FAC declined, who stuck with it, who prevailed? You have at the top Wehwalt's coins (that is data driven by one person), and you have next MilHIST. And THAT is driven by the only WikiProject that has such a strong internal structure in place that they could withstand the downturn in FAC, and continue producing FAs. That's it. The solution is what I have been yammering about for months now; stop complaining about the wrong factors, and start building back the right factors. As I have been more and more involved at FAR lately, I've seen what happened in the years I was away. The articles that are showing up at FAR had revealing FACs ... gobs of prose nitpicking, but no real analysis of the criteria. FAC took its eye off the ball, and the only group that was strong enough to continue was MILHIST. And the gender business is so much BS I can't even deal with it ... the stalwarts of FAC for years were all women, and none of us write in gender-based ways. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm perplexed. What did I just say in my examples of women: that they were not writing in gender-based ways, but were nonetheless bucking the trend, and thereby contributing to a more diverse output. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether or not FAC reviewers had taken their eyes off the ball, that FAC submissions had declined, or that the stalwarts were women. The bottom line is that we have a product—the current FA list—that shows a discernible selection in the representation of knowledge, whose new submissions, moreover, show no sign of abating. And you neither have answered my last question, an allegorical simplification, which if you want you can call the guns and coins example. What will you do? Forget the past; suppose those were the two topics arriving at FAC now, and unceasingly—if the nominators in the exercise of their freedom to choose, were making just those two selections. As yet I have had no answer from anyone.
As for FunkMonk's question, there is a name for that fallacy. I should, but that is an unrelated discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
No one says it's not a valid issue, gender issues have been discussed here many times in the past (you're hardly breaking new ground here, though you apparently only noticed the issue today), so bringing up that fallacy is itself a fallacy. But again, the solution is not to shame people, especially not if one hardly does anything to solve the problem oneself. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
What we could do is encourage people to take baby steps, perhaps within their favourite fields. You like French military history? How about improving Joan of Arc. You like guerilla warfare? Write about Women's Protection Units, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
That I'm afraid, is the fallacy, Tu quoque. Practicing what one is preaching is not a requirement. I might have no interest in solving the problem myself, only in ensuring that the problem is solved in some reasonable fashion. My reluctance does not place the topic beyond discussion. Shaming? Shame has to do with an emotion associated with awareness of indecorous conduct; for example, nothing you can say about my conduct, including spewing abuse at me, which people do from time to time, will shame me because I have done nothing indecorous. I'm pointing out trends in submissions.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't care if the ratio was regardless of whatever topics you care to name, say biographies of female scientists or species of insects instead of your politically incorrect examples. I don't believe we have a duty to write a diverse or representative encyclopedia as a whole; that's entirely up to the individual editors to produce. I'd like to see more unfamiliar names at FAC and we should do whatever we can to facilitate that, but I'm entirely indifferent as to the topics of the articles that they nominate. I am equally indifferent as to the composition of the FA list; it is what it is and I don't particularly think that it says anything in particular about Wikipedia except in the most superficial of ways. It reflects the interests of the editors who do the work and their ability to sustain participation in the process, which often varies over time.
The problem with tu quoque is that it's always easier to talk than to do, so the people in the trenches get awfully tired of comments by those who prefer to stand aside and criticize.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed; and we have a word for that also. serial # 17:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The American Historical Association is a volunteer organization. It publishes the American Historical Review whose acceptance rate is 9%, betokening a highly rigorous review process. The Review goes on to say about its articles:

For much of its history, the AHR published essays primarily on the history of North America and Western Europe, largely because they constituted the bulk of our submissions, but also because of a Western bias as to what was considered historically of value. Although we certainly still welcome submissions in those fields, the editors have in recent decades actively encouraged, and continue to encourage, the submission of manuscripts on Africa, Asia, Oceania, Latin America, and the Middle East. ... Cultural history and historiography now have a more prominent place in our pages than they once did, as do the history of race and gender and, more recently, LGBTQ, environmental, digital, transnational, and global history, to name but a few vibrant areas of inquiry.

That the AHR pays more than just lip service to this statement of intent and encouragement can be seen in the submissions appearing in its current issue. They display much greater diversity than Wikipedia's articles on history. So, let us for the time being, not worry about controls on submissions, but Question 2: Can the FAC criteria include an admission of a traditional bias favoring North America and Western Europe and stated encouragement for submissions related to Africa, Asia, Oceania, Latin America, the Middle East, race and gender, LGBTQ, and environmental issues? The language will need to be amended to make it appropriate for Wikipedia? But can the FAC criteria include such a statement? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A topic does not pass or fail the FACs on account of being minority centric or not, nor should it. People are conflating two things here, the writing of FAs, and what's highlighted at TFA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitionally, the "FAC criteria" cannot include such a statement. Criteria are standards of evaluation. Some aspirational statement about what sort of articles ought to be considered or written is not a criterion. Perhaps if it were amended to say that only articles about certain topics would be accepted as FA, while others would be rejected, or provided differential criteria for acceptance or rejection based on topic, it might become suitable, if there was consensus to change the criteria. Choess (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Not the numbered attributes, but an extension of the first sentence: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing." which also is aspirational. See WP:FACRITERIA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

To answer F&f's question 2, I certainly hope not (and I feel we have already bent too far in that direction). A particularly bad gender-related FA got through last year, and I suspect that was because standards were lowered to allow for that to happen. Now THAT is what we should be worrying about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sandy: I did not suggest that standards be lowered, only that there be a statement of explicit encouragement and also an acknowledgment of pre-existing or past bias. If the AHR, the 135-year-old journal of record of American history writing, can do it, why can't the FAC Criteria page in the preamble that precedes the numbered criteria? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree quite strongly with the idea that making our body of FAs more representative of the scope of our encyclopedia requires changing our standards in any way. The best way to address disparities in our coverage is to write, and to encourage other people to write, about things that need to be covered better. All of us here contribute because we enjoy it. I don't think we need more inducement than the fact that writing about underrepresented topics makes Wikipedia better. Not caring about what topics make it to FAC is a blinkered approach, I think; skewed coverage both damages our purpose and makes us look collectively very silly. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I wonder how could we achieve it outside of a reward system (yuck) or lowering the requirements for certain classes of articles. Its hard enough to get people to write articles on their passions, not to mind "worthy" topics. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
My statement of encouragement (or some suitable variant thereof) is neither a reward nor an invitation to lower standards. Why should that be an issue? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
So now I have no idea what you are suggesting as "actionable" or might yield results. Seems a bit pie in the sky, tokenistic, and misunderstands the motivation behind volunteer FAC noms, frankly. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
My objection isn't to a statement of encouragement; I think that's a good idea; it's to the suggestion of incorporating that into the criteria. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
As you must have seen, I wasn't suggesting that it be a part of the numbered criteria, only included in a sentence following the first sentence, which I view to be aspirational. Alternatively, it can follow the listing of the numbered attributes in a separate paragraph titled "A Statement of Encouragement." There would be no confusion then that it imposes a condition, or sets up another criterion. A disclaimer can be footnoted if there is a concern. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
PS Finally, the English Historical Review, founded in 1884, the oldest history journal in the English language, has this statement:"

While the journal has a long track-record of publishing very significant articles in British history, EHR has always published articles on the history of other regions of the world. This is in line with the very broad geographical and linguistic coverage of the books and periodicals reviewed in the journal. The article editors, therefore, welcome submissions in British and European history, but we are also committed to extending the geographical range of articles published by EHR. ... We are conscious of the relatively low number of articles by women appearing in the journal, something which is a consequence of the gender imbalance in the submissions that we receive. EHR is eager to rectify this imbalance by encouraging more article submissions from women historians. We also warmly welcome high-quality submissions from other under-represented groups.

Similarly, American Anthropologist, the flagship journal of the American Anthropological Association, says:

The AAA Executive Board invites submissions from a wide range of candidate profiles. We wish to especially encourage applicants from underrepresented groups and a diversity of backgrounds, including racial/ethnic diversity, women, early career scholars, and practicing anthropologists."

Thus the journals of record of English language history writing, and of Anthropology have statements of commitment to diversity among submitting authors but also, and more importantly, among topics and perspectives.
I am looking for a similar diversity statement either after the numbered criteria in the FA criteria, in a separate paragraph, or in the WP:FA page as a separate third paragraph. The paragraph would be a statement of commitment to and encouragement for submissions related to a judicious reworking of the the American Historical Review 's statement, "Africa, Asia, Oceania, Latin America, the Middle East, race and gender, LGBTQ, and environmental issues," one which would be appropriate for Wikipedia. I will be talking to scholars who were involved in encyclopedia writing before there was Wikipedia. They are getting on in years, but are a source of wisdom. So, more anon. This is my last post in this thread. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "This is my last post in this thread". Well thank heaven for small mercies; let's hope it has some truth to it. Personally, I oppose such vacuous virtue signalling, particularly one so ill defined, pointless and with no chance of being taken seriously. The current text above the numbered FA criteria is not "aspirational", as erroneously claimed above: it is a summary of what an FA is (or should be by the time the FAC process has ended); if an article isn't "our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing", it shouldn't be an FA. The text is a reminder of the standard all FA writers should aim for in their articles, and what all FAC reviewers should bear in mind when undertaking a review. What the current text doesn't do, is try to exclude certain areas, or promote the idea that some areas are more "worthy" than others. Don't like the balance: go and write something, if you possibly can get it to the right standard. Articles from any less represented area (STEM, Education, Law, health/medicine, linguistics, most things outside the English-speaking world, gender studies, etc, etc) are as warmly welcomed as any other article, and those articles should be as thoroughly and rigorously reviewed as any other. But to give the impression that they are more welcomed than the work of others? That's just idiotic drivel - window dressing that fails to address anything and will only annoy those working to bring articles on "disfavoured" subjects here. – SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The comment above about small mercies etc is unnecessary personalizing, and unhelpful. No matter how much we disagree with someone's ideas, FAC is in trouble, and brainstorming should be encouraged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No Sandy, I will not "stop it". This thread was opened by a troll who has since been blocked. It should have been shut down at that point, but it's been kept going by a second individual who has been disruptive at FAC for a while. Posting walls of text that resemble unstructured streams of consciousness are unnecessary and unhelpful. They are ill thought out and time-wasting nonsense. The sooner that sinks in the better, but I doubt it, given the inflexible and combative approach of fouler. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
All I heard was "idiotic drivel".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Game of Thrones mentoring

Hello everybody. I'm currently looking for a FAC mentor to help me take Game of Thrones to a possible FAC in the future. I opened up a peer review however there has been limited involvement. I would appreciate any mentoring efforts with this article. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination archives between January 2001 and June 2003

Hello,

I'm using the page history of Wikipedia:Featured articles, as well as the Starling logs and Reagle 10K Redux, to reconstruct the archives of what was known as "Brilliant prose" between the beginning of Wikipedia and that of the modern FAC process in June 2003. There was no discussion, so the archive contains no discussions. Somewhat better, however, is the fact that each article's "featured version" (i.e., the revision of the article when the article was added to the list) will be included alongside the article's addition date. If the revision does not survive, either in the main database, Nostalgia Wikipedia, or the 10K Redux, I reconstructed it in a subpage using the Starling logs and provided attribution in the subpage creation edit summary. (If you wish to also create subpages don't forget the attribution.)

This is similar to the late 2000s work of User:Feature Historian, but more detailed and going only to 2003. The work is currently located in my userspace. It should eventually end up, IMO, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2001 to June 2003 for consistency's sake notwithstanding the anachronism; it can maybe be moved there right now, but is currently incomplete. Please do mind the subpages if/when the move happens (and please don't leave redirects).

Thanks!

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

MoS RfC on tense for describing periodicals

There is a MoS RfC that editors here may be interested in, about whether to use "is" or "was" to describe periodicals that are no longer being published. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for May 2020

