Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Hereditary peer/archive1

Comment. Someone mentioned here that "inline cite requirement is not applied to FAs that passed before that requirement took hold." -- Stbalbach 15:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Times change. That is no longer the case. See article 1c of Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Especifically, "...where appropriate, complemented by inline citations." Consensus has deemed that in-line citations are necessary for a FA. Joelito (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Joelito. The quote above is old, inline cites are required on all FAs, they are not grandfathered, it is not true that only Emsworth can cite it (some of his articles have been cited by others), and the lack of citation has not been the only problem to surface in some of his older articles. Also, this is not the time to vote Keep or Remove: there are two weeks of review, followed by two weeks of FARC (if issues are not resolved); consensus to remove or keep is during FARC. Sandy (Talk) 16:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify, I have nothing against Emsworths accomplishments, but his articles need to be improved and meet todays FA requirements. Already two of them have been greatly improved and extensively cited since being listed here, which is what I hope for many of them. Judgesurreal777 17:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joelito, Sandy and Judgesurreal777. Criterion 1. c. of 'What is a featured article? needs to be addressed. A quote from Sandy; "his articles need to be improved and meet todays FA requirements". Never truer words spoken. LuciferMorgan 17:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this was never seen as controversial, and so no vote was ever taken, and so the consensus was de facto - I must be the first to make an issue about it. But I am not the only one concerned about it. -- Stbalbach 03:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's a good in theory, and if they are reviewed more slowly, how often should Emsworths FA's be nominated? And I'd also like to point out that he still has over 50 Featured Articles to his name, so no tears for Lord Emsworth :) Judgesurreal777 04:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worrying about Emsworth: I'm worrying about burning out Yomangani, and giving him (and others) time to work on saving them as they come up :-) Sandy (Talk) 05:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Yomangani wants to work on this one and other Emsworth FAs, I want the nom to run at a slower pace. We're in the business of improving the quality of articles, not just taking stars away. Also, if he wishes to work on the other ones I don't wish for them to regularly nominate the Emsworth articles (which are obviously being targeted). The difference between the Emsworth ones and the Beatles which I regularly nominate is actually someone's willing to put the time and effort in. Having said that, I think Yomangani is a good enough editor to renominate them at FAC and they should get passed. LuciferMorgan 11:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to set myself up as a proxy for Emsworth in his absence: I'd prefer somebody else to work on them, but it seems they generate little interest from editors. I'm less likely to work on the ones outside British history or the British Parliament (as I don't have good reference material for a lot of European history), so you could mix up the noms a bit without fear of overloading me and, as LuciferMorgan says, I can always add them to the backlog of FFAs I'm working on if they do slip past. Yomangani ^talk 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the workers even keeping up with/seeing and responding in time for votes for deletion/listing/delisting can get frantic if too many of either happen all in one go in a small subject area. Alci12 16:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Wikipedia has no documented policy on how to deal withj the older FA problem, there is no reason someone could not nominate all 50 of his articles on the same day. -- Stbalbach 16:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone nominated 50 in a day, it would be reverted as a violation of WP:POINT. Given that everyone is talking to one another, we can handle this. Perhaps in future, Judges can contact Yomangani or other interested editors prior to the nom, for instance.

This argument over procedure is a time-waster here. Bearing in mind previous success, maybe we can get some comments on the actual content of this article. Marskell 19:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all a time waster because it is relevant if this article should be de-featured when there are so many other old FA's being put on the chopping block at the same time (who can handle them all?) and there is no apparent procedure (documented) on how to handle older FA's, or what editors of older FA"s should expect in the future. -- Stbalbach 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we limit general discussion to the FAR talk page - making this FAR incredibly long isn't helping (though I am as guilty as anybody). Yomangani ^talk 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it.

Regarding the discussion, we have a documented consensus: you can see it here, at FAC, at the FA talk pages, from Raul, etc. It's been sitting there for a year to see. Editors of older FAs should expect an FA article to lose status if it does not have inline citations. I don't know how much clearer that can be. No, all of them aren't going to be saved—no twigging of this process is going to change that. But healthy % have been saved, so really, let's just work on the article. Marskell 19:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I moved it back. Please don't do that, it is relevant to the articles FAR. -- Stbalbach 19:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it curious that old talk page discussions are considered "documention". All it shows is that a few people talked about it a long time ago - your implying that whoever talked about it first sets the way its done and its no longer open for discussion. In fact the whole point of having things documented (in this case on a proposed rule) is that it gives people a central place to craft the language and change the language through a consensus procedure - its a central document. These talk page discussion things are nothing but evidence of discourse. -- Stbalbach 19:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to FAC and see the oppose rationales. Look through the archives here. Ask Raul again. If you want a specific sentence on WIAFA making it clear, I'd suggest posting to the thread. Marskell 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stbalbach, I'm confused by your characteraizations of talk page discussions - Wiki consensus is developed, precisely, via talk pages. At any rate, please don't disrupt the FARs to make your point in now seven or eight places. It will help the editors who are trying to work on the articles' issues if you not fill up the FAR pages with repeated discussions that are now spread across several talk pages, and indicated with a note. Sandy (Talk) 20:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I dunno, call me simple, but maybe if FAR had a position statement and.or procedure on how to deal with older FA's, this could be discussed on that talk page. I'm not the first to bring this up within individual FAR's and probably won't be the last. Why is this not possible? -- Stbalbach 20:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep the discussions in one place (which would logically be the FAR talk page); if you have a proposal, make it there, and not across multiple FAR pages. I can assure it's not likely you will think of anything we haven't already considered, as everyone working here has spent many months thinking about how we can best save older and deteriorated articles. Sandy (Talk) 20:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]