User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4

Draft

@Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria: see the sandbox here, current vs. proposed.

My plan is to propose a two-stage FAC process, modeled precisely on WP:FAR's two-stage process.

Just as "Keep" and "Delist" are not declared in the first stage of FAR, "Support" cannot be declared in the first stage of FAC: the first stage of FAC will be only to a) review for the new Crit. 1 or b) oppose and suggest withdrawal. No more premature or driveby supports forcing the Coords to keep an ill-prepared nom open.

Unless an article passes everything in the new Crit 1, it doesn't move to the next stage. While the nomination is in stage 1, waiting for checks for 1) image policy, 2) copyvio, 3) source-to-text integrity, and 4) high-quality sourcing, reviewers can go ahead and do their prose and MOS nitpicking on the FAC talk, thus being prepared to Support only if/when the article passes to the next stage. That is, this won't slow down the overall process-- just force all that volume to the talk page until Crit. 1 passes. This minimizes the length of the FAC (solving template limits problem) by putting the prose and MOS nitpickery on talk, but doesn't allow nominations to move forward until/unless the new Criterion 1 is met. It will also encourage reviewers to do their nitpicking on talk, and summarize back to the FAC for the Coords once the nomination passes to the second stage.

We're rejected a two-stage process in the past because we "didn't have enough reviewers". Well, we don't have enough reviewers to keep wasting Ealdgyth's and Nikkimaria's time, while we get drive-by supports on FACs that are never reviewed for the most critical aspects, and this two-stage process will force or encourage more reviewers to get versed in the stuff that matters in the new Crit. 1. Once a nomination passes to the second stage, all of the source and image review can be moved to talk, voila .. the Coords have a lot less to read through. And it will be easier for them to determine if anyone actually reviewed for the rest of the criteria, which isn't happening now.

Separately, we do away with the "older nominations" marker, which has become useless anyway, since virtually all nominations run at least a month now. Instead of the "older nominations" division, we have a division exactly as we have at FAR, except that nominations will not have to be segmented like at FAR; we just move the Crit. 1 review to talk, declare that sourcing and images pass, and move the nomination below the line as we do at FAR.

Unless you two see major flaws here, I'll next ping in Gog and Ian, and plan to move forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This actually seems like a great idea, I think it would lead to more efficient use of reviewer and coord time and encourage reviewers to focus more on content and less on nitpicking. (t · c) buidhe 10:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea in general. I might quibble over some of the distribution of criteria - for example, if well-researched is 1 why is comprehensive 2? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The distribution is only intended to sort what is done in the first stage, from what is done in the second stage (although anyone can still Oppose in the first stage). That is, I am only aiming to get source and image review out of the way in a preliminary stage, before people start lodging premature supports and chunking up the page with prose and MOS nitpickery. It is not that one set of criteria is more important than any other; it is that all of 1 is specialty reviewing that can be done once, then set aside on talk to minimize FAC volume, and allow others to move forward with analysis of the rest-- allowing Coords to more easily see what has been accomplished in phase 2. (Glad you like it, Buidhe, as you are also one of the most likely to do the stage 1 work.) Unless @Ealdgyth, Gog the Mild, and Ian Rose: hate this, or object to the timing, I will type it up to put it forward at WT:FAC. Those who are familiar with FAR will intrinsically understand how this will work; it may be harder for others, but it solves a lot of problems.

Experienced nominators will object that it will slow down their FACs, but it won't! While they are waiting for the source and image clearance, reviewers can still be addressing other quibbles on talk, so that by the time a nomination moves to phase 2, reviewers only have to add: Support, I have reviewed on talk (link provided). It could actually speed up the reviewing process, as we now have so many lengthy prose nitpick FACs that then have to sit and wait for an image or source review at the end. And I hope this will force more reviewers to understand the importance of source and image reviewing, and take on those skills to lessen the burden on Ealdgyth, Buidhe and Nikkimaria. It also defines a boundary where phase 1 nominations can be archived if they haven't passed crit. 1, which should lessen the overall page burden, while clearing the way for a cleaner phase 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: would you also look in here before I type this up? I will specifically remind others not to !vote, just discuss the merits, and if there is enough to move forward, then we would craft an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

One concern I have long had is that we have never codified in WIAFA the copyvio checks. And I note in the period that Ealdgyth stopped doing source checks, many source and copyvio checks just never happened. That is why I am codifying source checking, copyvio check, source-to-text integrity, reliability as a specific point in phase 1. Our copyvio check is the only thing added to WIAFA; the rest is just moving the pieces of WIAFA around to define what happens in phase 1 before a nomination can move to phase 2.