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for May 2020. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Reviewers for May 2020
# reviews Type of review
Reviewer Image Source Content Total
Nikkimaria 20 8 1 29
Gog the Mild 2 2 10 14
Mike Christie 2 9 11
Casliber 2 8 10
Dudley Miles 8 8
Buidhe 4 1 3 8
CPA-5 6 6
SandyGeorgia 5 5
Truflip999 1 4 5
Wehwalt 2 2 4
J Milburn 1 3 4
Peacemaker67 1 3 4
Nick-D 4 4
Jo-Jo Eumerus 4 4
Jens Lallensack 3 3
FunkMonk 3 3
Serial Number 54129 1 2 3
Hawkeye7 1 1 1 3
Indopug 3 3
HaEr48 3 3
Therapyisgood 3 3
From Hill To Shore 1 1 1 3
Red Phoenix 2 1 3
David Fuchs 1 2 3
Guerillero 3 3
SchroCat 1 1 2
KJP1 2 2
Harrias 2 2
Usernameunique 1 1 2
Dweller 2 2
SnowFire 2 2
The Rambling Man 2 2
Epicgenius 2 2
Namcokid47 2 2
Eisfbnore 2 2
TropicalAnalystwx13 2 2
Kosack 2 2
Lee Vilenski 2 2
Juliancolton 2 2
Pendright 2 2
Fowler&fowler 1 1 2
Zawed 2 2
TheJoebro64 2 2
JennyOz 2 2
Aoba47 2 2
NapHit 2 2
Hurricanehink 1 1 2
I'm Aya Syameimaru! 1 1 2
Shearonink 2 2
The Squirrel Conspiracy 2 2
Amakuru 1 1 2
RetiredDuke 2 2
Wna247 1 1
Dunkleosteus77 1 1
Ceoil 1 1
Sarastro1 1 1
Bilorv 1 1
Moisejp 1 1
MaranoFan 1 1
Cassianto 1 1
Howcheng 1 1
<none> 1 1
100cellsman 1 1
Games of the world 1 1
Hurricane Noah 1 1
BennyOnTheLoose 1 1
Chipmunkdavis 1 1
Rodney Baggins 1 1
Spy-cicle 1 1
Darkwarriorblake 1 1
Carabinieri 1 1
Nova Crystallis 1 1
GamerPro64 1 1
Eddie891 1 1
PaleoGeekSquared 1 1
T8612 1 1
Coemgenus 1 1
Mirokado 1 1
Doug Weller 1 1
Sportsfan77777 1 1
Popcornfud 1 1
Zwerg Nase 1 1
EdgeNavidad 1 1
Sjones23 1 1
BOZ 1 1
WereSpielChequers 1 1
Indrian 1 1
Mujinga 1 1
Alexandra IDV 1 1
John M Wolfson 1 1
Seppi333 1 1
MrClog 1 1
Factotem 1 1
Kees08 1 1
Grand Total 41 34 170 245
Supports and opposes for May 2020
# declarations Declaration
Editor Oppose Support None Struck oppose Oppose converted to support Grand Total
Nikkimaria 1 27 1 29
Gog the Mild 9 5 14
Mike Christie 1 7 3 11
Casliber 5 5 10
Dudley Miles 6 1 1 8
Buidhe 1 7 8
CPA-5 5 1 6
Truflip999 3 2 5
SandyGeorgia 2 3 5
J Milburn 3 1 4
Peacemaker67 3 1 4
Jo-Jo Eumerus 4 4
Nick-D 1 3 4
Wehwalt 2 2 4
Red Phoenix 1 2 3
Jens Lallensack 2 1 3
Therapyisgood 1 1 1 3
David Fuchs 1 1 1 3
Indopug 1 2 3
Serial Number 54129 2 1 3
Hawkeye7 1 2 3
FunkMonk 2 1 3
From Hill To Shore 1 2 3
HaEr48 1 2 3
Guerillero 2 1 3
SchroCat 1 1 2
Harrias 2 2
Juliancolton 2 2
JennyOz 2 2
Dweller 2 2
KJP1 2 2
The Rambling Man 2 2
NapHit 2 2
Namcokid47 1 1 2
The Squirrel Conspiracy 2 2
Shearonink 2 2
Amakuru 1 1 2
Fowler&fowler 1 1 2
Usernameunique 1 1 2
Pendright 2 2
SnowFire 1 1 2
Hurricanehink 1 1 2
Epicgenius 2 2
TropicalAnalystwx13 2 2
Eisfbnore 2 2
Lee Vilenski 2 2
Kosack 1 1 2
I'm Aya Syameimaru! 1 1 2
TheJoebro64 2 2
Aoba47 1 1 2
Zawed 2 2
RetiredDuke 2 2
Wna247 1 1
Dunkleosteus77 1 1
Ceoil 1 1
Sarastro1 1 1
Bilorv 1 1
Cassianto 1 1
MaranoFan 1 1
Indrian 1 1
Howcheng 1 1
<none> 1 1
100cellsman 1 1
Games of the world 1 1
WereSpielChequers 1 1
BennyOnTheLoose 1 1
Chipmunkdavis 1 1
Rodney Baggins 1 1
Spy-cicle 1 1
Darkwarriorblake 1 1
Carabinieri 1 1
Nova Crystallis 1 1
GamerPro64 1 1
Eddie891 1 1
PaleoGeekSquared 1 1
T8612 1 1
Coemgenus 1 1
Mirokado 1 1
Doug Weller 1 1
Sportsfan77777 1 1
Popcornfud 1 1
Zwerg Nase 1 1
EdgeNavidad 1 1
Sjones23 1 1
BOZ 1 1
Moisejp 1 1
John M Wolfson 1 1
Mujinga 1 1
Alexandra IDV 1 1
Hurricane Noah 1 1
Seppi333 1 1
MrClog 1 1
Kees08 1 1
Factotem 1 1
Grand Total 14 109 118 3 1 245

Can any article theoretically become a featured article?

No longer a productive conversation

In an ongoing nomination about a notable but thinly sourced subject, several reviewers have suggested that the state of the extant sources precludes the article from ever becoming featured. Specifically, while there are no questions that the universe of sources has been exhausted, these reviewers have taken the view that even if the extant sources are reliable, they are not high-quality, and that as a result the article automatically fails criterion 1c.

This view is at odds with my understanding of what it means for an article to be a featured article. My view has always been that a featured article is an article that approaches the best possible version of itself: it is as comprehensive as the reliable sources that exist will allow, and so on. And based on the discussion that led to the requirement of "high-quality" sources, I think it is clear that this means that when multiple sources for a fact exist the better ones must be used, not that each source must necessarily clear a threshold beyond reliability. Thus, my belief is that every article, assuming it is notable, could theoretically eventually become featured—even if with substantial difficulty, such as for subjects where the available sources are obscure or in different languages.

With this in mind, it would be interesting to hear others' takes. Assuming notability, could any article—even Amastra subsoror of April Fools' fame—be turned into a featured article? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To answer with a question, does Amastra subsoror exemplify Wikipedia's very best work...? ——Serial # 11:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Not now, but as Usernameunique said, can it be turned into a featured article? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
With the appropriate expansion, the snail article could probably be an FA. As for your nomination, even with the contested text cut, it would be longer than the FA Abuwtiyuw. However I'm not sure one of my own old GAs, Martinique macaw, could or should be an FA. FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It is a poor example even for April Fools Day. It is nowhere near being comprehensive. The work of Robert Cowie (at U Hawaii) and collaborators (2017) is notably absent. You need a short comprehensive article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
As Usernameunique asked, can it be turned into a featured article? I am surprised at the lack of comprehension of such a straight-forward question. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Taken together the sources should cover the subject matter of the FA in a (nearly) complete manner. Each (individual) source will very likely not do so, neither will it be used comprehensively to meet this goal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I personally think that you might struggle to create a FA for certain very undercovered topics (e.g my own Wheelwright caldera) or for topics that are super contentious (e.g Donald Trump). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's a question, as commenting on the FAC is a little shortsighted - can an any article that isn't a permastub become an FA. If something that is in the remit of the article is not commented on at all by any reliable sources, does that disqualify the article? If you have say, a village and there is zero details of say, the population (just humour me, that somehow it's been missed off for every census) is that out of the question? Would it be right to just say that there are no reliable sources that say this... Or, do we simply expect there to be a reliable source if you look hard enough? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Since actions speak louder than words, turn Boroituli into featured material  :) ——Serial # 13:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If sources are thin because there are few available, then the article probably fails 1b it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context automatically. An FA should aspire to be comprehensive about the subject and the lack of sources makes it hard to ensure that major facts, details, etc. are included. --regentspark (comment) 13:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well written RegentsPark. I think SN54129, Jo-Jo, you and I are on the same page on this. 1b (comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details ...) should not be interpreted as 1b'(comprehensive: it neglects no facts or details in available sources ...). I think this and the placing of a subject in context are two major issues presenting themselves in short FACs <1,500 words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree entirely. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, without a (reliable) source nothing is "true". An article cannot fail 1b "if sources are thin", because if all available sources have been used, however few, no (verifiable) major facts, are neglected.Graham Beards (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Quite. Crisco 1492's series on the lost films of Indonesia stick in my mind as the best example of "small but perfectly formed" articles we have. All of them were entirely comprehensive and nearly all were under 1,500 words. They are unique and the best record of that era of films available anywhere in English (and possibly in Indonesian too - certainly not easily available in any language). If we had used such lazy thinking as 'it's below 1,500 words, it can't be comprehensive' then that resource would not be available to anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree too. We should avoid such simple thinking. The problem here is that many reviewers will just state "nah, not reliable enough" and leave it at that. Some reviewers offer alternative sources which is how it should be. If literally no alternative sources other than those used are available, and it meets the WP:WIAFA criteria, then opposing is simply pointy. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
(ec)It may be the case that sources are thin because there really aren't any other sources out there, I'm not saying that's the case. However, a more likely explanation, or at least one that cannot be easily ruled out, is that they are just not easily accessible (they may, for example, be sitting in newspaper archives in Bombay or Bandung, or, if you don't want to go abroad, in Kykuit). If an article is using mostly newspaper stories and has few book citations, it is extremely unlikely that it is comprehensive because no one has really done the legwork involved in looking at archival sources and putting them together into a coherent narrative (the kind of legwork that a Robert Caro does). Of course, a lot depends on what we mean by a featured article. If a featured article is essentially inward looking, a badge for an editor for hard work, then, of course we should consider only available sources and the amount of effort put into the writing. If, on the other hand, a featured article is meant to be outward looking, a badge that tells a reader that the content is comprehensive, well written, and therefore a quality representation of the subject matter, then, imo (and your mileage may differ), we should only feature articles that are well sourced to books and biographies and peer reviewed journals (in which case there will automatically be plenty of sources). --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That's daft. You can't oppose a nomination because there is a chance that there is a source buried deep in a basement in a library, or whatever, that nobody knows about. Graham Beards (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Here's an example. Recently, I was editing an article on a film Bombay Mail about a 30's B-grade Hollywood film. I searched for sources in archives and have probably exhausted all available sources on the film. It is probably comprehensive in terms of available sources. But is it a comprehensive summary of the film? I can say no with complete confidence that, whether sources exist or not, it is not a comprehensive study of the film because there is so little information available. But, is it even reflective of extant sources? I cannot answer that question and no FA reviewer could either. Perhaps there are sources in Bombay or Singapore (the film was banned in both places). Perhaps, if I could toodle down to the NYPL film archives, I would discover interesting facets of the film that haven't yet shown up. No FA reviewer can judge whether the article is well sourced to sources other than the easily available ones because they, by definition, don't know enough (how many film FA reviews have asked the nominator whether they've visited the NYPL film archives for example?). If, on the other hand, I had just two sources, both academic books devoted solely to the film, the situation would be different. Each book would have hundreds of sources some of which I could choose to follow up and my article would be, consequenty, be richly sourced directly or indirectly. A reviewer would therefore be reasonably confident that the article was comprehensive (if Robert Caro has researched the subject, it must be comprehensive, that sort of thing). And, as a corollary, my article would also be of reasonable length. In other words, a few peer reviewer articles, a couple of books, inclusion in detail in encyclopedias or other tertiary sources, all help with creating long, dare I say "well stuffed" articles, and gives us the confidence that the article is deserving of the "comprehensive" label. --regentspark (comment) 20:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. And I don't think I know anyone who writes FAs simply for "a badge for an editor for hard work". Pretty much all the ones I've come across (certainly the regulars) write articles for the sake of the articles themselves, not out of any personal 'glory'. You ought to try it some time to see: you'll find it's a bloody thankless task and one no 'badge' is ever worth doing it for. As to "we should only feature articles that are well sourced to books and biographies and peer reviewed journals", then you really do need to try writing an FA sometime. There are numerous truly excellent articles that deserve to be FAs whose sources list go well beyond such a narrow definition. – SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Bloody thankless sums this whole debate up. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
"we should only feature articles that are well sourced to books and biographies and peer reviewed journals" seems to suggest that no other sources are worth a damn. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. If a topic has not been the subject of well researched studies (books or journals for example), you can never be confident that your coverage is comprehensive. That does not preclude the fact that your article citations may largely consist of other sources. --regentspark (comment) 20:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That's an insult to our FA writers. You are skating on thin ice. Graham Beards (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This is puzzling. My apologies to them if they are insulted but why would they be? --regentspark (comment) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Well perhaps you're of the opinion that, for example, 2019 EFL League One play-off Final could not be a valid FA because it has not been the subject of well researched studies. Is that your assertion? Is FA now the preserve of the nobility? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because you seem to think that regular FA writers can’t research a topic properly, which is utter tosh. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because you assume that a FA writer cannot be an internationally acknowledged expert on the subject. And, which is even worse, that our FA writers are less able than paid writers. How old are you?!Graham Beards (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that there is a difference between a Wikipedia editor who writes FA articles and a researcher, perhaps an academic one, who does the legwork necessary to comprehensively study a subject. We have a WP:OR policy because of this distinction. I guess I've stepped on your FA writing toes and that explains your acerbic responses, but I do hope you, and other FA writers, don't equate your featured articles with academic research.--regentspark (comment) 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
As you’ve not bothered with FA-land previously, coming up with laughable comments such as “I do hope you, and other FA writers, don't equate your featured articles with academic research“ is remarkably crass and idiotic. You have absolutely no idea how anyone considers the FAs they write. You also have absolutely no idea of the academic background of anyone here. I know regular FA writers that are holders of PhDs, others that are academics without doctorates and others who are PhD students. Don’t tell people here how to think about their approach or how things should be done. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I think what you're saying is that certain topics in your opinion cannot be featured until they meet an unwritten rule of "academic research". This is patent nonsense and sadly doesn't fit the Wikipedia paradigm. Perhaps we have to wait until we're all dead before we can write FAs about contemporary events, for instance, is that the suggestion? Or are some contemporary events below contempt and not worthy of FA in any case? Or is Wikipedia really not intended to cover such contemporary events in such detail and quality, should they be automatically precluded because we have waited fifty years for academia to pay any heed to them? And, please, don't conflate the FAs that I have contributed to with those of SchroCat. Mine are usually highly contemporary while his are thoroughly researched and highly regarded. But I guess from what I think you're trying to say, mine are somehow sub-FA per your standards. What FAs did you nominate? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - Huh? who thought they were somehow a "researcher" for writing FAs. Is that the aim now? I thought we were asking what articles qualified for FA status, not becoming an academic. This seems very bizarre that the comments are that only subjects in acedemic sources are suitable for FA, and that we should in any way be associating/comparing ourselves with researchers. We write what reliable sources say about a subject. Nothing more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Since, as some of you have obliquely pointed out, I have zero interest in FAs and this discussion though an academic exercise for me is a lot more personal for you. The way I see it, without a proper peer review process or an expert weighing in, using non academic sources to say "such and such is of this or that importance" is inherently a flawed process. Deciding whether or not a subject is comprehensively covered is also an impossible task, again only in my opinion, without expert help. You all appear to think differently and, perhaps understandingly, take umbrage since your wiki identity and sense of self worth is defined by the featured articles you have written. It was, in retrospect, a little thoughtless of me to treat this as a dispassionate discussion. I guess, like it or not, I've said my piece so I'll graciously butt out of all this.--regentspark (comment) 21:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
”your wiki identity and sense of self worth is defined by the featured articles you have written”: you really do like to talk out of your arse, don’t you. As you admit you have zero interest in FAs, it’s patently obvious you have zero knowledge about the area and the people who write them either. What pompous and odious rubbish you seem to believe. - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Probably wise to step away now you've caused so much damage. I don't recall a time where we've ever needed an "expert" to ratify the content of FAs. That's completely not what Wikipedia is about. But perhaps I missed the memo. I'll just junk the 25 FAs I have as unworthy incomprehensible unverifiable tittle tattle and find another hobby. What an incomprehensibly unfortunate set of posts from you. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • To me, a featured article should be comprehensive based on the knowledge available. If an article is thin but covers every major aspect of the topic it should be eligible; to say otherwise is to say that there is a class of subject which meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion but cannot meet the featured article criteria. That's not to say that articles shouldn't be thoroughly researched. If the source material exists somewhere, even if it's in a book or a journal that's difficult to get hold of for example, then yes, the article can't be comprehensive without it. But we can't expect editors to include information that was never recorded. Btw, Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length may be relevant here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think there's ever been agreement here on whether "comprehensive" means "everything a reader would expect in an article on this topic" or "everything in reliable sources", and this is closely related to the recurring debates on short FAs, since the former position pretty much excludes the possibility of a very short FA. I think most editors here take the latter position but it's never been unanimous and it's not codified. The two become the same if we agree that articles that can never have enough sources to be more than some minimum length should be merged, but there's no consensus on that, either as a general rule for article creation or as a reason to oppose FACs. I don't think any of these positions is either irrational or insulting; I've changed my own mind on this more than once and I doubt it's ever going to be resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not just 1b's first half as pointed out by RegentsPark and others, there is also the second half. Without the context, it is impossible to decide what is major and what is not. A topic can be major in several contexts, and minor in several as well. In the instance of Boroituli, it might be minor in population, economic output, and consumption, but major in being the rainiest village in the state, and as a habitat for endangered species. The context for this has to be clarified; otherwise, an overabundance of details can be presented that is being uniformly emphasized. The context could be the settling of new migrant populations and deforestation in the surrounding districts. In other words, the article has to make clear what is significant, and why it is significant as presented in the sources. When it doesn't, the reviewer can point this out, but the solution may not be anything immediately actionable; it may require extensive reworking, and cause strife at the FAC review. The Boroituli FAC could fail for 1b (neglecting major facts and details) and 1b' (lacking a context). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I think those of us who actually have nominated at FAC already understand, strife is part and parcel of the deal. No one editor can create a perfect article first time, and community consensus is vital for a pan-galactic online encyclopedia. What is not acceptable is non-actionable opposition or whimsical opposition suggesting that things could be included only we don't know what those things are or where to find them, or worse, we don't believe the things we're being presented but there's not an iota of evidence anywhere on planet Earth to suggest they're false. These things grate. As do people who don't go through the process trying to tell people who do regularly go through the process that they're simply not doing it well enough. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
If you are so experienced, would you The Rambling Man, and SchroCat and Graham Beards as well, like to do a source review for Dimple Kapadia, certify that it passes (as you have gone on record of supporting it, at least some of you have) and watch me pull the rug from beneath your source review? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
[2]. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
(ec) That sounds completely dickish so I won't bother indulging your odd loaded fantasy. If you're so confident that you can do better, then do better, don't just sit around and mock those who are doing their best. That's utterly reprehensible and in every sense against what Wikipedia stands for. You should be genuinely ashamed of yourself for even making such a crude suggestion. Despicable behaviour. Fouler and fouler. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Surely, the three of you, highly experienced "FA writers" all, have enough fire power to take down a humble troll such as I. The stakes: the loser stays off FAC for three months. If you aren't sure, and if your fragile egos are not getting in the way, why have you quickly assembled to support an article that you know nothing about? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Stop trolling Fowler. You’re being utterly childish. Stop. (And to state the obvious: I have not supported any article under discussion or (I think) going through FAC). - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Oh so you are trolling? I see. And I'm not sure I'm in support yet, could you show me where I made that assertion, or is yet more "belaboured cleverness" on your behalf? And no, I think it's you who needs to take a break from wasting time and resource at FAC, not the rest of us who are just trying to get on and make things better. I'm honestly not sure what you're doing. Although confessing to being a troll is a start on the path of us alll understanding your aims. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
In theory, any article could be a featured article. In practice, I have to say, no. I do not agree that FA represents 'the best possible version of [an article]', but rather it represents ... some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer ... and – as SN pointed out – exemplifies our very best work. By that definition, an article that is dependent upon thin, marginal sources will not be among 'some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer', even if it was the best the article could be. If it should need clarification, this is my opinion, clearly there is a deep divide between contributors on this point. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I have already expressed support for the common version of RegentsPark, SN, and Jo-Jo, and Mr rnddude. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I think, as a self-confessed troll, there's little point in you re-expressing your opinion again and again. It's time to move on from you. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
... in FAC, the land that irony forgot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep, definitely time to move on from whatever you're trying to achieve. Trolls should be ignored. Perhaps even prevented from participating in these kinds of discussions, or the Wikipedia in general. When you get to grips with what "irony" means in the context of your self-confessed trolling, let us know. In the meantime, please leave this to the rest of us who are trying to positively improve this resource, for the greater good. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
You are? And you can't do a source review? Surely, if you are disagreeing with RegentsPark, you can do a source review, and decide if the sources are reliable, and if 1b and 1b' are met? A simple proposal it is. Put your money where your mouth is. If you can't, then don't disagree with him, all three of you, without offering any reasons, only bragging about your honors and achievements, and overusing the neologism "FA writers." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

