Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 10

Philip Larkin

This article is not a featured article, but the quotes are being used because they are "popular and can stand alone" according to one editor. This claim requires reliable sourcing, which is not provided.174.3.123.220 (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That article is rated WP:GA. Probably best to bring up issues on that article's talk page, and perhaps talk pages of related WikiProjects. -- Cirt (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

FARs needed

Could nominators here possibly focus on Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing#Articles with 4 cleanup categories assigned? An article talk page message first may help in some cases, waiting a few weeks before initiating a FAR. Perhaps someone could leave a generic article talk message on all of those articles, indicating they are most in need of work, and then revisit in a few weeks to see if FARs are needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left messages on the talk pages of all of the articles listed with four cleanup categories, with two exceptions. Australia is already at FAR, and Marshall Plan had been notified last fall that a FAR was in the offing, so I took the liberty of initiating one. In a couple of weeks I'll check back and see if work is being completed, and initiate FARs if needed. Dana boomer (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Study finds inconsistent quality in featured articles

• "Study finds inconsistent quality in featured articles"

From this week's The Signpost. Interesting stuff. -- Cirt (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:FAC#Journal article labels FAC a failure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lady Gaga/archive1

I don't know the procedure for closing an FAR properly but this one is clearly inappropriate on procedural grounds since the article has never been an FA or FAC and is currently undergoing a PR. Someone more knowledgeable might want to sort it out and move or delete it if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated it for a G6 (technical) speedy deletion. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, HJ. Dana boomer (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it might be a G6. No worries. I caught it on my watchlist and was slightly puzzled! As long as it's handled now :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cartman's rendition of "Poker Face" is truly hillarious. -- Cirt (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC on merging Words to avoid into Words to watch

Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. As people here tend to have an interest in the MoS, there's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a streamlining project. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch (W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Commented there, thanks for the notice. -- Cirt (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to re-evaluate?

There are currently 29 FARs on the page; of those, more than a quarter (8) were nominated by a FAR delegate, YellowMonkey, in spite of the one-nom-at-a-time rule (when I was very active here, I never had more than three noms at a time, and only had multiple noms when no one was working on the earlier ones and they were clearly headed for delist because of lack of activity). Historically, FAR was a vibrant, active community of editors seeking to improve featured articles; more and more, it is a place where uncritical commentary and automatic delists of articles-- without even looking at whether a revert to the passed version would resolved issues-- by a very small handful of delist-happy editors is the norm. I don't believe that FAR will ever become an active community again if it is simply a place to delist, delist, delist-- there is no motivation to work here. When the new procedure (FAR and FARC) was put into place in 2006 to handle new citation requirements, fully half of all FAs at the time needed review; nonetheless, those FAs were processed systematically here with a high rate of saves and good involvement of numerous editors. Now we have a much lower list of FAs needing review, yet strangely, an urgency to delist rather than review. If the new goal of FAR is massive delisting of FAs, then it may be more expedient to discuss a RBP-style review of all articles passed before a certain date, and just vote on 'em and get it over with. I am becoming more and more concerned that YM seems to see the goal of FAR as to delist as many articles as possible, and wonder if it is time to re-evaluate the purpose of this forum. If we're just going to delist, delist, delist, there's no need for lengthy reviews-- just go ahead and vote 'em all off the island, as that seems to be more of a goal here than article improvement. I really don't understand this trend, but don't find it rewarding to work here anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that eight at a time is far too many, even by the slight stretching of the one-at-a-time rule that is sometimes allowed (I for instance have one in the FAR section and one in the FARC section). I also agree that several of the reviewers who review here on a regular basis are "delist-happy". However, I'm really not sure how to solve this. Do you have suggestions? There is a dearth of reviewers across WP. The few reviewers we currently have are the only ones who show up regularly without being prodded - other than that reviewers have to be begged, poked and constantly reminded about reviews and specific articles. Add this to the fact that many of the editors/wikiprojects notified at the beginning of a FAR don't care - WP Islam doesn't even seem interested in the FAR of their flagship article for instance - and I'm really not sure what else we can do. No one really seems to have any suggestions on how to drag more editors and good reviewers kicking and screaming into the process, so until we come up with some I don't think the process is going to change much. It seems to be more a problem of good editors/reviewers leaving and causing delists to become more frequent, rather than more frequent delists driving away good editors/reviewers. If we had more good editors/reviewers willing to work here on a regular basis, then I think the trend of increasing numbers of delists would subside. Dana boomer (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what to do, Dana: if I did, I'd be doing it :) The apathy and dropoff in editing and content review processes is Wiki-wide, but there are some other issues specific to FAR, which is why I'm hoping for broader input here. I do notice that you're trying your hardest to ping people in. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone recognizes the review process can be off-putting to article writers and can be perceived as an attack on their work. It is very easy to misinterpret what is going on here and I'm not sure it's communicated very well. For example the moving from FAR to FARC seems almost automatic. What percentage go to FAR but are improved enough not to go to FARC? Very few. Yet the wording in the help files seems to suggest there is a reasonable chance FARC can be avoided. From what I've observed saving an article can be time consuming and two weeks seems insufficient. Perhaps a more upfront assessment of what can be expected will lead to less misunderstanding and resentment. Rlevse I can understand not being a happy camper for his work on the Harry S. Truman ending up largely futile. An evaluation of how deficient it was in the view of reviewers was not provided. Perhaps an initial estimate of how deficient an article is should be provided from the beginning so that editors who may wish to attempt saving an article go in knowing what the task ahead of them in the view of the nominator or reviewers.

I also think that there is perhaps a too legalistic interpretation of the criteria. Personally I think articles like the one on Vasilevsky or Stephen Colbert and the Correspondents Dinner are fine. The Chicago Bears article a while back seemed okay to me too. But there seems to be many enamored with the idea of having cites on almost every factual statement. I don't know of another encyclopedia that demands such level of citation. I don't recall reading many academic essays being cited as much either. It's getting a little ridiculous. Disputable facts should be cited but if there is no likely issue I don't see the point of creating one. Problem is reviewers are unlikely to be experts on the subject so the conservative default is cite everything rather then let a stray error get through. It chokes off any room for creativity on the part of the article writer and pretty much reduces the task to one of transcriber. Is it really any wonder things are on the trajectory they are on? The FAR criteria as applied do not play to Wikipedia's strengths. Then again WP:OR is the root cause of that so.... Lambanog (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree that the "cite every sentence" movement has now gone too far. I recall being asked for a citation confirming that November 5th was celebrated in the UK with bonfires and fireworks not so very long ago. Personally, I find the processes at both FAR and GAR to be interminable, and I'm really not at all fond of the two-phased approach. The success of GA Sweeps was, I think, largely down to the fact that the sweeps were run exactly like a GA review. Articles seem to spend forever at FAR; just look at the the Moon's FAR, for instance, been open almost a month now. I think the question at FAR has to be "would I have opened an FAR on this article in its present state?" If the answer's no, then vote keep and move on to the next. If we're going through with a fine tooth comb, then the article might as well be summarily delisted after some initial discussion and then taken back to FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR can appear as an inherently aggressive forum simply because the main writers of the article have no say regarding its timing. When you take an article to FAC, you choose the timing, but with FAR it's someone else who decides that. So right there you have a problem, especially when dealing with volunteers, who don't want be told "You must devote the next four-plus weeks of your unpaid spare time to something you've not thought about for two years, because I say so." In addition, getting hold of the books can take time, especially when you're dealing with inter-library loans.