I guess one question is whether image reviewing really belongs in phase 1, or if phase 1 should be exclusively focused on sourcing/copyvio check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't say it looks bad to me, but I am not sure that it'll actually solve anything because I suspect that we'll get (1) significant pushback from the folks currently active who LIKE the system now, where they can try to bully and/or ignore the source reviews by swamping it with prose supports and (2) there is way too much entrenched thoughts that prose/MOS is most important, not the actual quality of research/sourcing. Look at the abuse I'm taking at WT:FAC for being lazy and stuff. (And I'm going to say that I have no real motivation to continue doing source checks when this sort of discussion is what I'm treated to. Such a lovely way to wake up on a Monday morning while driving through LA traffic.) But I'm not opposed to trying this, at least. I just doubt that anyone is going to actually step up to take over Nikki or Buidhe or I's source reviewing. And most reviewers will continue to ignore it in favor of reviewing prose. (I'm getting so cynical in my old age) Ealdgyth (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the current state of FAC has pushed me over the line to a place of ... we have to at least try, and we have to do something. If it is rejected, people like me just finally give up on FAC. If it is accepted, hopefully it will not take too many archivals at the two-week mark for others to understand they need to start sharing the burden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way, Ealdgyth cheer up ! It is hard to imagine things getting any worse, and there is light at the end of the tunnel! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

ROFL.. I'm sitting at a shipper, typing on a laptop in a semi-truck, I've got to pee and there are no bathrooms and I'm starving because we were running late so no breakfast. And I can't turn the truck ON to use the microwave because the shipper doesn't want trucks idling in their lot. Tell me again things can't get worse??? Ealdgyth (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Just keep your retina attached or the docs will starve you for three days!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Local saying (which I am sure is more widespread) "Things a' ne'er so bad but that they can't get worse". A few decades ago a UK politician commented that there was light at the end of a particular tunnel, which sparked a whole series of responses. Among my favourites "Yes, that's because the tunnel is on fire" and "That is the light of an oncoming express". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

oh funny one, Gog the Mild, are you saying we will burn in the tunnel if I move forward with this? Speak now or forever hold it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like Victoria is the one who has to hold it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I’ll have you all know I have been bathroom stopped, fed, and we are now headed OUT of LA...thank all the gods and praise Mercury for his kindness to travelers...Ealdgyth (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

but the laptop is up until we clear Palm Springs so I’m stuck like Sandy on my iPad..forgive typos.Ealdgyth (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Well! If you want to hear some heavy duty whining, I had to learn how to operate the coffee machine all by myself with hubby’s retinal detachment. Beat that for hardship. Wave at all those Palm Springs solar windmills for me, spent a ton of time around there while second son was in school ... I wonder how many people noticed my time card encompassed four different time zones, making it look like sleeping beauty never slept ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is all tweaked and ready to post now, but have not heard from Mike C or Ian, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Due to the pandemic and the climate crisis, the light at the end of the tunnel will be turned off. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

So we burn in the dark ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, we're FAC regulars; it'll be an improvement! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Break

It's just brekkie time here so I'll need some more time to digest the proposal. I did suspect when Sandy threatened a new proposal on WT:FAC that it would be along these lines. A two-stage process, where stage one was source and, I think, image reviews was proposed and trialled some time back (couple of years?) although I'd need time to check the archives (Mike probably recalls). In principle I have no prob with the general concept (I don't think I had a prob with it back then either). A couple of things initially: 1) I think it's a false premise to suggest that drive-by supports are getting FACs over the line or take up the coords' time, we've always ignored them when it comes to determining consensus; 2) I think if this gets up it might be the catalyst to finally remove FAR from the FAC page -- two two-stage processes on the one page is too much IMO, and FAR has new momentum now with the Unreviewed featured articles page and the higher number of active FARs that nominators can have. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Did some trimming, but I don’t think the actual proposal said that drive-bys are getting through ... they require other reviewers to kick in with serious, unpleasant oppose ... how does it look now? Will wait for Mike before posting, considering I missed a chunk of history ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Haven't looked again at the proposal yet but as to the older 2-stage proposal, it didn't take the FAR/FARC form, rather, as I recall, it involved a pre-FAC source/image check on a FAC subpage -- if you didn't get past the pre-FAC check you didn't proceed to the regular FAC page. So not identical to this in form but close in principle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