New sources

This might be of interest to people here. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Article being opposed based on one sentence which follows verifiability and (supposedly) not truth

Dear @FAC coordinators: and anyone involved: This is part a complaint/query and part a summary. The Dimple Kapadia article has been nominated for over a month. It has been reviewed with good results by three editors. User:fowler&fowler stepped in and suggested that Kapadia's parents' religion be added although no sources seemed available. He even posted a threat that based on the absence of religion in her background, he shall oppose (I had only sources for the mother and thought it would be inappropriate to mention only the mother's religion). I finally did find sources for her father's religion. And here they are:

Open magazine (2019) in a piece about Dimple Kapadia's daughter Twinkle says (link):

...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby

India Today (1985) (link):

The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby.

Based on these sources (and a book mentioning her mother's religion), I've added the following sentence on the article:

Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor; Bitti was Muslim

User:Fowler&fowler demanded that Hinduism be removed, calling it "adaptive lying not based in any reality that I am aware of", and suggested a rather weird version, IMO, which says that her dad was "professing a more pluralistic religious outlook" which clearly violates WP:VNT, WP:POV, and WP:OR. He said it's not likely that what the source says would be true. I did not agree and was puzzled at his insistence to remove that one word and just include the Muslim background without any additions that appear in the two sources. I don't mind removing the mention of religions altogether. User:fowler&fowler admittedly did not even read the article and now opposes it because I follow sources and not his personal will. Based solely on this one sentence, he changed his comment to oppose, with an amazingly disrespectful remark in my book, "I see the issue of the parents' religion to be symptomatic of the overall weakness of this submission, of the inability to source, to cite, to paraphrase, to separate what is plausible from what is not. This submission, and the nominator's recalcitrance in the face of numerous sources, is the reason that knowledgeable editors do not like to waste their time on FAC." If that's not a violation of WP:AGF, I don't know what is.

Later, two sources were found where Kapadia's daughter mentions that she used to go with her grandmother (Dimple's mother) to an Ismaili religious center. Based on this finding (or another similar report), user:fowler&fowler said that this finally proves beyond doubt that Hinduism can't be included because "Ismailism, which is an integral part of Shia Islam, of necessity and non-negotiably monotheistic, does not allow its adherents, even the wayward ones, to 'embrace' Hinduism, a polytheistic religion" - Now this is funny, because her daughter is factually half-Muslim and half-Hindu (Dimple Kapadia's husband was Hindu), and then the Hinduism part relates to Dimple's father and not mother, so how does this contradict previous sources? Moreover, she was quoted as saying, "My grandmother is an Aga Khani so she would take Rinke and me to the jamatkhana. I had a multicultural exposure, that's why I don't believe in a particular religion. I have respect for most because I grew up surrounded by so many." So how can anyone accept his words as anything other than his personal theory which is simply not supported by reality?

I did cooperate with his suggestions in part, and now the version that appears on the page and adopts part of his prose and takes all sources into consideration (which, for him, is not enough):

Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had—according to India Today—"embraced Hinduism" without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; Bitti was an Ismaili, too, and the couple followed Aga Khan as a religious mentor.

Moreover, at the same time, I added that she was given another name, Ameena, based on this, among others:

I didn’t think about my name then. Dimple sounds a bit frivolous, it has no character. When my sister Simple and I’d travel together, officials at the airports would ask, “Are your names for real?” I suppose Dad had a crazy sense of humour. Actually, I was given another name by the present Aga Khan’s father. It was Ameena but no one ever called me that.

Now he demands that a mention be made about the fact that this name is Prophet Muhammad's mother. I wonder why. If she never said they named her after Muhammad's mother, why is that even relevant? He said, "Aminah is the Prophet's mother. It is a very important aspect of Dimple Kapadia's name. It doesn't really matter what spin she puts on the name. It was given by the Aga Khan, who traces lineal descent from the Prophet. It is an important requisite for explaining the naming". I, on the other hand, think that "the spin she puts on her name", is the only one that matters on a BLP.