One way to reduce that sense of resentment, and to give people time to find the sources and ease themselves into the idea of having to work again on an old article, would be a pre-FAR notice of intention, posted six months earlier to the article's talk page. Something along the lines of "This article may be nominated for a featured article review from [date in six months time]. Please make sure that relevant source material is available for the review period." It means improvements could start at that point in a more relaxed fashion, so that by the time the FAR begins most of the issues might have been resolved. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track, since some of the FARs that most trouble me lately are where a revert to a previous good version hasn't even been considered or raised on talk. But, if any form of this is instated, 1) I think six months is too long, and 2) some articles are clearly in bad enough shape that an immediate FAR is warranted. Unfortunately, we're seeing some fixable articles appear here while much worse articles don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I quite like your idea SV, but like SandyG I think that six months is too long. Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We could tweak the idea of notice by encouraging FAR nominators to give three months notice, and only to take articles straight to FAR if the problems are deemed urgent and there's no appropriate version to revert to. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to hear more feedback, but that might solve one part of the problem. Do you think an RBP-style review is needed to clear out older FAs that are being run through here? (See my original post-- say 2006 and earlier, or something?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm entirely clear about the difference. Problems at FAR arise if the original writers either aren't around, or are cooperating only resentfully, because they're the ones who know the material. Trying to do things without their cooperation means the reviewers have to become experts, and that's horrible. No one wants to do that for articles they have no investment and no interest in. So by default those situations do become quick reviews that are basically just clear-outs. But I don't see that as a good thing. So for me the key is to keep the original writers on-board with more gentle approaches and notices well in advance that a FAR might be on the cards. And also making efforts to contact older writers who may not be involved anymore. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting at two different points, Slim. When we processed the original version of the Unreviewed Articles List, we did it methodically, and there were, back then, many editors interested in salvaging those stars-- that has changed. Can we improve the attitude here, instead of the notion of just running 'em through? If we can't, should we just put all those older ones up for a one-time vote, given advance notice (say three months for improvements)? It seems that a handful of nominators are more interested in just running those through than improving them, so should we just get on with it? FAR has changed to where it's just a handful of reviewers and nominators, voting delist, delist, delist, with little attempts to improve articles, which is what FAR used to be about. And the one-nom-at-a-time rule hasn't improved that trend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that, if that's basically what FAR boils down to, it would make sense to do a one-time vote on them all. But it would be nice if it didn't boil down to that. Can the one-nom-at-a-time rule be enforced? That would surely help. Could we also introduce an oldest-first rule i.e. that reviewers must start with 2004, then move on to 2005 etc? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem there is that, historically (before I was FAC delegate, and when Marskell was FAR delegate), I was the one enforcing it. Now, no one is. I was also the one who went through every FAR and made sure they were staying on track, issues were being raised, reverts considered, non-FARC closes considered, etc.: in the current environment, I have little motivation to do all that work. I was in it for the one-third saves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Dana could say here whether the one-nom-at-a-time rule can be enforced, because that would help. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be easy to enforce the one nom at a time rule except for one thing - YellowMonkey has apparently no interest in following the rule, and it's somewhat hard for me to enforce a rule on a "senior" delegate. If both of the delegates were on board with this, it would be quite easy to enforce, and it would seriously shorten the list, which I think would be a good thing, since it would focus reviewer and editor attention on a smaller number of articles. For example, there are currently three FARs which fall under WP Australia, including their flagship article, which stretches the editors from even that fairly active project rather thin, and makes it less likely that all of them will be saved. I also want to emphasize that there isn't really a time limit on FARs now, although this is something that has been mentioned in the past. If there is someone willing to work on the article, they will be given as much time as they need. See the Canada FAR recently closed that went on for over 6 months, and the current History of the Australian Capital Territory FAR that is well into its fourth month. Just because an article is moved from FAR to FARC doesn't mean that improvement needs to stop, and extra time is often given in both stages. However, I do agree that a "warning period" would be nice, where editors who plan to nominate an article for FAR are asked (or required) to give a certain amount of notice (perhaps a month?) before actually making the nomination. I don't think there are really any FAs out there that are in such bad shape that they will damage the very soul of WP if they are left as FAs for another month. Dana boomer (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dana. If people are agreed that the one-nom rule should be enforced, then hopefully YM will respect it. I'll leave a note for him asking him to comment here. Regarding the time limit, even though it's true that writers can ask for extensions, it's unpleasant to have the article's future hang in the balance like that. It creates pressure and resentment, even when it's not rational to feel that way. A period of notice would go some way to relieving it, in my view, though I wonder if one month would be long enough. It can take several weeks to get even quite ordinary books via interlibrary loans. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 3)The real shortage is not reviewers but improvers/citation adders (as Dana says, look at Islam). The very long time-scale does at least give every reasonable opportunity for these to emerge. There is still I think a particular issue in that there are a few old-style FAs - John Vanbrugh for example - which clearly would not pass FAC today as they are, & whose editors are not willing or able to add refs. Reverting to the FAC version doesn't help here. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the supply of these is beginning to run out. I can fairly claim to have saved one FAR (a rather odd under the counter one Wikipedia:Featured article review/An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump/archive1) as I happened to have very good sources to hand, but often it is very difficult to cite someone else's work, especially if loads of refs are used. If reviewers see action being taken, they mostly respond favourably in my experience. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're generally right. It can be an absolute nightmare trying to retrofit citations to someone else's article. Even to your own after some time has passed, and you've forgotten where some of the stuff came from. I also think that there's a particular problem with articles like John Vanbrugh, which are written in a more "literary" style than would be expected at FAC today, a point that Lambanog made earlier. Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be ok if it had rather more than 5 refs. Review comments so far have been 100% concerned with this, & that "workshop" has many fans, including me. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Dana boomer, some featured articles are pretty bad, take Indian Standard Time for example which was recently delisted from FA status to C status, and it certainly was at best a B when I looked at it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just glancing at Indian Standard Time, the featured version [1] looks somewhat better than the current one. Would reverting make sense? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