aha ha ... this would be more enforceable, because codified in the criteria and instructions? Like at FAR, supports in first phase can be disregarded. And we can move all of first phase to FAC talk for clean start, when moving to second phase ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with both of Ian's numbered comments.
• Possibly "Citation templates are not required." → 'Citation templates are not a requirement.'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild I think it important initially to make sure the proposal sticks with pre-existing wording from WIAFA, and to remind commenters to focus on the proposal itself so we don’t go off into the weeds of tweaking up what is now at WIAFA (as opposed to re-arranging it) ... strategically, one thing at a time, and leave any other WIAFA tweaking til later ... ?? ... otherwise, trying to do too much at once and could lose focus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  OK, fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  I should also make sure Iridescent sees the point just above, as he will go hog wild on removing MOS altogether or something ;) ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  And while I am waiting for Mike’s feedback, speaking of Hogs, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Taking a look now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Some comments as I think of them, reading through the page and the comments:

• I agree with Nikki that it seems odd to have well-researched and comprehensive in different stages; not sure that's a major issue though.
• What Ian is remembering is here; there was a workshop here where we tried it on five articles. I think it's worth reading through the opposes on the RfC to see what people might object to in this idea. I would also suggest that if there seems to be support you try a workshop, as we did -- I think it was useful in clarifying for everyone exactly what was being proposed, and demystifying what might seem complex.
• I like the summary of the issues and goals as a useful way to get people to focus, but I don't necessarily agree with all of them. (Again, not sure that matters.) Your issue 2, for example -- as a reviewer I want to see what's been addressed but it's mostly an issue for the coordinators. If they agree this needs fixing I'll go along with that, but otherwise I don't see length as an inherent problem. Issue 5 -- I've seen a reasonable argument that experts on source and image reviewing are a good thing, not a bad thing; I recall a couple of spectacularly incompetent source reviews. Brian bowed out of source reviewing and others took up the burden; if our current (amazing) workhorses took a break, we'd cope, though we'd miss them badly. They certainly should not feel obliged to keep up the volume of reviews; that's the community's problem, not theirs. And issue 1 doesn't seem to be a problem -- I read every FAC and I think the poor-quality supports (a) are easy to spot and discard, and (b) will definitely not be eliminated by this proposal. In fact you'll get twice as many -- a drive-by "it passes crit 1" at stage 1, and a drive-by "support" at stage 2.
• Similarly three of your goals are low-value for me -- I completely agree with goal 4, but the others feel like nice-to-haves.

Overall I doubt I would oppose this, but I'm not optimistic it would help much. Sandy, I think the main difference between the way you and I think about FAC is that you think of it as a project with the FAC community as project team members -- resources that we should collectively allocate in the most efficient way. I think of it as a project that happens to work because it coincides with what people want to do anyway, which means there really are no resources to reallocate. This proposal tries to use our resources more efficiently, by avoiding certain kinds of wasted effort. I would love for it to work, but I'm sceptical. Sorry. Perhaps I'm just cynical.

I think you should post this for discussion. It's well-thought out and if it does make FACs go faster, that will make everyone happy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My turn ... reading through that history now... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Allright, thanks for that Mike Christie. You have accurately identified my operations research bent about allocation of scarce resources :)

There was considerable opposition to creating a whole 'nother process, so I made a number of adjustments to the text here to emphasize that this would be one integrated process, where all items could be reviewed concurrently. There was also opposition to reviews being held up while waiting for citation nitpicking, so I have again emphasized that the overall review does not have to be held up-- FAR provides the model for that where all items can be reviewed in both phases, but you can't !vote to delist in the first phase.

I don't believe it possible to work this in, but besides having at this moment at least four ill-prepared nominations on the page (that I know of, there may be more) with drive-by supports and ignorance of reliability of sourcing wearing down Ealdgyth and Nikki, there is a different FAC that focused me on the concerns. Biblical criticism. I initially started in on the talk page of the FAC to clean up a dreadful mess of citation formatting, but doing that kind of work by its very nature gets you into looking at reliability, source-to-text integrity ... the whole nine yards. As I was supposedly only cleaning up citations, I found one of every kind of sourcing problem, which led me to the idea that all of the source checking and cleanup should be done concurrently-- not split up to three ways as we are doing it now. If you're in there looking at sources or citations, you will find various kinds of problems. Biblical criticism is the utmost example of a nomination that could have/should have been shut down at two weeks (which I believe would have resulted in less frustration and hard feelings), but instead it grew so large on prose nitpicking that it broke FAC, and we ended up months later with a very unhappy nominator.