All through the process, I have to deal with someone's insistence to go against everything that Wikipedia is about, with some patronizing behavior, including him announcing that a particular sentence is his "final proposal" (in bold); in other words, it's either his version or the oppose stands. Is that how reviewers should comment on FACs? An article about a film actress with many sections covering five decades of work in films, is now being dismissed because one line in the Background section about her parents' religion is reported strictly in accordance with sources and not someone's perceived common knowledge? How fair is that? Who can help me here? Shahid • Talk2me 10:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Shshshsh - As I said on the article's review page, don't sweat it. Let the review run its course. The coordinators will weigh the Supports and the Oppose(s) and give due weight to each. KJP1 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement the second time around, but my concern is that considering how long this ongoing discussion is (revolving around one word, but still), the coordinators will naturally not want to go through the entire thing, when they have so much work on their plate. That's why I thought I should summarise it. Then also it's not just the issue, but the attitude of the user. Shahid • Talk2me 20:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Shshshsh, As KJP1 has said, disenage from that particular 'reviewer' and focus on the actionable comments from anyone else. Come the end of the process the co-ords should be good enough to point out where there is something actionable left to deal with, or they will ignore anything they deem irrelevant, against the MoS or unnecessary. I'm not sure a demand to include the religion of a subject's parents has ever been a requirement at an FAC, but I have not read the article, so do not know if there is a reasonable need for inclusion in thi particular instance - it would certainly be too tangential to the subject in most cases. - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I see that many editors are complaining, so I think WP:ANI should be opened detailing his behavior. Shahid • Talk2me 08:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Shshshsh - I really wouldn't suggest that course of action! KJP1 (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Blimey, an ANI over a technicality at FAC? That's a bit overkill. If something can't be sourced, it can't be sourced. There is only so much we can do, even at FAC. The user is fine to oppose any article on whatever grounds, but that doesn't mean it won't pass. Having one relatively small item not be sourcable isn't something I would particularly think would ship an article to not pass FAC, even if it's an oppose.
If this were, say based on a personal beef, then sure, ANI all you like. Our coordinators are significantly more together than to just see an oppose and deny. I haven't read the FAC in full (this topic is plenty long enough in my eyes). If this is all the issues are, then I'm sure it'll pass, or fail if there is not too many comments. You should however, always ping someone when you talk about them (I didn't see a ping, if you did, ignore). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, no, it's not only based on my FAC and my experience. I see similar complaints by various editors on this very FAC, all of whom report the same pattern of behavior on the part of this user, which is not based on critical, strict reviewing of the article, which would be excellent, but rather agenda-driven insistence resulting in heavy chunks of empty text without a single constructive or actionable comment for the betterment of the article. Is that what editors contributing to Wikipedia deserve when they nominate their work?
As you know, I can't ignore his messages on FAC. Yesterday he posted a misleading list of books straight off Google books complaining why none are used on the article (in an attempt to justify his feeble oppose) in reference to her first role. I knew right away this list is worthless, because most of my work was always first researched on Google books, and guess what? 90% of the books he cited hardly mention the name of the actress, some don't do even that. Why do I, and for that matter other editors as well, have to bear the brunt of what seems to be someone's unprofessional, intentional and biased attempts to simply mess up the appearance of this FAC by fake lists? I had to spend a lot of time commenting on each one of the books (which he obviously hasn't looked into) to detail their irrelevance.
And above all - personal, general and unconstructive comments being thrown through empty lines like "Your article is nowhere near that level" (comparing it with some article on an Indian film from the 50s) just out of the blue, mind you without reading the article but just a few sentences. Do you understand why I would be surprised by how inappropriate such a remark is? First, it's not "my" article, but how am I supposed to make him understand that this is not what reviews on FACs are all about? Shahid • Talk2me 11:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Shahid, you're making too big a deal of this. From what I can see, Fowler made suggestions, you followed up on them and, clearly, the article is better for that because you've added pertinent (very pertinent actually!) information which was missing. At some point, as the lead on the FA submission, you can call it a day and say you don't believe that either further research is unnecessary or sources are not available. If F&f wants to oppose on that, that's his call. Nothing on Wikipedia is counted and you just need to have the confidence to go through with what you have. You do not have to pander to every reviewer but neither should you be following the advice you're getting about ignoring particular reviewers. --regentspark (comment) 19:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Having said (all) that, you should certainly ignore reviewers who don't provide actionable comments. To simply turn up, oppose on some minutiae of one sentence, and nothing more, is really not worth the effort chasing. FAs have been promoted many times in the past with extant opposition. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
RegentsPark - Sure, they've overreacted. But take a minute to think about why. The walls of bludgeoning text, the unsubtle threats, "If you want, I can formally oppose", and the toxic battlefield mentality are likely contributing factors. KJP1 (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not the first time that a thread about this particular reviewer has been started. Nor is it the first time I've seen this editor presenting their personal views as gospel. There is an exemplar of their typical approach to discussion in a thread above this one. The question to ask, I suppose, is: is this editor a disruptive force at FAC, positive force at FAC, or a mixed bag? My experience would suggest mixed bag leaning towards the disruptive. F&F is competent and precise, but idiosyncratic, bludgeoning, and – from a personal experience – fragile. I think the advice to disengage is solid. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's mixed bag for sure. Nominators need "actionable" opposes, not "I read the first sentence and decided to" opposes. We normally get there in the end with F&F but it's a fucking struggle. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
RegentsPark - thank you for your measured comment, but I do have to say again, it's not about me, or this FAC. Somewhere around this respected place (FAC), which really is for me a symbol of true goodwill and dedication, there should be some supervision over users' comments. Okay, I've added one line about her parents' religion (which, I have to say, never mattered to me, and generally most actor BLP FAs do not even mention), but what about everything that followed - the demand for WP:OR, the violation of WP:VNT, the lack of WP:AGF, and more than anything, the decision to go on and ruin the nomination for what seems to be nothing but personal grudge for his view (what he calls the truth) has not been accepted. Now, I know it seems as though I am overreacting, but trust me, it's nothing personal for me, I actually think that the overreaction is on the part of the user, who opposed this article based on one word, citing a terribly ungracious summary as a reason (don't even want to quote it again). But that's okay, it's his right.
But then he proceeded by providing a misleading list of books straight off Google books of her first film Bobby, proclaiming a particular section is not RS. I knew right away the list was just fake, because my research always started with books. But I still had to go through all the books (which he clearly didn't) to find out the expected - 90% of them hardly have a mention of Kapadia! And even those mentioning the film just touch upon it briefly. How constructive can that be? Can I ignore it? No, because I have to address his comments. And that's what I did - sat and explained book by book why his list is just totally irrelevant for this article, and the books that exist are already there. What is it if not an attempt to waste a nominator's time, to discourage him, while leading others to believe there's real commentary here? Had I been the only one, I would have left it right there and dealt with it, I'm not too active on Wikipedia, but I see that many prolific editors, who genuinely want to make this place better, share similar sentiments and have experienced this and worse. I can't think of letting this pattern of behavior continue, where one user ignores everything that Wikipedia is about, promotes everything it's not, and just insults people's intelligence by trying to make them believe that big chunks of text mean something when they are essentially empty, and when they're not, just totally irrelevant. Shahid • Talk2me 23:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Shahid, I haven't been following FAC's for a long while so I'm not the best person to opine on this. But I do know that Fowler is an excellent editor, one of the strongest on Wikipedia when it comes to sourcing on historical subjects. I also know that he has long experience with the FA process and that he was working on featured articles well before some of the editors advising you on your talk page arrived on Wikipedia. I've also seen him take down some featured articles that should definitely not have been featured articles, often because of sourcing issues, with cherry picking of sources often the biggest culprit. So, I will definitely take issue with the "ignore everything he says" suggestion, a very poor one IMO. I also think that the immediate addition, though apparently you don't think so and that's fair, is interesting and will definitely be of interest to readers. So, his involvement is already a big plus as far as I'm concerned. I also note that his comments on the review are also almost the only substantive ones (apologies if I've missed a few) and, if FA is to mean anything, reviews should be substantive rather than merely cosmetic. A proper review has to be as much about content and sourcing as it is about the placement of links or the proper choice of verb. All that said, I agree that, after the initial discussion on Kapadia's parents and your legwork in finding sources, the discussion spiraled out of control, through no fault on your part. I understand that an FA is a prized achievement (moi = zero, I think) and it can be disheartening to get negative reviews after you've put in all the effort to build an article, but if there has to be some meaning to the FA star, you have to be willing to face some negativity, pick and choose which comments you think add value to the article, decline (politely!) to work on the ones that you think don't add value, and then face the result, whether it be promote or not. You are, and have been for a long time, a prolific and excellent editor on Bollywood topics. Is it worth your time and sanity getting sidetracked into the politics of Wikipedia? --regentspark (comment) 02:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
As I say on the FAC page of Dimple Kapadia, I arrived there out of curiosity, knowing nothing about the actress, knowing only the last name which she shared with a Zoroastrian man I had once known. Anyway, at some point, I began to suspect that her roots were Muslim, not Zoroastrian. A discussion ensued. It turned out I was right. Then it took a strange turn into the realm of the implausible, giving me a window into the poor sourcing that the nominator considered legitimate. To my horror, I became aware of the writing in these sources. Having cut my teeth on Vincent Canby, Janet Maslin, David Kehr, Philip French, Kenneth Turan, Ann Hornaday, these sources weren't the Indian equivalent of Siskel and Ebert, lightweight, that is; they weren't even at the level of an Indian newspaper about which we had concluded an RSN discussion in March, which while unreliable for many topics, I might have cut some slack for the movies. I might have cut the article slack for other reasons: in an FA list whose pathetic diversity I had graphed in one instance in User:Fowler&fowler/FA Diversity Transport, the Indian movies were adding a welcome respite.
But I was looking at was the leavings (in the gutter, that is) of a newfangled and grandiose Bollywood gutter press. The great linguist of the English language Sidney Greenbaum, whose Wikipedia stub I had written long ago, had once voiced great hope for Indian English, if Indians would only persist in using it he thought. I was instead gaping incredulously at this and this. Both were being reproduced generously in the article. I began to get a sinking feeling and made my stand. It might have appeared that it was about religion, but by the time I made it, I had no doubt that there was little salvageable in the lead and the first two sections. What had also been dashed was Greenbaum's hope of long ago. I wish I could see an easy fix. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the Greenbaum article. As I suspected, shit. CassiantoTalk 07:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out something that had already been corrected and then polishing the rungs of a ladder that didn't need polishing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
For someone who likes blowing smoke up their own backside, I'd say it's a pretty poor effort. CassiantoTalk 21:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
As my dearly deceased grandfather would say (ironically) "do as I say, not as I do". Seems apt here and many other places with this user in mind. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you RegentsPark. I'll just make clear briefly I have no problem with negative comments but unconstructive comments, based on a negative attitude and, if anything, lacking substance. There's also a difference between a strict review and a non-review, which appears on the FAC. I have no doubt it's just a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it and personal ego. It seems that a great amount of editors share the same opinion about this user's presence on FAC, and whether he's qualified at all to make it. Too many actually. That's why a proper discussion must start on a relevant noticeboard, in my opinion, with people weighing in based on provided examples. Many editors also mention his penchant for empty blocks of texts, and his last message in this section is exactly that. Shahid • Talk2me 07:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask if we have a consensus on if rediff is a reliable source? There's two links above by f&f. (I'm not familiar with the topic) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
A quick look at the RS noticeboard confirms rediff.com is considered a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. If F&F wishes to see that source deprecated, he should start an RFC (a la WP:DAILYMAIL) otherwise he should accept the extant community consensus. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, and the writer whose writing he dislikes (without citing a proper policy or understanding that it's only natural and rational for a particular vernacular to be employed by film critics), is written by Dinesh Raheja, a prolific critic and author. By the way, the user's persistent half truths appear here as well. He provided two links, saying "Both were being reproduced generously" on the article, while one of them appears only once. I have to say, whenever possible, the article does use books, scholarly opinions and reviews. Most of the sources are newspapers and magazines. Shahid • Talk2me 08:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, this is such a HUGE timesink and completely detracting from the purpose of us being here, namely the production of encyclopedic material. Focus on the actionable comments from the other reviewers, after all articles are promoted on consensus, and should not be stymied by a single user whose opinion is against said consensus. The co-ordinators know that well. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Have been following this, and I totally agree with TRM. If you disagree with an oppose on one of your noms, address what you accept is valid, robustly defend things you don't, and leave it to the coords to determine consensus on promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
If the source is reliable, or at least we have a consensus for its inclusion, there is no leg to stand on about scoffing at the use of the source. Unless you can come up with a source commenting on something that isn't included, I don't see how we can magic one up. Your comment of "that there was little salvageable" material in the upper sections - is this based on the reliable sources, or simply because it didn't use citations that you would have preferred? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: The FA standards are "high-quality reliable sources" not just "reliable sources", so there is always some room to quibble. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Why do we even suggest something is a reliable source, if it isn't suitable on articles based on quality? What denotes something being a "high-quality" source in the first place. If we are to take the criteria as literal, we don't have consensus that any source is deemed suitable for FAC purposes. I don't have a dog in the fight, but I don't think this should be right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking that Lee, it's pretty binary, reliable or not reliable. "high quality" is in the eye of the beholder. F&F should start an RFC if we need to start declaring already accepted reliable sources as "garbage web sites [sic]". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There was no need for this thread. When the second oldest newspaper in India, the Times of India—founded in 1838, and until recently a newspaper of record (see my post above)—is not considered entirely reliable, and I'm being asked to prove the unreliability of a garbage web site such as rediff.com, there is a serious problem at FAC. Its processes have congealed; the ritual has replaced meaning. I wish knowledgeable people—off the top of my head and experience: SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, and Finetooth generally; Abecedare, RegentsPark, Kautilya3, Vanamonde93 in South Asian matters, John Roe, Joshua Jonathan, Dbachmann in archeology and protohistory, Johnbod and Ceoil in art history, John Kenney, Ealdgyth, SlimVirgin Tim riley, Kovacs, and Ian Rose in history, Jo-Jo Eumerus in geology; Johnuniq, Laser Brain, Cas Liber, and David Eppstein in science; Ms Sarah Welch in religion; Kagami, Uanafala, Tony1, and Austornesier in linguistics were doing more reviews here, and I'm sorry I'm forgetting many. The prevailing FAC ethic is that a reviewer needs to check off as many articles as is possible. I am suggesting that they need to occasionally review one article rigorously, vetting it for content, sourcing, reliability, and perspective, not just pristine conformity to MOS, on which the nominators at FAC have all boned up. The glut of cookie-cutter articles at FAC, bespeaking besides a buddy system, will stop. When a process has congealed, it needs to be challenged. That is not disruption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

F&F, the reason I don't review more is that most south asian articles that end up at FAC are about movies (which is a depressing fact in and of itself). I have done my best to comment on any politics or history FAC related to south asia. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion about sources here depresses me a little. For the four years or so that I've been nominating articles at FAC, the "high-quality" part of 1C has always been taken seriously. At least, both Brianboulton and Ealdgyth, who between them did most of the harder source reviews on my nominations, both took that criterion seriously. Are wen now talking about ignoring that adjective and just saying anything that meets the threshold for basic reliability is good enough? That may work in Wikipedia's less troubled areas; in anything vaguely related to politics, it's a dreadful idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I know nothing about this specific case, but I have to support Vanamonde93's more general comment here. Passing WP:RS is necessary but not sufficient for a source at FAC. (Disclosure: I am currently opposing a FAC over this point.) The criteria also require sources to be "high-quality". There is an element of subjectivity around this, and room for honest disagreement, but we should beware of ratcheting down this stipulation, however enticing it may seem in individual cases. And, IMO, "it is the best source there is" doesn't cut it either. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC offers advice. SarahSV (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
And I'm depressed by the way F&F treats FAC. And as for RS, well maybe I just got lucky with my 24 FAs that every RS I chose was "high quality" by chance. The point here is that to denigrate certain sources as "garbage web sites [sic]" which have proven to be RS is not helpful. See WP:DAILYMAIL for the way to RFC if "rediff.com" really is a "garbage web site [sic]". And Sarah's link, Gog's concern is covered there, "Do the sources represent the best available for this particular subject?". If that essay needs to be changed, so be it. But right now, there's nothing wrong in this FAC other than the behavioural issues noted by several reviewers of one other user. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Please read Webster's Unabridged: web·site noun \ˈweb-ˌsīt\ or Web site also web site; NY Times: City’s Web Site is Redesigned for First Time in a Decade, and the OED: Garbage, General attributive (all chiefly N. Amer.). garbage-barrel, garbage-box, garbage can. Please don't waste my time with belabored cleverness. Like RegentsPark said above ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid only one of us is wasting a huge amount of time here, with "belabored cleverness" (sic) or not. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Now please tell me - Fowler tries to persuade other editors to oppose the nomination. He dedicated a whole new section as a note to another reviewer, addressing the reviewer with the following words: " I am—in all earnestness—requesting that Shahid, the nominator, withdraw the nomination … I trust you, Encyclopædius, would do the right thing and support my request."