@Eraserhead - yes, that article was in bad shape. However, I think I did not make my main point regarding that very clear: In the grand scheme of the world, how much damage is an article (any article) going to do by remaining a FA for another month? IMO, not much, or possibly none. In the case of Indian Standard Time, it had been a FA since 2006 and had included the same serious verifiability issues since it was featured, and yet WP had not exploded over the intervening three years. I doubt another month would have made much difference. Although I agree that substandard FAs make the FA project/process look less stellar, a "hold process" for nominations such as is being discussed, whether it is voluntary or mandatory, would not hurt things overly much. It may actually improve things, since it would be a more article fixer-upper-friendly process, and would be in line with the theory that we're trying to bring articles up to current FA criteria, rather than the quick-delist process that seems to be in vogue now. Dana boomer (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of good suggestions here, but again, why not also enforce the "one FAR at a time" rule? Just remove any FARs beyond the first, until the first is finished? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Historically, it wasn't necessary to strictly enforce the rule, because it was respected. If a previous nomination moves in to FARC, and there are clearly no attempts from any editors to work on the article, then it's OK for the nominator to put up a second nom. The problem occurs with multiple noms at once, and particularly when there is no regard shown for overwhelming a given WikiProject (as in the current case of Australia articles). If editors are working on one important FAR, putting up three in the same area means improvement is less likely. The "one nom at a time" rule should be applied judiciously, with the aim of article improvement-- if no one is working on a certain FAR, and it moves to FARC, putting up another nom shouldn't be a problem. But I'm equally troubled that we have a small handful of prolific "delist" declarers, who rarely go through at the FAR stage and identify specific issues that need to be addressed-- this trend discourages productive work at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Or just put them in an "upcoming" holding area, so achieving the "warning period" another way. Only Dana to control the flow from there to FAR proper. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed YellowMonkey warning projects and editors that certain articles are likely to go to FAR, but without much luck. I suspect that without the pressure of FAR, an article in the queue could only get attention if there was still someone who is particularly interested in it. The difficult ones are those where the editors have long left the project, where holding areas are likely not to have a lot of impact - if only because you have so many competing priorities on WP that it can be difficult to focus on articles which are merely waiting for re-evaluation. On the other hand, it can't do any harm. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked YM if he could comment here on the "one at a time" rule. [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make a suggestion. Out of the 6 articles I reviewed, only 1 kept its Featured Article status. But that's because they don't have anyone to work on it or the nominators who got to FA status want it delisted. Why not change the rules? It should be like, "If your first review is a Featured article removal candidate and has more than 2 Delists in it, you are allowed to review another." GamerPro64 (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I left two notes for YellowMonkey, but he seems not to have responded, though he may be discussing it elsewhere that I'm not aware of. Is the issue of the "one at a time" rule settled, or is there still a problem? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If other editors are in agreement, I will begin to strictly enforce the one nom at a time rule. Delegates will of course be included in this rule, and YMs nominations will have to comply with this. Until I hear otherwise, and perhaps improperly, I am taking his silence as consent on this issue. I will be on the lookout for multiple nominations, but it would be appreciated if members of the community would notify me if they see one that has been missed. If the community has any issues with the preceeding statements, I look forward to discussing them - this simply seems to be what is requested by the majority in the discussion above. Dana boomer (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are just too many people with a stake in substandard FAs for accountability to exist. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This makes sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Update I have just received a question from another editor asking if the above is meant to refer to strictly one at a time or one in each section (FAR and FARC). I see a couple ways of dealing with this. One, we could make it strictly one or the other. Two, this could be left up to delegate discretion. This could mean that basically if the page is quite backlogged (say, over 25), then it would be strictly one at a time - no exceptions. If the page wasn't backlogged (say, under 20), nominators would be allowed to have one in each section. In the middle of this (between 20 and 25), delegates would be allowed to excercise discretion, depending on how quickly the page seemed to be moving, and how prevalent reviews were. Does this seem fair? Dana boomer (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This also makes sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, observation, request: Delisting John Vanbrugh. I have pointed out on the John Vanbrugh FAR that I can't currently work on the article because I'm unwell, and asked for more time.[3] I'm repeating that here, as there has been no comment from YM, Dana, or anyone else, while Johnbod has stated that the article's editors aren't "willing or able" to add references[4]—I don't know where that comes from. The only recent activity re John Vanbrugh has been that Yellow Monkey has moved it to FARC. Perhaps nobody noticed my post—it was a bit unobtrusive. (That's why I'm using a lot of bold here—to have a better chance of being seen.) In any case, I kind of wish I hadn't bothered. Like most people, I'd rather not discuss personal matters on Wikipedia. If nobody still has anything to say about my concern, I hereby request Yellow Monkey or Dana boomer to fucking well delist the article (a suggestion I've already made once, in more modest terms). Bishonen | talk 22:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC).

Re my comment, it came from your comments. Giano is not willing, you are not able. Or permutations thereof. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a look to see if I could add citations (the sources are there, it's just a question of adding inline citations), but Google books and Amazon aren't showing much, so it's tricky. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen, I apologize. I had seen your comment, but had not thought to reply to it. Extra time will of course be given if you need it, and I have already placed a notice in the FARC section of the article stating this. A time frame, even if vague, would be appreciated however. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding which FARs to remove, I'd start with Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Henry James, and Ziad Jarrah, as no-one has yet commented on them. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dana can't remove things with no comment: she needs some declarations one way or another. Those that are in FAR after two weeks need declarations like "Move to FARC" or "FARC not necessary, no problems identified". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't think that Jayjg was speaking of removing the article from FA status, I think he was speaking of closing the FAR as too many nominations by an individual editor. However, Jayjg, I'm not going to remove nominations that have already been up for a week or more. It's more of a "from this point on" type of thing... According to what appears to be consensus above, if nominators after this point in time make multiple nominations in the same section (or overall, depending on the size of the page), they will be removed. No existing nominations will be closed. Dana boomer (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry :) That highlights the problem when too many noms are made at once: no one has any motivation to actually review. The one-at-a-time-rule was relaxed in the past if the number of noms fell below 20, but the optimal page size is about 24, to encourage review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The part lacking isn't "review" as most of these would be quick failed at FAC within a week as the problem is quite obvious. The part which is lacking is a will to fix the article, which is not surprising when it has been sitting there for 4 years clearly below standards. Still, too many people and WikiProjects have stakes in substandard articles for any system of accountability to work. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A complaint and a proposal

