Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive64

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


Merger of TFASTATS and TFAREC / 2014 TFA page views

Further to previous discussions, instead of having one venue for a list of TFAs with page views (TFASTATS) and another venue for a list of TFAs with other details such as time elapsed since promotion (TFAREC), there is now one - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs (shortcut WP:TFAREC). As part of the process of merging the two, I have added page view stats for the whole of 2014 to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/TFAs in 2014. The most-viewed TFA last year was Derek Jeter (baseball shortshop, TFA requested to mark his final game in his final season) with over 279,000 page views. The next highest (and only other to top 100,000 views) was Bharattherium, an extinct Indian mammal. Three warfare articles made up the rest of the top five, and were the only others to top 70,000: Tanque Argentino Mediano, an Argentinian tank; Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi, a Japanese surgeon in WW2; and German battleship Bismarck, sunk in WW2 and TFA to mark the 75th anniversary of its launch. Not all the figures look reliable - I doubt that Creek Turnpike got less than 2,000 page views, for instance, and the Indian actress Deepika Padukone apparently had fewer hits on TFA day than five other days that month (and no hits the day after TFA day). But you may find other things of interest. Comments welcome. BencherliteTalk 19:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a lot of work. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed! Is it on a spreadsheet, or could someone clever put it on one? The median is somewhere around 16K perhaps. Johnbod/ Wiki CRUK John (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
You can just click and copy from the screen and paste into Excel or the spreadsheet of your choice. Median is 16,191; average (assuming all numbers are accurate and combining the hits from the double-header TFA) is 21,784. Fuller details below. BencherliteTalk 09:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hours of fun! Thanks very much. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Topic No of TFAs Average views Median views Most popular Views
Art and architecture 13 20,245 15,248 The Blind Leading the Blind 57,685
Biology 46 17,883 13,410 Bharattherium 123,548
Business 6 14,303 12,505 Kennedy half dollar 24,572
Chemistry 2 19,368 19,368 Fluorine 26,455
Culture and society 3 42,822 41,960 Disco Demolition Night 47,877
Engineering and technology 1 20,032 20,032 Waveguide filter 20,032
Food and drink 1 21,600 21,600 Cabbage 21,600
Geography 12 20,295 17,902 Colorado River 39,430
Health and medicine 2 19,904 19,904 Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom 24,536
History 15 24,210 20,482 William Calcraft 55,961
Law 5 31,148 18,959 Murder of Leigh Leigh 69,677
Literature and theatre 22 15,446 12,643 Goodman Beaver 32,794
Media 31 24,743 24,078 Charlie Chaplin 69,403
Meteorology 11 8,718 8,502 Hurricane John (1994) 12,781
Music 29 16,828 12,763 Jimi Hendrix 63,418
Physics and astronomy 7 17,732 15,348 Leo Minor 30,612
Politics and government 18 17,026 13,397 Thaddeus Stevens 48,144
Religion, mysticism and mythology 8 18,546 17,186 Madeline Montalban 33,756
Royalty 7 34,241 29,033 Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale 60,087
Sport and recreation 34 23,270 12,059 Derek Jeter 279,020
Transport 16 14,701 12,422 Steamtown, U.S.A. 26,700
Video gaming 15 20,571 20,419 Cave Story 34,360
Warfare 61 31,546 27,508 Tanque Argentino Mediano 75,568

WikiCup

I just wanted to remind everyone that the WikiCup is in full-swing. We normally get an influx of nominations from Cup participants. Since last year they have doubled the value of FAs, so we might expect more nominations than usual, some of them ill-prepared. UcuchaBot used to identify WikiCup nominations, but it hasn't run in months. --Laser brain (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks Andy, you beat me to it! I was going to ask WikiCup competitors to please declare if their FACs are entries or not (some aren't) until we sort out a replacement for UcuchaBot, which I'm also looking into. The coords will still check when competitors nominate FACs, but it's nice to be saved the trouble of asking... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding the bronze star

Hi everyone, I’ve noticed people still sometimes manually add the bronze star, i.e. {{featured article}}, to the top of FAs following promotion. This isn’t necessary as Hawkeye’s FACBot takes care of it, along with updating article history and closing the relevant FAC page. The bot runs regularly (usually the same day) so just be patient to avoid duplicating effort. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

New FAC and FAR coordinators

In case anyone missed it, the FAC and FAR coordinator proposal has closed, and all suggestions were carried. The FAC and FAR instruction templates have now been updated to reflect that:

Thanks SandyGeorgia for putting the proposal together, Risker for closing, and of course everyone who stopped by to comment. Special thanks to Ucucha and Dana for all the hard work they put in over the years, and thanks/congrats to all the new coords! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Picking what to review

I'd like to hear from other reviewers how they pick an article to review, partly because I wonder if we could be more efficient about allocating our review effort, and partly just because I'm curious. Here's how I do it.

  • If I see anything I feel expert on, I'll review that. This almost never happens.
  • If I feel I owe another reviewer a review of their article, I'll do that next. I try not to do too much of this because I don't want a tit-for-tat reviewing environment, but I do think it's appropriate to thank another reviewer occasionally by reviewing their FAC.
  • Then I start from the bottom of the FAC page and work up.
    • If an article has four or more supports, I skip it.
    • If it has three solid supports and no outstanding questions I skip it unless I think I'd really enjoy reviewing it.
    • If it has opposes that seem reasonable and have not been resolved, and I don't think I can add anything to the discussion, I skip it.
    • If it's a medical article I will usually skip it; this is probably irrational but the standards for medical articles are deservedly high and I'm not sure I can provide a useful review.
    • If it has no supports or one support, then I will usually review it. There's little worse at FAC than failing for lack of reviews. I might skip it if the nominator looks bad-tempered or unreasonable, or if there's a dispute going on on the FAC page, but I'll try to review it if I can.
    • If it has two supports, then I may or may not review it. If there are other old FACs with zero or no supports further up the list, I might do those instead.

I used to try to review three FACs every time I brought something to FAC myself, and I think I've stuck to that on average, but I've recently resolved to try to make it six reviews per FAC of my own, just to increase the reviewing volume. Not sure I can stick to that, but since FAC is slower than it used to be it might not be that hard. I picked six because I've rarely had a FAC get promoted without at least five or six editors chiming in, so six seems about an even payback number. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's how I do it (if I could number your points above, it would be easier. On your points 1 and 2, same. On your point 3, same, because the bottom of the list is where the delegates most need help (that is, closer to closing or promoting).

From that point on, we diverge a bit. If an article is "maturing" towards promotion (two or more supports), I will almost certainly review it, because things are always missed. Even if only minor nitpicks are found, that not only helps the Coordinators in the closing, but it also helps train up nominators and other reviewers on things they didn't know or check.

If a FAC has an Oppose already, or if it is pages and pages of text going nowhere, I'll either skip it or ask why it hasn't been closed (it is unfortunate if we must be more aggressive about opposing ill-prepared noms, but that's the message I'm taking from the other discussion above, so henceforth I will be more likely to oppose the ill-prepared noms, whereas earlier, I would have just mentioned the obvious deficiencies of an ill-prepared nom, which could be closed by the Coordinators without engaging scarce reviewer time in lengthy back-and-forth peer review).

Mike, it is MOST unfortunate that you skip medical articles, because often the prose is too dense, jargon-laden, and difficult to penetrate, and laypersons are needed to review prose, even if they don't feel qualified to Support ... non-medical editors should PLEASE review them for jargon, digestibility, etc. But like you, I have articles I won't review at all. I'll review pretty much any content area: the FACs I won't review are not based on content, rather nominator. Those are FACs from nominators known to either not respond well to critique or requests for change, not address all issues when samples are raised, revert changes requested at FAC once the FAC closes, or nominators who get guaranteed support regardless of the quality of their articles-- there is no point in engaging those nominators or nominations, because either they sap what little review time one has, or the FACs pass even if one points out deficiencies.

Also, Mike, maybe we can get you to review one FAR per each FAC submitted? The number of sub-standard FAs has become alarming, since FAR has been stalled for years. It's much less time consuming than reviewing a FAC, and often it's only a matter of having a look and saying yes, obvious deficiencies, so they can be closed. In a large number of FARs, the FAC nominator is long gone and no one is working on or maintaining the article: FAR just needs a few more folks to opine Keep or Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I can't say I've got a method, but I have some tendencies. I tend to take a peek at every article that gets nommed, even when I'm not looking for something to review. I avoid FACs by the big names who're guaranteed to have half a dozen supports within days—seems to me like a waste of time. I avoid noms by editors who've given me attitude in the past. Sometimes I'll favour the top of the pile to get things moving, or the bottom to get noms out of the mud. I don't like the idea of tit-for-tat, but there are certain editors who've reviewed my own noms with some frequency, so I'm a bit torn between wanting to return the favour and wanting to avoid seeming clique-ish. Long articles are time consuming, and it's heartbreaking to put a lot of work into them just to see them get archived (happened a bunch of times); short ones that look well organized are easy to breeze through so even if they get archived I don't feel so much like my time's been wasted. The kinds of articles I feel I have anything like "expertise" don't pop up at FAC much. Sometimes I guilt myself into choosing topics I have no interest in (sports, for example), because I know how little interest there is generally in my primary editing area (arts comics). In the end, my choices are pretty capricious. I imagine my response will be the least helpful one you'll get, but thank you for the opportunity to talk about myself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I mainly do (thorough) GA reviews, these are often nominated for FAC afterwards, so I feel too "involved" to FA review them. But in both cases, I review articles where I have some kind of expertise (mainly related to zoology and blues-derived music, my other areas of interest usually don't end up at GA/FAC). And I also refrain from reviewing articles with four or more supports. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I review within my area of expertise (zoology/general biology) and other areas I'm interested in (science, history, national parks). I generally avoid entertainment articles (BLP for celebrities, popular movies/music, etc.) mostly because they don't interest me and I have a hard time grasping what constitutes a "reliable source" outside of academia. Unlike FonkMonk, I will review any article I've reviewed at GAN because I'm often encouraging them to develop closer to FA standards. I'm just now returning to FAC after a long break, so I've only been reviewing 3-4 articles per nomination. I would try to find time for more, but most of the articles I'm most comfortable reviewing get plenty of reviews without me. Honestly, I feel the review processes across enWiki (DYK, GAN, and FAC) have been degenerating for a long time. Before I began taking a break, I was a vocal critic of the drive to recruit more editors—instead favoring a drive to recruit more reviewers. (Yes, there are actually a lot of people out there who hate writing but love critiquing and correcting other people's writing... and most of them don't know they can contribute to Wikipedia beyond simple edits.) I, too, would like to avoid a tit-for-tat system, but I always worry that my noms won't catch enough interest and get archived, forcing me to waste time nominating them again and delaying my latest projects. Anyway, the short an simple answer to the question: I review what I'm comfortable with, favoring articles that need reviews to pass or get off the ground. – Maky « talk » 09:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd say my method matches yours closely, Mike Christie, although I never really thought about putting it to paper. Relatively few articles show up here that are within my realm of professional expertise, so I am usually reviewing outside my zone. I think this is a good thing. --Laser brain (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I sorta do what Mike does - but I'm more likely to find something to review on the first stage - I'll review most any history article. I don't touch roads or pop culture subjects (music, films, tv shows, etc). I rarely want to mess with med or hard science articles - the few times I have, I just found it a depressing situation. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • At present my own FAC reviewing is restricted by my TFA responsibilities, but as a general point, per Curley Turkey above, I think it's wrong not to engage with the noms of the so-called "big names". I am always delighted when an unknown or less familiar name comments on one of my FACs, whether or not this leads to a support. In my experience some excellent points have been raised and resolved through such reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I generally pick articles by individuals who I've worked with before (though I still review the whole thing, in as much detail as I can; no back scratching), or, barring that, articles on fairly obscure topics which may not get many reviews. I have generally shied away from medical articles because of the jargon issue, though once in a while I may venture there. If I see something on Asia I'll generally comment there, or a subject I really enjoy (The Fifth Element and Maurice Richard are two of the most recent that fit that category). A lay review is still helpful, after all, because articles have to be accessible to both subject experts and casual readers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pretty much I write the only articles in my specific area of expertise, but when I am active I like to review articles in the broader categories that fills in - military (battles, ships), universities, and biographies. Ealdgyth and Wehwalt's articles tend to spark my interest, and I also try to look at some of the sports articles because they didn't always get enough eyes. Unless it is a topic I am really interested in, I tend to avoid FACs that already show a consensus to support. Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

2012 tour of She Has a Name, Featured Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

New archiving processes

What is the new criteria for archiving FACs? Historically, FACs with no meaningful support at two weeks were closed, and articles that came to FAC with clear deficiencies were also closed (articles were expected to appear ready, and FAC was not treated as peer review). Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pancreatic cancer/archive1 has been open for more than a month, there is no support, and I noted uncited text in the first few days the FAC was open-- that text remains uncited more than a month later. NuclearWarfare noted a source that was needed for comprehensiveness a month ago, and that comment has still not been addressed. Is FAC now being treated as peer review? In an environment of declining reviewers, why are we leaving FACs open with issues unaddressed for a month? This is but one sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since I just posted above, I'll post here too. Yes, the process is now slower. Speaking only for myself, I enjoy the longer process. It's less charged, there's less pressure, etc. Beyond that, peer review is almost completely gone (this goes to the diminishing editor base mentioned in my previous post up-page) so that's a step that can't be counted on anymore. In terms of volume of work, to me it makes sense to work out issues in a longer period rather than archiving, waiting two weeks (lots of people do nothing at all during those two weeks), gathering yet another set of reviewers and having the coords go through all the necessary record-keeping. It's a little more slow, it's different than it used to be, but imo, it's working fine. Now that I've written this, I'll go take a look Johnbod's FAC. Victoria (tk) 16:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, though I have been taking a break from this, partly because there was so much other editing going on there. I'll only say, re Sandy's comment, that the article also received what is by today's standards a pretty busy peer review, both in terms of review comments, and editing without commenting. There are indeed some early points unaddressed, but on the whole the issue with this FAC has been an excess rather than a lack of activity, and that of course is a good thing in general, though on several points reviewers have had differing views, and I have in some cases left these for now to see if a consensus emerges. I do intend to include NW's source, but to describe it as "needed for comprehensiveness" is rather OTT if you ask me. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It's my thought that nominators and reviewers are generally content with the way things are run in this area. I think the adage "don't tamper with a working system" applies. JMO.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
What is it that is working? We have probably a quarter of the FAs on the books out of compliance, and we are using increasingly scarce resources here to promote increasingly fewer articles, while both pages are taking much longer. The overall result remains-- FAs are losing value as outdated, deteriorated FAs are left on the books, while FAC is used as Peer review. Scarce resources could be better used; I'm not seeing at either WP:FAS or Monthly stats what is the working system you mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
What is more important, the statistics, or the reviewers? If the reviewers and nominators are content, and I see very little criticism of the present system by those who regularly nominate and review at FAC, then where is the problem you you are harping on? And your points seem to deal mostly with FAR, while mine with FAC, so i would suggest you have not fully responded to my points. They are separate processes, and people can be involved with neither, one, or both, as they please.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
And as for "scarce resources", I do remember your reaction when TCO, in his report, suggested that the scarce resources of content contributors might be better directed. How are these "scarce resources" any more community property or to be directed by others than the writing choices TCO questioned in his report? How are they to be disposed of or directed on a community page?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Could one of the coords please answer my question? A FAC has been listed for over a month without the correction of uncited text. Are coords now expecting reviewers to enter Opposes for closing a FAC which is not progressing? Do coords no longer feel empowered to make these decisions without an oppose? Or are coords happy with FACs running over a month when issues that were raised in the first days have yet to be addressed? Whatever the new process is, it would be good to spell it out, because it is discouraging to visit and revisit and revisit a FAC that is not progressing; this has happened on multiple FACs I've reviewed this month (not to single out pancreatic cancer). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The coordinators often archive unopposed FACs that have little activity, as we've always done. A good many were culled before Christmas, several for that very reason. This is a holiday period so I think granting an extra week or two's grace to extant FACs is reasonable. Now that we're nearly a week into January, I expect we'll begin archiving more. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is now any uncited text, and the FAC has certainly been "progressing", with edits on FAC to the article (not by me) every day over Christmas, rather impressively. I have done a lot of catching up today, and will be working on it again tomorrow. So I hope to be able to ask reviewers to revisit shortly. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, John, but so much time has elapsed that I will now have to re-review the entire article, which is discouraging and I'm unlikely to be motivated to re-do the work. And I don't believe my question has yet been answered, so I will take it that the answer now is that reviewers should be more aggressive in opposing when work isn't progressing. The holiday reasoning doesn't work for me: if nominators can't get to comments over the holidays, they shouldn't nominate over the holidays. (That's along the lines of: we are short on reviewers, reviewer time is at a premium, so let's not waste it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
To answer the question "Is FAC now being treated as peer review?", I'm going to say "yes", functionally if not formally. Based on my own experience bringing Voting Rights Act of 1965 to FA status, I opened a Peer Review for it on March 8, 2014, and I posted notices of the PR on many relevant WikiProjects. Not a single editor commented, and it was automatically closed a month later by the bot. I then opened an FAC, and while it went slow (much slower than two weeks, though not as slow as many other concurrent nominations), people provided substantive input and the article was eventually promoted. This is only one anecdote, but from what I've seen, it's not an uncommon tale. I agree this may not be the ideal situation, but given how Peer Review has been almost entirely deserted (with a few exceptions), it's better for article quality and editor morale that nominators receive PR-like comments, and a longer timeframe if necessary, at FAC. Whether or not this needs to be etched into the rules, I'm not sure; it may be better to allow some of these processes to continue to evolve organically in response to changing levels of reviewer availability for PR and FAC. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Generally that is right, ie typical, these days, but as it happens Pancreatic cancer had a pretty full one by today's standards, at 44.5kbytes, with at least 4 editors involved (+me), and one very thorough review of all sections. I wonder if publicizing Peer Reviews intended for future FACs here in a little box would help? Perhaps not. Johnbod/ Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
My question/concern, Prototime, involves more than the problem that is also happening at peer review. It is that articles unprepared for FAC, or on which work is not progressing, would have been archived in the past, for two reasons: a) it is assumed that articles at FAC are prepared, and b) articles that are ill-prepared sap scarce reviewer time and could be prepared off-FAC. Bringing an uncited article to FAC (and then leaving it uncited for a month while it is at FAC) is much different than bringing an article to FAC that got no commentary at peer review.