He did the same with HJ Mitchell - is this even allowed? Shahid • Talk2me 09:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dimple Kapadia/archive1

@FAC coordinators: This is getting out of hand. On the one hand you have a nominator who is diligently responding to reviewers but has ending up using the FAC like a peer review because the article wasn't ready; on the other you have a reviewer who is bludgeoning the process and has to have the last word on everything. I don't doubt either's good intentions, but at seven weeks with hundreds of edits being made, one oppose, two slightly hesitant supports, and thousands of words, I would suggest that the time has come for it to be closed. More generally, I know the coords are all volunteers and these are strange times for a lot of us, but I think the process would benefit from coordinators intervening earlier in nominations that drift towards the bottom of the list, with a view to closing under-prepared nominations or intervening in disputes between nominators and reviewers before they get out of hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I have it on my plate for tomorrow. Unfortunately, I had a complete computer burnout right at the end of May - motherboard fried totally and the desktop was a total wash. I ordered a new one, that just came in yesterday and have (mostly) got it working right today. That's been chronicled on my talk page for folks to see. It's unfortunate that the pandemic made getting a new computer a bit more ... fraught ... than usual and definitely slower, for which I apologize, but real life happens, you know. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, this is certainly something which isn't an examplar of what FAC should be, especially from the behaviour of some of the reviewers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 00:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes guys, I've had a big week too but am planning a run-through this weekend. Obviously we do try to nip the clearly underprepared ones early but others can slip through. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
It is easy to blame the reviewers, but I have already challenged anyone on Wikipedia to counter my thesis that the sources being used are not reliable, nor the paraphrasing accurate. When there are 250 sources, and 214 are Indian news magazines and newspapers, including mid-day tabloids, how is a reviewer to proceed? It is easy for reviewers who know nothing about India the topic and are supporting on prose to talk about good behavior. Many have appeared only because I have. When a clear winner appears such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Wales national football team (1876–1976)/archive1, I have no hesitation supporting it; but that article is languishing for lack of reviewers. If I support an FAC, no one appears; I oppose, everyone does. Go figure. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rigel/archive1 is another winner. How many of WP's fabled reviewers have turned out to comment there? And HJ Mitchell and The Rambling Man, when was the last time you commented on an Indian movie FAC?. Please show me your CV. The nominator meanwhile in canvassing away on the user talk pages of these reviewers. Shouldn't the FAC page change its name to FAC campaign? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Added later: I sincerely believe completing a source review, including checking paraphrasing accuracy, should be the first, and indispensable, condition—and not as is common, the last—of an FAC. No source review, no commenting in an FAC, as simple as that. For without it, a huge chunk of time is being spent on articles that do not deserve to be there in the first place, the reviewers doing nothing but cheery peer-reviews. Also, if you oppose, the reigning FAC etiquette is for the nominator to ignore you, and to deny that anything you have ever said has been actionable. Never mind in this instance that the first two sections have had a complete face change from my comments. The parents have found religion, the father the wrong one; the subject has found a name, and that is just the beginning. I thank Graham Beards for concisely referring to the dropped or added articles, prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, ... of my post (precipitated last night as I was dropping off to sleep). That damage might not have been fully rectified yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@FAC coordinators: Now that you guys are back, Vanamonde93 had a question for you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NERVA/archive1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies...

For being AWOL for almost three weeks. I believe I have the computer issues mostly licked into shape. I've archived my FAC so that it's not distracting me from other FAC issues and hope to be a bit more hands on here for a while to try and get things running a bit more smoothly.

In regards to that, it would be helpful if nominators and reviewers also helped out some. As a reviewer, when you have a large laundry list of resolved issues - please make it clear that they are resolved. Hatnotes aren't the best option here - you can archive resolved comments to the talk page or strike them out, but it is much easier if the coords don't have to wade through a big pile of nitpicking issues. Also, as a reviewer, can we consider whether a point is really useful to our readers before bringing it up? There are a LOT of stylistic issues being brought up where there may not be a single "right" answer. If the prose is clear and the only issue is whether or not you would have phrased something in a specific manner, consider whether or not it's really THAT big a deal. Remember that the other editors obviously thought that the way they phrased it was equally stylistically valid and remember that it's possible to phrase things in more than one manner to get the point across. That said - if something is unclear or wrong, that needs to be corrected.

Likewise, we need to "depersonalize" things. We need less commentary on other editors and to focus on the actual content. Most FACs are very good at this, but lately we've had a bit more that are creeping closer to being more about the personalities involved than the actual articles being reviewed. Some of that is on me for not being around ... I get the impression that many people involved in FAC wish for more hands on involvement from the coords, so as I pointed out above, I've put my own articles on the back burner for the next few months in order to try to be available more often. If this doesn't work out well, we'll know soon enough and we'll see what happens if that happens.

Again, apologies for the unavoidable absence. I plan to do a sweep of FAC tomorrow (since most of my wikipedia time has been eaten up already today) and will be leaving notes where appropriate when I need clarification or additional input. So if any reviewers want to step up today and finish reviews and/or supports/opposes ...that'd be great! --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Peer reviews

Hi all, I'm active in the peer review space and we quite frequently get requests for review for pre FAC candidates. It's a great opportunity to meet up and coming featured article creators, for many of whom this may be their first attempt after getting the article to good article status. The articles are:

If you think an article has a shot at FA and issues can be addressed directly during the nomination, to save time you can copy and paste this template into the review: {{Wikipedia:Peer review/Direct nomination| --~~~~}}

Thanks on behalf of the editors seeking review :). Cheers! --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a mentor

Hello all. I want to promote Manilal Dwivedi to FA status. It is an article about Indian Gujarati language writer which was promoted to GA status by me. Since, no article of any Indian writers has gained FA status, I am very keen to promote this article to FA, and 'll do anything required for it. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Try User:Fowler&fowler. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Gazal world, Thanks for your excellent work on Manilal Dwivedi. I did look at the sources for him. I'm sorry, but I just don't see enough scholarly ones of the kind that are readily visible on the internet. I do understand that you have already done much hard work to get to the GA, and for this, you have my admiration as you do also for your enthusiasm for him, but watertight sources that are accessible to the reviewer are generally a must for FAs. For various historical reasons, those are not available on the internet for Indian authors (who might not be as well-known in the West). But that should not dampen your enthusiasm for this writer, nor for improving his article. You could do this by going to the library, and scrupulously copying blurbs from the available sources that you have cited (the Sahitya Akademi type of source would be fine, for example), and posting them (and your paraphrases) somewhere (a subpage perhaps) for others to view, to critique and to improve. I would not worry too much about whether or not this Indian author, or others, have made the FA. Your focus should be on improving the article by making its sources accessible, and having done that, on inviting others to improve it (at WT:INDIA, for example, or through peer-reviews). Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
There has never been a requirement that the sources be accessible to reviewers to check personally. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Mr rnddude. Gazal world, I would highly encourage you to nominate the article and see what happens. Worst case scenario is it is opposed for some reason. Please ping me and I'll contribute an image review. buidhe 07:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the two immediately above. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. You can request access to sources via WP:RSX if you can't get access physically or online by your own efforts, it is amazing what you can get copies of there. I would also be happy to take a look, but perhaps run it through peer review before FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you @The Rambling Man, Fowler&fowler, Mr rnddude, Buidhe, and Peacemaker67: Manilal Dwivedi will be my first attempt for FA nomination. I have all those books cited in the articles. I can send scans via email. some of them are scholarly Gujarati language sources because the topic itself is about a Gujarati writer. I can arrange help from other Gujarati language knowing editors as well if someone needs them. I have some more scholarly sources on this topic as well. I need a mentor who can help me on all aspects of FA. Specifically I want to further expand the article but I don't know what exactly is missing and where should I add such content. I want help regarding tone, flow etc as well as I am not native speaker of English. I need a mentor who can guide me on these issues. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Gazal world, you don't need to send any scans, as long as the books exist they could be verified by someone accessing them them selves, which is all we need. I often use books as sources in my FAs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Gazal world, it's definitely long enough, and looks pretty comprehensive although I know nothing about the topic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Gazal world Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this is a relatively obscure writer. He has no Britannica page for example. More relevantly, he goes unmentioned in Britannica's page South Asian arts written by the giants of South Asian studies. It is absolutely imperative, in my view, for you to have a subpage containing a version of the article with leisurely but focused quotes (i.e. several sentences long), not scans, from each source included in each citation (i.e. {{citation| ...|quote=}} or <ref name=...>{{citation| ...}} Quote = ... </ref> ) so that people who want to help you can examine not just the paraphrasing but also the context), with specific page numbers mentioned, and in which each sentence is cited, not just several at the end. It has to be completely accessible and transparent; otherwise, regardless of the prognostications here, your submission at FAC will not pass, either because no one will appear, or because some among those who do might have access to the sources and begin to find issues. You need to make such a version of the article and run it through another peer-review, perhaps two, advertise at WT:INDIA where expertise might exist to help you with the content issues: since it is Hinduism-related, I am thinking of Abecedare, Joshua Jonathan, and Ms Sarah Welch; your article needs to pass muster there first. The FA award otherwise is encyclopedically irrelevant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I have zero idea why you would suggest that a nominator needs to provide quotes, scans or otherwise. As commented above, articles nominated at FA need to provide the sourcing used for content, nothing more. I don't see how the subject having a Britannia entry has any relevance to the potential of becoming a FAC.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I know the rules. The rules are rules, i.e. the necessary ones but not the sufficient. The sufficient rule is that a nominator should present their submission in such completeness and accessibility that a reviewer does not need to do one jot of extra work to read and verify the text. It is not just courteous; it is encyclopedic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
So says you, but many, if not most, of us disagree as you full well know. Neither have I ever seen such a subpage in all my years of reviewing, nor would I expect to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
They're rare but they do exist; here is one for a current FAC. I agree there is no requirement at FAC or on Wikipedia to provide anything like this, and we should not imply that there is, but they're very helpful if someone does want to go to the trouble. It made the source review for that FAC very easy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Fine, but lets not set a precedent. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any authority of course, but I've worked with Gazal World for several months, perhaps a year, mainly at his request, fixing English idiom. His custom has been to supply me with scans of pages and I have invariably found his paraphrases accurate. I can guarantee for him there. More generally, this is a global encyclopedia, and, while every pop group in every nook and cranny of the planet, god bless them, gets a wiki page (Mabulu in Mozambique to Agua Bella in Peru, and Altan Urag in Mongolia), to be told that Dwivedi is a relatively obscure writer must come hard on the ear of a quadrilingual wikipedian from the grossly underreported (in Western sources, nota bene) Indian subcontinent. I don't think we should lower standards. I strongly believe however that, per WP:Systemic bias, the rest of us have an encyclopedic duty to cover material like this, and here lend assistance to a very committed Gujarati wikipedian. My parents' generation at least had Thomas Gray 's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard by heart, and when I first heard it recited, the moral lesson of the lines,'Full many a flower is born to blush unseen, and waste its perfume on the desert air,' struck a deep chord. Gazal World has nurtured an exotic flower, and we should see to it that the scent of its existence reaches beyond India. FAs should not be restricted to topics in our occidental ambit and ready radar reach. Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how this doesn't have at least an outside chance of meeting the criteria; and outside of a WP:PR, I think it's worth nominating and seeing what reviewers say. The argument between being complete using available sources, and being "complete" expecting sources elsewhere notwithstanding. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Please view my subpage User:Fowler&fowler/FA Diversity Transport I'm hardly the poster child of diversity ignorance on Wikipedia. I also know the Elegy by heart. It the first part of the stanza (the dark unfathomed caves) that is more appropriate in this instance. LitCrit is a western prose tradition. It came late to India. There were no contemporary Addison, Steele, or Charles Lamb in India's vernacular languages. The how and why of that is a complex issue of intellectual history, not simply one of systemic bias. In any case, there is a sad truth out there about many 19th-century Indian authors: a) the Indian sources will, in general, not be very reliable and b) the western sources will not exist. I understand the nominator has an interest in this author. But it does not detract from the author's obscurity. He has nowhere near the level of critical scholarship as the older Sahitya Akademi Fellows or the Jnanpith Award recipients, some of whom are Gujarati. It doesn't mean that he is in any way inferior, of course, just not well-known. So, sure, submit it at FAC. It might pass. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

I'm not cut out for speleology ('the dark unfathomed caves') but I have sailed a yacht across the Bass Strait and so think that surfing 'through caverns measureless to man' on the fluent Alph of wiki process is worth a try, if Gazal World is willing to hank a sheet of sail (I'll play Gilgamesh to our Urshānabi), even if the Omega eludes one. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: The person died in 1898, at the age of 40. At that time Gujarat, as well as India, was culturally backward. At that time neither the Sahitya Akademi nor the Jnanpith Award existed. Manilal has been cited by by both Indian and Internatinal scholars. He was invited to present a paper at the first Parliament of the World's Religions, which he didn't attend, but his paper Hinduism was read there.
Anyway, I will submit this article for 'peer review' and after making it suitable for FA nomination, I will submit it for FA review. Thanks to all of you. --Gazal world (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

More coords?

Would appointing more coordinators help alleviate the workload on the current coordinators? Currently, there are 3 coords and 62 open nominations, meaning that each coordinator has to keep watch over more than 20 on average, which seems like a lot. (Note: I am not volunteering, I don't think I would be good at it). buidhe 02:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Things are a little unusual now as Andy has been away owing to travel restrictions arising from the COVID19 situation (we've recently reached out to see how things are going now) and we've allowed noms to go on longer because many other people could be affected by it too. We generally like to keep the list to about 40 active noms, which makes for a much better coord-to-nom ration, and as Ealdgyth and I are both going through the list this weekend I expect we'll be getting closer to that sort of ratio again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Whether we have one "benevolent dictator", three elected coords, or lots, I'd like to see them intervening earlier in the process when necessary so that nominations with major issues are tactfully archived without the nominator facing a barrage of criticism; FACs are prevented from spiralling out of control (well-judged early intervention in the DK FAC above might have prevented things getting personal); and to check the pulse of nominations that are drifting towards the bottom of the list (eg are they struggling for lack of reviewer input—and is there an obvious reason for that—or is it lack of responsiveness from the nominator, or is there a difference of opinion that a coordinator could help settle?). Of course, the coordinators are volunteers and have real life issues which take precedence, and they sacrifice their own Wikipedia projects to do the job (hats off to Ealdgyth for archiving her own nomination so she could focus on other people's FACs!) so I wouldn't oppose distributing the load more widely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. My recent swing past Stockport County F.C. really demonstrated that not only was it not ready for FAC, it really needed a second peer review and some serious advice on how such articles should be constructed. I ploughed on for a while but it was so far off it needed to be put out of its misery much sooner than it was... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The very broad general trends at FAC are that the promoted FAC pages are larger in size than the archived. (See the average trends over two years here File:FAC moving average 25 FAC sizes March 08 to December 19.jpg). Nominators are increasingly using the FAC reviews for workshopping their articles until they achieve their promotion. The longer is the size of their FAC page (generally correlated with the duration of their FAC) the harder it is for them to withdraw the nomination and improve it off-FAC. More coords are not needed, what is needed is:

  • (i) clearer guidelines on how to adequately justify an oppose and to proceed thereafter without becoming bogged down.
  • (ii) for the source-and-paraphrasing review to be done earlier (and more thoroughly), not later (and as a lip-service).
  • (iii) for more attention given to clones appearing in rapid-fire nominations. They constitute improper use of a reviewer's time and a major determinant in the decline of diversity,
  • (iv) for more attention paid to the aggression directed at reviewers (including the open use of four-letter words). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • (v) to deter a reviewer who is bludgeoning the process and has to have the last word on everything. Graham Beards (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed definition for "high-quality" sources

Featured article criterion 1c requires a featured article to be:

The language about "high-quality" sources is not defined, but was added following a long discussion in 2009. The language was a compromise between three aims. First, when dozens or hundreds of reliable sources might exist on a topic (World War I being the paradigmatic example), editors wanted the better ones to be used. Second, editors did not want the standard to be too high; determining the highest-quality sources for a topic like World War I could require years of reading. And third, editors were conscious to create a standard that did not preclude topics with few extant sources (e.g., pop-culture articles) from featured-article consideration. As one editor summarized the intent, As long as the sources used in the article meet RS, if there are no "better" ones available (such as for wrestling, where there are few scholarly articles on the subject of wrestlers) then everything would be fine. The main thing this is trying to adjust is for something like... oh... writing bald eagle only using kid's books and the discovery channel website. While both types of sources would meet RS, obviously there would be better sources available, and they should be used instead. Given how clear the discussion was, concerns that the language could be construed as creating a heightened standard for all sources were dismissed as "a non-issue."