I hope this is the right place for my feedback. If you are going to feature an article on the main page, I'd strongly suggest that it would have been recently reviewed. Sex Pistols was featured on the main page two days ago even though it's been over three and a half years since it was last reviewed. The opening paragraph contained a glaring error in providing a false reference to an exaggerated claim that the band is "regarded as the one of the most influential act in the history of popular music". The reference provided did not even mentioned anything regarding influence, history or popular music. Even if it did, the sentence should have been properly phrased to indicate who exactly regard the band as so-and-so. These sort of unqualified and unsupported exaggerated hype should have no place in an encyclopedia - yet there it was not only in the opening paragraph of the article but on the main page of this site. I do not have the time or the inclination to inspect the rest of the article. If an article has not been featured on the main page after a long duration has passed, is it not reasonable to expect that the article be reviewed again to ensure that it fits the standard we should expect from a featured article on the main page? --115.135.91.56 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you fix this "glaring error"? Nobody would argue that FAs were perfect, and indeed part of the motivation for not protecting them when featured on the main page is to encourage editors to improve them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that no IP on god's earth would think to post here; cites in leads are not nessary, and can be removed 115.135.91.56 for your pleasure. Additionality - regarded as the one of the most influential act in the history of popular music - only a dimwited shrill from outer space would dispute this; where have you been since 1976. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Me? I've been, err, tripping man. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed the glaring error before I even posted this comment. It would have just taken you a few seconds to check it, Fatuorum. And Ceoil, I did indicate that I was uncertain as to where I should post my feedback. No idea why you would think it's so unusual for an ip address to post here. Some of us don't give a damn about signing up for a username. As for your opinion, it is only that - an opinion. This is wikipedia and you need a reliable source to back up such an outlandish statement. I can name dozens of artists who have exercised a greater influence on the history of popular music: the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Jimi Hendrix, the Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbinson, Frank Zappa, the Beach Boys, Hank Williams, Louis Armstrong, Jimmie Rodgers, Ella Fitzgerald, the Carter Family, B. B. King, Miles Davis, the Who, Cream, Neil Young, CSN, and so many more. Even composers from the classical tradition like Wagner, Schoenberg and Stockhausen have exercised a greater influence on popular music than you might think. These are bands and artists whose influence transcends music boundaries and genres. The Sex Pistols is more comparable to bands like Black Sabbath or Genesis - artists whose influence have been restricted mostly to their own specific subgenres and maybe one or two closely related subgenres. Even so, many acts like the Who, Velvet Underground, Iggy Pop, the Ramones, the Clash, the Damned, etc. were all more influential on the music of subsequent punk bands than the Sex Pistols, whose influence was largely limited to fashion and social consciousness. Even Malcolm McLaren himself has said so to the same effect: "these kids didn't buy the records for the music" - his words, not mine. You are certainly free to disagree but it doesn't matter since neither your opinion nor mine counts for anything on wikipedia. Only reliable sources do. So fuck you and your "dimwitted shrill" insult. --115.135.21.85 (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not my job to check anything 115.135.21.85. You're the one making all the fuss, you fix it. Malleus Fatuorum 12:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not your job either to ask stupid questions whose answer should have been readily obvious to you if you would know how to read basic English. Did you noticed the past tense? Do you even know what the past tense means? You're still writing in the present tense as if I have not already fixed the error when I have done so days ago. When I said it would have taken you a few seconds to check it, I meant that you could have saved time for yourself by actually just clicking on the ip address above and seeing the edit history to the Sex Pistols article - instead of writing a paragraph that added nothing further. If you have nothing else to say other than to ask questions that need not be asked, questions whose answers are already obvious, don't say anything. You are wasting your own time - just as I have been in even bothering to write anything. How stupid of me to even think that anyone would be interested in improving this fucked up encyclopedia. Let's have more lies and errors on "featured articles" on the main page, please! --115.135.233.158 (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have lost control of your mouth 115.135.233.158. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be turning into a pub fight, which is fine. 115, your focus is indeed narrow, but like, are our positions mutually exclusive. The Pistols were responsible for a cultural shift that went beyond music, and and lead, albeit indirectly, to a whole new sector of the music industry, the independant music scene, and countless sub-genres that survive today (look at the influence of PiL on mid '00s bands like Interpol, Franz Ferdinand etc). By contrast the likes of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis etc, while all very good (at what they did), were basically doing the same thing as each other in thier hey day, and did not have direct impact on music or its industry 30 later, in fact in the mid 1980s they had zero at all influence and were relics of interest only to The Stray Cats, historians and the grand ol opery. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And the cops, if you remember. But its moote - see [5]. All cited; read before further moaning pls. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Archived" subpages?

Why are all the FAR subpages started as archives? I came here to help review an article's status and, upon seeing that the discussion page had apparently been archived, assumed the debate was over. This seems to confuse a number of other editors that I have been talking to, as well. WP:PR also seems to use the same already-archived system but WP:GAR doesn't seem to. Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 02:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Using the "archive" system significantly reduces maintainence for whoever closes the nominations; right now the bot takes care of it, but there have been times when it has not run and editors have had to close them manually, and it is during those times when the archive subpage system is useful. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sound like the lazy way out... and it still doesn't address my main concern: the pages appear to be archived already. It's far too confusing for a total newbie to FAR like me. Well, Ok ,I know, now, but millions don't... How about making it clear on the project page? There is nothing whatsoever explaining this system, only the odd thing saying "start a new page as /archiveN" --Jubilee♫clipman 03:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Like the idea of explaining it on the project page. Airplaneman ✈ 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice

All editors to this page should note the recent change to the guidelines: Posting on the article talk page prior to nominating the article for FAR is now mandatory. Enough time must be allowed for interested editors to notice and respond to the post if they wish. FARs that do not meet this guideline will be untranscluded and a note posted on the talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Made it a step in the process, as well [6]. Some editors might not notice it in the above section, but will likely see it in the nomination instructions. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I very much like this change in policy. --mav (reviews needed)

Too little, too late - You have known about the problems for ages and done nothing. Ban Cirt from having anything to do with the process and you may just prossibly encourage people to take the procress seriously. At the moment it's little more than a personal circus of hate and vilification. To minimise future disruption, I strongly advise all editors to ignore any such posts on article talk pages until those running this area of Wikipedia have dealt with the problems properly, thoroughly and finally, while there are still some FA wroters left for you to amuse yourselves with.  Giacomo  07:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I echo Mav (talk · contribs) here, and agree with this change to the procedure. This process works especially well, with respondents such as Mav (talk · contribs), who is excellent at working diligently to address issues raised and improve articles in the process. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, Cirt, the proof is in the pudding. Masking passive-aggressive jabs with polite civility doesn't work vey well; are you really unaware of the effect this has at FAR and elsewhere? I'm generally opposed to banning anyone from content review processes except in extreme circumstances, and the trend of targetting Giano/Bishonen/Geogre FAs existed at FAR before now-indeffed Mattisse continued it, and Cirt furthered it during and after her departure, so at minimum, I do think Cirt should stay away from G/B/G FAs. There are plenty of truly deficient FAs out there, and the loss of Malleus, who was trying to improve an FA, will have a real effect on FA production. You advocate above "working diligently to address issues", but that didn't work out very well for Malleus, did it? Yes, we can drop this when the passive-aggressive jabs at other editors ceases, Cirt. Giano and MF state their case plainly, without masking it in polite civility. BTW, the addition of the smilie after your post doesn't make it any less passive-aggressive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