My suggestion is that part of our reviewer problem at FAC and FAR is because the pages are so stalled, and processing things so slowly, that it becomes demotivating to work on these pages. Why have archiving processes changed to allow an uncited article to be at FAC for a month, and why are FARs which are closeable left open for weeks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My thought on this topic in general is that while we hope articles submitted to FAC meet the criteria or are close to it, the other review processes are often a bit hit or miss. No one is the best judge of their own work, and finding others competent and willing to review at other processes can be difficult. So articles are going to come here not in perfect shape. We have very few FA when you consider the scope of Wikipedia, and it's worth a little extra grease and effort to push one past the finish line, both for the article's sake, and more importantly, the nominator's, who may submit again if encouraged, and who may not be heard from again if met with a rubber stamp "FAC IS NOT PR". I had thought that this more flexible and nominator-friendly approach had been generally accepted. And while we're on the subject, perhaps it is time, since many new proposals are being made, to get rid of (or at least modify) the fifteen day disqualification to nominate after a failed FAC. Or give nominators one free pass every year.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
None of your commentary addresses bringing an uncited article to FAC. That is not a small problem to be addressed at FAC; that is an indication of a premature nomination.

I disagree that we should modify the two-week wait time between failed noms, particularly when WikiCup has increased the points for FA, and we are likely to see the old problem repeat if that is relaxed. The "one free pass every year" would be too hard to track, and I've not noticed noms being held up because of archiving (on the contrary, with FACs running for months). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that it would be difficult. Whenever a person used a pass, it would be listed on a page. With so many coordinators, I'm sure one can find the very limited time it would take (next to nil, I'd imagine). I don't imagine a "pass" would be used very often, and one per person per year is unlikely to result in a flood. Are you sure your problem is not with proponent, rather than proposal? And given the fact that you are in touch with the coordinators by email, would it not be better to ask questions like the one above by email if you are puzzled about their policies? Doing it this way seems overly dramatic.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the benefit to waiving the 15-day timeframe before renominating an article that didn't pass. That was implemented way back in the day when I was a coordinator, because there were editors abusing the process. It was highly annoying as a coordinator and as a reviewer to see an article that wasn't FA-ready be nominated again, almost immediately, with minimal changes. Reviewers tended to start ignoring those, so it didn't help the nominator anyway Karanacs (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a legacy of a more authoritarian time, like the ex-points system at TFA. Possibly the coordinators have the statistics on the use of the 15 day time out during 2014? Then we might all gain information we might find useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not understanding what benefit removing that limit would have, especially if we're already allowing nominations to be open longer and, in theory, get more feedback and give nominators time to make any improvements requested. Karanacs (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Let's await the stats, shall we? Other requests for stats have been promptly answered so I doubt we shall have long to wait.
@Wehwalt: Doesn't look to me that we've ever maintained stats for this sort of thing but I did cast a look over the archived noms last quarter 2014 for some facts and figures, and you can let me know if it's the sort of thing you were after. Sixty-three FACs were archived in Sep-Dec. Of these, I gave five of the nominators the option to re-nominate in less than the usual two weeks owing to lack of feedback at the archived nom. One nominator took up this offer, the rest did not. I was asked by a sixth nominator if I'd consider waiving the two-week rule for their renomination and because I considered it to be on the cusp of the 'minimal feedback' convention, I asked them to wait a week or ten days (they eventually renominated after two weeks). @Graham Beards: pls feel free to add anything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It's helpful, thanks. There are additional statistics that might be helpful, but I don't see this going anywhere right now, so I'll bide my time on this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Outdenting to add a couple of comments. I'd prefer not to waive the 15-day rule; I agree with Karanacs' comments above. I'm generally OK with the slower pace of FAC these days. Of course I'd like it to be quicker, but I think the answer to that is more reviewers, not dropping things from FAC more quickly. So long as reviewers are willing to oppose, and not just comment, when they feel an article is not ready for FAC, then I think we're OK. I wouldn't like to see a FAC sit with multiple opposes and little action for weeks without being archived, but I haven't seen that happen (though I don't read many FACs other than the ones I review). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

To Wehwalt, I’d also prefer to keep the two-week rule, remembering that the coords can and do grant exceptions if an archived FAC has received little feedback. Further, I’ve no issue with discussing things on this talk page (I already replied to a specific query earlier in this thread), even when it does indeed seem to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. To wit...

There have been no big “policy changes” in the way FAC operates over the last few years. As Mike and others have noted, the pace may have slowed somewhat because there are fewer reviewers (throughout all areas of WP, not just FAC/FAR) and we want to ensure as much as possible that articles get the commentary they need to determine consensus; we still insist on image reviews, source reviews, spotchecks for new nominators, the two-week rule (unless leave is specifically granted), notification of major contributors, etc, etc. Sometimes FACs do become de facto Peer Reviews. That’s not the preference but, generally speaking, if such FACs look like they’re heading for consensus to promote then I’ve allowed it, otherwise I’ve archived them. How complicated or controversial a subject is can play a part in this too. There are plenty of instances where premature noms are quickly archived, same as ever. Much of FAC coordination is a judgement call, as we have no rules about precise timings for example and have always been cautious about instruction creep, but it seems to me that the majority of the FAC community considers this a positive rather than a negaitve. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for your views, Ian. Do you have those stats? I'd like to see them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Lunch break over, will see about it tonight unless someone beats me to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Continuing the colloquy, there are no big policy changes, agreed, because many of the rules are unwritten and have to be learned (in my view that's a barrier to entry but I don't want to discuss that right now). Because so little is graven in stone, much of it comes down to the persons involved and how they deal with it as nominators, reviewers, and coordinators. And I would say that FAC, at least until recently, has been very different from FAC say in 2007, or 2010 or even at the start of 2012, and much for the better in my view. I do not wish to see us return to that time, of an in-crowd and an out-crowd, and Raul's talk page used to denigrate those he did not like. I will go so far as to say that I will bestir myself, despite my usual torpor in FA administrative matters, to prevent it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
And I'm pointing out that, yes, something has changed (uncited articles remain at FAC for a month, and that is a BIG change: I believe I'm in a position to know :)). But it appears that I've gotten all the answer I'm going to get on the matter. I'm not understanding why the answer has not been easy and direct (we now do X because of Y), but perhaps it's a misunderstanding somewhere along the way, and I do appreciate that Ian has attempted to answer. Anyway, for me as a reviewer, it is must discouraging and de-motivating to work on pages that aren't moving, and it would help me as a reviewer to understand the reasoning for the change, so I can know how to review. The take-home message seems to be that one has to be prepared to Oppose more often, and engage in lengthy peer-review type FACs, which is a timesink, IMO, when reviewer time is something we are short on. As an example, on pancreatic cancer, a full review would have been much more productive if the article had been cited; so much changed in the month until it was finally cited, that the entire article would have to be re-read to support. On that ultra-long article that Curly Turkey copyedited (can't remember what article it was), the review would have been much more productive if it had been closed earlier with the suggestion to trim and bring it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how, with the lack of any meaningful PR processes outside of FAC these days, that it's better to tell editors to come back to FAC after they "fixed" the article. While it takes more time to conduct a PR-like review of an FAC over the course of a month, that may be the only way some articles ever reach FA status because that's the only opportunity the nominator will have to receive adequate feedback from other editors. I agree that this is far from ideal, but with reviewer participation so low in all areas of Wikipedia, it's the hand we've been dealt. That doesn't mean every subpar article nominated here needs to be kept open endlessly, but if an FAC is receiving meaningful feedback and improvements are being made, I see little benefit in rushing to archive it when doing so may hamper an article's improvement and damage editor morale. And while it may take more of a reviewer's time to conduct a PR-like review, it's really up to each individual reviewer to decide whether they think that's time well spent. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Tit for tat, and all that

In comments above, I see some references to "tit for tat" reviewing, portrayed as if it is a bad thing. Of course there are many reviewing relationships at FAC, few of which escape the notice of the coordinators. I think that at this level, we are above the level of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", or if we are not, it becomes very apparent through lack of quality text and lack of quality reviews, especially over time. I doubt if lazy mutual backscratching would be a winning strategy at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the things that bothers me is that people above spoke of reviewing between three and six nominations for every nomination they made. If people are really doing this, then there shouldn't be a lack of reviews. I'm beginning to wonder if FAC/FAR should set up a QPQ requirement like they have at DYK. I know I've put in my reviews (5 so far) for my current nomination; and it's frustrating to sit and wait while other nominations continue to get reviews after four or five supports for prose, sources, and images. Although I'm sure no one will admit it, people will gravitate to nominations by particular authors (which may be seen as tit-for-tat) for reasons they may not admit to (e.g. experienced editors write articles requiring minimal discussion during review). I do remember the days of so-called "clique reviewing", and hopefully I haven't been labeled as one of those people. Like everyone above, I chose my reviews back then based on topics within my area of expertise: biology. Therefore I had a tendency to review articles about rodents, fungus, plants, and birds. It just so happened that some of our most prolific writers were also submitting a constant stream of FACs, and in the process, I got to know most of them. It did become a tit-for-tat, but I also branched out from time to time. So I don't see tit-for-tat as bad... especially when there are so many entertainment-centered articles at FAC/FAR. I'm actually surprised these writers haven't formed their own "clique" for quality reviews and elevated standards like the ones several of us gradually created for the life science articles. The same goes for other categories, some of which are very active. One of the nice parts about tit-for-tat is that—at least for people like me—I feel obligated to branch out and review an article not in my field if the article's writer reviews my nomination. As Wehwalt said, it should be obvious when tit-for-tat reviews become lazy mutual backscratching. – Maky « talk » 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Tks for your comment, Maky -- I'd agree with many of your observations. Re. your first point, I think the editors above do make good on their desire to review several articles for each that they nominate, but they're only a percentage of the total number of FAC nominators, who don't always go out of their way to review. I understand the frustration of commenting on other articles and not seeing so much feedback at your own, but I'm not in favour of a QPQ system. The most experienced FAC editors, like those above, will review anyway, and enforced reviews by the less experienced may not be that valuable. I'd certainly encourage all nominators to review, but I think I'd prefer the less experienced or less confident to come to it in their own time, having gained a good understanding of the criteria, and perhaps observed what goes on at other reviews. Re. your last point, yes, I hope the coordinators will always be able to spot lazy commentary. I think that while total reviewing numbers may have declined over the past couple of years, the number of drive-by or superficial reviews has dropped by at least a similar proportion, and I wouldn't want to see that go up again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As one of those who brought up tit-for-tat above, I think I should comment. One concern I have is that I have an aversion to appearing clique-ish—that's an allergy I bring over from real life, and I hope it didn't come off as a condemnation of anyone. Another concern I had, though, was that there are certain FACs that we know will get half a dozen or more supports within a week, while others go ignored. As one of those whose FACs tend to hit the bottom of the stack before someone takes pity on it (if then), I suppose I sympathize with the underdogs on the page and thus prefer to review the less-established nominators. It just seems to me that, if there are six reviews to go around, wouldn't it be better if they were spread out over two articles, rather than concentrating on one that doesn't need it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for preliminary advice on potential nomination

G'day all. I am considering nominating 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) for FAC, but during the recent successful Milhist A-Class Review it was suggested that the article might be a bit "list-y" for FAC, and might need to go to FLC instead. Could the coords have a quick look and consider this issue? Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Just scanning it now, looks to be more prose than list to me, hence I'd have thought more FAC than FLC -- but I welcome other opinions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. --Laser brain (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree; definitely too much prose for FLC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
FAC, not FLC, but yes ... too listy for an FA and needs to be better prosified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing FA review candidates from FA candidates

See also Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive63#One-month trial transclusion of FAR to FAC

Can we remove the pages nominated for FA demoting? It looks kind of confusing since some months ago there were only the articles nominated for promotion. We have separate procedure for that matter, the Wikipedia:Featured article review, so basically the same nominees exist at two different places.--Retrohead (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See above. I'm wondering what specifically troubles you, because it has actually been helpful in bringing more eyes to FAR, which is finally moving again. By the way, FAR is not a nomination for "demotion": it's a page for review of featured status, hopefully with the aim of restoring articles to status! (PS: I have fallen down on reviews both at FAC and FAR because of IRL events, which should be settled now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
That mandate expires tomorrow. Do the FAR coordinators plan to come in and give an interim report and a recommendation on extension? I have been wondering, frankly, about the marginal value of keeping it on the project page, as by now all FA regulars (who are most likely, as Ian alluded to above, to give worthwhile reviews) have had the opportunity to see the change and review the discussion, and are either participating, planning to, or otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought there'd been alot more review and movement on the FAR segment than the previous six months, so I thought it was a very good sign......? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sandy, I hadn't started editing Wikipedia yesterday and I know what is the purpose of FAR. The page title reads "FA candidates" so it would be logical only those nominees to be included here. Attracting other editors attention is not a valid explanation for that action, to me at least. I haven't seen a report if there's been increased activity at the review nominees, but again, if we have those pages listed here, then someone might ask why not to merge these two projects.--Retrohead (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Cas, if you think it's a help to you (and I don't want to make life hard for the coordinators) then I would have no objection to a reasonable extension. But I don't think FAR should be a permanent resident and at some point I would like to see an interim report from the coordinators, with the statistics one would expect, to gauge progress toward solving the problem. There were other potential solutions, such as "aging out" articles unless spoken for that could do with more discussion, should alternative ways be sought.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I very rarely get involved with FAR so I am commenting mostly as a FAC regular. I don't find the FARs at the bottom of the page a problem; particularly since the nominations viewer makes it trivial to skip over them if I want to. If others would prefer to see them removed I've no objection, but I'm fine with leaving them where they are, and if that helps move them along so much the better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been commenting on any FARs recently (waiting for the first old video games ones to pop up), but I find having it at the bottom of the page helpful for keeping track of them; I'd also point out, as to it being confusing, that the Featured List, Pictures, and Topics projects all include demotion requests on their regular nomination pages without issue. --PresN 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Aaah good point PresN. @Wehwalt:, it's not about whether it's a help to me as that is irrelevant. It's about the FAR entries being seen and commented on by more people and hence we are processing them more quickly, rahter than them gathering dust and cobwebs on a page that few people visit. Anyway, I agree that quantifying comments and throughput over a set period would be a very good idea and suggest we do this after another two months (say, end of March). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. Longer if you like.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This removal of the separate heading and instructions for the two processes a few days ago does, IMO, lead to confusion about what is on the FAC page, so I removed the noinclude. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a slimmed-down version of the FAR header, appearing only on the FAC page via "includeonly" tags, is the answer? I "noincluded" the instructions because it seemed odd to me to start off with "This page [emphasis added] is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria (no, not "this page", but another page that is transcluded here for additional visibility) and unnecessary to have another copy of {{Fapages}} taking up space. BencherliteTalk 21:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If the transclusion helped to increase FAR-traffic and is kept after the test phase, I'd prefer a slimmed-down FAR-box too, basically 2-3 introduction sentences and a few clear links to the FAR-coordinators and the full FAR-information would be enough. Currently the combined FAC/FAR page has over 5 full screens of rules and information - that's a bit overwhelming (even without FAR it was already crowded with text). A second point: if we keep FAR transcluded, the nominations viewer tool needs a small tweak: Currently this tool hides and shows the FAR-information together with the last FAC-nomination, but should handle it as separate text of course. That should be possible to solve, but I would have to ask the tool's developer (Gary). GermanJoe (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Bencherlite, I am not well versed in how to best take advantage of noinclude tags, but what if ... brainstorming ... we had only one line added to the FAC instructions explaining that Featured article review is a separate process that is transcluded here, with a link to the full instructions at Template:FAR-instructions, so that we could then noinclude the FAR instructions here ?

