Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avatar (2009 film)/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Avatar (2009 film)

Nominator(s): Blurred Lines 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's content's meets the criteria of FA, and I am willing to fix any problems with the article. Blurred Lines 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Main contributors of the article including Flyer22, Betty Logan, and DrNegative has been notified about this nomination, as the previous request was speedy declined because the nominator had zero edits on that article, and that none of the main editors were notified. Blurred Lines 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this nomination be closed, per similar reasoning given at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avatar (2009 film)/archive1. In part, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates explicitly states: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Blurred Lines did not do that; he simply notified us as if to state, "Yep, you're going through a FA review unless you decide to leave the work up to me." And that is why I reverted him here and here. This will come across as biting, but it's how I feel: I do not appreciate editors who are not significant contributors to an article swooping in and nominating that article for a higher status without attempting to consult with the main contributors about it, if the main contributors are still generally active on Wikipedia, especially nominators who won't be doing enough or most of the work...but will get that "I helped bring this article to FA" badge. It is frustrating to essentially be forced into a FA review. I am not ready for this FA review, and I know (from experience at this article) that I would very likely be doing most of the work (such as making sure that editors are not cutting important things or unnecessarily cutting things), especially since I am currently the editor who most actively edits the Avatar (2009 film) article. It should go without saying that FA reviews are stressing/frustrating because substantial changes are made to an article at the suggestion of other editors, often substantial changes that are not needed and are more so or solely personal opinion. Also, Bob K31416, as currently the second highest-billed contributor to the Avatar (2009 film) article, who is still very active on Wikipedia and who actually contributed more material to this article despite the fact that I am currently billed as the top contributor, should have been contacted about this nomination as well.

All that stated, if the other main contributors want to go through with this FA nomination, and it does go through, then I will help bring this article to FA status. Flyer22 (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently Blurred Lines does not understand what he did wrong with regard to this matter, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only just beat me to removing the nomination, both times. Wholly understand your frustration. No, he can't force this. Maralia (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Blurred Lines 21:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For further commentary on this matter, see this discussion. For the closer of this nomination, perhaps close this as Withdrawn? Closing it as Not promoted is less accurate to me because it suggests that the article was actually reviewed for FA status. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Blurred Lines' attempt to take on the technical aspects of closing the nomination, but we have a slightly different procedure for closing a nomination in a case where no significant opposes on content were lodged: such nominations do not get recorded in articlehistory. The previous nomination, in April 2012, was also closed improperly—neither of them should be recorded in articlehistory. The 2012 close was actually recorded in the archived nominations log so it's too late for me to fix that one, but I will remove the 2013 nomination from articlehistory to avoid compounding the error. Maralia (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Maralia: You know that you could just remove the nomination from the archives in April 2012, and tell that the nomination was wrong because there were no votes, and then remove it from articlehistory, unless if you can't do that, then you may have to get in contact with the admin (GrahamColm) who closed the last case to handle that matter. Blurred Lines 00:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC and adminship have nothing to do with each other; passes and fails are not judged by administrators, nor would I need an administrator's permission or help to edit the archives. Graham happens to be an administrator, but his relevant role here is as a FAC coordinator; given numerous similar situations in the past, I daresay he trusts my ability to handle this one, and he can't help but be aware of it thanks to the exhaustive discussion on his talk page.

I'm not going to edit the archives because they are archives, and as such are used to compile various statistics, such as promoted and failed FACs per month. There's no reason to skew the numbers in reports across Wikipedia in order to correct one minor issue. Maralia (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.