In the intervening decade, the original intent has at times been forgotten or ignored. The current nominations page is peppered with comments treating "high quality" as an across-the-board heightened standard even when only one reliable source exists. For example: 1) "reliable enough" is not the standard, "high quality" is; 2) why are [particular sources] considered high quality, much less reliable?; 3) I [] don’t see how they meet WP:RS nor how they could be considered "high quality". These interpretations judge nominations against a standard that was specifically rejected, and risk excluding certain articles from ever becoming featured. Thus, to reinforce the intended meaning of the "high-quality" requirement, I would like to propose adding a definition of "high quality" in a footnote to criterion 1c. An alternative would be to remove the "high-quality" language entirely.

Proposed definition: The "high-quality" requirement means that when multiple reliable sources exist for a particular fact, the better of those sources should be used. For example, an article on bald eagles will have a broad range of reliable sources available—from children's books to peer-reviewed academic publications—but the better of these should be primarily relied on. When only one source exists for a particular claim, the "high-quality" requirement does not require a standard beyond reliability. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think any definition of "high-quality" should consider not just "do better sources support this claim", but also "if no better sources support this claim, does this claim warrant inclusion at all". To use your example above, if a kid's book made some claim about an eagle that could not be found in any other source, even if no other source explicitly contradicted the claim I wouldn't want to see it included. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Usernameunique. Featured Articles are supposed to represent Wikipedia's best work. If the only sources available are minimally reliable, we should not have a featured article on it because no such article could be considered Wikipedia's best work. If there are entire topic areas for which few reliable sources are available, such as wrestling or music videos, that leads to recalibration of what is considered minimally reliable versus just fine sources for that topic area. Individual articles not based on high quality[1] sources in topic areas where there usually are reliable sources (for example, a World War II article based on someone's memoir and newspaper articles) should not be featured, because it raises questions — why aren't historians covering it? Are the sources factually incorrect or even fabricated? Do less reliable sources greatly exaggerate the importance of the article subject? Nikkimaria's comments are on point. buidhe 06:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • For an example of what I mean by "greatly exaggerated" consider Battle for Czech Radio. It is barely touched upon by history books about the Prague uprising but is the subject of many retrospectives from the successor news organization, which is certainly an RS in general. Exclude these sources and reviewers would argue that the article was not comprehensive, include them and it presents a false, greatly exaggerated impression of the importance of this event. buidhe 02:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ I can't speak for other topic areas, but high quality for history is pretty much covered by WP:POLANDRS.
  • I think this is workable, possibly with some tweaks. In Nikkimaria's example, the book wouldn't be reliable in any case, so the point is moot. Re Buidhe's comment, there is no such thing as "minimally reliable". Sources are either RS or they are not. There are all sorts of completely unremarkable facts in any given FA that can be sourced from RS that are not from academic presses or academic journals. We should be concentrating on insisting on high-quality sources for claims that are likely to be challenged or where the topic is particularly controversial. There is a bit of a covert push in some quarters for every sentence in an FA to be sourced from university presses and peer-reviewed articles, but that is frankly ridiculous, and should be resisted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with the main thrust of this, but while, in most fields, it just might be true that "sources are either RS or they are not", there is a huge spectrum of reliabilty, and undoubted RS flatly contradict each other the whole time, so at least one of them must be wrong. Time will degrade the "quality" of most sources, as WP:MEDRS recognises. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Peacemaker67, the OP's proposed text specifically states that the hypothetical children's book is an RS - that's why I used that example. I'm not arguing that everything must have a university/peer-reviewed source, but I do think we could go too far in the other direction with this proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed. In military history we have plenty of good-quality books that are not from academic presses or academic journals - historians have a tendency to write books rather than papers. Furthermore, our FAC criteria also requires a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Serial Number 54129, there was a fair amount of goal shifting in that review, and I suspect that the textbooks-and-academic-papers opposes would have shoehorned their objections into another criterion. Had the correct understanding of "high quality" been applied, however, it would have helped to focus on what issues actually mattered—namely, whether the sources were reliable. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with the substance of Buidhe's comment above. We should be asking "are all the sources of a sufficient quality for the content they are used for in a featured article", not "are they the best available". There is absolutely a spectrum of reliability, particularly with respect to contentious topics. Media sources, in particular, are frequently acceptable for factual detail (movie releases, sports results, etc) but not for complex issues in history, politics, or science. Most articles on Wikipedia will never have enough coverage in reliable sources to become GAs, let alone FAs, and we need to be okay with that. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    To give an example: The featured article Atom has an unsourced statement that requires a reference that says that "Chadwick discovered the neutron in 1932". I can source this fact:
    1. From Chadwick's original peer reviewed journal papers; or
    2. From a biography of Chadwick (where it will occupy about 30 pages); or
    3. From a book about the history of physics.
    All three are RS. Under the circumstances (a single sentence) for the article in question (a top-level one), the third choice seems most appropriate. For a different article, I would make a different choice of reference for the same fact. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93, I tend to agree with most of your comment (specifically, sentences 2–4). Asking "are all the sources of a sufficient quality for the content they are used for in a featured article" strikes me as fundamentally a question of reliability (where context matters)—the standard for which the proposed definition of "high-quality" does not change. Your suggestion that Most articles on Wikipedia will never have enough coverage in reliable sources to become GAs, let alone FAs seems to be more relevant to what criterion 1b (comprehensiveness) requires that what 1c requires. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Usernameunique: Re: reliability vs high-quality; I think what I'm saying is that the high-quality criterion applies even when there's a single source available for certain information, in that the source might be acceptable for that content in a generic article, but not in an FAC. Re: 1b vs 1c; I made that comment not to address the specific proposal but comments in previous discussions about this topic, and possible fallout from the current discussion. If this passes, an article constructed from poor sources that are still minimally reliable would become viable at FAC because no better sources exist. This lowering of standards would not be necessary if we were to accept that most articles cannot become FAs; only topics sufficiently covered by high-quality sources can. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, I agree that this definition should be clear that it is only defining what the two words "high-quality" mean, and that it does not pass judgment on what is, or is not, a reliable source. Perhaps this could be clarified by amending the above proposal to: an article on bald eagles will have a broad range of potentially reliable sources available—from the Discovery Channel website to peer-reviewed academic publications. The "potentially" is to make clear that any source would still need to be individually analyzed for reliability, and replacing children's books with the Discovery Channel website is simply to use a less-extreme example. As to claims that are controversial or likely to be challenged, these are—nearly by definition—much more likely to have multiple reliable sources, so it would remain appropriate to use the better (i.e., high-quality) ones along the "spectrum of reliability," as Peacemaker67 and Johnbod say. And for questions such as "why aren't historians covering it," an article would still have to clear the notability threshold, and (per criterion 4) "stay[] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." Historians are unlikely to be writing about Lady Gaga's latest album anytime soon, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be possible to turn it into a featured article. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that reliability is contextual and dependent on subject. But your proposal, even with the amendment, is focused on claims rather than subject area - it would have us treat a unique claim the same whether it's in the Chromatica or the Bald eagle article. I would be much more likely to support a definition of "high quality" that focuses on broad subject areas first, type of claim (eg factual vs opinion) next, and the "only source for this specific claim" in a more nuanced way. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • (This constitutes broad support for U's aims 1 and 2, but with some qualifications. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)) I've skimmed the above discussion. Junior-high (middle school) books are not necessarily less reliable than the latest papers in Nature. Sometimes they can be more reliable, as they are less susceptible to being misinterpreted.
From my perspective, all are reliable at different scales of presentation. But one has to have a broad understanding, at least at the level of Campbell and Reece, to know what part of which to use when and together in what proportion. Problems arise when editors do not have that scale of understanding or do not wish to use that scale of the presentation; they can create issues not just of unreliability (if they use sources they do not entirely understand and are unable to paraphrase reliably) but also of DUE (if they don't wish to use them) and focus too much on one aspect or other. FA criteria are of little help here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(This constitutes support for U's aim 1, but some perplexity about aim 3. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)) Usernameunique, Buidhe, Nikkimaria, Vanamonde93, Johnbod, Hawkeye7, Serial Number 54129, Peacemaker67 Please tell me what to do with Bollywood-topics. I find myself in a strange position, an enforced Jekyll and Hyde, as it were. In a topic such as India, one of the most worked over areas of modern history anywhere in which very high-quality sources are available, we can have discussion such as this (just skim my last post there) on the talk page, and we make progress; people even compliment me for it. In Bollywood-related topics, I find movie stars who speak in forked tongues, a Peoples-magazine type press that writes in forked quills, academic presses that mostly ignore Bollywood. I can go from a Sage of Last Resort to Rodney Dangerfield in a New York minute. Everything I say can be disputed. What does a reviewer do other than avoiding the topic like the plague, and letting articles on it populate WP:FAs? I grant completely that I messed up my last review; but still, they will appear in the future. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

  • Fowler&fowler, are "movie stars who speak in forked tongues," or "a Peoples-magazine type press that writes in forked quills," reliable? If not, I don't see how they clear the bar; with the above proposal, even if they are the only sources for particular claims, they would still need to be reliable. So I think an FA-quality article on such a Bollywood topic would need to do without those sources, and then the question would become whether what remains is comprehensive under criterion 1b. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Usernameunique: Sources that are deemed reliable in other contexts, don't seem to be in this. How do you prove unreliability? The actress says she was taken to Aga Khan III and he gave her a name. We know that she was born in Bombay in early June; he died in Geneva in early July after ailing for over a month; before that, he was in Paris. The story strains plausibility, especially for 1957, when mothers and newborns remained in hospitals and at home afterward for quite some time. Taking a newborn to Geneva or Paris would have been reported by the Indian press much earlier, not in a story told by the actress 50 years later in which no mention is made of Paris or Geneva. Please enlighten. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Your link says, "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." What if the contextual sources say, "The actress was 15; he was 30. She agreed to marry him ..." and the law says, in passing, "The age of consent is 16" Can Wikipedia use "agreed?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
If you are combining a source about the subject, with a source not about the subject, in order to reach a conclusion on the subject not explicitly included in either source, then you are engaging in SYNTH. If the claim is essential and relevant, it is normally not difficult to find a source that explicitly makes the connection. If you cannot, then it normally means the claim is not essential, not relevant, or both. It is not ours to decide. We rely on the connections made by the sources. GMGtalk 13:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have clarified. I was not suggesting that we mention the 16 bit. But can we say, "The actress was 15; he was 30. She agreed to marry him ..." if the sources say that? (We know what the law is). Can we even say, "According to X and Y, 'she agreed to marry him.'" for a transaction about whose illegality most readers will be unaware? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC) PS This is a reference to Usernameunique's "editors were conscious to create a standard that did not preclude topics with few extant sources (e.g., pop-culture articles) from featured-article consideration." What would that standard be here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • GreenMeansGo, to be clear, are you opposing my proposal above, or a separate comment? If the proposal, I'm a bit surprised; it requires every source used to be reliable—and when multiple reliable sources exist, the better of those to be used—so WP:Reliable sources#Context matters would remain in full thrust for every source. Indeed, one of the aims of the proposal is to ensure that sources are analyzed for contextual reliability, rather than simply saying "it's not high quality, so it's not worth even asking if it's reliable." --Usernameunique (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Using your own example, I struggle to imagine very many situations, if any at all, where we would consider a children's book as a high quality source, or for that matter a reliable source. If the only source we can find for a claim cannot be described as "high quality" then I don't know whether we should be including the content it's used to support in the first place. This is, it seems to me at least, to be a DUEWEIGHT issue that precludes some of the assumptions in the proposal.
Beyond that, I don't know that I see these as issues particular to FA, but normal editorial practices already covered under existing policy and conventional practice. Part of CONTEXTMATTERS is that we cannot over legislate the use of sources, because the appropriateness of sources is sufficiently nuanced so as to resist deeply objective rule making. GMGtalk 14:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies for intruding on this discussion, but I agree with the proposal if it will actually put more attention on context and encourage analysis based on contextual reliability rather than a more superficial dismissal of a source as "not high quality" enough. Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't actually deciphered yet whether this proposed wording will address the issue or not, but I do have two strong opinions. First, this should not be decided without a well-considered RFC, with the wording carefully chosen, so that we won't be back at this at another point down the road, after this was well and good understood in past discussions. Second, it is important to push back strongly against this recent idea that only topics with certain kinds of sources can be featured. Many of the recent opposes are just not in line with best practice, and not in the best interest of either FAC or Wikipedia. For a large number of reasons well beyond the scope of this discussion, we have already seen FAC reduced to a fraction of its former volume, with frequent complaints about too many of X-type of articles (typically military, mushroom, etc). Different content areas have different kinds of sources, and some of the oppose trends recently have just gotten off track. The last thing we need to do is put something in place that will result in even more of only certain kinds of FAs; everything should be eligible, and I believe the current wording does the job. I am open to being convinced the new wording won't move FAC in the wrong direction, but I believe a community-wide, CENT RFC (with a well-formulated question) should be used to decide such a significant change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review needed. Barnstar will be awarded.