On the idea of stats, anything above zero is good ... FARs were sitting without attention for as long as six months, and now the page is moving again. PLUG: there are still a couple that could use more eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

FAR small box - draft

Something like this to go between FAC- and FAR-sections? (Feel free to tweak grammar and content) GermanJoe (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured article review (FAR)
Shortcuts

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

I like it! BencherliteTalk 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No objections so far. I activated this version for now (can be easily reverted, if problems arise). If this works, I'll check with Gary, if such boxes can be ignored by the nominations viewer tool. The box can be found at Template:FAR-instructions/small navbox, if anyone needs to tweak something. GermanJoe (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The minor technical glitch should be solved now. The navbox will stay visible, with or without nominations viewer. GermanJoe (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Why was my nomination closed?

I was away from my computer for two days and my nomination was closed after @SandyGeorgia: suggest that I withdrew the article from FAC. BTW, thanks SandyGeorgia for your review :) Anyways, I don't see why with just one review and less than a week that a nomination would be closed after one reviewer decided that it should be withdrawn from FAC because of sourcing? (in fact, just because of translation problems, nothing on prose) If my nominated article was still up, I wouldn't have withdrawn it from FAC, I would have gone to WP:Latin music and asked the community who are fluent in Spanish to have help with the Spanish-language sources that SandyGeorgia brought up. This could have been easily fixed, yes I don't know Spanish, but that doesn't mean that the Wikiproject that I am more active in would not have helped me. Granted if they couldn't, I would have withdrawn it until I could find someone who speaks Spanish or understands it at a higher lever than I do. I'm just saying that this isn't fair, the nomination should have continued even if I was inactive for just two days. Best, jona(talk) 16:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The FAC instructions say "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:....a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." The article was not ready for nomination and SandyGeorgia was correct in suggesting that it should be withdrawn and the FAC coordinator followed procedure by archiving it. You can renominate the article again after two weeks from the archiving date. In the meantime you can address the issues raised. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for source review of Exhumation of Richard III of England

The current nomination of Exhumation of Richard III of England at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1 has not yet had a source review. Could someone possibly do one? It should be pretty straightforward... Prioryman (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggested urgents

As it happens I've done more reviews than usual over the last couple of weeks, so I've had a fairly good look at most of the reviews in the older half of the page. I don't want to intrude on the privileges of the coordinators so I won't update the urgents list at the top of the page, but here are my suggestions if you're looking for something to review.

I've sorted by date; older nominations are at the top of this list. Everything else in the older half either has three supports already or looks like it's going to get three; I know this isn't a vote-counting exercise but since the reverse is true -- that a nomination without three supports is very likely to fail -- it's a good bar for the urgents. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Mike, since we didn't get round to updating the urgents list after last week's closures. FWIW, I don't think any of the coords is too precious about people updating the urgents as long as common sense is employed, such as you've done with this list... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
On Mike's suggestion, I had a look at the first two:
and found the prose so troubling in both that engaging would not be a productive use of limited reviewer time. Perhaps that's why people don't engage, and very old FACs that haven't gained support could be archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You may like to know that a discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article on whether to remove the "..." at the end of (Full article...) in TFA blurbs. (Logic would suggest that any changes to TFA practice on this point ought to be matched at TFL for consistency of main-page presentation.) Please discuss there, not here, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. BencherliteTalk 20:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Auction catalog as RS

Hi guys. Another editor suggested this auction catalog as a source for 1804 dollar, which I plan to take to FAC soon. It's a catalog from Heritage Auctions, which is a major auction house and probably the most well-respected firm for the auctioning of coins. The information in there would be useful for the article, but I'm not sure how FAC reviewers will feel about the catalog as an RS. Could I please have your opinions on that?-RHM22 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be considered a high quality RS. Major auction houses are very knowledgeable about coins. This exhibits itself not only in the catalogs, but in pieces for journals like The Numismatist—I know the top two finishers for the George Heath Literary Award for best researched article in that journal for 2013 were from auction houses.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input so far. If it makes any difference, I would probably use the auction catalog primarily as a reference for prices reached at various auctions (not necessarily Heritage) through the years.-RHM22 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

FA sourcing crit

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#high-quality_is_undefined_and_non-consensual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Core Contest

is being run again in March - see Wikipedia:The Core Contest for details. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting concept. I'm sure a lot of articles achieve higher quality. I'm also sure there's significant debate about which is best; it's just the nature of such things. HalfGig talk 13:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that looks fun. I may sign up, although as (bad) luck would have it, I'm tied up for two of the four weekends in March, so this may limit my ability. I don't particularly expect to win, but it's nice to get into something a bit collaborative. @Casliber: is it OK to take part even if I'm not certain of doing a vast amount of work?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Even buffing some broad articles is good and can be done quite quickly - take a look at some of the old entries pages. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bosnia and Herzegovina/archive2

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bosnia and Herzegovina/archive2 This was nominated by a user involved in an edit war on the page. The page is fully protected. I took it down as a disrupticve edit, but probably overstepped my boundaries and will request here that FAC coordinators sort it out. Apologies if I was out of line. --Gaff (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks eminently sensible to me...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI for the coords: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That actually took longer than I expected.... --Gaff (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviewers needed at FTC

While not as bad of a backlog the last time I asked for reviewers, Featured Topic Candidates seems to have gone stagnant in terms of discussion. If anyone is interested in putting their two cents in any one of these nominations for potential topics it would be much appreciated. GamerPro64 04:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing lists and doing image/file reviews

I've been trying to help out here by doing image reviews. Since I am new at this, I want to show my work. Thus, I have been listing the files, along with a breakdown of the license and whether or not there is a concern. This creates some unsightly long lists. Is it acceptable to use a template like {{cot|title=List of images/files.}} on the FAC page? I know that some types of code are undesirable because they slow down load times, etc... thanks. --Gaff (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It was determined some time ago that using {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} was acceptable though I don't remember the details of the discussion. I think there was an issue with collapsing text in a template that took the entire collapsed text as a parameter. Does anyone recall the reasons? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not only slowing down load time; it's errors in archives, where FACs are cut off. This problem of using templates in FACs (that is, because templates are double-counted when transcluded to archives, the template limit is reached in FAC archives, that causes archives to be cut off, FACs truncated, and the bot not to function) has actually gotten worse with the new-fangled use of pinging other editors, which results in way more template usage then ever before. We now have a bigger problem than before with transcluded templates in FACs, meaning we should be discouraging any use at all, but we can't very well discourage the use of pings.

I don't know how this can be solved, but I often go through FAC encouraging editors to remove templates. It's possible to use the talk page of the individual FAC for long lists, and link that back to the FAC, unless a solution to the Template limit problem is found.

I've searched the FAC archives, but the word limit is used so many times that I can't find the original post in FAC archives where I described the problem the first time we saw it, and where either Gimmetrow or Dr pda explained that transcluded templates to an archive that has transcluded pages end up double counted in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for jogging my memory -- I now recall that it was Geometry guy who was involved in this discussion. I think the reason {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} were considered OK was because they don't nest transclusions and aren't likely to contribute to hitting the transclusion limit. They're certainly very useful; I have sometimes put comments on talk pages of FACs but I think that's an unsatisfactory solution. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you able to find that discussion in archives? We need techno-advice of the type we used to get from Gimmetrow and Dr pda ... I've discussed this somewhere with the coords, where it was also revealed that templates sometimes bomb the FAC-closing bot now, which is a new problem since when I was delegate, and possibly related to the number of pingie transclusions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Here: User talk:Ucucha/FAC coordination#Template limits. Which reminds me ... @FAC coordinators: ... that page started out in my user space, and got moved to Ucucha's when I resigned. Moving it to a page like at FAR (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination) would make its name more logical and easier to find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Found it here. The comment I was recalling is this, from Gimmetoo: "...some people were using a collapse template that put the collapsed text as one of the parameters, such as {{hidden}} - such text was counted twice, once for the collapse template and once for the review inclusion. Collapsing lengthy comments could quickly cause WP:FAC to hit the inclusion limit. That may have changed, but I don't think so. Collapse templates that don't use parameters, or only use a parameter for a brief caption, should be much less costly". This is why I use {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
But none of those link to the original explanation from Gimme, from the first time we had the problem in archives, and most of what is in that post is "Greek to me" ... meaning, I still don't know if, now that we have even more templates from the use of pings, do we have to avoid other templates? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Back in March 2011, 37 FAC nominations were transcluded at WP:FAC using ca. 650,000 bytes of expansion space (linked talk has a summary). Today 61 nominations, FAC and FAR together, use ca. 1,000,000 bytes - that is half of the maximum possible limit (with ca. 100,000 - 120,000 used by FAR reviews). If those rough statistics are sound, the average usage hasn't changed that much and is still OK (not great, just OK). Sometimes limited templates are necessary or useful for a nomination, but we should continue to keep an eye on this topic and discourage unnecessary templates. GermanJoe (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I may need to be educated, GermanJoe, but my understanding was that the problem was not size (for example, in terms of bytes), but the number of templates? Which I thought is why we now see new problems with the bot, because of the transcluded pingie thingies?

Also, it's not about how many FACs are transcluded to this page; it's when we end up with even more in archives that represent the full month. We've never had a problem on the FAC page-- the problem occurs when closing FACs by bot, or moving them to archives, where we have an even fuller page. I wish I could find the post from the first time it happened, to show you the example, but I haven't yet ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The linked discussion from 2011 is about size, although a large number of unnecessary fluff templates or nested templates within templates can contribute to wasted ressources as well - so both aspects are relevant. If you find an example for a huge archive, that would be great. Anyway, I checked the featured article logs for November 2014 - February 2015, all of those pages are at 1,000,000 bytes and below. About the bot, the recent problem was a rare issue with an overly complex html structure afaik, but it's probably best to ask the maintainer about it for more details. GermanJoe (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'm not making myself clear, and I can't seem to remedy that without finding the old example, which might be in my talk page archives rather than FAC archives. The problem was not size: the problem was the number of templates. It has not caused a problem in archives during the period you examined (I could have saved you that work). When it did cause a problem, it was chopping off the final FACs in archives (that is, everything after the template limit was passed got erased). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Download site

While trying to download this book, I stopped when they requested credit card info when the download is supposedly free. Does anyone have any experience with the site? Are they legit? It would be easier than driving ten miles to the public library that has it through the snow ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

They may be legit, but I'd certainly steer clear of giving them any credit card info. Their opening screen said free for 5 days which means that they want to start charging you for access and they'll make it hard to cancel and hope that you give up or forget to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible FA for next Martin Luther King Day

I know it's a long way in advance, but I thought I'd note that I've nominated The Negro Motorist Green Book for consideration as a Featured Article candidate with the aim of Main Paging it on the next Martin Luther King Day. If you would like to comment, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Negro Motorist Green Book/archive2. Prioryman (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review needed for M-theory

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for someone to complete an image review of the M-theory article. A review was started by Maky, but he ended up working on many of the issues himself and now doesn't feel comfortable completing the review.

Thanks for your help. Polytope24 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we're good now. Polytope24 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying vs. stating