So, the idea here is to get this stuff up front, turn them around faster. I gather from the previous RFC that both Iri and Sarah were strong opposers in the 2018 venture, but we've got to try something ... the situation is not getting better, and while Ealdgyth wasn't doing this work, it just stop happening. So, what have we got to lose? Unless any of you have substantial other comments, I guess I will go for it ... the other factor in this proposal's favor is that we already have a working model of this at WP:FAR. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, how do you envisage that step 1 will work in practise? Would four reviewers each look at and pass judgement on one of a, b, c and d. (Obviously a reviewer might do more than one.) Or is it envisaged that one reviewer would do all of critreion 1 for each nomination? Or might several editors review one aspect eg a? Or several reviewers split a sub-criterion - eg one looking at "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", another at "high-quality reliable sources", a third at "claims are verifiable"? I am unclear as to how you see this working; or whether you are deliberately leaving it to see how it is worked out by the community. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me get stopped tonight so I can type coherently? I have some thoughts but it needs a real keyboard, not this tablet kludge. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Will wait, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gog, Either, or, all of the above. Just like with any FAC as we now do them, the Coords know who is good at what, and who has looked at what, and when to call for additional review in stage 1. Consider the mess at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Bud (2018)/archive1. Look at all the support and wasted review that occurred before Nikki identified sourcing issues; after she called for an in-depth look at Spanish-language sources, I looked and found issues of non-reliability and source-to-text integrity. Suppose we had instead done all of that first? The FAC would have turned around faster, and the nominator may have been able to finish before classes resumed. Ditto for Biblical criticism. And the four QPQ that I highlighted on FAC talk, sitting there with all kinds of drive-by support over faulty sourcing. I think if you are comfortable with how FAR works, you understand that any reviewer can say anything at any point ... the only change is we don't move to stage 2 until the Coords agree there is consensus that sourcing, copyvio and image licensing are sound, and we don't Support in stage 1.

Practically speaking, how it happens at FAR is that reviewers enter a declaration to Move to FARC when no progress has been made; alternately, Hold in FAR, progress happening (which can lead to Close without FARC). In the case of FAC, reviewers would declare things like, 1a, 1b and 1d met, 1c pending ... and the Coords decide whether to archive or move forward.

The truth is, if this works well, we will see Nikki, Buidhe and Ealdgyth probably still shouldering a lot of the work, but hopefully being less frustrated by that work (Coords can now shut 'em down at a certain point), and I HOPE we will see other reviewers take an interest in doing sourcing work as this will force them to understand that prose nitpicking without taking sourcing into consideration does not an FA make. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, don't take this the wrong way, but rather than an answer to my query that seems to be a restatement of several points you have already made, some wishful thinking, and some hand waving. I think people are going to query this point with some force. It would be nice to have a clear answer. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ummm .. I thought it was clear :) Trying again:

Any reviewer may review any part of crit. 1; this may be accomplished by multiple reviewers doing different parts, one reviewer doing all parts, or anything in between. When reviewers believe that crit. 1 (or parts of it) are met, they enter a declaration to that effect, stating which parts were reviewed (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d) and providing supportive examples. Coords decide if there is consensus to move to the FAPC stage. Coords retain discretion to close the FAC without moving to the second stage, or to move to the second stage noting that some items are not fully resolved (for example, when Ealdgyth says, "leaving this one out for reviewers to decide"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, that seems clear. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Ms. Verbosity :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, a minor point I noticed: you say that reviewing has declined since 2018 but in fact it’s increased — I can give you exact numbers next time I’m at my PC if you want, but we had just over 2500 reviews in 2020, and just over 2200 in 2018. As I recall the review count declines from 2007 to 2015 or 2016 and then steadies; I’m pretty sure it’s gone up both of the last two years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

ipad typing, where do I say reviews have declined since 2018? Do I say that on the proposal page? What I usually say is that throughput has declined overall, steadily, and dramatically, and not accompanied by an increase in quality, as reviews focus so exclusively on prose now, with many reviews never addressing other criteria at all. Of course reviews increased in 2020; some of the toxic elements departed, and I started reviewing again ;) And I have been recruiting reviewers, and Gog has been recognizing and rewarding reviewer efforts. I thought things were turning around, but the recent toxicity, combined with the drivebys, and beating up on Ealdgyth and Nikki, are discouraging. If I say in the proposal that reviews have declined since 2018, I would need to fix that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of "The situation since 2018 has come to a point that we don't have enough reviewers to not do something about these concerns"; I can see you might not have meant that, but perhaps it could be better phrased? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

ah, I see ... was referring to the date of the last RFC ...will fix all tomorrow from real computer. When I am hopefully less discouraged ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth

So now that I'm not bouncing across the desert ... and I've had some time to think, here's my thoughts:

1. I think I agree with HogFarm that let's first get something into the process for copyvio checks and how they should be judged. Is it enough to run earwig's tool and google three random phrases? (that's what I do for GANs I review). Or should we see if we can get something more - maybe one of the services schools use to check for plagarism would donate some accounts to English Wikipedia? Should we be checking against some of the sources available at the Wikipedia Library? Should we also check not just plain Google but Google Books and Google Scholar? Perhaps Newspapers.com?
2. Next, we probably need to codify some other things - (a) when spot checks should be done (b) the fact that coordinators look for at least one support from an editor outside of the subject area and (c) the fact that there is no hard and fast number of supports that will cause an FAC to be promoted nor is an oppose necessarily a veto. I think some of the newer folks at FAC are very confused about (c), by the way.
3. Then after we've dealt with the above, we can deal with the proposal here. As an aside, I'd move the consistency of citations/etc into the second phase - keep it with the MOS issues, rather than adding it to the source reviewers plate. I've found that the current way I'm doing source reviews (which is not checking for formatting issues) really does make it easier for me to do more source reviews. And it just "fits" better into the basic premise of the two stage process - we look at the foundations in the first part (i.e. stability, comprehensiveness, source reliabilty, and use of summary style) and then when those are satisfied, we move to the nitpicking of prose and formatting and MOS

I'll be back shortly after eating. Ealdgyth (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

OK. So launch on two-phase proposal is a no-go I guess? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think not quite yet. let me finish eating.... Ealdgyth (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Mañana (we are back to teaching hospital, long drive, on Wednesday for multiple followups). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

To return to this... for the last few weeks, I've been trying to carve out time to look at the new FACs soon after they get nominated, and do a quick check of their source reliablity. If I just spot one or two marginal sources (i.e. ones that likely pass WP:RS but might not pass the high quality requirement) I generally don't comment, but if there is something that concerns me or if there are more than one or two marginal sources, I'll do a source review. I don't do spot checks, I don't check for formatting, but I have basically been doing this proposal for the last few weeks. It's not QUITE back to the old old days when I jumped on every FAC within 24 hours of it going up and did a full review - even if there weren't many problems, but it's at least catching the worst problems. One reason I say to work on your proposal in stages is that since I'm sorta-doing at least parts of it already, if we have several more months where folks get used to this idea in an informal manner, it may be easier for them to accept the more formal proposal. Ealdgyth (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Good thinking. Lead by modeling good review practices, backburner two-stage proposal proposal for later as newer participants see how it was once done. I, too, used to get on every new FAC within 24 hours, but now I am also trying to re-invigorate peer review and get URFA going ... so have not been able to help enough. Getting the eyeball ripped up didn’t help ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as "sneaky" but ... whatever... Ealdgyth (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been trying to jump onto newly-listed FACs that I see have significant issues quickly as well. The Billy Bates one I linked below, as well as the 2048 (video game) one currently up. I do feel a little uncomfortable doing that sometimes, as a) I feel like a jerk crushing people's hopes and dreams with a quick oppose (my first FAC was a rather involved experience, and I turned out fine, but I also understand that my backwoods agricultural upbringing gave me a more resilient personality than many have) and b) I don't feel like I've been around the process long enough to have a whole lot of credibility to be handing out early opposes. Altough, like Sandy, I've been giving URFA some decent chunks of attention. Hog Farm _Talk 04:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Break 2

