User talk:Cryptic C62/Workspace

Some notes

The first paragraph is inaccurate; also, since Marskell is more involved in the long-term history of FAR, it might make sense for his response to be first, followed by YM's additions to his comments. It may be helpful to keep in mind that the Signpost is Wiki's news, and as such, articles (particularly about important community processes) shouldn't really be heavily based on opinion, rather they should stick to the verifiable facts. I'm seeing a lot of opinion here, and an amount of negativity that concerns me, as well as some statements whose factual basis I might dispute. Just the facts is the best way to approach the Signpost, leaving opinions for the reader to form. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interview. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it appears in the Signpost, it's still news, and should be monitored for accuracy. Editorial judgment applies to interviews as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my proposed wording to correct several inaccuracies in the lead, as well as removing some negativity and redundancy:

Featured Article Review (FAR) is the process by which Featured Articles (FAs) are checked against the Featured Article criteria. After an initial review period, articles may move on to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) period to determine whether the article should remain featured. Featured article reviews have resulted in the demotion of more than 750 FAs, of which more than 30 have re-attained featured status. Here to tell us more about the process are YellowMonkey and Marskell, two of the FAR delegates.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to mess with the order of responses now that we've got the ball rolling. But I do find the lead odd. Why don't we just list that total number of removes and keeps? Marskell (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That observation applies throughout: a lot of opinion instead of stating numbers and letting them speak for themselves. At any rate, I still believe the flow is off and YM's first response should be recrafted to follow your accurate description of the history of FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit curious as to why the lead highlights the number of delistings but makes no mentions of the numerous saves (keeps). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Marskell (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queries and suggestions

Some queries from this version:

I only became mildly active in FAR in 2008.

YM, as you acknowledge your relatively recent involvement with FAR, I ask that you contemplate whether some of the opinions you've expressed about FAR prior to your involvement might warrant reconsidering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the archives at WT:FAR, the biggest changes appear to have occurred before mid-2006, when the current system was adopted, although the old process was not very busy at the time.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say the old process wasn't very busy. There were only 500 FAs then, so the numbers would naturally be lower. Also, the flow would be better here to first include Marskell's discussion of the changes that occurred, when FAR went to a two-stage process (which is not currently described accurately in this interview lead ... I added suggested changes above). Again, rather than making judgments or opinions, it may be better to stick to facts, state numbers (how many reviews under the old system)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up until mid-2006, the structure of FAR was different to how it is now, with the FAR period which is usually at least two weeks, to discuss problems and do work on the article, and then advocating keeping or delisting in the FARC stage. Before, it was more like a long AfD, more resembling the current FAC with changes more likely to be minor.

This is covered by Marskell below and could be edited out of here; even in interviews, editorial intervention is helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the newly adopted structure, there was initially quite a large pool of editors who tried to fix all sorts of articles at FAR, including those in topics that they were otherwise not involved in. As with now, a lack of inline citations was a common complaint,

This is misleading: FAR went to a two-stage process when citation requirements changed, so naturally, a lack of inline citations was the earlier focus, and if current FAs have citation issues, it's not comparable. This needs to be re-worked, and would make more sense if Marskell's post came first, and this followed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because many 2004 era articles had none at all. In the first half of 2007, there were quite vigorous and at times bitter argument there, often involving people who were associated with articles at FAR, who were very stridently critical of the FAR process and their articles being questioned.

This is complete and unsubstantiated opinion, and you acknowledge that you weren't involved at FAR before. In fact, from my perspective, FAR was one of the most pleasant places on Wiki to work because of the collegial group of editors committed to saving FAs, and the bitterness was sporadic and limited. I implore you to refrain from opinion in this piece ... opinion that may further negative memes about FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of FARs that generated a lot of heated debate include this, this and this (234kb), the latter of which led to this debate.

This singling out of articles is unnecessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some of those cases, the FARs resembled RFA/RFC in terms of political machination, rancour, and personalisation of issues.

Unnecessary opinion: I hope you'll consider deleting this. I disagree anyway. FAR was previously a very pleasant place, and this comparison is unwarranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After that there was a decline in activity at FAR, and WT:FAR traffic went down by over 80%.

"After that" implies a connection that I disagree with; I have my own opinions about why traffic declined at FAR, but one should keep opinions in these pieces to one's self, and stick to numbers and facts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the number of people who were actually working on improving the articles dropped a lot. It really slowed down in late-2008/early-2009 but has picked up since March, especially in the last 2 months, not just in terms of the number of articles being considered (stats) but in the depth and quantity of reviews, as well as article improvements.

Opinion again ... how can you say depth of reviews has improved if you weren't highly involved at FAR before 2008 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the politicisation and transformation of FARs into battlegrounds are a thing of the past and ideally more articles can be improved to meet the contempotary FA standards.

This statement is overly negative and I'm not sure how it helps promote the goals of FAR. The battlegrounds at FAR can be solved by getting a reign on a few editors, IMO, but it's not our opinions that we should be furthering here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the actual articles, WP:WIAFA is ever-tightening,

???? Nothing compared to the fundamental citation change that occurred in 2005, and little of significance ... we don't defeature old articles over alt text!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so the amount of work that is needed to sufficiently fix an article to pass FAR has also risen,

???? opinion ... and this viewpoint should be very demoralizing to FA writers ... why should writers submit FAs if it's going to be impossible to maintain them to standards ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

especially as referencing is often a major issue cited, and the fact that the criteria has now been changed to require "high-quality" sources; I have seen a lot of featured articles taken to FAR recently that were heavily based on hobby websites and so forth, or tertiary sources such as online enyclopedia biographies instead of in-depth secondary sources. I think this is one of the reasons that the FAR save percentage has declined, in addition to the exodus of people who used to help fix third-party FARs.

I'm glad that was prefaced with "I think", but it's still an opinion I disagree with. I think the save percentage has declined because the culture moved away from one of valuing saves to mass delistings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also a lot of people who wrote FAs a few years ago, but are still active, have stopped writing FAs in more recent times, so there a few who ignore it as well. I think in some of these cases they don't recognise the contemporary FA standards, or consider questioning of their articles to be illegitimate or irrelevant because some of them will still go around saying that they still have such a number of FAs even though they have been delisted.

Is this sort of anecdotal opinion (with which I disagree, BTW) helpful to the FA process? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of all of these comments, the only one I don't understand is: "Hopefully the politicisation and transformation of FARs into battlegrounds are a thing of the past..." This seems really backhanded and I don't know why YM posted it. Marskell (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]