I usually do some copyediting when I review an article, and one thing I find myself changing frequently is the use of "stated", as in "Director John Doe stated that the film was expected to go over budget. Producer Fred Bloggs stated that this was very unlikely." I see it particularly (but not only) in critical commentary sections in film or music or video game articles. One of the first writing rules I learned was to be careful of saidisms, but the usual problem one sees is the use of unnecessary variation: he complained/commented/noted/asserted/mentioned, and so on, whereas in FACs what I see is just the repeated use of "stated". The use of "stated" seems to be almost becoming a standard in certain parts of certain kinds of articles. I plan to keep chipping away at it whenever I see it, but I thought I'd post here to see if others have noticed the same thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. I see it as a bit of journalese, and of course journalists have more excuse, as people often do "state" things to them. I think of it also mainly as an American thing. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree strongly. These critical commentary sections are a nightmare. Another one I dislike is the prevalence of albums and films being "critically acclaimed" and "commercially successful"; almost any work of art will receive some critical acclaim and achieve some commercial success. These terms should be reserved for the highly acclaimed and highly successful works and should come with examples and references, or they should be removed on sight. It is not uncommon to see these phrases repeated liberally throughout an article. It jars. --John (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind backing up, why is unnecessary variation a problem? I don't mean this as a loaded question, but would you idealize using some variation in synonyms, but sticking mostly to one or two? (I lean strongly toward the variation side, as I can't stand repetitive text.) Tezero (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:SAY. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Avoid elegant variation. --John (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect elegant variation to be a problem with verbs, particularly not ones as common in writing as some of the alternatives to "say". Although I didn't know the term until now, I've only seen this practice discouraged in the case of creating materials for ESL students, and only because it can be confusing when one is trying to parse a sentence slowly, not because it's somehow pretentious. Tezero (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Both the above are good links. I'd add that repetitive text is a problem too; it's just that the solutions often used introduce other problems. Sometimes the variation needed lies deeper: sentence structure; even organization of a section can be at fault for repetition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not always a case of "elegant" variation: I find "state" often fits the context better than "said", especially when a statement is used suddenly—"said" sometimes gives the statement the flavour of being part of some running narrative. When X said "XXX" and Y said "YYY", it sounds like Y was continuing from or even replying to X. Usually these sections are a collection of opinionsrather than a running narrative—often arranged thematically rather than chronologically. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@John: Can you point to a popular music or video game article that handles the reception section well enough that it could be used as an example for how it should be done? I'd find a good model very useful to support comments I might want to make in FACs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie:, I can't think of one, but what I try to do is let facts speak for themselves, so rather than "x was critically acclaimed", just segue into what the film/game reviewers actually found and leave it at that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"stated" connotes "said" to some and "made a statement" to others (i.e., formally or with the intention of being quoted), so ambiguity is sometimes an issue. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a film (not video or popular music), but Steve was a competent film editor: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)#Reception SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Aw, thanks. That article still has one "stated" I'd like to get rid of, but it'll stand for now. :-) If anyone's interested, a very long time ago I wrote a copy-editing guide for film articles (adapted from a similar guide over at WP:MILHIST) which can be found here (it kind of falls apart towards the end, but still appears mostly valid). It does briefly rail against the elegant variation of "stated, noted, claimed, uttered, expressed, verbalized, gave tongue to", though I can't recall now if I stole that from something Tony1 wrote. :-) Steve T • C 21:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I tend not try to avoid "say" and use "state" for statements made in writing, and for official statements made in speech. "Said" for me implies a conversational and casual context.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I came back to make a similar comment—not that "said" is casual, but in most contexts implies a spoken statement, and I don't think it's always appropriate to use it for written statements. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
      • This must be an Engvar thing, or personal view. I absolutely wouldn't agree with this, nor do I think the best prose uses the words this way. "State" is odd because only some parts of the verb can really be used without sounding even odder. Johnbod (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Some parts of the verb? I dont know what that is. To me good proseit is awful prose to use "said" when representing something that someone wrote, and I tend to change this usage when I find it - for example "the article's authors said that...". To me this could only be used if referring to something they said in an interview about the article, but not in reference to the article text itself - here I would always use state (or possibly wrote/write, but that feels clunky to me). But it probably not something that it makes sense to make rules or guidelines about - it is likely a matter of personal taste, style and usage. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
If you run though Uses of English verb forms trying say and state in turn, you will find that many work fine with say, but sound odd with state, and hardly any are the other way round. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
That is hardly relevant since we are not claiming that any of the words are restricted in terms of their cooccurence with other verbs. It is about the context of meaning in which the two verbs work. Said is colloquial, which is why it makes sense to say "John said "WTF?!"" but not "John stated WTF!?"" and also why it makes sense to say that "The President stated his arguments clearly" but get an entirely different meaning if we write "The President said his arguments clearly".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. In my experience using "say" to include written statements is colloquial (or at least less formal). I would not hestitate to use it on a talk page when casually referring to the recommendation in a book (e.g. "Garner says it's OK to start a sentence with and"), but in formal English I would normally restrict it to oral statements, especially when the oral nature of the utterance is important. Used in a colloquial context for matters of little importance, of course, use of "state" would normally be pretentious, as in "he stated he'd be a little late" (example from Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage). --Boson (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The article I was reviewing when this came up is Blackrock (film). (Freikorp, I hope you don't mind me using it as an example.) This version had 14 uses of "stated" and 11 of "stating". I think that was too much. I did some copyediting and Freikorp has done some more, and now there are 4 and 5 respectively. I think this is a big improvement.

I'm interested by the fact that there are some divergent opinions above. Would there be any interest in collaborating on an essay related to this? Either something specific such as "How to report speech in articles", or a little more general, such as "Critical commentary and reception sections", which would include this? Are there existing essays that cover this ground? I'm suggesting collaboration because although I suspect that some of the apparent divergence of opinion might disappear when faced with real examples, it would be interesting to come up with cases where good prose writers disagree on what works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree this would be a good subject for an essay that expresses the reasons for avoiding such writing, similar to Tony1's essays about avoiding certain turns of phrase. His essays are easy to digest because they explain the reasons behind the concept, and show clear examples of how to do it better. I've read way too many music, film, and video game articles that contain things like "Judy Brown stated that the album 'is a good example of acid rock'". It's a way to lazily construct a Reception section, and I expect it's propagated via WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Laser brain (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Projection verbs need to be varied, I think, to avoid excessive close repetition in a text. Problem is that projection verbs tend to be needed not just once, but in clusters. Yes, "said" has an oral (vs. written) tinge (in Signpost stories we use it a little loosely—since those storiesare written a journlistic register). In more traditional registers, such as WP articles, other words to project written statements are probably better, "said" could be pressed into service if you're running out of alternatives. Aside from "stated" and "said", a number of others are at hand: "wrote", "suggested", "commented", "contended", "declared", "asserted", "announced", "insisted" (last four marked), "affirmed" (in the right context), "maintained" (slightly defensive), "remarked" (rather formal). "Noted" I dislike, but it could be dragged out if you're desperate. "Opined" is execrable; "posited" is stilted, in my opinion. One principle is that a projection verb be hardly noticed by readers (unless it needs to be marked). Tony (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
"Noted" is better in the passive sense, e.g. "as noted by x". I hate "notes" as in "Smith notes that..." followed by a summary of Smith's opinion. I could tolerate one "opined" and/or one "posited" per article, if the opiner or positor was of sufficient weight to justify the pomposity, e.g. "T.S Eliot posited that...", otherwise both should be avoided. Repetitive "saids" read tediously, but choices of appropriate alternatives are, as Tony says, a question of context. Brianboulton (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Images in an FAC discussion?

A well meaning supporter placed an image in the discussion for the Camas pocket gopher. Is that frowned upon, for reasons of gumming up page loads or archives? If so, I will remove it or put the ":" in front of the image to link to it without showing it. thanks --Gaff (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The image is from Wikimedia Commons, so as far as I understand, it should be OK to include it in a talk page. If it were a non-free image, it would absolutely and unconditionally need to be removed from the talk page — even if the image qualified for "fair use" in the article, "fair use" doesn't apply to talk pages (see WP:IQUEUE). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, maybe I wasn;t clear. I understand free image vs fair use. My concern was if an image on specifically Featured article candidates page is allowed. Certain things like some template,  Done and what-not, are problematic. "The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as  Done,  Not done and Example text: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives." That pretty much clears it up, so I'll take down the image. --Gaff (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Bot for TFA-entries on WP:FA ?

@TFA coordinators , @FAC coordinators: I vaguely remember, that automatic insertion of TFA-tags at the WP:FA page was discussed in the past and was wondering, if maybe User:AnomieBOT II could be expanded to cover that function. With its task "TFATitleSubpageCreator" this bot already has a related task running and should "know" about current TFAs. But anyway, has somebody more background information about technical possibilities and problems of such a feature? GermanJoe (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What it would be good for the bot to do breaks down into two parts:
(1) When the TFA is selected a couple of weeks in advance, add |maindate= to the {{article history}}. This is something the old bot used to do, and the TFA protector bot adds move protection to TFAs from when they are selected, so this task should be possible. It would save the TFA coordinators a job, in particular. NB if you take this task on, ping the TFA chaps using {{TFA}} to this discussion so they know to stop adding "maindate".
(2) Each new day, add at WP:FA around the name of that day's TFA. If it helps, you can use {{TFA title}} and its daily bot-created subpages e.g. {{TFA title/March 19, 2014}} etc to find the title of the TFA. The former bot's code for this (and its other tasks) is here if that helps. I note that the bot runs at 00:05UTC to update WP:FANMP and logically it makes sense to update WP:FA with "BeenOnMainPage" immediately before updating FANMP.
Hope this makes sense. Let me know if I can explain further. BencherliteTalk 20:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. |maindate= is already being added to the {{article history}} of TFA each day
  2. The FANMP run was supposed to update WP:FA as well, but an error was preventing this. This has been corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the update @Hawkeye7: Could you check the latest update please: [2]? The bot had a problem to place the ending brackets for the TFA tags and placed them at the page's end. An "old" TFA (from yesterday) wasn't updated as well, but that's probably not possible with the current process? (not a big problem, when the FA page is updated daily anyway) GermanJoe (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It only updates the day's. I've applied a correction; it should work better tomorrow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, when does the bot add "maindate=" - when the article is selected or when the article is on the main page? It ought to be doing it upon selection to give maximum warning to people and to relieve the TFA coordinators of a job inherited once the old bot fell over. In this edit, it added when (a) the article was on the main page, instead of when it was selected, and (b) even worse, there was already a maindate parameter in the article history, and had been for weeks (another bot has tidied it up). I raised this issue some weeks ago and it's still a problem. BencherliteTalk 06:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review/paraphrase check

The Texas Revolution FAC is still missing a source check / close paraphrasing check. I'd really appreciate it if someone could take a look. Article. The majority of the sources are books, some available in pieces from Google books. Karanacs (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

How do I close an archive a peer review before nominating an article for FAC?

I've got a few articles to GA standard before, and I'd like to nominate one of them for FAC. I've fallen at the first hurdle: "1: Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived." (By the way, that sounds like two steps to me, not one...)

I've searched around for this but haven't found any clear instructions - only instructions for archiving Talk pages. The article in question (Songs from the Black Hole) had a GA review last year, and it's still transcluded on the article's talk page. Does the GA review still need to be formally closed somehow, or is it already closed by virtue of having passed? And what does it mean to archive a transclusion exactly? Popcornduff (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

See the Peer review instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! But these instructions refer to stuff I can't find - for example, 'Peer review' doesn't appear on the Talk page in question. Are there different instructions for GA reviews (which I am assuming are a kind of peer review)? Popcornduff (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
GA reviews aren't peer reviews in this context. Some editors delete the GA1 subpage from the article talk page because it's linked to in the GA banner on the talk page, but that approach seems to vary from person to person. You can carry on and nominate the article at FAC now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, that's made my life a bit easier. (I don't think this is very clear, though - for example, "Peer review" is the top link of the GA toolbox, suggesting it's a kind of peer review.) Popcornduff (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, a GA review certainly is a type of peer review, but the wikilink in the FAC instructions does link to WP:PR and nothing else. But in any case, you're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If we've lost some nominations because people didn't understand how to follow the instructions ... and Popcornduff brings up some good points ... that's a bad thing. Can we simplify? - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You could state that any GA nominations should be closed too. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Second para of instructions on WP:FAC: "An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
With respect, I don't think that's sufficient. I saw that and thought "Well, it's not nominated for a GA right now, so that's fine". But later on it says the GA must be closed and archived, which seemed like a potentially different thing. Popcornduff (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
With equal respect, I'm struggling here. I assume you're talking about what's under Nomination procedure -- actually it reiterates the point about Peer reviews, and doesn't mention GA at all. Can you point out where it says that GA nominations should be "closed and archived", since that wording seems the initial source of confusion? BTW, I have to hit the sack where I am, so won't be able to continue this for some hours. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The text "ensure ... that peer reviews are closed and archived" confused me, because I assumed a GA review was a kind of peer review.
I therefore looked for a way to close and archive the article's existing GA review. Even though the GA finished (in that it passed months earlier), I wasn't sure if it still had to be formally closed, or something (there's nothing below the GA review saying it's closed) or how to archive it.
Is that clear? It might be I'm the only moron who could have ever found this confusing, but there you go. Popcornduff (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think a key difference is that when PRs or FACs (or indeed FLCs) close, they mysteriously change colour and have some closure notes whereas GANs just seem to rely on a closure statement from the reviewer and that's that, other than the change in status on the article's talk page to passed or failed; they remain the same colour and aren't archived like FAC or PR (or FLC for that matter). Perhaps this is a question for the GA folks who could modify their closure instructions or coding to make it clear that a GAN has concluded one way or the other? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Popcornduff, no, nothing moronic here -- we old hands probably take many things as read even when they're not quite consistent. In this case it does seem to me that the GA close procedure might be the root cause of the issue. As The Rambling Man suggests, the end of GA review doesn't seem to wrap up quite as dramatically as a Featured Content review, so maybe a question for WT:GAN. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

First time nomination questions

I have nominated a featured article for the first time (addition). I've gone through a couple of GA reviews before, but never a FAC. Three reviewers commented on the article, giving good feedback which I followed, but with no support/oppose votes. I know there is more time left in the review, but if no one else comments, does that mean the review failed, and I should wait a while before trying again? Brirush (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominations need to get sufficient support, in the promoting delegate's eyes (roughly 3-4 solid reviews ending in a support, as a rule of thumb); merely not receiving oppose votes isn't enough. If you feel that a reviewer gave a good review but didn't bother voting, feel free to ask them to return and finish the review. If you don't think that you're getting enough reviews in the first place, try reviewing other FACs and requesting that they consider reviewing yours in return- even without the request people are more likely to review articles by people they've seen posting their own reviews. If at the end of it all the article doesn't pass FAC, the minimum waiting period is 2 weeks before you can nominate it again. --PresN 20:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I didn't see this until now.Brirush (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran source review

The Enthiran FAC needs a source review, most of them are from newspapers, magazines and websites (The Hindu, The Times of India The Indian Express, The New Indian Express, India Today, NDTV, Rediff.com, Sify, Behindwoods). I'd really appreciate it if someone could take a look. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Original research?

I have nominated Ancestry of the Godwins, which discusses the theory that Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England, was of royal descent. The article says that the theory is rejected by almost all historians, and Curly Turkey thinks that one statement is OR

Curly: "Williams in her ODNB article on Godwin, and Robin Fleming in her ODNB article on Harold, do not mention the theory when discussing Godwin's ancestry.": this could be Original Research if the lack of mentioning the theory is not mentioned in a RS.

Dudley: I do not see this. Saying a theory is mentioned would not be OR, so saying it is not mentioned should not be either.

Curly: Well, this is the thing—you're reporting a fact that's not reported by any of the sources, and you're citing sources for what they haven't said rather than what they have.

Any views from other editors? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree that it's a little on the OR-side. It's an original thing that you've observed. Popcornduff (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering the whole paragraph (listing critical opinions following a critical topic sentence), the observation "Some authors did not comment" could imply "Some authors did not comment" because they don't take the theory seriously. Of course that's a logical, natural conclusion - but it would still be OR. Stating a negative is not always OR in itself, but in a certain context it can be. GermanJoe (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Many but not all of [group] have said [thing]" wouldn't be OR. "X hasn't said [thing]" is generally OR. But there may be more to this ... what leads you to believe that the fact that Williams and Fleming don't mention it is significant? There may be something they're saying that's clueing you that they're dubious, and maybe that's what we need to see. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Mike Christie and Hchc cover this below. I discuss the views of writers who do mention the theory, and the fact that it is not mentioned in encyclopedic ODNB articles when discussing the ancestry of the Godwins does seem to me a point I should mention. I am not clear how I can clue the reader in further without POV. BTW it is not strictly relevant to POV, but one of the historians mentioned (Williams) has reviewed the article and is very happy with it. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I think acknowledgment from someone of her stature is always relevant. Congratulations. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
For a theory, I think it is OR. For a fact, let us say something that one biographer mentions but another does not, I think it is OK to point out that the second does not mention it, with the source being the pages that cover that time period in the subject's life.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it OR; if anything, it's WP:SYNTH. That said, if the theory is not mentioned in most of your sources, I would think you can say just that. However, if they haven't explicitly dismissed it, your current sentence is too strong. (essentially, I agree with Wehwalt above) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think this can be OK, and in fact it may be necessary to avoid giving the reader the wrong impression about the prevalence of a theory. The ODNB article is often the among the most authoritative sources for a biography. If a reliable source suggests X, and the ODNB article neither mentions nor refutes it, I think it's reasonable to say so -- essentially you're telling the reader "a reliable scholar says X, but not everybody has taken this up", which is something a reader is entitled to know. You don't have to do it this way, of course. If you mention the source of idea X inline -- "historian Y suggests X" -- then the reader should understand that this is a particular suggestion and the article isn't implying others agree. But if X is mentioned by multiple sources, but not all, I think naming some of each is a reasonable approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well said. As long as you're careful to not put words in a source's mouth, it should be good. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Mike. The policy on maintaining a neutral point of view requires that we ensure that we indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Where a theory isn't mentioned at all by an historian charged with writing an encyclopaedic style article like an ODNB piece, it seems fair to mention that in order to communicate the balance of views to the readership here. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It sheds light on a theory's popularity to note which historians fail even to acknowledge it. As long as some credible historian mentions it in the first place, I think it's fine to say that others don't. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I think it would be misleading to say that a respected historian (Frank Barlow) supported the theory without also mentioning that other equally respected historians did not think it worth discussing. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem I see is that how can you be sure? Someone says historian X doesn't mention such-and-such a theory, but can't cite this. So how can anyone verify that the theory isn't mentioned? A historian may have published a dozen books and forty articles, some in obscure places, and you would have to read the lot to indeed know that the historian hasn't mentioned the theory. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Which is why you specifically mention the work it isn't mentioned in. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks ed. I should have made myself clearer. As Mike Christie and hchc say, the point is that it is not mentioned in ODNB, which is an encylopedic summary by a leading historian. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have found that where there is an ODNB article and an ADB one, and they are in conflict, the ADB article is more likely to be correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Hawkeye7's comment, and would go further to say that when the ODNB is in conflict with any generally reliable source, the ODNB one can safely be assumed to be incorrect. The ODNB contains glaring errors (as any work of such size with so many different authors will), and is sloppily edited and not quick when it comes to correcting mistakes; as with Wikipedia, it's so widely read that its errors tend to then be repeated elsewhere and become "fact". (Their claims that William Huskisson was "the first fatality of the railway age" and "buried at St James's Church in Liverpool" turn up pretty much everywhere the man is mentioned, despite the fact that Huskisson wasn't even the first railway fatality in Eccles, and Huskisson's tomb is a prominent landmark in the middle of a public park with no church nearby.) – iridescent 15:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Writing conflicts at WP:TFA

This is going to be long, but I've made it as concise as I can. I've been able to get copyediting done without getting too bogged down in details all these years in part because the load of making final calls and handling disagreements has been shared among hundreds of people ... writers, reviewers, copyeditors, MOS guys, various coords, and others. Now, I've got a job where it's on me if I make the wrong call, according to any reader in the world ... and worse, unlike in article-space, there's a deadline. (My fellow coords Crisco and Brian are great, but our agreement is that it's on me to get this part of the job right.)