PS, I'd also like to suggest, Cirt, that you respect the fact that FAC and FAR delegates work very hard to preserve transparency in these processes, and keep your commentary on Wiki.[7] [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I will not in the future nominate to WP:FAR, as SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) calls them, "Geogre/Bishonen/Giano FAs". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I do it right? I don't think I'm gonna be used to this. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, GamerPro64. Here are some examples of positive, polite, and matter-of-fact responses addressing the content of concerns raised at FA talkpages: [9] and [10]. Very good models to learn from. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors interested in the success or failure of the change of FAR procedure may be interested in the pre FAR discussion which I have raised on the article talk page Talk:Act_of_Independence_of_Lithuania#Pre_Featured_Article_Review_discussion; to determine if this process change is successful. I've just started this process, the last Talk: page discussion appears to have been 2008. I was invited to take an interest in the quality of Featured Articles in my domain of specialist knowledge, and selected Act of Independence of Lithuania on the basis of it being the first Central or Eastern European history article in the current FA list in History. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of others to check out might include Talk:Yom Kippur War and Talk:Felice Beato. Dana boomer (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood

FAR editors may wish to consider the listing of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1‎ without having gone through a pre-discussion. Is this a good case for Ignoring All Rules? The issue attendant upon the article's FAR listing was first discussed on the talk page at 02:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC) by an IP editor, and has received extensive community discussion on notice boards and at private talk pages. I have no strong opinion, but thought we ought to note this in relation to the recently changed procedure here. In addition, I mentioned it on the FAR itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The FAR should be procedurally closed, pending prior attempts to address the issues through article talk page discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Special circumstances apply; unless Raul, YM and Dana disagree, FAR is the place to address the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of making it up as we go along, we should specifically delineate what "special circumstances" are - lest others use that as an excuse to violate the rule of prior talk page discussion attempts, in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns should be one of the rules. If three sections of an article has copyright concerns, and it's being discussed with all this drama, and the forced retirement of one of our best contributors to this project, this is IAR material. Secret ^account 04:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"forced retirement"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't "make it up as we go along"; we've had that instruction in place for a long time, and we have delegate discretion for a reason. This is not a typical circumstance, and we have an FA director-- he will decide how to proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that this should be one of the rules, but emphasize that we should discuss and agree upon what these rules are, before additional noms are made, at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you intend to make rules for unforseen and very unusual circumstances? We have a director, the process has always handled unusual circumstances. No drama is needed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• New rule: extensive copyvio warrants quick-delist. No discussion. If someone gets too zealous with a quick-fail, trust me, many people will make the zealous one aware of his or her transgressions. Copyvio is a violation of the law, the real-world law, people. • Ling.Nut (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• It is not clear that a quick delist is necessary, until we understand from the Copyvio people how to rewrite the article. It's unclear if we can save portions if we recreate-- the copyvio people understand this. That's why having a FAR page open for consolidating the work may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets all allow each other a moment to relax thoroughly on this discussion and, if we've already said our piece, to avoid replying until a bunch of editors who haven't expressed themselves yet make contributions. (I feel like I accidentally set my own drama llama loose on the commons). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition to FAR instructions - exceptions for extreme cases

• Addition to FAR instructions - exceptions for extreme cases - please discuss below. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) removed this addition, with edit summary: "We don't need this, delegates and director have brains" - thoughts from the community? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the delegates and director have brains ;-). Beyond that, I believe the point Sandy was trying to make was that exceptional cases like the one that prompted this section should fall under the judicious application of IAR, and that we needn't formally regulate them, but instead leave them to delegate discretion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely with its removal. Your preferred wording is carte blanche for any crank with a grudge to target any article. ("I have concerns that this may contain plagiarism, that means I don't have to go through all that tiresome business of discussing it".) Raul, Yellowmonkey and Dana are perfectly capable of spotting those very rare cases when something's genuinely urgent; we don't need yet another policy-for-the-sake-of-having-a-policy. – iridescent 16:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, are there other such cases that could arise that we could discuss, other than those examples? -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, as I'm sure you're perfectly well aware this is a unique situation (a FAR being conducted in high-profile circumstances under media attention, on an article likely to be deleted altogether by the WMF as an office action if remedial action isn't both taken and seen to be taken). It's never arisen before and it's unlikely to arise again. We don't need a written policy for every possible set of circumstances; we need the common sense to know that there are a few, very rare, occasions when policy can be circumvented. – iridescent 16:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, okay okay, understood. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to three days rule + automation suggestion

I just learned we have this weird rule that one should not "nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days)." The first part I am fine with, the articles are unstable while on the main page. What's the rationale for the "three day" part? I cannot think of any. Further, now that I've wasted half an hour of my time nominating an article and was told that I'll have to do it again in three days (and I don't think I will bother, as I'll be quite busy then), I'd like to suggest that there should be an automated process that would relist FAR nominations that were made in the improper time frame (or, the editor who removes them should readd them at that time). Sigh. The growing bureaucracy surrounding FA processes is not my favorite part about this part of the wiki, to say the least :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I got a great explanation on why you shouldn't up an article up for FAR three days after it was on TFA. look at this below it, it says previously featured. One of them says The Gunpowder Plot. So, techincally, its still on the main page. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's say that I agree with the rationale, now, will somebody resubmit my nomination - or have I wasted my time? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you resubmit yourself once the three days are up? You wasted your own time by not reading the very clear instructions. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(Lost in edit conflict). Didn't I say that I won't have much time in few days? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

FAR is not dispute resolution; why do you assume the issues you perceive will still exist in three days time? I haven't followed it all closely, but I suspect you were trying to add TRIVIA, in which case, consensus will overrule you anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article will still be there when you're less busy, and it still won't contain the V for Vendetta stuff you and your friends are so keen on, so there's no rush. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

FAR has two different sets of instructions regarding timing:

1. No FAR until a few days after mainpage: this allows time to address issues that may surface during mainpage day
2. No FAR without talk discussion first.

Piotr, would you like FAs you've written to be sent to FAR while on the mainpage, without adequate discussion first? The first of these instructions is based on long-standing consensus, and is unlikely to change; the second is new, but well worth following. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did wrote that I am fine with the grace period during the nomination day. The days afterwards I am not so sure, but ok, let's say that if it is on the mainpage, it shouldn't be here - although I am not so hot on that rationale (the articles do become much more stable once they are not the main feature). And yes, I would be fine with a FAR discussion on my articles that starts a day after the main page feature, particularly if it would concern a problem with the article that existed before it was main paged. Oh, and for the record, there was talk discussion, but once the main author said something along the lines "no, I will not add this section, EOT", there is little to do other than FAR (or RfC or such). Anyway, what about my suggestion that FARs that are procedurally closed in such a fashion should be automatically reopened after the grace period is over? Or perhaps, on the off chance the issues were addressed, making it easy as in "click here to have a bot reopen the nomination, but please check to see if the issues you raised were not addressed in the meantime." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of nothing more than a dummy being spat out. Presumably because Piotrus embarrassed himself by not reading the instructions, and then notifying a whole load of people, who will doubtless now be wondering what the fuss was all about. Parrot of Doom 18:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumption incorrect. I am most certainly not embarrassed about not knowing Wikipedia Rule #156326 (I am not even wondering if in 2020 the guide to FA procedure will be in a book format, rather, I am wondering how many appendixes it will have...). The only people who should be embarrassed are the author(s) who refuse to admit their work is not perfect and refuse to discuss the issues raised, and the bureaucrats who follow the rules and quell a discussion on procedural grounds instead of at least letting it develop, which may lead to article being improved. PS. Please don't take this harsh tone personally. I appreciate both the Parrot's great content contributions, and Sandy's hard work at maintaining the Featured articles. But please don't forget that all articles (and procedures) can and should be improved, and defending the status quo is not in the spirit of this project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I've moved discussion of the specific article in question to that article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I see no particular reason to keep the 3-day rule now that the talk page requirement introduces an inbuilt delay. DrKiernan (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The only delay it introduces is the few seconds it takes to start a new section on an article's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If I were a wikilawyer, which I am not, I would point out that according to the instructions each stage of the process, which includes a talk page stage, "typically lasts two to three weeks". DrKiernan (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You have a point on that. However, I think that a talk page posting should happen after the article is fully off the main page. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've just been trying to formulate new wording, but I see if we remove the 3-day rule, it would be technically possible to raise a concern on the talk page 2 weeks before the main page date, and then launch a FAR while it was on the main page. So, perhaps we do need a separate rule after all. How tedious. DrKiernan (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Another possible copyvio article