I think this proposal is a fairly good idea. Like anything, I'm sure that it will go through some tweaks with further discussion, and some more if it's put into practice. But I can see a lot of pushback on this; I'm not convinced that this would actually pass. Something along these lines clearly needs to change with FAC, as the focus on prose over sourcing is putting the cart before the horse and starting to bring us back to the bad old "brilliant prose" days. My biggest concern with this is how to handle comprehensiveness. I can see why having needing a comprehensive check before moving on the the proposed FAPC section would substantially slow down the process/lead to shoddy claims of "its comprehensive", but if an article truly isn't comprehensive, then that needs determined as early in the FAC as possible, as FAC isn't the place to be added big chunks of material. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Billy Bates (baseball)/archive2, which was archived quickly due to comprehensiveness issues; if it's not comprehensive, it needs weeded out before it starts moving along. But as above, there would be issues with moving it into the step 1. So this needs more discussion. I'm afraid with the amount of pushback we might get, we'll have to have a basically perfect proposal to get consensus. It might almost make sense to make the sweeping one the narrowest. I'd almost recommend making the copyright violations addition a separate proposal, as that needs to happen, and should be reasonably noncontroversial. I appear to be the least experienced editor here by a couple miles, though, so feel free to ignore this whole paragraph. I just think the best chance to get acceptance is to polish the heck out of this before bringing this to a wider audience, and separating out at least the additional copyright violation criteria into a different proposal. Hog Farm _Talk 01:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

thx, hog, ipad typing, more later, value your input as you are fresh, and one gets to the point where being taken for granted can make one jaded ... does anyone else think rolling the copyvio part in to this is too much at once? And does anyone see a way to move comprehensive into stage one? Anyone can still oppose in stage 1 on comprehensive ... SandyGeorgia (Talk)

maybe i should just give up. Fighting to re-invigorate the whole process, once most dynamic and highly regarded on Wikipedia, but why ... just to see ego battles and abuse of ealdgyth and nikki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, will not be giving up on FAC. I've seen things improve a bit in the time I've been involved here, and I really think a lot of the issues at WT:FAC boil down to a small number of editors being problematic. Major procedural changes might be a hard sell, but if doable if done in a prepared and polished manner. I was not around to see any of the good old days of FAC, but I see a process that is important, and I think I'm seeing greater awareness that something needs to change. It'll take tact (the danger with pointing out problems with a process is that people tend to take that personally), a good plan, and a clear vision of how to achieve that and transition, but I sincerely hope some FAC reform can occur. Hog Farm _Talk 02:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, no such thing as the "good old days of FAC", as we certainly had issues during my tenure, but at least we can say that, compared to now, most of the disruption then came from long-term abusers/sockmasters. Not that that changes anything I guess. I am encouraged to see the number of new people stepping forward. I will wait and see if Nikki/Ealdgyth want this proposal to move forward, as they have been the most beaten up. We have to do something to get that to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I do think HF has a point regarding the copyvio addition - I think it makes sense to propose that separately, although I don't agree it's likely to be uncontroversial seeing as it essentially imposes a spotcheck requirement on all noms. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki. Nikki, Ealdgyth, re Sandy's comment: do you feel more beaten up than in the past? Perhaps I'm not paying enough attention, but as I recall there's always been resistance to critical commentary about sources and images. Are you seeing noticeably more resistance over the last few months?

Sandy, it's the people with energy who make change happen; there are a lot of people who would like to improve FAC, so there's a pool of energy to draw from. And things aren't that bad -- we have been getting more reviewers and more nominations for a couple of years now, and the number of problem FACs is still small in percentage terms. So even if your proposal doesn't pass, I think FAC is going in the right direction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

IME image reviews are usually less of a problem in this regard, and I can only recall a few cases specifically regarding image reviews that I would characterize in that way (this one comes to mind). Often people don't have a good understanding of how copyright works but are willing to at least try to sort things out. Sourcing, on the other hand, people think they know (even if what they think is short of the "high-quality" requirement), and they tend to get more upset when someone disagrees. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought -- that images cause less trouble. (I promise that the next time I bring something to FAC I'll make less of a mess of the images.) But I don't recall seeing *more* fights about sources these days than in the past. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It is more the general and ongoing abuse of, and lack of appreciation for, reviewers that discourage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrapping up

OK, I have fixed the misleading 2018 statement pointed out above by Mike Christie. I defer to Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria, as they are the two doing the most work in this area and most affected, and so will not advance the proposal. I will leave this in sandbox in case any of it is useful for future efforts (feel free to copy from it in the future if there is any use for parts of it), but without making adjustments mentioned by Ealdgyth about how to re-arrange the criteria for two phases yet ... not worth fixing if the proposal isn't to be used.