Part of what has always made FAC work is that we don't have rigid adherence to one standard for everyone all the time. There's lip-service to the goal of conforming with our MOS pages, but most questions about writing that come up aren't covered there ... and many FAs don't comply with all our MOS pages. Gasp, I know. But not a lot of FAC writers hang out at WT:MOS and similar pages, and not a lot of MOS guys hang out as FAC reviewers and writers, so it's inevitable that the two cultures have diverged to some extent, not only in the output but even in the goals and methods. I have nothing but praise for the corpus (as a whole) of our style-related pages, or for the corpus (as a whole) of FAs ... both strike me as incredible, impossible, but we got the job done anyway. The problem is that I don't have the luxury anymore of ignoring the discrepancies, or of getting sucked into someone else's fight every time there's a discrepancy. I'm going to keep on doing what I'm doing, which is: when a call on language (MOS, style, grammar, readability, orthography, whatever) seems like a clear call to me, I'll just make the call without raising a fuss, and deal with the consequences. I'm slowly working through broad categories of FAs, educating myself on subjects I don't know much about, and that's helping. Occasionally, I ruffle some feathers. But when I know that there are people arrayed on different sides of an issue, I can no longer afford to be a proxy in other people's fights (which is probably the main role I've played as a copyeditor for 7+ years, but that's another story). So: I've created a page, WT:TFAC, where anyone can discuss TFA copyediting issues. The page will also preserve a record of links to any discussions that arise when I don't know an answer and need help before an article's Main Page day. Whenever I have a question, this page (WT:FAC) will be one of the places where I post the question (or sometimes, a link to the question). In the past, the few times that people have asked language questions here, there has been little feedback and occasional unpleasantness ... and I get that, most writers don't like to bother themselves with other people's language questions, it feels like more than enough handling the questions people have about their own articles. Besides, being too language-conscious can interfere with a writer's process. (Publishers know this, and generally don't lean on writers too hard to copyedit their own stuff.) All I can say is ... in those relatively rare cases (rare compared with the number of calls that have to be made) where I post a language question here, I'll probably be asking at WT:MOS too, at least. If I didn't know an answer in the first place, then the answers I get are the ones I'll have to go with, and if I rarely get answers on this page ... which wouldn't shock me ... WP:TFAC may over time tend to reflect the opinions of people who rarely write or review for FAC. Does this plan seem fair? - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me Dan. I've never seen FAC as 'above' MOS, and as someone who does refer to MOS occasionally both as an editor and as a coord I can think of plenty of examples where we try to ensure FAs follow the manual, but there may well be areas they don't that simply haven't come to the coords' attention. Perhaps some apparent divergence is from much of MOS being guidelines, with room for exceptions, rather than hard-and-fast rules. Anyway, if this could help FAC and MOS feed off each other a bit more then that should be to the good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, I hope so. Credit where credit is due ... I think everyone did a great job with the #Saying vs. stating thread at the top of the page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Update ... my first attempt, which wound up at Talk:List of James Bond novels and short stories, didn't go well. I need to be more careful with my questions. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That discussion is continuing at WT:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Italics_for_series_titles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Currency question

I ran into a MOS:CURRENCY question on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Sri Lanka cyclone/archive2 that I'd like other opinions on. If you're interested, please search the FAC for "LKR" and the subsequent discussion. Does the format of the currency usages in the article look right? I'm not convinced but I haven't got an example to point to of the right way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

100th birthday suggestion for WP:TFA

Someone should attempt to take Frank Sinatra to WP:FA for his 100th birthday on December 15.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

FAR to FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article review/SSX 3/archive1 was incorrectly submitted to WP:FAR by BlookerG. Perhaps someone can deal with moving the page, fixing the talk page entry, and maybe do the rest of the bookkeeping ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The faulty FAR is still there; can an admin housekeeping delete it, or can someone move it to a FAC and submit it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Done the former. I can restore it if Blooker wishes. DrKiernan (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I've moved it to FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/61 Cygni/archive2

Can I please demand more attention for this before letting it down second time due to lack of attention. Please....-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 08:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Maury has done a lot of work on it. The ways things stand now, he doesn't seem to be happy with the results, you might want to ping him. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I was intending to wait until there was some resolution. I will take a look sometime in the next 24 hours. Was just in the middle of somethings and now it is late here (Australia) so need to sleep soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR question

  • I have a four-panel, medium-sized table where the values in the table only make sense intuitively if you take exp() of them. That transformation is explicitly worked out in about a half dozen different examples in the article text. So I'd wanna do the same for every value in the chart... and then, instead of presenting them as a table that would make everyone's eyes glaze over, I'd make a couple or three pretty little bar charts in Excel or some Wikipedia tool or other (if such exists)... No new conclusions, only the exact same of logic as applied in examples in the article, but then presented as a bar chart (which is not done in the article)... All of this without replicating the original table..but credited to the source (of course!). As described, can do? Tks. • Arch♦Reader 13:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton:@Dank: Brian, it's here, to put a potentially delicate matter bluntly, because I kinda trust a FAC answer slightly more than I would an answer that comes from the MOS area of editors, or whoever is watching Wikipedia:Attribution. It certainly might be wrong of me to feel that way, and might be wrong of me to say it, but I'm just telling the truth. Dank, thanks for the answer! • Arch♦Reader

Template talk:FAC-instructions

Please see the discussion about renaming the template. Graham Beards (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Etiquette of image review/spot check/source review

To the delegates, I wasn't sure when to strike them in the box above once done or leave to delegates.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

An additional beg

Further to the "beg" thread above, which highlighted several neglected FACs, I notice that 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) has been on the page since 12 May and has only a single line image review. Surely someone in our large MilHist contingent can give it a lookover? For some reason the article doesn't feature in the "needing attention" box on the top right of this talkpage, and seems in danger of being forgotten about altogether. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Carl Nielsen

I would like to thank the other nominators of Carl Nielsen (review) for all their hard work over the last month or two improving it in time for his 150th anniversary. I had to spend the last couple of weeks abroad "saving the world", so did less work on the article in this time than they might have expected. User:Ipigott made substantial improvements a few years ago and initiated this anniversary drive, which User:Dr. Blofeld and User:Smerus joined with great enthusiasm. Thanks also to the reviewers, particularly for their help with images. --Mirokado (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it showed what can be achieved with collaboration/cooperation. Everybody played a good part in it, I've thanked people on User:Ipigott's talk page. Looking forward to the 9th now!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 9, 2015. Let me know if I left anything out that you wanted to keep. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
A good summary. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I have a one-off permission to run two at once?

@FAC coordinators: Is there any chance I could bend the rules and nominate a second FAC while another is live? Per this thread, The Wrestlers was written to try to get it through FAC in time for a main page appearance on August 1st, to coincide with the reopening of the York Art Gallery with which the WMF has a partnership, but which currently doesn't have an FA on anything in its collection. Assuming the FAC process generally takes 4-6 weeks, it will be cutting it fine if it's left much later to nominate it. I already have an open FAC for The Destroying Angel; as things stand I can't nominate The Wrestlers until this one is archived or closed (and if I temporarily pull The Destroying Angel, it will technically count as a fail and bring the "wait two weeks before nominating anything else" clause into play.) Destroying Angel has been live for a month and is currently sitting on 4 supports & 0 opposes, so (unless someone spots some major issues now) the "people nominating a second article which repeats the mistakes of the first" issue is hopefully not going to be a problem. – iridescent 09:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for us to permit a second solo nom when the first is obviously fairly close to promotion, so I have no objection -- the current nom looks like it's ready to wind up pending a source review (you might like to list a request at the top of the page). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I've requested a source review above—there shouldn't be any issue as all this series are using mostly the same sources. I'll give it a couple of hours before I nominate The Wrestlers just in case anyone has any objection to raise. – iridescent 10:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Instead, I've nominated Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball, which is also in York and there seems to be a broad consensus that it's a better fit for the opening day than The Wrestlers. – iridescent 00:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

FAC recommendation

Higher up on this page, Laser brain asked for reviewers for some new nominators. Several people responded, which was nice to see; but I'd like to add a specific recommendation for folks to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercedes-Benz CLR/archive2. I've supported it and I think it'll get promoted; but I thought people might like to see the story behind this amazing picture. That's one incredible crash. I thought the height figures in the article had to be a typo, but apparently the car was well over thirty feet in the air. (The driver walked away unhurt.) By all means review the article too -- the prose is clean, but could probably be smoothed a little bit more -- but I found the story remarkable enough just to recommend to others here in its own right. A pity the relevant pictures are all copyrighted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Self-promotion on Wikipedia

I'm here to talk about a very uncomfortable subject. I would rather talk about just about anything else. There's a Request for Comment coming up that I'll be one of the closers for (not related to Featured Content) that I can't talk about, but it's going to be an important one and we'll have to deal with related issues there. The more progress I can make on this issue ahead of time, the better, so I'm picking a relatively safe environment to start in, to see if talking about the problem leads to anything good (maybe not, or maybe I'll find out that I'm wrong). The subject is Wikipedia's culture of pervasive gratuitous insults, and pervasive gratuitous hyping (which amounts to the same thing as insults, really, if you're saying you and your kind are better than someone else) ... things like "I am [or we are] smarter/better/more moral/more Wikipedian/whatever that you are". These problems aren't terribly different than those faced in any organization or company, and I'm sure by now there's a large body of knowledge (that I'm completely ignorant of) on this kind of organizational problem. And I'm no less guilty than anyone else, since I've willingly participated in all sorts of Wikipedia processes that have a history of making other people feel like crap, without complaint. Just so we're clear.