Now, I'm not sure about this, as I recently saw this on its FAR, but User:Fainites said that Our Gang has a plagiarized passage from the Our Gang website. Does anyone know how to prove if this is true or not? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems unlikely. :) As I've now commented there, the website was modified between April and October 2005, while the Wikipedia article appeared slightly before that. - Bilby (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk first

Apparently, the "talk first" rule isn't clear to some people. It currently says:

Raise issues at article Talk

• In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

Can we change this to say something like:

Raise issues at article Talk

• In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. This stage may take several weeks. Do not proceed to stage two, or create a FAR page, or list the article here until you have exhausted this step. If you need help resolving a content dispute at an article, use dispute resolution, not FAR.

I think this more clearly communicates the community's fairly specific expectations, has the advantage of being more direct, and will reduce the number of times that people have to repeat "FAR is not dispute resolution". What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not crazy about the wording, but I agree the idea is sound. However, wouldn't this be mandated by "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process.", which appears after the three stages in the current instructions? The bit about DR could stand to be repeated, but more likely as a general point than as part of the talk stage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nikki, you're right, but you're assuming that people read all of the directions before they do anything, which in my experience isn't a warranted assumption. For example, I think that WP:EL currently says "This guideline doesn't apply to reliable sources used as references" some half a dozen times, and we still get questions at WP:ELN about whether EL prohibits the use of some websites as inline citations—although we get many fewer such questions, now that the statement is repeated liberally throughout, occasionally in bold-faced text.

As I understand it, the problems (rushing the process and confusing FAR with DR) turn up in conjunction with the beginning of the process, so I thought the most practical way to make the information impinge on the offending editors' collective consciousnesses was to put it in the "steps" rather than in the introductory remarks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Those who don't read the instructions anyway won't read them if they're longer-- we deal with it when it happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions needed

The article Ring-tailed Lemur passed FAC a little more than 2 years ago, and I'm beginning the process of revamping it so that I can run it through FAR. I have two questions I need answered:

1. The article currently uses an image gallery to demonstrate various aspects of the lemur's anatomy. I may have a few more photos to add too it. What is the best way of handling this given that image galleries are frowned upon?
2. The volume of literature on this species is immense. In the not-to-distant future, I hope to do what I'm trying to eventually do for the Lemur article, and write individual, detailed articles on the specific subtopics (such as Ring-tailed Lemur behavior, etc.). In the meantime, what's the best way to ensure that the article passes FAR if I'm not covering every minor point and detail thoroughly (like we normally expect of FAs)? If I did that on the article itself, I have not doubt that the article would become far too large.

Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For the first one, I think you could collapse the gallery part to prevent the number of pictures from affecting the look of the article. For the second part, you should add sources to un-sourced parts of the article, as well as fix a dead link here. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Don't worry—I'm aware of the refererncing problems and dead link... as well as other issues. Instead, I was looking for comments about length and coverage of the topic (given the need for multiple articles). As for the gallery suggestion, could you please give an example? – VisionHolder « talk » 16:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, for the gallery, the pictures could all be placed into something like the {{Hidden}} template. That way, people can see all of the pictures by like pushing the show button. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting a template. Can you name a current FA that uses it to display a gallery of photos? I'm just not sure how it should look and need an example. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I don't think I've ever seen an article use this technique before. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think hiding a gallery is a very effective tool... the gallery shouldn't be a bucket for every image anyhow, just a few more than prose can support... the rest are linked away on Commons, usually. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, then what's the best way to link to these images on Commons given how a bunch of junk photos tend to accumulate there? For example, the article currently shows images of two types of scent glands, a toilet-claw, and a tooth comb. I would like to add some photos of the soles of their feet, since they're the only lemurs that don't have fur there. (I haven't uploaded the photo yet.) How can I ensure that a reader will find these photos easily from the article? How do you suggest linking to the images? Can you give an example? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking these questions here, instead of at WT:FAC, which has a much wider audience. FAC has about 950 watchers; this page has about 250 (even my own talk page has almost double that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I figured that since I'd be bringing the article up at FAR sometime soon, then I should ask the question here. I'll take it over to WT:FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Current galleries look pretty clean and are organizing different parts of the anatomy well. I think this is very different than say the grabbag at the bottom of American alligator (just a bunch of decorative pics, too much white space).TCO (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Making FAR more of a review

I think it should be incumbent on the nominater to be a reviewer. The process includes talk page discussion (that should be good faith and not prefuctery also). Then it moves to review. Well, the nominator should not be allowed to just flip a switch and toss a piece of meat into the ring and expect that reviewers will emerge to do work. He should be the first reviewer and his ought to be one of the most thoughtful. If it's an issue of general article quality, his should be one of the longest with most specifics. If it's an issue of one specific big problem, then he should put some significant work into describing all the aspects of the issue (at more than a surface level). And since this is a REVIEW and the stated purpose requires an effort to save, his comments should be stated honestly in terms of "what needs to get done to get the save".

There are several reasons for this:

• The work serves as a brake on frivolous noms.
• It's fair to the author (even if he is now absent) and to the community and earlier reviewers, who fashioned and recieved the content.
• It will result in more saves.
  • When someone clearly lays out "what needs to be done" (not doing the work, but an actionable "work plan), then often the author (or someone else) will be motivate to go for the save.
  • A not-insignficant number of nommers gunning for a delist, may even decide to pitch in, as they construct the initial thoughtful review (after all they are engaging with the article).
• It's much more efficient for future reviewers to see an initial nom with a solid review and build off of it, than have to start from scratch. Who better acquanted with the article than the nommer to kick things off properly. This is not a radical concept...it's what I would expect in a work environment (the person who start something off does the initial heavy lifting to at least scope the problem.)