Need a source review desperately for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lewis (baseball)/archive1. Has 6 supports. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look over this for you. Don't worry about the barnstar! Harrias talk 15:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Live sports text commentaries: are they "high-quality reliable sources"

I conducted a source review on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2017 EFL Championship play-off Final/archive1 for The Rambling Man today, and I observed that almost the whole match summary itself was sourced to a live text commentary from the Guardian (this one). I raised it as a concern, and quote our discussion below:

My only major concern is whether live commentaries of the game are considered "high-quality reliable sources". They almost certainly receive no editorial oversight given their live nature. While this wouldn't be a concern if they were used sparingly, they provide the entire sourcing for three of the four paragraphs of the match itself, with only "Huddersfield 0 Reading 0 (4–3 on pens): Danny Ward the shootout hero as Town win Premier League payday" from The Telegraph also being used in the fourth paragraph. As a consequence this means that the match is almost exclusively sourced to one publication, one author, which also raises concerns about whether it meets the requirement to be "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature".

Well I very much doubt the Daily Telegraph, the BBC nor The Guardian (for instance) would continue to host material which they deem to be in any way unreliable. Even match reports from "back in the day" were written by a sole reporter, usually dictated over telephone and transferred straight to print with no editorial oversight. I can add more "as it happened" sources, and other much more top-level match descriptions written after the event which are usually much more bland for corroboration of events. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I've added corroborating BBC sources throughout the match report. Nothing there is contradictory. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned about the specifics of this article and review, but would invite comment from the wider FAC community on the use of live commentaries in general, particularly as I write a number of similar articles myself, and for example, my current FAC, 2010 Twenty20 Cup Final also makes use of live commentaries. Do we consider them "high-quality reliable sources"? Harrias talk 18:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I would approach it more as a "is this a primary source" and "are there better secondary sources that could be used in place of it", myself. But I'm not a sports editor (even the bits of horse stuff I do are mainly on the horses - the few times I used what are arguably primary sources (race results) I don't get into the weeds of second-by-second discussion of the actual race). And not to denegrate TRM here, but he's not actually answering the question you posed - you asked about "high quality" and he replied about whether they were unreliable. I don't think anyone said anything about the source possibly being unreliable, just whether it was the standard of FA, which is "high quality" - i.e. I would hope that there are other secondary sources that were written after the end of the match that would be available ... that could look at the match as a whole, rather than the blow-by-blow account of the event. --Ealdgyth (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of secondary sources which discuss the event(s) but they are usually much less detailed and focus on main events such as goals. Seldom are things like substitutions or yellow cards mentioned. Focussing on those sources would inevitably reduce the content of these articles to a point where someone would then complain that there's not enough detail on the matches. I guess that would then render these matches ineligible for FAC because they will never receive the post-event coverage that it now appears is required for FAC. The sources used are from the BBC, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph etc, and none of them conflict with each other apart from a few trivial issues with timings which can easily be covered with a footnote if really required. If someone could let me know either way then I can stop putting so much effort into these articles. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
How exactly is this a primary source? Surely a match summary would be similar to a plot summary of a TV show or video game, which are usually implicitly cited to the works themselves. In this case, we actually have an RS talking about the match, which seems more suitable to me. I'm not sure we should be making a subject illegible for FAC because no one is writing a book on a match. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: per MOS:PLOT, works of fiction are primary sources in their articles. Hth. ——Serial # 19:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is these are written as the event unfolds, correct? I.e. they are basically a "live blog" of the event. Primary sources are sources that are written as the event happens (or contemporary with it). See WP:PRIMARY. I'm not saying these sorts of things aren't reliable, they are, but they are descriptions of hte event as it happens, so they lack the necessary distance and analysis to be secondary sources. Nor am I saying that they can't be used, but care must be taken with them, and where secondary sources exist, those should ideally be used. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, Ealdgyth, LV compared sports reports to plots which would, as you say, not be the case. ——Serial # 20:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Not really, these are observations of real world events that are consistent across a number of different "as it happened" source. There is no distance from the event required to note that a yellow card was shown, or corner was taken or a substitution was made. That's just silly. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
That's clearly not what I said. ——Serial # 20:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I was responding to the point in general. The PLOT principle is that you watch the movie/film/read the book, and no refs are needed. Here, we can just talk jive about the match and not even link a video, because we don't need to per PLOT, but we actually work hard to find RS from decent sources like the BBC, The Guardian etc to verify the course of events. I'd be very happy to just ditch all of the RS in favour of just adding my personal commentary to a video of the final, just like a movie. Perhaps that's the way to make Wikipedia a better place here. After all, what's the difference between a movie and a ratified video of the match? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
And I"m not sure where the "making a subject illegible for FAC because no one is writing a book on a match" came in, but it's certainly not my contention at all. I've never said anything like that, so please don't assume I'm going in that direction, I'm not. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd say that like Ealdgyth there are WP:PRIMARY considerations, and regardless it definitely wouldn't meet the "high quality" standard. The immediate comparison I made in my mind is liveblogs of tech events and the like, which absolutely are not great sources, and the fact that blow-by-blow stuff mentioned in them doesn't come up later in better-reported stories (Apple liveblogs love talking about tucked-versus-untucked-shirt counts for presenters, and that understandably doesn't come up when the product announcement dust has cleared) is a good indication that it's not that important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk: 20:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
That analogy doesn't really stand up; there is a huge difference between say, professional BBC commentators with decades of vetted expreience, and some random liveblogger, which I think is the point. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
And moreover, the concepts being used from these so-called "blogs" are a commentary on live sporting events, not opinions on latest iPhones. The sources I use are a live commentary but one based on reporting what is happening in a live sports event, not applying any kind of journalese, speculation or personal reflection. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I've reviewed a few articles that have sources like this, and while I agree they can be misused, I don't recall any problems. They generally seem to be used for uncontroversial material -- if they mention a yellow card you can be confident it really happened. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Especially when the commentary is accompanied by live footage of a ref holding up a yellow card. And its all now on utube anyway. I don't see a real problem here. Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I realise there's been a sudden urge to proclaim "high quality sources" around these parts, but honestly, when we're talking about suddenly declaring BBC, Guardian, Telegraph etc accounts of matches as being not the highest quality we can find, when no other quality sources exist, it's becoming a bit of a joke. I'm certain that for a piece of pottery from the 16th century or a skirmish in Bolivia in 1745, we can find "written word", but it's important now to understand that if completely reliable sources for a contemporary event now are considered insufficient for FA, it should be made clear. For those of us who work hard on such articles, it is completely demoralising and a game-changer to be told that a reliable source advising of pure objective material is now not "highest quality reliable source". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I haven't looked at the particulars of the article. As an occasional consumer of live commentaries of games, I think it depends on the kind of statement being referenced. I have no doubt that, when a live commentary says that player X received a yellow card or misplayed a pass in minute so-and-so, then that's reliable. I wouldn't use a source like that for more general or analytic statements such as a ref's decision being right or wrong, or a particular player having played a great game. In the heat of the moment, with no time to reflect, the people who write these live commentaries are no better than an average fan. I'd go to post-game reports or analyses for those kinds of questions. Just my 2 cents.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Per Brian Boulton and SarahSV's essay Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC, "The concept of "high quality" has to be flexibly applied. In some areas—major historical events, biographies of world figures, etc.—the relevant literature is vast, and high-quality sources are plentiful. In other cases, particularly in the various fields of sport or popular culture, "high quality" often has to be interpreted as 'best available'." OK. so let's agree with this. I have just skimmed the 2017 EFL Championship play-off Final article. In a few minutes I was able to find (but not in the article's references):

I remain a long-suffering Green Bay Packers fan, have no knowledge of English soccer nor interest, but if an FAC submission has disregarded the articles of Michael Winter and Miguel Delaney—whose acquaintance I have just made as the Chief Football Writers of The Times of London and the Independent respectively, and Paul Doyle, (at that time) of the Irish Times—whether by choice or default, then we must ask: have the best available sources been used? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

F&F, you mean use these as opposed to the minute-by-minute accounts? I think the issue would be that the articles you cite probably do not sufficiently cover the action (so to speak) in a game that lasted 120 timed minutes during which no one scored, and the minute-by-minute accounts are more adequate when it comes to detail. I would agree that the articles you cite are "better" in an abstract sense than the minute-by-minute accounts, but they may not be as fit for the purpose of describing those two hours of futility.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: I forgot to add: Even for the first half/second half/--- sections, is there nothing in the sources above that could have been used to lessen the reliance on the live, blow-by-blow, descriptions? A quick look suggests that there is, plenty. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
F&F, I don't want to get into this too deeply, but is it that these are too heavily relied upon, or that they should not be used at all? I would think it hard to have an article on an individual game without some reliance on what amounts to primary sources. I agree with you that secondary sources should be used where possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I mean, per Brian and Sarah's essay, we have to use the best available sources. We have (a) the live reports (whether audio or in live blogs) which are detailed, but not always reliable, and (b) the articles in The Times etc., which are reliable but not detailed enough. The best available sources would be a mix: using (a) but to the maximum extent possible replacing those portions of (a) for which details are available in (b). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
PS Sorry, I did not see your addition. So, I am agreeing with you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I think so too. I'm trying to figure out what the points are in disagreement with implications that go beyond the individual FAC in question.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
What is in those sources that isn't in the article's description of the match? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with The Rambling Man. ——Serial # 09:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I think there are some people missing the point here. The post-match reports noted above are all very well, and sure, they may contain the odd element of interest, but this is primarily a debate about the "as it happens" sources. The post-match references never go into the level of detail that could be used in the "first half"/"second half" sections, but could be used to augment them. Is there a shred of evidence that the quality of the "as it happens" sources is somehow lower than post-match sources? I've seen nothing to substantiate that at this point other than people's suppositions that because they are observations written live, they are somehow less worthy. The answer to the question "have the best available sources been used?" is yes. If people want to summarily add various post-match reports which add nothing other than to corroborate the "as it happens" sources, that's fine, but just say it plainly. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

And why are we now reviewing this FAC at this talkpage? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
No one is reviewing your FAC. (I would have been reviewing your FAC had I said these sources are not being used anywhere else in the article.) Of course, there's much in those post-match reports that is not in the blow-by-blow accounts. There's nuance, thoughtfulness, perspective, the very building blocks of the language used (from on the fly to considered). The discourse is different. The secondary sources do not exist to "corroborate" what is in the primary sources and to give sanction to their untrammeled use. They exist because they are the building blocks of Wikipedia. When they exist, they must be used. That's a nonnegotiable principle. Otherwise, we can start using Newton's Principia in Gravitation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
PS In other words, first write (any article) with only secondary sources, then augment it with primary sources where needed, not the other way round (at every scale, from narrow scale to broadscale). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Nuance, thoughtfulness and perspective are absolutely not part of an objective, blow-by-blow account of a football match. It's what you don't want in an encyclopedia. I don't care what Henry Winter's personal thoughts are on something particularly, that's his POV. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
But you are summarizing. Your blow-by-blow source (in one instance a Guardian live blog by Barry Glendenning) is littered with personal musings: "who are starting to get into this game after some early dominance by their opponents, who could be and probably should be two goals up already." There is also Paul Doyle's (also of the Guardian) longer account in the Irish Times, with a 750 word summary of the game in the last 19 paragraphs. Your first half/second half is no more than 500 words. How is your summarizing preferable to a secondary source's, not everything in which is POV? Analogically, I can make exactly your argument about Newton's Principia (the blow-by-blow blog), the Newton's Principia for the Common Reader (the after-match report), and Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, and Relativistic the next-day article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm summarising the detailed account to remove POV and personal musings. Henry Winter et al never cover matches in sufficient detail by a long way. This isn't really helpful I'm afraid. The detail required is only available in such blow-by-blow accounts, not in the musings of a journo. If you read the summary I have written, in each case it is completely neutral in tone and offers no speculation or personal opinion which is what you get from post-match musings. Find some objective detail in the post-match POV ramblings and I'll be sure to add it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There are also even more fine-scale sources, such as this 2:35:36 live video report. The commentator is not slurring his words. So why not summarize this source, instead of a written live blog? As for John's question: I don't know about soccer, but they are not persistent in many other contexts, e.g., NYTimes live-coverage of Super Tuesday 2020. Disappeared, AFAICT. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand the WP:V issues. The sources are archived, so anyone will be able to read what was being said. I think to note here, these aren't live commentary by fans, it's generally by defacto reporters. I'm not sure what we gain by citing the commentators, rather than the text commentary. Realistically, this was the same comment I was making about just citing it to the subject as a primary source originally, having it similar to MOS:PLOT. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Indeed, verification is a total red herring and doesn't need any further comment as already adequately dismissed as a non-isuse. Summarising a video from YouTube now? That's funny. And going back to your 750-word summary in the Irish Times, little wonder it's so verbose with bloated puffery such as "Ted Heath was the British prime minster and T-Rex were top of the charts the last time Huddersfield were in the top flight, David Wagner’s unlikely band of heroes ushered in a glorious new age, Together they made a tremendous racket., The occasion was exceptional but the approaches familiar. etc. And sure, it's very easy to rack up 19 paragraphs when many of them are composed of one or two sentences of such rank journalese. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The source you have given yourself the license to paraphrase, says, "The Sky cameras cut to celebrity Huddersfield Town fan and luvvie, Sir Patrick Stewart. It’s a surprise it’s taken them this long.", and "Joey van der Berg plays a speculative ball down the inside left channel for Lewis Grabban to chase, but there’s a mite too much welly on his delivery and the ball is shepherded out of play for a goal kick." I could bury your examples in an avalanche of green from your own source; I have so many. The bottom line is: use secondary sources where possible. You're violating a cardinal principle of Wikipedia, and attempting to defend the violation by belittling the sources that Wikipedia does allow; If I were belittling Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar's book on the Principia above, I would be doing something similar analogically. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It's a reliable source, I haven't given myself "license" to use it, it's completely legitimate. And far less self-serving and overblown than that garbage in the Irish Times. The point I was making is that your sources are equally (if not more) appallingly written than the sources I've been using. The key difference is the sources I use are far more comprehensive and provide details which can be neutralised in tone. The sources you suggest can provide nowhere near such detail and as such are certainly far from the best available sources to describe the key events of the match. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with TRM here; if these types of sources are kept to this single part of the article and are from a reputable, long standing commentator. I get that as its live there is no correction mechanism, but if the commentator is in the habit if making errors, they would not be reputable or long standing. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. And it's worth noting that of course corrections can and have been made to such pages, just as with any other web page, publication dates sometimes post-date the event indicating some kind of oversight has taken place. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
If kept to this one part of the article, I think they better serve the reader; as the commentary is minute to minute, there is far more detail than you will find in later than day, or the following morning newspaper coverage. Note I am not a sports person, but this is my impression. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I actually remember one soccer/football match FAC that failed in large part because the game summary was sourced to a TV broadcast. If memory serves me right, the concern in that case was that the text on the match would be original research if not backed up by the broadcast in some way. For example, you could probably get away with using it to say a shot was taken at a certain point, but the broadcast really isn't any better than using a running account like the ones being debated here. If you're trying to say that one team had the upper hand for a period, you're basically relying on the announcer discussing it at some point and hoping that they aren't biased. For me, I'd prefer having an account by a creditable press member, who is capable of putting the action in some context as it happens. The live blogs in use here are from sources like the BBC and the Guardian, so I think TRM is on pretty safe footing there. Overall, I would try to squeeze whatever I could out of match recaps in such a scenario, but the nature of 0–0 draws is that interesting events that the recaps report on are often limited, so I get the need to supplement them. Even the recap from the Guardian linked above wouldn't cover most of the items mentioned in our article. Overall, I don't have an issue with the usage of running recaps, as long as they aren't used to cite any really controversial content. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