So, deep breath. I think and always have thought that the FAC community, collectively, is as guilty as any other on this score. Needlessly provocative, sorry - Dank (push to talk) Case in point: every FA is labeled with "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". (I'm assuming people understand "Wikipedia community" in a sense similar to "black community" ... kind of meaningless, but a phrase that has its uses.) How about "has been determined to meet a set of community standards for language, comprehensiveness, sourcing and neutrality"? How would we react as reviewers if a FAC nominator started off every article about any book written by X with "This book has been identified as one of the best books produced by the black community"? Even if X is widely regarded as the best at whatever, does that sound neutral? Or does it have the ring of fanboy-ism, casual boasting, or a snarky dig at X's competitors? How about if a nominator starts off every nomination with "This is one of Wikiproject Military History's articles, the wikiproject identified as the best producer of Featured Articles on Wikipedia?" How are you likely to react to that if you're not in that wikiproject (or even if you are)? Behind the pixels, there are actual people ... people with feelings, people who aren't likely to respond well to a constant drumbeat of "My stuff is much better than yours." Another case in point: every week, the Signpost devotes a whole column to Featured Content ... just Featured Content (with very minor exceptions), week after week, year after year, as if there are no other processes identifiable groups of people on Wikipedia that produce things of sufficient quality that the Signpost should give them a mention. (There's a column on wikiprojects, but it doesn't usually make any claims one way or the other about the quality of the work.) I'll finish up by saying: there are a variety of reasons why self-promotion and partisanship are sometimes okay ... what might sound like self-promotion to me might not to you, and we certainly don't want to sanction people every time they say something nice about themselves ... it's often hard to know where to draw the line. But there's no question in my mind that it's an issue on Wikipedia in general with real consequences, and one that we could do better with, collectively. It wouldn't surprise me if the constant hyping of Featured Content is part of the reason we have a hard time attracting new reviewers and new wikiprojects, though that's just a guess. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually like the proposed rewording better than the actual - it's important, I think to specify that this process (and others like GA and FLC) are relying on a set of standards. It is, in theory, not just a group slapping each other on the back, which is an impression that I've run into in various corners of the encyclopedia over the year. If anyone actually pays attention to that notice, then a new wording focusing on the standards may attract a little more interest in the process(es) rather than having someone sit around and think "what is this 'community' and who gets to join?"
I don't see a problem with the Signpost column on featured content - it's a great way to advertise the processes and highlight articles that meet the standards the community has thus far determined make the 'best' articles. In other words, they are good example. I would support the addition of other columns to highlight other types of articles, but there would need to be community discussion on how those articles would be identified. Funniest DYKs of the week? Weirdest DYKs? subset of GAs? Highlight random new articles? Highlight articles created by newbies? Articles requested? There are a lot of different options. Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thx kindly. To be a little clearer, I changed "processes" to " identifiable groups of people". There are other people doing good things. Even if we can't figure out a consistent way to identify when that happens, it might show our community in a better light, and attract more reviewers, if we make the effort to identify and acknowledge when people are doing good work outside of Featured Content processes. That's all I'm saying, I'll be quiet now :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Years ago, we had the Dispatches that talked about how to review articles. We did attract a few more reviewers that way, but I can't remember how many that was. If that is one of the goals, then it might be worthwhile to look at advertising such as that - letting people know that process X needs reviewers and how it works to do that. Or a series on what the FAC criteria actually mean (with examples), what the FLC criteria are, GA, FP, etc. That kind of educational effort may pay off in convincing others to try their hand at these processes. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't really thought about it like that TBH - any concern about scaring off has to be balanced by keeping the goal of a quality 'pedia in mind, and I think that is the major point of the FA process. OTOH I have always felt WP needs to show its imperfections to highlight it is a work in progress and the need for more people to get involved. I'd not thought of the quote as being territorial or snobbish, but can see what you're getting at. Maybe show a random selection of new articles that have been created, as well as some stagnant stubs...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the argument that promoting the fact that someone or something excels is also an argument that others are failures is just totally asinine. When I chase a bronze star, I am not saying "my work is better than yours". I am saying that I believe in my work. There is no statement made - overt or implied - that I am judging others by that act. In fact, in coming to FAC (or another review process), I am asking people to judge me and my work. I am asking reviewers to expose my flaws. And if the community feels that my work merits recognition in the end, then that actually stands as a positive inducement to excel. And since I am being honest, your views expressed here - if I am reading them correctly - leads me to be more than a little concerned about how you will close the RFC you refer to, for a number of reasons. One of which is that if honestly you think it depreciating the recognition of excellence would be a good thing, then you are dooming the project to mediocrity. And by the same token, you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what processes like FAC promote. I am a far, far better writer because of these processes. That has benefited me personally in the real world, and it has benefited the project. And it has benefited our readers.
  • As far as your "black community" metaphor goes, I am trying really hard not to draw negative inferences from why you chose to go there. Since I don't really know why you did, I will say only that "the Wikipedia community" and "the black community" are not the parallels you seem to think they are. The former is inclusive of everyone who participates this project while the latter is an exclusive group. Resolute 14:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • What negative inferences? If you're concerned that I might be saying something about black people here, let's take that to my talk page. What I'm saying is that we use the phrase "Wikipedia community" in our banner, but that doesn't mean that all Wikipedians identify with the same community, it means that, for some purposes and on some issues, we're all in this together, and "black community" generally has that same sense. (I've had some involvement in civil liberties issues for many years now, and I try to be careful about gratuitous insults.) For the rest of it, I don't want to respond because most of my point here is to see what direction this whole conversation runs in, except to say that what I said must have come across as a criticism of your work or FAs in general, and I apologize for that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • No Dank, I don't view your comments as a criticism of my work. I view your comments as an attack on the entire concept of encouraging people to improve and excel out of some misguided impression that praising one person must also insult another. It is nonsensical and cannot hope to achieve anything but to lower the overall quality of Wikipedia. Also, "the Wikipedia community" is anyone who is active on this website. Being a member here and not being a part of the Wikipedia community are mutually exclusive. Resolute 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Resolute, the standards the articles have to meet are the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, so I don't think this would downplay quality in the least. Meanwhile, "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community" could apply to those early articles back in 2004 that were "determined" to be "the best" basically by a raise of hands. Also, there is a problem with certain editors who use their bag of stars to beat other editors over the head: "I have XX number of FAs, thus you are the shit on my heel, and I win this argument by default." Very few, but I'd be surprised if you haven't seen that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • And that is a fault of an individual editor, not of a community or of a process. You deal with the individual in that case. You do not extrapolate that individual's actions into a broad brush attack on the intentions of anyone else with "a bag of stars". Resolute 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
[ec] I there were any process to rival it, I'd say let's promote that, too. But there's not. Wikiproject Military history's A-class review is the nearest thing I've seen to FA, but it's only applied to that one topic and many of them make FA afterward anyway. Maybe we've developed some unseemly pride in our work here, which is something people should (in my opinion) try to prevent in all areas of their lives, but I do believe FAs live up to the billing as Wikipedia's best content. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Coemgenus. I will say that I have never taken the phrase "one of the best articles on Wikipedia" to exclude non-featured articles, many of which are very well done. I'm not as sure that the language change is necessary, as I don't see it as exclusionary.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
If we have any real-world analog, it's a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not sure if they come right out and claim to be some of the best articles in the field, but it's implied and I don't think that's necessarily unhealthy. What we say is a more compact way of stating that the authors worked hard, did their due diligence, jumped through hoops, and navigated the minefield of attracting enough reviews and support. It amounts to high-quality work by high-quality minds. I'm comfortable equating that with "one of the best". --Laser brain (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I brought up a bunch of issues at once; I probably would have done better if I tried them one at a time. Guys, what about something like, "has been identified as an article meeting high community standards for language, comprehensiveness, sourcing and neutrality"? Does that still feel like it's too much of a step down from "one of the best"? It reads to me as a step up, but if that doesn't do it for you, that's fine. Thinking about the stronger responses ... by the time your article gets to the TFA column on the Main Page, it's had more independent eyes from more people than most articles will ever see, so the reality is that the FA star is less about self-congratulation than any process I can think of on Wikipedia. I'm not talking about the reality ... I'm wondering what it looks like through the eyes of Randy from Boise and his friends, the ones readers generally who don't participate and see only the Signpost and the article talk pages. (And I've been thinking about how best to pull others into the FA processes.) Btw, if what I wrote feels like criticism, it's more a criticism of me than anyone else ... my review work has probably been more narrowly restricted to FAC, TFA and military history than anyone else's here, up to this point. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I am very reluctant, although I greatly respect Dank. I just don't feel I've been shown adequate reasons for a change. If there's an RfC and there are actual strong feelings in the community, that is something that we can take on board and act accordingly. As for the Signpost, it may be wise to discuss possible community objection with the editors. But I don't think we have that information and I don't think we should act on anything less.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Wehwalt here. Those with long memories will know I've always been highly sceptical of the FA process, and in some cases feel it actively acts to reduce the quality of articles by forcing them into compliance with arbitrary criteria. (See this extremely long thread for my thoughts on the matter in detail, which haven't changed significantly since I wrote it in 2008.) However, I don't see that dropping Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. would serve any useful purpose. Replacing it with something like "Featured articles are articles which have been scrutinised and determined to comply with all relevant policies and to be a representative survey of the relevant literature" might be more accurate, but would look kind of stupid. (A definite no to has been identified as an article meeting high community standards for language, comprehensiveness, sourcing and neutrality, though. WP:WIAFA isn't a set of standards that have been set by "the community" in any meaningful sense, they're standards that a half-dozen people railroaded through back in Raul's day and then threw temper-tantrums whenever anyone dared to question them. I think even the most dedicated supporters of the "unified appearance" principle would concede that a large proportion of the MOS is nonsense.) I don't see it does any harm to highlight the concept that "Wikipedia has quality standards and there is something to be gained from complying with them"; if I had my way, DYK and ITN would be unceremoniously booted off the main page since they by definition draw attention to incomplete new articles which make readers think "that's the way Wikipedia articles are meant to look". If that's elitist, so be it; "all have won and all must have prizes" was a stupid mentality 150 years ago and is a stupid mentality now. (To go back to your original point, I would have no problem at all with a book being described as "one of the best books produced by the black community", if it were judged as such by a group recognised as competent to judge. This is exactly why the Hurston-Wright Legacy Award and the SI Leeds Literary Prize exist.)

    As regards the Signpost, I honestly don't think anyone outside their walled garden gives two hoots what they do or don't include. The "Featured Content" section of each issue gets total pageviews of around 1500—including the multiple hits of those writing and editing it—which is less than half the weekly pageviews of this spectacularly obscure article I wrote five years ago about a 18th-century French cannibal. The Signpost does provide a valuable function as a way to quickly disseminate a message to a large number of people across Wikipedia who don't necessarily watch the drama boards, but even in its glory days under Tony it was never as important as it thought it was. – iridescent 23:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dank:, don't feel bad bringing it up, sometimes it's good to explore things like this without a definitive direction. Ultimately I think the clarity of the language as is trumps any alternative really. As regards signpost, I do think some sort of look at article creation or stubs or something is a good idea from time to time...or regularly, the more I think about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and I'm really more concerned about that than the language. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • My tldr thoughts on FAC are here and here. I think WIAFA needs the word "best" in there somewhere somehow, not because FA articles actually are always (or perhaps even usually? debatable) the best, but because there's tremendous value (immediately in terms of process; indirectly in terms of product) in collectively pursuing bestness, and a great deal more of a positive spillover effect (in terms of effort toward article improvement) than people tend to credit. I got all those parentheses at a "Going Out of Business" sale for grammar textbooks. • Arch♦Reader 22:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm thinking of, maybe twice a month, inviting different GA writers who write really well but don't usually participate here to co-write one of the TFA columns work on one of the existing TFA columns. That's my little attempt at outreach, and if people want to do outreach in other ways, I'll be happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 11:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think GA standards have improved as a practical matter and that would be very much worth doing. I think reviewers dictate what a FA, or a GA is, rather than the written word mentioned by Iridescent.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not totally clear whether you're saying "put up one of the GAs in the TFA slot" ... I didn't mean that, and I don't think we could get consensus for that ... but now that you mention it, if we can form a little task force to pick a couple of recently promoted GAs each month and try to push them through FAC, sort of like the old WP:FAT used to do, I'd be very happy to volunteer time for that. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I did not opine on anything having to do with TFA. That would be a matter having to do with administration, on which I do not opine.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Heh, okay, well I'm glad I misunderstood you then, because I would definitely be in favor of something FAT-like to reward and acknowledge good work at GAN ... and if possible, to get them to start hanging out over here as well. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I merely meant that the standards imposed by reviewers are what drive FAC. For example, non-contentious matters don't technically have to be sourced ... but try doing that at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want GAN folks to come to FAC, one possible path would be to go work with them on their own turf, showing respect to their processes etc. Rather than asking them to come here, go work at GAN. Make colleagues. Never say "That's not how we do it at FAC." Never even mention how we do it at FAC unless explicitly asked. Ask questions. Let others show you how GAN functions. And so on. Then when you have immersed yourself in GAN-ness, people might listen when you ask them to visit this forum. Just a little thought. I'll go back to my cave now. • Arch♦Reader 01:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A beg

It can be discouraging to have a nomination archived for lack of interest. It's a damned shame to have a second/third/etc nomination suffer the same fate. I'm here to beg the community to provide some reviews for these nominations, which are on at least their second try after receiving little interest:

Yes, there's a pattern here—these folks have waded into new waters and struggled. I think we owe it to ourselves to support and encourage new FA writers, even if their stuff is not in our wheelhouse. --Laser brain (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I owe some reviews at the moment; I will try to get to at least a couple of these, but it might be later in the week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll start the Merc one right now, comments tonight or tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I've looked at 61 Cygni. I'd like someone to go over the technical side of it. Once that is done, I'll give it another read through with a expectation of supporting it once the prose is tidy.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I know next to nothing about these subjects (which is why I haven't commented, sadly no animal noms at the moment), but I could take a look at 61 Cygni from a layman's perspective. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Every bit helps, of course, but I'm hoping someone who knows a bit more about stars than I do will look at it. I found just enough problems on the non-technical side to make me worry about what I may be missing through not knowing the lingo.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The 61 Cygni one is a headache. Have looked at it a few times and needs a whole going-over. Am trying to rustle up more enthusiasm to do more....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You pull and I'll push?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
(sigh) there's stuff that's just Not How It's Done. Not sure how much there is though.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither 61 Cygni nor the 2012 Budweiser Shootout articles have had recent peer reviews. Maybe the noms should be advised to bring their work to PR before FAC, because in doing so they might bring tighter articles that need less attention and already have a few interested reviewers. RO(talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable to me. I reviewed in response to the request made by the nominator further up the page, but it certainly could have benefited from another pair of eyes before the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk)`

I am hesitant about advising people to go to PR unless a) I'm prepared to review the article there myself or b) can recommend someone who will. PR can be a desolate place these days – there is no longer a resident core of peer reviewers, and articles frequently hang around, ignored, for weeks. That is one of the main reasons why more articles are coming to FAC in an unprepared state. I don't know what the answer is, except...more reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that PR is meaningless without willing and skilled reviewers. What happened to the resident core of peer reviewers? RO(talk) 16:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Battle fatigue. After years of largely thankless reviewing, and repeated failed attempts to get others to take a regular share of the work, they withdrew. Wikipedia owes them a debt. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:FAC is the new WP:PR • Arch♦Reader 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to help out more, but what if we made PR the required, not just suggested, first step to FAC? RO(talk) 18:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's been suggested many times. Without more regular reviewers it's a non-starter. The most practical solution would be for editors to act more collegially, to interest themselves in others' projects and invite others to share in theirs. They then get used to reviewing each others' articles, not just as a chore or a quid pro quo but out of real interest. Thus I will always review articles where, say, Tim riley, or SchroCat, or Wehwalt, is the main editor because I admire and enjoy their work. It takes time, and effort, of course. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I made an attempt at contributing to PR but gave up after (a) a number of reviews I made in a row went ignored by the nominators, and (b) half or more of my own nominations were archived without comment. The place is a vacuum. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't exactly have my finger on Wikipedia's pulse these days, but do we think editors pay attention to edit notices any more (if they ever did)? When FAC's was originally expanded to stress the criteria, I seem to recall it resulted in (or perhaps merely coincided with) a temporary drop in the nomination rate. Perhaps if the notice were strengthened, recast as a checklist (example here) that new nominators were encouraged to follow, it might stave off some of the more unprepared nominations. Steve T • C 21:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I've looked through 61 Cygni and would be happy to contribute to a PR. I am reluctant to review it for FA, though, since I would probably not support it at present even if everything I can think of is dealt with, and that would not really be fair. Perhaps one answer would be to put articles which are clearly not yet up to the required standard out of their misery quite quickly? A delegate could say something like "I will archive this in one week's time unless a fairly positive review is forthcoming"? --Mirokado (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems the problems mentioned by the more knowledgeable editors above are beyond my league. But ping me if/when the more technical issues are sorted out, and a more casual look is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Guideline revision urgently needed; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 404

Can this nomination be unarchived? There was one oppose on it from an editor who insisted on adding what I and another editor believed to be unrelated material. When pressed enough, they declared that they would add the material themselves, then failed to respond any further to pings. I feel I dealt with the actionable parts of the oppose and that the nom should continue to remain open. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Floydian: The open opposition was not the compelling factor in archiving—I did take in to account that the reviewer had not revisited. The nomination had not attracted any support for promotion since late April. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hastings Line

OK, it's been archived. I've chucked a few toys out the pram over at UKT. Where do I go from here? Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: While it's by no means required, a lot of editors are successful in attracting reviewers when they spend time reviewing other FAC nominations. It can be a very rewarding experience, and it exposes you to all kinds of interesting topics. --Laser brain (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realise there was a clique. Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not a clique, or if it is I'm not aware of it acting that way -- I don't know of any reviewers who won't review an article by someone who hasn't reviewed one of theirs first. However, it's a cooperative endeavour; the more reviews we all do, the more chance everyone gets their article reviewed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been involved in reviewing at least twice as many FACs as I've proposed for FA, it might even be three times. You may not be aware, but I'm busy in lots of areas of work on Wikipedia - shipwrecks, ships, railways, windmills, plus aircrash and traincrash articles. With the Hastings Line article, I either addressed all of Dr. Blofeld's points, or countered them. I was waiting for a response from him and the FAC gets archived through "lack of participation". The proposal had support, and Dr Blofield did not object to its promotion. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • One support and one stalled review is far from the necessary quorum for promotion. Although there's no fixed minimum number of supports, very few, if any, articles pass with fewer than 3 supports. You've been given a suggestion as to how you can improve your chances in a future FAC. You are free to ignore said suggestion if you feel it necessary, but to decry FAC as a "clique" is certainly not going to help your position. If a nominator gets a reputation as being difficult to work with, many editors will just pass their nominations by. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It sucks, but it happens because there just aren't enough active reviewers. Just wait the two weeks and resubmit (anyone who supported last time will probably support again). One of my FAs took two nominations and 101 days due to lack of reviews. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
A bigger issue is the complete lack of notification that the FAC was in danger of being closed. I've raised this with Laserbrain and it is apparent that this is a real problem for nominators. It would seem that a change in the way things are done is needed. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's a problem for nominators who don't know the routine. Perhaps an essay on WP:What to expect at an FAC would be helpful? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I like this idea. I think there are several topics that could be covered. Maybe it would make the process seem less like a (scary) black hole Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
+1. Some aspects of the way FAC works are counterintuitive for people used to the way the rest of Wikipedia works; at GAN, for instance, reviews sit there until they're either promoted or failed, and there's no reason for anyone not to expect the same at FAC. (FWIW, the "a lot of editors are successful in attracting reviewers when they spend time reviewing other nominations" is considerably stronger at GAN than FAC; at least FAC doesn't yet have a bot paste a running total of 'reviews conducted' into participants' signatures, as WP:GAN does. – iridescent 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I do think, and have said as much to anyone who asks, that the best way to find out "what to expect at FAC" is to spend some time walking through active and closed nominations to get a feel for things (as well as familiarising oneself with the FAC instructions and FA criteria). There's also a good essay by Nick-D from the MilHist project on navigating your way through FAC (and A-Class Review). That was written by an experienced nominator a few years ago so perhaps something similar by a relative newcomer to FAC (say with one or two promoted articles under their belt?) would be useful. I think that might be more worthwhile than a coord preparing one but I for one would be happy to be on hand to answer queries if an editor did want to write something. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC re archiving of FACs

If a FAC is deemed to be "stale" rather than just being archived without warning, notice should be given that archiving is being considered so that the nominator can take the necessary action to ensure that outstanding issues are addressed, or the opinions of commentor are finalised, or fresh eyes are cast over the FAC before it gets archived.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a FAC getting archived if it really is stale, but for one to be closed merely because the nominator is waiting for a commentor to respond without even being given notice that the FAC was in danger of being closed is totally wrong.