An example of a great summary is Ellen's evidence for the RHE kerfuffle. I'm not saying it has to be at that level. But it really honestly should be the best, most detailed review to start the process. NOT an "I don't like this, throw it into FAR". And NOT that even if the article is a piece of shit. STILL, respect the process and the initial decision to star and give the thing a thoughtful first take. After all if we are all good researchers and writers of synthesized content, we should be capable of good initial reviews within the FAR process.

TCO (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And if the initial "nommer" does not have a substantive review, it should get tossed out of the process. Just as if no talk page notification were done or as if an FAC were nominated without following the rules. Can have one of those Sandy-Andy-like "c ya in 2 weeks" messages.  ;-) TCO (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the problem is one of bad reviews so much as not enough work on improvement. We'd ideally like all articles to be saved, but it's still easier to checklist something than to bring a deficient article up to speed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In my experience actively maintained FA never reach FAR anymore, as the maintainers respond quickly and accurately to observed FAR/FARCable problems. Unmaintained articles have the problem of needing to recruit a responsible editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

a thouhtful review is the FIRST PART of saving. Remember it is supposed to be a review! Look at Latter Days. Kollister came in with a one sentence nom. I challenged him for a REAL REVIEW. He manned up and wrote one. that was the work plan that Joe executed on for the save. That is the way to roll! It's what the directions TELL US TO DO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

New FAR delegate - Nikkimaria

Dana Boomer recently asked me to look into appointing a new FAR delegate. After consulting with Dana and Sandy, I've decided to appoint Nikkimaria as the new FAR delagate. Raul654 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to the new delegate. Lambanog (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Raul, and Lambanog for your congratulations. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Nikkimaria. Woody (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't interacted with Nikki, but if the Powers That Be agree, they can't be that bad. Welcome to hell :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

New FA delagate

See this. Raul654 (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Gremlins 2: The New Batch

How's my FAR? I left at message at Talk:Gremlins 2: The New Batch and nobody responded and so I started a FAR myself. How did I go? I read the FAR instructions myself. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall it looks good. The pre-FAR notification is appropriate, as is the initiation of the FAR since no-one responded to the talk page notification. On the FAR itself, more detail is always good, so including more than just a couple lines about 1c problems is always appreciated, although not necessary. For instance, having a huge part of the article sourced to primary sources (DVD commentary), including audience reactions, could be mentioned, as could the references to IMDB. Also, prose is always a good thing to take a look at, as the article includes a number of unclear sentences and areas that could be better written. Overall, though, the review is good, and further comments are really only necessary if an editor comes on the scene to improve the article, although they are also useful for editors in the future to improve the article if it gets delisted through this process. Hope these comments help, Dana boomer (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review needed for Bahá'í Faith

It has a neutrality template at the top; what more do I have to say? Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The POV tag has been removed (one editor was edit warring to have it included), a discussion is taking place on the talk page about neutral vs. non-neutral sources, and editors have been working to fix dead links and include more neutral, third party sources. The first step in the FAR process is discussion on the talk page of the article - because this is taking place and the article is obviously being improved, no FAR is needed at this time. Dana boomer (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Preload

Shouldn't Template:FAR preload the toolbox and article links and so forth? DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Who is checking notifications ?

I used to do this job on every FAR, and remind nominators to do it correctly ... is anyone doing that now? if is a perfect shame that Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tuberculosis/archive1 has been up since April and the significant contributors weren't notified-- I would have gladly worked on it, and I imagine Tim Vickers would have to. Someone needs to stay on top of the bookkeeping here, and independently of whether that article needs a FAR, the FAR statement was very poorly written and didn't indicate problems worthy of a FAR (not saying they may not be there, I haven't yet looked, but the rationale for a FAR wasn't really developed in the nomination statement). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Geez! This is really all my fault anyway. I started the FAR and looking around its history, I failed to have looked at the first FAR properly. I mean, I didn't notify TimVickers because of me looking at his contributions and seeing him less active now. However, Sandy, I never noticed you were part of the FAR in the first place. So, I'm sorry. Can someone restart the FAR or something? GamerPro64 15:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how I would go about restarting a FAR - I don't think I've ever seen it done. However, I am more than willing to put a notice on the review page saying something along the lines of "Unfortunately, the notices weren't completed correctly and this issue was never caught. Because of this, this review is being extended, and will not be removed from this page for at least another 2 weeks (July 20, 2011)". I can do this if you (GamerPro) are willing to make the notifications, and perhaps list them in a new comment on the review page. According to this tool, it looks like TimVickers (talk · contribs), Petersam (talk · contribs) and Jmh649 (talk · contribs) would be the ones to notify, as they have over 50 edits to the article and are still active. Sandy would also be in that category, but I think we can assume she's now aware of the review from her posts above and on the review page. Notifying the editors who have expressed an interest in working on the article (OrangeMarlin, Casliber, etc) that the review has been extended would also be appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I notified all the people that would work on this FAR. GamerPro64 17:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think even if someone is evidently long gone, we should notify them. People may check a user page even after years away. (I got an image donation for "Fluorine" this way, posting a request on a talk page of a user who had no contribs for over a year.)TCO (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct-- anywho, the issues raised in the original FAR have (apparently?) either been corrected or were invalid (expand "victims"-- see MEDMOS-- damn near everyone in history had tuberculosis, so linking to a list is much more appropriate). Someone needs to indicate what work needs to be done on the FAR-- it's been open for eons with apparent corrections made and no commentary. Folks, you gotta prod prod prod for FAR to work ... and even then, some of us have limited time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I got my knuckles wrapped :) first FAR I looked at. I thought the person STARTING the process ought to do a solid, LONG, review. I just think this is more efficient for the first person to do so, rather than the first fixer. Also, since theoretically the goal is a "save" and the first step of the process is not a real deletion, but more of a "peer review", it makes sense. A review that just topically lists the major problems (or gives one or two examples) is not adequate. I'm not saying the nom should find every problem or do all the work to solve. But I...basically think he should do the equivalent of an initial Peer Review (at the PR area). I guess this is not the current expectation, but I think the process would work better if it was. (Or conversely, just have sweeps or de-FA after a year or something.) P.s. Even if I was in the wrong policy-wise, urging a nominator "long review" led to the article getting saved...;-)

7 months? 8 months? A year?