MOSNUM query

There used to be a MOS rule about when to use # vs. No. Has that disappeared over the years? Or am I mis-remembering? I have a recollection that #5 was not used in text, rather No. 5. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

MOS:HASH. DrKay (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Dr K ... I was looking in MOSNUM instead of MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Average FAC duration

I thought folks might be interested in this. The graph shows how long FACs have taken to go from nomination to archiving or promotion, by month, since March 2008. It looks like there are two main phases -- steady growth from March 2008 (if not before) to around 2015, and then erratic stability around an average of 40 days from 2016 onwards, with a spike that seems to have lasted through most of 2016. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I was not active in 2016; can anyone explain what was happening then? Also, it looks like the biggest change occurred around mid-2014 ... what was going on then? I worked very hard to archive FACs that weren't progressing at around two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
No idea about 2016. Sandy, I think you turned in your keys in early 2012? The average was rising throughout your tenure, despite your efforts; there's not much delegates can do if there aren't enough reviews. I can't produce this graph quickly, but I think the average number of reviews per day (not per FAC) also dropped over the same period, and that's probably the main driver of the changes here. It's a relief to see that things have been relatively stable over the last couple of years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you showing for each month the average duration of all FACs closing during the month? If so, why is the graph changing within months? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
It isn’t —- the axis only shows every third month but the graph has points for every month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I just realized that. Could you make the graph a little thinner so we can see the variation more accurately? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I’ll put the data in a table, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The table turned out to be very easy to generate, so here it is. It can be copied and pasted into Excel.

Source data for graph
Month Average duration
Mar-08 11
Apr-08 9
May-08 11
Jun-08 12
Jul-08 12
Aug-08 14
Sep-08 12
Oct-08 11
Nov-08 16
Dec-08 18
Jan-09 13
Feb-09 16
Mar-09 16
Apr-09 16
May-09 16
Jun-09 14
Jul-09 20
Aug-09 19
Sep-09 18
Oct-09 19
Nov-09 17
Dec-09 21
Jan-10 18
Feb-10 16
Mar-10 16
Apr-10 14
May-10 15
Jun-10 16
Jul-10 17
Aug-10 16
Sep-10 14
Oct-10 13
Nov-10 21
Dec-10 19
Jan-11 22
Feb-11 20
Mar-11 23
Apr-11 22
May-11 21
Jun-11 19
Jul-11 18
Aug-11 22
Sep-11 23
Oct-11 19
Nov-11 22
Dec-11 31
Jan-12 24
Feb-12 28
Mar-12 24
Apr-12 27
May-12 24
Jun-12 27
Jul-12 27
Aug-12 27
Sep-12 19
Oct-12 22
Nov-12 21
Dec-12 26
Jan-13 30
Feb-13 30
Mar-13 32
Apr-13 28
May-13 27
Jun-13 31
Jul-13 31
Aug-13 32
Sep-13 33
Oct-13 30
Nov-13 30
Dec-13 31
Jan-14 30
Feb-14 35
Mar-14 40
Apr-14 41
May-14 33
Jun-14 35
Jul-14 37
Aug-14 32
Sep-14 38
Oct-14 44
Nov-14 39
Dec-14 35
Jan-15 38
Feb-15 34
Mar-15 30
Apr-15 32
May-15 32
Jun-15 37
Jul-15 41
Aug-15 34
Sep-15 36
Oct-15 33
Nov-15 32
Dec-15 33
Jan-16 39
Feb-16 50
Mar-16 52
Apr-16 44
May-16 43
Jun-16 43
Jul-16 48
Aug-16 45
Sep-16 45
Oct-16 43
Nov-16 54
Dec-16 56
Jan-17 38
Feb-17 37
Mar-17 35
Apr-17 32
May-17 32
Jun-17 36
Jul-17 32
Aug-17 35
Sep-17 37
Oct-17 37
Nov-17 34
Dec-17 35
Jan-18 33
Feb-18 37
Mar-18 46
Apr-18 46
May-18 45
Jun-18 37
Jul-18 39
Aug-18 38
Sep-18 37
Oct-18 39
Nov-18 46
Dec-18 41
Jan-19 38
Feb-19 39
Mar-19 36
Apr-19 31
May-19 35
Jun-19 27
Jul-19 38
Aug-19 31
Sep-19 38
Oct-19 39
Nov-19 46
Dec-19 49
Jan-20 37
Feb-20 32
Mar-20 37
Apr-20 41
May-20 42
Thank you for doing the hard work. I've added a few bells and whistles (in a plot below) to your excellent graph and data. The plot with the asterisks (denoting each data point) is the raw data; the dotted plot is a moving average (of three terms) which adjusts for outliers.
F&f Map1 Average duration of FACs per Mike Christie's data

Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

PS Sorry to pester you more, but if you also have the data for how many closed (promoted + archived) in each month, it would be great. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem; I do have that data back to March 2008, but it's probably easier for you to cut and paste it from the ToCs here and here straight into Excel (you'll have to clean it up a bit after the paste). Those are the source pages I'm drawing the data from. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see. No problem, you don't need to do that. I'll copy it. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
F&f Map2 Moving average (window width = 7) of FAC duration, numbers closed (=promoted+archived), promoted, and archived from March 08 to May 20

The raw data is too noisy to see trends; I have made a second plot of moving averages (of window width 7, i.e. every data point is replaced by the average value of a window of width 7 centered on itself) of total numbers closed in a month, numbers promoted, archived, and duration times. There are two clear trends. The numbers of archived FACs have steadily decreased. There is a strong correlation (shapes, slopes, or derivatives) of total closed (i.e. promoted + archived) and the total promoted, they vary together in shape. The difference between promotions and demotions/archived began to markedly increase (ca March 2012) around the same time that the FAC durations began to markedly increase. People seem to think that the standards became more stringent, but that were the case, there would have been more demotions. This, however, seems to suggest, what I have informally observed, that after this time an increasing number of nominators began to use the FAC process as a real-time editing opportunity for improving their submissions with the help of reviewers' suggestions ... pretty much until they were promoted. The exceptions seem few, and from spot-checks are usually FACs that do not receive the critical mass of reviewers. There is nothing wrong with that, but it puts pressure on the independent reviewers—i.e. those who are not submitting any FACs themselves and therefore do not have any benefit to gain from spending more time than is commonly reasonable for them. Their increasing withdrawal from the process makes the FAC process highly problematic and ridden with conflicts of interest. Nominators apparently do not brook suggestions that the submissions be improved outside the FAC process. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

To draw conclusions about a change in the composition of the nominating group I think we'd need data showing how FAC experience is distributed across the nominators each month and how that changes over time. The data I have will answer that but not till I put it in a database rather than Excel, which I'm not going to do till I've extracted all the data -- and that's at least six months away. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I haven't drawn any conclusion about the composition of the nominating group, only of the process. Clearly, sometime after March 2012, there is a discernable spread between the numbers promoted and the numbers archived, the former increasing and the latter decreasing. It also roughly correlates with increase in duration times. It could be the same nominators or it could be different I have no idea, nor interest. But the data is clear. The process changed. I'm not using Excel, by the way. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
If you want to have an article reviewed prior to FAV, you have only two options: A-class and Peer review,. and the former is only available to a small number of projects. So in some case, articles are being workshopped at FAC. In others though, there is nothing much wrong with the article all along. Note that the one-at-a-time and two-week rule are there specifically to slow the process. I am convinced that standards did become more stringent with the adoption of source and image reviews, which also served to slow the process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I think reviewers expect more and better sources than they did eight or ten years ago, with the availability of JSTOR and similar databases. I've always felt FAC is driven by the reviewers, rather than the nominators or coordinators, and reviewers have higher expectations than they used to.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I think both these last 2 comments are correct, & F&F's analysis. I hesitate to ask for yet more data, but a plot of the byte sizes of the discussions of the noms would be useful - I'd expect to see an increase in the average around this point. Johnbod (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I think F&F's conclusions are just one possible interpretation of the data, and generally agree with the thrust of Wehwalt and Hawkeye7's comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Spot on analysis from F&f. Many factors led to these issues, but one of the main ones was chasing off good reviewers. And Hawkeye7, where did you develop the notion that “the two-week rule is there specifically to slow the process”? No such thing was ever intended, and particularly not when it can be waived for diligent nominators. The two-week rule was put in place quite specifically to deal with a handful of abusive nominators, who brought back-to-back ill-prepared articles to FAC, sapping excessive resources, and putting up another as soon as one was archived. This was typical then of some Wikicup participants but also one nominator in particular. We are seeng the same trend now, and reviewers should stop turning FAC in to peer review. Nominators who bring ill-prepared articles should get a quick suggestion to withdraw, and Coords should be scanning for problematic FACs and shutting them down sooner, encouraging nominators to develop resources off-FAC for preparing their articles better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, I think the data you're asking for is in the graphs I posted in January showing average FAC size, at right here. The second one shows that most of the growth took place by early 2008 -- after that date there was a little growth, but fewer total FACs, which I think accounts for the increased variability in the line.

I also just realized that I do have a little data that I can provide about the number of reviews as opposed to the number of nominations. The table below shows the total number of reviews each year, along with the total number of FACs, and hence the average number of reviews per FAC. I don't have this data at the month level -- that'll only be possible when the data is in a database. The table doesn't answer the question of whether individual reviews are more rigorous now but it could be combined with the size data to show the average length of an individual review by year. If nobody else gets to that I'll try to put it together, maybe this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I just realized I had most of this data already tabulated, so I've now added a review size column below, showing kb per review by year. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Year # FACs # reviews R/F Avg R size
2009 991 8084 8.2 3.8
2010 925 7176 7.8 3.7
2011 665 4879 7.3 4.3
2012 636 4111 6.5 4.9
2013 651 3943 6.1 6.5
2014 505 3254 6.4 5.9
2015 485 2804 5.8 5.7
2016 365 2082 5.7 7.0
2017 463 2914 6.3 6.6
2018 377 2531 6.7 6.5
2019 416 2443 5.9 6.7
Sorry, missed these. They do seem to show increased extremes from 2011 on, and from 2014 that most of the really long noms fail. Perhaps not unexpected. Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Just added the review size column to the table above. It looks like it's been surprisingly stable since 2013. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Mike: Thanks. Do you have the data for the two graphs above in table form? If so, could you post the link for them? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
It's here. This doesn't include the last five months; if you want to extend it through May 2020, the number of FACs is drawn from the archives I linked to above, and the file sizes come from Dr. pda's page size script. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
F&f Map 3 Moving average (window width 13) of average sizes of individual FACs, magenta = all, red/orange = promoted; black = archived, from March 08 to Dec 19

It is hard for me to see trends in Mike's last graph (as very naturally the data is noisy). So I smoothed the data by taking moving averages of window length 13, approximating a changing window of length one year as it moves. My data begins on March 08, not April 04. The average FAC review size has increased (less after 2013); the average promoted FAC size has increased significantly; the average archived FAC size has not increased by as much; in addition, the number of archived FACs as kept decreasing (from Map2). I've done this in a hurry. I hope I haven't made any major errors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This makes it clear what is going on. For whatever reason, over a ten year period, FAC nominations fell by 58% but reviews fell by 70%. To compensate, the coordinators kept articles in the nomination queue until they received sufficient reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hawkey7: If that were the case, the number of FACs fell 33% between 2009 and 2011; the number of reviews fell 40% during that same time; 33/40 = 0.8 ≈ 0.82 = 58/70. The number of reviews fell even more sharply from 2008 to 2009 (see my map 2 above, but the review size actually fell between 2008 and 20011, see my maps 3. What Johnbod is saying is correct that the very long noms failed as is evident in Mike's last graph; but those are outliers, for when you smooth out the data, ie normalize for outliers by taking averages, one-year in Map3 above, you see that the general trend is that promoted and archived FACs decreased at the same rate from 2008 to 2011, but thereafter the promoted increased more in size than the archived. I will double-check my graphs; it is possible I may have made an error, but that is what I am seeing now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive81&oldid=1131532490"