Therefore, I propose that future FAC nominators are given a seven day notice that archiving is being considered. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Laserbrain:, Redrose64, Optimist on the run, Dr. Blofeld, Lamberhurst, Bethayres and Tim riley. All of whom have participated in, or been involved in discussion about the FAC (1) which was archived without warning whilst I was awaiting a response to my comments in respect of points raised during the FAC. Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Pinging Dr. Blofeld because I messed up first time! Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Laserbrain is one of the most respected individuals here though and wouldn't have archived it without good reason. It didn't get much input and was open two months. If it's been open over a month, especially over six weeks, you should know that there's a likelihood of it being archived if the turn out and support is poor anyway. I'm not sure it would be a good idea telling nominators they're going to archive it as I know some editors might try to canvass votes and support to try to battle against it being archived, which I don't think is good for the FAC. Nonetheless I was leaning towards support, though I would prefer to see some of the short sections merged and some of the repetitive text removed. I think your best bet now would be to open a peer review and request a few of us to look at it, then renom and get a better turnout. Thanks for your hard work on it anyway. and yes, I understand it can be frustrating. Generally though, I don't honestly think there's a case for making it a general procedure, the delegates in my experience virtually always make a very good call and assessment, case by case.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Precisely. Right now, there is not really anything that needs an RFC. Assessments are made on a case-by-case basis, and anywhere on the encyclopedia, 3 weeks of no activity is indication that a nomination or discussion has gone stale. It really shouldn't be a surprise if an FAC is closed, especially if it's the second or third oldest nomination on the page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, usually if an article has had a decent peer review then you'll have no problems getting turn out and support at the FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it has been a problem with other nominations as well, not just that one. For example Giant mouse lemur, which was archived with little warning (2), could probably have been saved if the nominator (Maky) had been given more time to "advertise" at relevant projects. FunkMonk (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "advertising" have been done in the first place, and not as a last resort? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't seem to be the norm. It can be very hard to foresee if a nomination will stall or not, personally I prefer not to advertise unless there is no other option (feels a bit pushy). FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've rarely had an FAC take less than a month, so I've assumed not advertising is dooming my FACs to inevitable archiving. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - See also User talk:Laser brain for some conversation germane to this discussion. There were really two issues here: the nominator not understanding why his nomination was archived, and the nominator being surprised by the archiving. The former is arguably an issue of discoverability or readability of the instructions. The latter I believe shines a light on how coordinators communicate with nominators. I'm not sure that this requires a full-blown RFC or that it needs codifying, but I agree with the premise that nominators shouldn't be surprised by their nominations being archived. We as a community need to be welcoming and patient with nominators who don't know "the system". Any time someone writes on my Talk page "What the heck happened?", we have failed them in some way. I'm wary of process creep and of building rules into the system that may have unintended effects, but I'm definitely interested in everyone's thoughts. --Laser brain (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a lot of the problems would be addressed if the delegates could provide a sentence or two of rationale at the time of archiving, if the reason is not obvious. --Rschen7754 13:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a pity to have rules creep as such, but I do think it is good etiquette to give some warning a few days beforehand that maybe archiving is on the cards. I know this is often done already.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I think people will find that more often than not we do give a rationale for archiving a nom if it may not be immediately obvious. We also sometimes give advance warning that a nom is looking shaky but I'm dubious about making this a requirement -- I feel we generally give noms every chance to achieve consensus, leaving them open longer than in years past, adding the sparsely reviewed ones to the 'urgents' list at the top of this page, and so on. Many first-time nominators also get quite a long 'go' because we have the convention of requiring spotchecks of sources for all newbies, and that often takes time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Years ago when I was a delegate, for first-time nominators I used to leave a message on the nominators' talk page when I archived a nom to explain why that was done and what their next steps might be (PR if there were outstanding issues, try again in a few weeks and contact interested wikiprojects if it was due to time). It wasn't a rule, just something I did provided I noticed the nominator was a newbie. I still inadvertently made people angry sometimes, but I think (hope) it did help. Karanacs (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

with the hastings Line FAC, it was promoted to GA, underwent a peer review and was then nominated at FAC. Timriley made some comments, which I acted on and replied to. Dr Blofeld then made some comments. I acted on some and commented on others which I took no action on. I was awaiting his response when the FAC was suddenly archived without warning. Notification was given to WP:UKT that the article was at FAC. I really don't know what else I could have done here.
I note comments above that notification that a FAC was likely to be archived might lead to canvassing. I really don't think that this will be a problem. If an article isn't FA quality, then it won't pass, will it? If canvassing leads to more eyes, then there's a better chance of finding any weaknesses in the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, sometimes that happens. If I were still a delegate, I would have archived it too. I don't see how giving notice would have helped in this situation. Even if the last set of comments had resulted in a support, two supports is not generally enough for consensus. Maybe it would have been left open another week to see if it generated more comments, but it hadn't had any more comments in weeks. Sometimes you just have to try again later and see if there are new eyes looking over FAC. It has no bearing on the quality of the article. Karanacs (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Karanacs: Had I received notification that the FAC was in danger of being archived, I would have pinged Dr Blofeld, as I was waiting for him to respond to my comments re the areas that I hadn't made any changes after his suggestions. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, a nominator shouldn't need to be told to ping someone if they haven't responded in more than a week. I'm always grateful to the pings when I'm a reviewer. It's not that hard to overlook something in your watchlist or get busy and forget. Karanacs (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
First, a nominator who feels it's "pushy" to ping interested editors and WikiProjects about a nom is an editor who is shooting her/himself in the foot, end of story. Second, codifying warnings and pings and what-nots into a rule somewhere is rule creep. Third, WP has no scheduling software that I am aware of. There's nothng like Google Calendar or anything that can automatically be set to ping people after (say) X number of days of inactivity. fourth, why are you trying to put yet another responsibility on the shoulders of the reviewers and delegates? Your nom is your responsibility. You put it up there. Wash your own dishes. So all in all, the moral of the story is, passive nominators have no standing for complaints. [Now that I have said this, I already know exactly what will happen: the passive nominators who have complained will get their wish, and the too-nice FAC delegates will rescue those passive nominators by washing the nominators' dishes for them. Yet more -- and more -- and more -- and more -- responsibility for already-overloaded volunteer reviewers and delegates. I hope that outcome is a pleasing one. ] • Arch♦Reader 22:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
"End of story"? So how would anyone know that this had become a de facto requirement? And new nominators at that (or people who had been away for a while)? It certainly wasn't just a few years ago. FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not "not knowing"; the problem is "not doing anything about not knowing." If someone brings a nom, it's his/her responsibility to be proactive about very gently and politely nudging the process when it stalls. It's not a rule; it's common courtesy. The reviewers and delegates are working to make that final push through to FAC-dom, but the latter two groups are human and get stalled/busy/vacation/distracted etc. If you absolutely need some task done, but for some reason it is physically impossible for you to do it alone (and make no mistake, other people are actively helping you when they review your noms), but the people who are helping you somehow drop the ball for a while, you shouldn't complain if you didn't say something about it. Unless you are paying them (in which case you have every right to complain), they are helping you. You owe them. It is not the other way around. This is not a rule and it should not be a rule. It is common courtesy. • Arch♦Reader 12:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That does not address the issue I raised, though. How would a first time nominator know this unwritten rule, when it isn't really indicated anywhere? Especially since it doesn't apply to most other review processes? FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I did address the issue you raised. I told you that it is not so much important that they did not know, but rather how they adjust to the puzzling situation. I'm trying to bring you to an understanding that the whole process is the nominator's responsibility simply as a matter of common courtesy. People are volunteering to help them. No one owes them anything at all. The reason FAC doesn't have a 2 week limit or whatever is because noms can go one for ages upon ages upon ages (or at least, they could when I was here, and in theory they still could). And that is how it should be. FAC requires a higher investment in effort and a closer attention to detail than other levels (or else it wouldn't be FAC). That takes time. So 2 week closes are no go. No one has the responsibility to babysit your nom and ping you if it stalls. It is your baby. You tend it. That's common courtesy. • Arch♦Reader 13:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Most people here are both nominators and reviewers, both as volunteers. Without the former, we would not have the content to review, so it is in the best interest of Wikipedia and its editors to cater to their needs/make it as smooth as possible for them as well, if Wikipedia is to be anything but a collection of unsourced stubs. So I think making this a case of "us (reviewers) ad them (nominators)" rather counter-productive. In any case, yes, I'll be more "pushy" when advertising nominations myself, but not because I learned to do so from reading the guidelines. New nominators may be driven away when their nominations are simply archived and no one tells them how to prevent this. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, of the various processes involving some type of review of article content:

  • AfD: nominations remain open for seven days by default, and usually are closed after at most 21 days (2 relistings).
  • ITN: nominations are auto-archived after seven days.
  • DYK: nominations remain open till either promoted or rejected.
  • GA: nominations remain open till either promoted or rejected.
  • PR: review requests are auto-archived after two weeks of inactivity.
  • FAC: nominations may be archived without action after long but indeterminate periods of inactivity.
  • FAR/FARC: nominations may progress after 2-3 weeks of inactivity, in principle, but in practice may sit much longer (there's one at six months now!).

There's obviously no overall consistency in how content reviews are concluded, so not knowing the FAC process seems like a pretty understandable mistake. I haven't been around FAC in a long time, but wow, I don't remember nominations regularly stalling out for sheer lack of reviewers. From the outside that does look a little like you're supposed to bring your social network along when you start a nomination. I'm not sure if anything necessarily needs to be done about it, but "archive without resolution after indeterminate waiting period" is somewhat unusual compared to most wikiprocesses, as is the expectation of actively seeking out participants in a discussion you initiated. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Note about GA and DYK: if no review has begun, there's no limit, but once a review is done (or begun) it's expected to be finished within a finite period of time. With GA it depends on the reviewer (1 to 2 weeks of no activity for me). For DYK, before things slowed down like they have now, it was a week of no activity from the nominator, if there are still outstanding issues.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Unarchived FAC

I noticed that the FAC for SSX 3 hasn't been archived since it was closed on May 31th. Other FACs might not be archived as well. GamerPro64 23:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Tks, was just going through the list and spotted that one too -- I think it's the only one, will leave a message for Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Blog post about the difficulty of writing big-picture FAs

Hi all, you may be interested in this post ("These Texans are on a quest to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of their state’s revolution") about Karanacs, Maile66, and our article on the Texas Revolution that I wrote up. You'll also love the adorable photo at the bottom. Please give me feedback so I can improve and continue with this series! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

WT:TFA#I need your suggestions on these captions

Pinging here. This is urgent; TFA images might start running with captions on Saturday, and we haven't had a chance to work on consensus for what those captions should be. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

FARC....

If folks could opine on the any FARC candidates (particularly the bottom three) that'd be great. Just wanna keep it moving...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines modified to reflect typical review page etiquette

On a recent FAC, someone (maybe Curly Turkey?) mentioned that the talk page guidelines forbade modifying others' posts in any way, which has led some new nominators to avoid interspersing their replies with the reviewers' comments. I've edited the guidelines to reflect actual practice on review pages; I hope this will help clarify things for future nominators. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hunt for Tirpitz, Nick-D's new blog post

Hi all, you might know me under my volunteer username The ed17. There's a new post from Nick-D up at the Wikimedia blog: "The Hunt for Tirpitz."

We've had some great content-related posts recently, as opposed to the blog's regular fare, and I'd be more than happy to run more. Send me ideas on my talk page! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a sources spotcheck for a FAC

Hi, I've been asked that I request here if someone will be willing to give Bentworth a sources spotcheck for its FAC. It currently has six supports and the last thing it needs is a spotcheck for sources, which should conclude the review. If somebody will be willing to do it, I'll be in their debt. Thanks, JAGUAR  22:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ordering nominations by subject

Is there any reason why nominations aren't placed under overall subject categories, to make it easier for specialist reviewers to find articles they feel they can comment on? This is how GA nominations are done, and I find it very helpful that I can jump directly to a category and see the latest additions. Now at FAC, several articles about topics I feel I can validly judge pass me by before I notice (the name of an article doesn't always clearly indicate what it is about), and I wonder if anyone else feels the same. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I can see the issue about the line order, though that should also be an issue at GAN then. At GAN, all articles are in subject sections, and in chronological list under these. I don't think people necessarily review FAC articles per the date of nomination, judged on what can be seen on the list now, many new nominations have multiple reviewers, many older ones have nothing. In a perfect world, it would be possible to click on a button and order the FAC list after either date or subject by choice, like in some article lists, but that would probably be a too large overhaul. I think nominations would attract more reviewers if one didn't have to skim the articles to read what they were about, but maybe that's just me. I mainly look at the titles and decide what I can do from there. FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to use the GA noms process as a model of success, don't you think? Every so often nominators are asked to make it clear what the article is actually about in their nom, but many still don't. It might be worth exploring having a by-subject summary somewhere, though it is more stuff to maintain. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
GAN of course has its issues, but the subject headlines is one thing I find constructive. As for FAC, perhaps there could be a way to see an alternate list based on what Wiki projects the articles are tagged by (that way, nominators wouldn't have to be tasked with picking a category)? By the way, I don't really expect the proposal here to lead to anything, but would like to see the pros and cons anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Make a subpage, separate from the actual nom page. Task a bot to generate a sortable table listing noms by the the Wikiprojects present on their talk pages. No manual editing. Done. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
My thought would be that it is useful to make people go down the list of nominations, which gets them to see what else is at FAC, and may generate reviews. If all you see are the latest nominations on rocks, well, you aren't likely to get interested and review anything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Wehwalt here. At GAN, there's only a single reviewer so if you're only confident reviewing an article on music, you want to be able to jump to the music section. At FAC, we actively want people who aren't familiar with the subject matter to comment, as they're likely to spot problems (technical jargon, assumption of familiarity with background etc) which aren't necessarily going to be obvious to people familiar with the subject. If you find scrolling through the list too unwieldy, just activate Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer. – iridescent 21:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I kind of like the argument about forcing people to review outside their comfort zones. And thanks for the suggestions! FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

)

Request for someone to do source spot checks on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Man Down (song)/archive1

Hello. My nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Man Down (song)/archive1) has five supports and a completed image review. The only thing, as far as I'm concerned, that is stopping it from being promoted is a source spot check. Can someone do this for me please, because it's had five supports for a week now with no further action taken on the nomination.  — Calvin999 17:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon is a proposal to do exactly that. I suspect it has no chance of moving forwards, but the user has been pushing it rather hard in a few places - Jimbo's talk page, etc - and I think a little light would be good on it and its very radical proposals. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As presented, it looks about as welcoming as a prescription for paracetemol. I'm not against the principle of simplifying the main page, but it's got to have a bit of imaginative design asssociated with it. Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it looks like a step backwards to a basic text website of the 1990s. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Aye, that looks fairly lame to me as far as main page designs go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what the point is, lesser load time? Is that really an issue these days? FunkMonk (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
apparently it is in some countries. It is a problem that will eventually disappear however. I agree with Simon, that it does not actually make the site more modern or graphically appealing at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. If loading is a problem, which I doubt, making the featured picture smaller might be the most obvious place to start. Text is not the problem here... Montanabw(talk) 08:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that reminds me of CompuServe and other early sites. I realize this is the year that they went forward to in Back to the Future but that's no reason to be preoccupied with 1985. This wasn't proposed as a belated April Fools Day joke and I'm missing the punchline? Because I think my younger nephew, in sixth grade, could design a better one (and I'm sure my elder nephew in 9th could).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Absence