I understand that one will always brush up against egos and the entitled at FAC—part of the territory. Nonetheless. I am disturbed about the environment that exists at FAC; the concern is reinforced by an email I got this morning from a very respectful and decent participant who wants to know why so many hysterical attacks on reviewers are allowed. I struggle to figure out what can be done to reign in those problems, and this was my effort to help better define reviewing so reviewers would be less under fire in at least one aspect (sourcing). I regret seeing how Nikkimaria and Ealdgyth are treated; I hope they will keep soldiering on, as I struggle to enjoy working towards promoting FAs with so much ego and entitled interference and attacking. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that I don’t think this is a bad idea, I just want to see it succeed so I think some ...politicking..is in order. As for why attacks on reviewers are permitted, it’s because no one steps up (and I’ve been guilty of this myself). When I was called lazy yesterday...did anyone correct that? If no one shows that that sort of behavior won’t be tolerated...it shows folks that it’s okay to hpbehave like that. Just like training a horse...if you don’t correct the behavior...they’ll keep doing it. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been stepping up. Meaning I get attacked as well (which was the point made by the person who emailed me last night). I know that the only way I survived as delegate as long as I did was because others defended my actions when they were questioned or when I was attacked. Often, I would wake up to an entire thread on my talk page where I had nothing to add as others had already defended me. Folks aren't understanding that if they don't stand up to abuse of the Coords, they are going to end up without Coords. This was my little effort to reign in one piece; I wanted to codify the importance of sourcing and image policy-based work. And Mike, it is also part of why I worry so much about how we use the stats; the ego problem is bad enough already. Yomangani was right about the damaging effects of WBFAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

So, this is the first time I've noticed this page and this proposal. Well, stupid me. I figure that when/if Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Huaynaputina/archive1 becomes ready it might make a good testing ground if we want to run Sandy's proposal through a trial run.

One thing that I wonder about, this seems to combine a change in procedure with a change in WIAFA criteria. Are they meant to hang together? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That was one of the main questions, Jo-Jo, re trying to do too much at once. Since 2010, we have done copyvio checks, but that was never codified in the instructions. And yet, I wanted to get all of the sourcing stuff in one place, to give it priority. Ealdgyth suggests above that the copyvio matter should be handled separately, first, before any proposal like this. But I am not going to launch this proposal now anyway. And by the way, I still owe you so much work at Huaynaputina, which I have not forgotten ... we are all day tomorrow back at the hospital re husband's eye, but I will get on it soon. I think I am only about halfway <sigh> ... There are still some FA editors I truly enjoy working with :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, Ealdgyth, Gog the Mild, Nikkimaria - do y'all think it would be advisable to go ahead and do the new copyvio criteria separately in the near future, for simplicity of the later, bigger proposal? As Jo-Jo Eumerus just pointed out, there are elements of a change in procedure and a change in criteria here. I'd be willing to make the proposal (and take any complaints directed at me for proposing it), but I'd like to make sure there is consensus this is appropriate before doing so. I'd also be willing to use a FAC nomination of mine as a test of the process. Maybe get a few nominations together to form a flight to test, at a future timing to be determined later? Hog Farm _Talk 16:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Mike is good at formulating proposals, should you all decide to move forward on codifying copyvio checks into the criteria or instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to propose something regarding copyvio. I'm not sure whether that is best approached as a criteria change, or codifying a spotcheck process. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, its something that should be done, but the best way to do it, I'm not certain. Personally, I have a slight preference to a criteria, as it's clearly a long-standing consensus that featured articles (or any articles) should not contain copyright violations, and I think it's a good thing to clearly state that expectation in the criteria, as sort of a "what is a featured article" thing, but I'm more than willing to defer to the judgment of more experienced editors on this. Hog Farm _Talk 16:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm rather fond of my yellow highlighted wording, but we all know my prose stinks :) I don't really understand why we aren't at least running Earwig on all FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Because most people don't know how to interpret Earwig properly :-). Earwig is helpful in certain circumstances, but in others tends to confuse people more than help them, and is never a substitute for a proper (human) spotcheck. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: re floating a formal proposal to add a "own words/no copy vio" criterion to the FAC criteria, yes; I think that it would be a good idea to run that as a "just codifying" existing practice basis, probably sooner rather than later. Personally I quite like Sandy's proposed wording. And well done that man for volunteering, but just because you have a backwoods agricultural upbringing, don't you go doing no Pickett's Charge, y'hear. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

After reading through Sandy's wording, I have come to the conclusion that she worded it better than I could. Hog Farm _Talk 16:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

So, I guess someone needs to propose a WIAFA 1 (f); not gonna be me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have worked up a tentative draft at User:Hog Farm/FACR proposal, if anyone would like to take a look at that; I'm sure my wording could be improved somewhere. Hog Farm _Talk 18:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

+1 to what Nikki said about Earwig; interpreting its results is a complex skill, and we don't really want to be encouraging people to use it without understanding it. It just about works at DYK where the articles are brand new, but by the time an article reaches FAC it's often been on Wikipedia for years. Over those years, other websites and even academic publications will quite legitimately re-use material from that article under CC, which in turn will be picked up by Earwig as a violation.