Hi all, I'll be travelling throughout September–October, back early November, and have begun to taper off my activities in preparation. Of course there may be moments when I can check in but probably only if it rains... ;-) In any event, I wish all nominees and reviewers, and my fellow coords Laser brain and Graham Beards, the very best in the coming months! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC):

I wish you an enjoyable holiday and a well-deserved break. Graham Beards (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Enjoy, Ian! --Laser brain (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Some way to make a guide for a highly detailed map

I have a question: if you look at File:Revised Union battleplan for the Battle of Malvern Hill.jpg, there are scores of details marked. Is there a way I can make... perhaps a box... in the article's notes maybe... that lists every one of those details, and... maybe impossible but... finds some way to link to them or locate them on the actual map? Using a grid over the map would obviously only make a very busy map much busier, so that's out... Tks • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Study of Alexandra FeodorovnaRoom 2White Drawing Room of Alexandra FeodorovnaThe Malachite RoomConcert HallThe Nicholas HallThe Great AntechamberThe Jordan StaircaseThe Field Marshall's HallThe Small Throne RoomThe Armorial HallMilitary GallerySt. George's HallSmall HermitageNew HermitageThe Grand ChurchThe Alexander HallDrawing-Room of the suite of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolayevna and her husband Duke Maximilian LeuchtenbergWar Gallery (suite of 5 rooms)The White HallGold Drawing RoomThe Crimson CabinetBoudoir of Empress Maria AlexandrovnaAlexander II's StudyThe School RoomThe RotundaGothic LibraryThe Arabian HallPortrait Gallery of the Romanov DynastyRoom 29Palace EmbankmentNevaCourt GardenPalace SquareStaff of the Corpus of GuardsWest gardenWest gardenThe October StaircaseApollo HallRoom 38Principal EntranceHau Winter GardenHau Winter GardenThe Dark CorridorDressing Room of Alexandra FeodorovnaPompei Dining RoomBedroom of the Tsarevich's suitepart of the Tsarevich's suiteThe Guard RoomPrivate rooms of the Imperial FamilyPrivate rooms of the Imperial Family
Unscaled plan of the 1st floor of the Winter Palace as it appears today, the fourth palace on the site. The numbers in this key are referred to throughout the article—click on numbers for images, pages and further details.
It's certainly possible to make an imagemap of links overlaid over a picture, so clicking various parts of the image takes you to different places; the {{Winter Palace}} template, where clicking on each room on the map takes you to the article on that room (or did, until an idiot admin unilaterally deleted some of the pages), is probably the best example I can think of. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind? There's an alternative method in use at Hampstead Heath#Gallery with Wikitext links floating over the image, which also works although I think is uglier.
The two obvious drawbacks I can think of are firstly, that it makes it impossible to resize the image ten years down the line when screen resolution has improved and all the Wikipedia defaults have increased; and secondly, that it will play merry hell with screen readers and breach WP:ACCESS. Neither is insurmountable, but both will cause people to shout at you, and neither is particularly easy to implement—absolute positioning is a major PITA to work with in wikitext. (This is the Wikicode for {{Winter Palace}}, to give you an idea.) ‑ iridescent 21:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
So something like the red dots which hover over maps in infoboxes on towns, but clicking on buttons makes the dot jump?, or hoverable caption text where hovering over a particular piece of text makes an arrow pop up on the map? It ought to be do-able, although it would probably break the MOS eight different ways and might cause too much of a performance hit for the WMF to allow it. The brute-force (and undoubtedly wiki-legal) approach would be to upload a dozen different versions of the map, each with something different circled, and turn the main image's caption into a bunch of links to them (remember, normal logged-out readers see image links in MediaViewer view now). This has the obvious disadvantage of taking readers away from the actual article, but has the advantage that it doesn't depend on any fancy-coding so nobody can object to it.
There ought to be something more elegant that could be done using .js and the hover action; if you can persuade the powers that be to authorise the script, there are some spectacularly non-standard things that can be done using .js scripts—see es:Juego de la vida for the most impressive example. (Whether you'd be allowed to do it is another matter; the WMF is rightfully wary about anything that might make readers' computers do anything unusual.) RexxS might be able to suggest someone who could do it. ‑ iridescent 09:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The Winter Palace template is actually not as bad as you think: it uses <imagemap>...</imagemap> which takes its coordinates from the full-size image, so the clickable areas scale with the size of image specified. So we'll be ok even with bigger monitors (not that we'll be able to make use of their full width, because there's a limit to the width of a line of text before the eye loses its way when going from one line to the beginning of the next – I just had that conversation at Talk:List of cocaine analogues #Trademark thing)
For the map, I guess you're looking for something like this? I can't do it in pure CSS, so it needs JavaScript to work - although much of Wikipedia also now needs JS for its functionality, so I guess that's not a big consideration, other than none of it is any use to somebody using a screen reader. What we really should be doing is also describing the salient features of the battle layout in plain text for those who cannot see the map. To implement something like it on Wikipedia, you'd need an admin who is familiar with jQuery and CSS - I'd normally recommend Edokter as he does most of the work on MediaWiki:Common.css and could give an opinion on how practical it would be. The only other option would be to use something like my demo page as an external link per WP:ELYES, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail ..., or other reasons." Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Daughter articles....

Interesting. Tern was a recent featured article and gathered 11536 views. The image on the mainpage was of a roseate tern, which jumped up to 1066 views. Ok, not a huge jump, but still interesting in spurring an interest in me in buffing pages that come off the blurb. inca tern got 853 views and noddy got 649. Chinese crested tern got 1233, suggesting our readers care about the environment. Roseate tern saw some buffing. Not sure the point of this but suggests may be that buffing and/or watching articles that segue off the blurb is prudent.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well—it's very noticeable on the pageview history of William Etty, as there was a batch of DYKs on him trickling every few days over the last couple of months. I intentionally haven't been linking him in the hooks, but each time one of his paintings is on DYK, he gets at least a few hundred extra views. Even hyper-obscure articles like Charlotte Williams-Wynn (diarist) get noticeable albeit small spikes in views each time he's on the main page, presumably from people following links between his paintings until they reach Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball which includes her. ‑ iridescent 22:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Superman in film

I don′t know the criteria for featured articles in the English Wikipedia, but the article named above is surely not a featured article anymore. So how can you deselect it? --Wikiolo (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review is thataway. Why do you think does it need de-selection, out of curiosity? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The article got very confused after Man of Steel has been released, it is unbalanced (why is a chepter about a movie longer than a chepter about three movies), and I can′t see no reasons what makes the article to an featured article. I mean the article The Dark Knight for example has been written much better, but this article is just a good article. --Wikiolo (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Wikiolo: If you have concerns about the article and they can't be resolved on the article talk page within a reasonable amount of time (usually at least two weeks), you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured article review. People will weigh in on whether it still meets WP:WIAFA. --Laser brain (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --Wikiolo (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a source spotcheck for a FAC

Hello, would anyone be kind enough to proceed with a source formatting and reliability spotcheck for the FAC Menkauhor Kaiu? See the FAC here. The article passed GA status and thus already received a brief source spotcheck (also during its later peer review). The FA nomination is supported by 4 reviewers already and the source spotcheck is all that is missing for it to be FA it seems. Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the references and think the article is ready. A. Parrot (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review needed

I would appreciate it if someone could do the source review on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge/archive1 . It has several supports and the image review has been done. The window for this to be nominated as TFA is very quickly approaching, and I would like to get a decision before the window passes. Thanks in advance. BollyJeff | talk 12:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Casliber. BollyJeff | talk 14:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

History of tropical cyclone naming

Hi, I put this article up for FAC the other day here but i guess i must of forgotten to put it on the main page. How do we rectify this situation? Jason Rees (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It already got some input, so I would just transclude it in the right place.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: I've added it. --Laser brain (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Laser brain:.Jason Rees (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

St Denys' Church, Sleaford source review

Hello. I am new to the FAC process, but the above article now has 5 supports and no opposes, and is one of oldest noms. Am I right in thinking that it's time for a source review? Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC).

I think so - have added your nom to the list at the top of the page as well. GermanJoe (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nominations viewer giving incorrect support counts

The nominations viewer is giving incorrect support counts in a couple of cases. It says Oviri has two supports, for example, when it fact it has three; and conversely it says St Denys' Church has six supports, when it fact it has five. The support count is one of the most useful things about the viewer, and it would be good to make this more accurate. Can anyone who understands the script see what is causing the errors? I suspect that people putting "support" in section headings may be part of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a bit older post about the script's general search behaviour. Gary is maintaining the script, and is still active at times. Just checked the mentioned cases: "Oviri" has really only 2 bolded supports (the script is explicitly searching for bold formatting with ''' characters), "St Denys' Church" includes a bolded statement of "Not quite a support yet", which confuses the script (it accepts some additional leading and trailing bolded characters to allow short statements like "I support this nomination." as valid votes (up to 25 characters to the left and right, if I read the script correctly). Hope that helps a bit, but of course the script maintainer could give more detailed information. GermanJoe (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I've never learned javascript, and this one is a sterling example of why.. ah yes, GermanJoe is right, the Oviri problem is the semicolon syntax used by Coldcreation... still looking ...a nd yep, he's right again, the script doesn't understand the meaning of "not quite" and "yet" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

How many co-nominations?

The guidelines currently say "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." Does this mean that a user can also only have two co-nominations at a time? FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My reading, and in my experience, the practice, has been you are allowed one nomination as of right, presuming you are not in a 15 day period following a failed nomination. If you have a co-nom nomination, you're allowed a second nomination. It is irrelevant whether one is solo and the other joint, or both are joint works. Anything further requires discussion with a coordinator.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
yeah that was my understanding of it as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Urgent list and a comment about dopamine

I've updated the urgents list at the top of this page to include all the open nominations in the "older" section of the page which have less than three supports. I'd also like to suggest that the experienced reviewers here consider reviewing dopamine, which is one of the urgents. FAs tend to be about highly specialized topics, because if you're not a professional academic it's hard to know the literature well enough to cover a broad topic. When a topic of broader importance comes up at FAC I think we should make an effort, as a group, to review and help improve the article. Dopamine is a fairly high-visibility article and it's high-importance in several ways. Those of us who, like me, can't review the biochemistry in any detail can still help with prose, article structure, and clarity. Trying to learn a subject you don't know from an article is a good way to determine how well the article explains its topic, and that's a good basis for review comments.

I know we're all here as a hobby, so there's certainly no obligation to review articles like this. However, I think we also all share a desire to see important articles reach featured status, and I think that's worth a little extra effort now and again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Of equal if not greater concern should be the fact that of 40 live FACs, only six have source reviews. I'll try and do a few on Tuesday, but we badly need volunteers to do this on a regular basis. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there a guide to doing source reviews? If someone wanted to start helping with these, it would be good to have a resource that outlined what to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
When I do a source review on DYK, I run down the page and compare each claim to the citation provided. And I check if the citation provided looks reliable. While doing so, I make a list of unsupported or cherrypicked claims as well as citations that don't seem reliable.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Source checking procedures

Referring to the above thread, I would have thought that any of the experienced editors who regularly nominate and/or review at FAC are fully competent to carry out a sources review, but for some reason they seem reluctant. If you've seen an article through FAC you'll know what you're looking for. What what it's worth, here's a rough guide:

  • Check all citation formats for consistent presentation, format and MOS compliance. For example, p. for single pages, pp. for page ranges, ndashes not hyphens in page ranges, appropriate italicization, etc. This can be tedious when there are 200+ citations, but it has to be done.
  • Check that all the external links within the sources are working and going to the right place
  • Identify any sources (particularly online) that look as though they may not meet FAC standards of quality/reliability.
  • For less experienced nominators, carry out spotchecks to see that cited sources do support information in the article, and to check for close paraphrasing.
  • List your concerns in the sources review

Fairly obvious , really. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC).

See also:
Other suggestions (and edits to my guides) welcome. @Mike Christie: does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, both of those are helpful; thanks. I've never done source reviews myself, partly because I've always had source problems that people like Nikki have to point out to me. I've never had a FAC go through with no source issues. Part of the reason I'm poor at checking my own sources for consistency is that I've never learned all the rules, despite having done this for years. Instead I typically copy the sources from an article that recently passed FAC, and add more that look the same.
I might start doing source reviews, but since article reviews are in short supply too I gravitate to doing those. I know there are some FAC submitters who have been hesitant about doing article reviews -- perhaps some of those folks might consider doing some source reviewing. I also wonder if Nikki's "brief guide" could be converted into something like a detailed checklist, which could be used by both article writers and source reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Two FAs nominated for deletion/merger

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. BencherliteTalk 11:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline: This article was scheduled as a TFA for Nov 25. The FAC nominator has been gone for over 5 years, so as is usual in such cases, I notified the wikiproject instead, at WT:CRICKET#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2015. Three of the people who saw that (I'm assuming) showed up at WT:TFA in this thread to talk about their reservations about this article showing up on the Main Page. This deletion request is one proposed method of dealing with their request. I'm not wedded to any particular approach to the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I selected this as TFA from my "centenaries" list (25 November is Hamence's 100th birthday). Assuming the article is kept I see no harm in a TFA appearance, which might surprise and delight a few elderly Australian cricket fans (who have had little to cheer about in recent years). Besides, being the "forgotten man" of the mighty 1948 tour is a kind of distinction in itself. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Socks notice

Hello! Recently we have a bunch of socks who have been nominating various subpar articles for FA/FL/GA status without majorly working on them. All socks are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TekkenJinKazama. The socks seem to be infecting entertainment related page majorly. Hence requesting all reviewers to do a basic background check of the nominator, their edit histories related to the nomination page, etc. before starting the review and wasting your time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQ#Pinging when a "task" section is edited

This bot request may be of interest to anyone who frequently checks one small section of a busy page. If you're annoyed that this showed up on your WT:FAC watchlist because you're usually interested in just the #Image/source check requests section, this bot request is for you, and you might want to add your request there. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Take the lead!

Hi folks, am going to run this competition in January. see Wikipedia:Take the lead!. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Participants here often create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a content is neutral, determine if sources are reliable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:TFAR nominations

These are often rather thin at this time of the year – at present they are particularly scarce. Please feel free to nominate your recent promotions, or any other FA that has not yet appeared on the main page. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Announcements and Goings on

The FACBot has been enhanced to handle Featured Lists. As part of this process, it updates the Announcements and Goings On pages. This could also be done for FACs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This would save much time Hawkeye; promoting an article is more of a rigmarole than many realise. One less job would be a joy. Graham Beards (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations

Just a note that the FACBot is now moving the "Older nominations" marker each day. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Your doing? - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
It's his bot, so yes. I presume it was a bonus feature to go along with expanding the bot to cover FLC as well, which he just did for us. --PresN 21:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's my doing. I am doing it for the FLC, and there was already a request to do it for FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks -- I was one of the people who used to move it manually. Nice to have it automated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

FAC following move?

Bit of a procedural question, should I move a FAC subpage if the subject of the FAC is later moved? -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing FAC: Monarchy of Canada

If you go to edit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, you'll notice that Monarchy of Canada is listed as a FAC in the wikicode, though it doesn't show up on the page itself. I'm assuming it's some kind of transclusion problem. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Oceanides shows a strange red link, which leads correctly to the FAC. How could that happen, and how can it be changed. Sgvrfjs followed the instructions for the first time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's blue now, solved, but still a mystery to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Cache issue? I've often seen links that kept being red for a while even after I made them redirects to articles. Refresh helps. FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing at FAC?

Hello all. At FLC, a reviewer has indicated here that canvassing has been taking place at FAC, among other content processes. I asked for more details there, but until they are provided please be on the lookout for behavior that would imply canvassing. Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Giants2008: As I mentioned in the FLC talk page, it's not just an indirect form for canvassing, but more like a Quid pro quo. I'm not sure if it takes place in FACs as I'm not a regular here. But this happens across FACs, FLC, and GANs. Better to have look on the first-timers (in FACs) as they feel their candidates might fail due to lack of reviews or they might pass if their friends happen to review them. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive64&oldid=1257487538"