If you want a fairly spectacular example, my William Etty biography was copied—with attribution—by the Tate Gallery website. Given the Tate's respected status, this in turn has been copied and excerpted by numerous other publications. The net result is that Earwig currently shows the Wikipedia article as 99.6% likely to be a copyright violation. (If you want an example from your own work, it shows Dementia with Lewy bodies as 98% plagiarized, for the same reason.) ‑ Iridescent 07:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Iri, I know all of this, and there is still a use for Earwig. (You might have missed all the discussion about Dementia with Lewy bodies, which is a situation well beyond random plagiarism and into a money-making empire, and for which I have an attorney on board). If one uses Earwig correctly, it can still be useful for identifying copyvio, or at minimum, flagging backwards copies on talk, as I have done at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comprehensive

Multiple people (Ealdgyth, Nikkimaria and now Z1720 on my talk) have asked why I did not include "Comprehensive" (current 1b, proposed 2b) in the first stage.

First, please keep in mind that one can "Oppose" or "Suggest withdrawal" based on any criterion at any point; the point of a two-stage process is that one can't "Support" until certain things can be looked at. So, if there are comprehensive issues, any reviewer can still flag that in the first stage, just as any reviewer can still flag sourcing issues even after the nomination moves to the second stage.

Second, the idea of the first stage is to look at the sources presented and determine if an article is ready to move to the second stage based on those. Sources that are left out (not comprehensive) is not something the specialty reviews would be looking at, but are still something that can be raised as an oppose. The idea of the first stage is to look specifically at sources and images that are in the article, but the specialty sourcing reviews wouldn't necessarily be done by the same kind of reviewer who would be raising questions about "why haven't you included these sources", which can still be done in any stage. Stage 1 is a first pass; that something is not in it does not mean one cannot still oppose on that basis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for raising this on your talk page, Sandy, I didn't know about this disucssion. I'm concerned about comprehensiveness being in step 2. If an article is missing an important section, the nominator might need to reference new sources to verify this section. The new sources need to be evaluated, triggering a new source review. Does this mean the article will get sent back to step 1? I think putting comprehensive in step 1 will avoid this problem and step 2 should only focus on fixing prose, like comma placement and jargon. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: From my experience, if an article is determined to be missing that much information, it is usually archived and worked on outside of FAC in preparation for a new nomination. Hog Farm _Talk 16:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologize! I just moved it here for broader discussion and to keep it all in one place. No, wouldn't need to be sent back. I guess this is hard for editors who aren't familiar with FAR to grasp, but anything can still be evaluated in the second phase. The first phase is just a precursor. If sources are added, they SHOULD be looked at in the second phase. That's OK :) And the second phase should "Not" be restricted to only fixing prose and MOS; it should not be restricted at all. The only idea of phase 1 is that you don't support until some basics have been cleared; that doesn't not prevent opposing, and it presumes continued scrutiny in the second phase. But, as HF says, if major sources are noted as missing in phase one, that would probably trigger a withdrawal anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Copied after deletion

User:A. Parrot I am copying your deletion here so I don’t forget it :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The broader proposal seems reasonable. If we're going to re-work the FA criteria, my only suggestion is a wording tweak. User:Iridescent has a long-standing complaint that "thorough" in the sourcing criterion implies that the article uses every RS, which is of course impossible when dealing with a large topic. I don't agree that it necessarily means that (it depends on whether you define "thorough" as meaning "complete with regard to every detail" or merely "performed or written with great care and completeness"), but if we can make the criteria clearer, we should. "Extensive and representative" might be a better wording than "thorough and representative". FAs should reflect the current state of opinion among the relevant RSes (due weight, age matters, and all that), and while extensive research is necessary in order to achieve that, the use of every RS isn't. A. Parrot (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A. Parrot, I was trying to avoid changing any of the criteria as part of this, as that would get the whole proposal even further into the weeds and drag it down (as it already is on FAC talk). That “thorough” in sourcing should be a separate discussion … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that makes perfect sense. A. Parrot (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)