I seem to recall a time where articles had about a month total at FAR before the review was closed or the article demoted. Even so isn't 7 and 8 months a bit ridiculous? The two oldest articles still have open issues after this lengthy period of time. Could a FAR essentially never close just because there are occasional sporadic attempts being made on its improvement? Brad (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why Belgium hasn't been delisted (perhaps the delegates will explain), Indian FAs have always been subject to some ... strange ... input, so delegates may need additional feedback from non-partisans, but I can tell you why Tuberculosis is still listed: primary contributors were not notified, as expected per FAR instructions, which is a shame. Someone should be checking for that on every new nom so that doesn't happen again. We also have some clearly deficient articles still listed here because no one has bothered to enter Delist declarations; I don't see what delegates can do in such cases, although Marskell used to 1) do the work himself, and 2) recruit, recruit, recruit. FAR became an unhappy place to work before the current delegates came on board and for reasons unrelated to them, so it's unclear what can be done to encourage participation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I delisted Economy of India earlier today, but on Belgium two reviewers had indicated that their delist comments had been addressed (but they didn't strike their delists), so I pinged the primary person trying to save it to check with other reviewers whether they had more concerns. I definitely echo Sandy's concerns about lack of reviewer engagement - we've got some very long and/or very old reviews with few to no declarations, which makes it difficult to definitely close one way or the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I can offer to help out in about two months when I'm done moving :) :) You can only do what you can do ... but some sort of push to get folks to re-engage here might be talked about. We no longer have The Signpost Dispatches, which was the venue we used to encourage participation, so I'm not sure what you might do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the delegates are too hesitant to move articles off (not just when they need to lose the star, but the converse). Felt that way on Latter Days...was like a hesitancy to just move the procedure on and end it. Like having to ask again "are we sure this is ready to go". Some less consensus processing and more making a decision would be better. (Of course I also think FAC has some definite process shortcomings compared to open peer reviews at real journals.TCO (reviews needed) 04:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, reviews are moved articles too quickly. Most of the reviews I made resulted in articles demoted. Maybe expend on the time it takes between the steps and there could be more work on an article without someone worrying about a short time limit. GamerPro64 04:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - the original poster says the process is too long, you say it's too short. In your view, what would be the ideal time-frame for a review, from talk-page notification through FAR and FARC to a decision? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the talk page step is alright with someone waiting a week or two if there are no response to the notification. For step two, that's another two with with again, no response. But for the FARC, I feel like if there is no work on the article for a while, unless a user is saying there on vacation or something, maybe just close it. Its not worth a backlog if there's too many articles up for FAR. Besides, its not like the article's gonna be deleted after the review. GamerPro64 04:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to create an incident over this; I was sort of musing out loud. The time line on Hamlet chicken processing plant fire was just about right IMO. A month of talk page notice and then mix or match another two months through review and removal commentary. With a two month time frame on the actual FAR process this means that an editor could nominate about six articles a year. However, the articles that sit around forever prevent the nominator from nominating another unless permission is given. User participation has been and always will be a problem; I don't ever foresee a time when it wouldn't be. I wonder if setting a maximum amount of time for FAR would work without creating tons of drama? Brad (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The notion that you can't nominate another was based on a time when FARs took one month-- now that they are routinely taking six, it seems that permission would be granted to nom another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in here (have been watching, but too busy to comment): the "nominate one at a time" thing was implemented at a time when there were over 30 reviews on the page and some nominators had 5 or 6 going at the same time. With the reviews down in number and nominators no longer being (IMO) rather unreasonable, permission will be more readily granted to nominate an additional article if one that you have already nominated is held up for some reason. Just ask Nikki or me. We still ask that nominators try to not have multiple noms from the same project up at the same time, just to allow interested editors to work on one article at a time... Dana boomer (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dana. I know you are taking a lot of crits. I appreciate that you are doing the work, running the thing, making it go forward.TCO (reviews needed) 02:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps

United States Marine Corps.. Message was left on talk page about 6 months ago by tpbradbury. I asked him recently if he was going to follow through on the FAR listing but he has no plans to do so. I have other articles in the pipeline after Daniel Webster is resolved. Perhaps someone who feels like taking on USMC can do so. I've also talk page noticed International Space Station since it's at the top of the FA cleanup listing. Brad (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly how the current instruction wording came about. However, IIRC, the consensus ended up somewhere along the lines of: if the page is really backlogged (over 25-30 articles) nominators can only have one article on the whole page. However, if the page isn't backlogged (it's not right now), then nominators are welcome to have one in each section (FAR & FARC). Unless I'm missing something, you only have one on the page, in the FARC section, so please feel free to nominate another. Dana boomer (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreviewed featured articles

I went through the entire list of unreviewed featured articles and made updates where needed. There is one remaining article from the original few or no citations list that needs a FAR. More articles to review than there are reviewers. Brad (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Brad, your updates look wonderful - thank you very much for taking the time to do that work! As everyone can see, there are quite a few articles that have already had notifications made - if the work has not been completed, these can be nominated at any time. The FAR page is low with only 12 articles, so everyone get out there and nominate one! Another good link is this cleanup listing, which shows that over 30% of featured articles have a cleanup tag of some sort! Dana boomer (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I ran each article through checklinks and tagged the dead ones; I made notes when I thought it was needed. I did not however, make any changes to the graphs or counts. Running checklinks in most cases meant that another maintenance tag would be added and therefore bump the article upwards on the cleanup list. The trouble with the cleanup listing is that it counts articles that use the "as of" template. In the case of the Virginia article I happen to know that it's up to date as possible since the article was on the main page back in May. If the "as of" tags were discounted on the space station article it would have only 5 tags on the listing. It's sort of misleading. Brad (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Article in need of a review?

After seeing the AfD full of what look like socks and what feels like a very puffy/spammy article, I thought someone who knows about the featured article process might want to look at Ernest Emerson again. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"They" have-- several times. This might be helpful, and AfD debacles are unrelated to WP:WIAFA-- any topic that meets notability (and Emerson clearly does) can be featured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about how things work around here

Please excuse me -- I have some experience with FAC but almost none with FAR. Doc James nominated the caffeine article for review because it had important problems, specifically lots of medical-related statements that were inadequately sourced. I believe that all of those important problems have been fixed, and lots of other improvements have been made as well. Is there a prospect that the article will be demoted anyway due to the same sort of trivial MOS shit that dominates reviews at FAC? I have spent a lot of time fixing the important problems in an article that I had no part in creating; I would be very annoyed to see it demoted for reasons that have no bearing on its actual quality. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen article fail at FAC because of "trivial MoS shit". Can you give us any examples? Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Is it just a bluff? If I don't bother to make sure that all the page ranges use endashes, or that all the cite templates consistently use last-first instead of authors, will the article be promoted anyway? Looie496 (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It'd be up to delegate discretion. On the topic of your broader question: both FAC and FAR are bound by the FA criteria, and there's some overlap of participants. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to get a delegate to say whether an article would pass in its current state, and if not, what would be needed to make it pass? Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You could ask. I don't know what kind of answer you'd get. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you're referring to Brain or caffeine, but the answer to whether a delegate can tell if something will pass is "no". They can sometimes tell you if a nomination will be archived if errors are numerous and glaring, but only consensus can determine if an article is promoted or demoted. I've never seen either happen based on "same sort of trivial MOS shit", although that "trivial MOS shit" does have to be cleaned up in an article that is otherwise passing before it is promoted. As of now, I see all kinds of "trivial MOS shit" that should be cleaned up in caffeine, but again, that's not typically a reason for defeaturing, since if all else is in order, generally someone can be found to do that cleanup (like me). But there's no point in cleaning up MOS issues on articles that are poorly written or poorly cited and won't pass anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to caffeine. I pretty much understand how things work at FAC. Thanks for the information. Looie496 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look at caffeine and as far as I can tell, it still has lots of medical-related statements that are inadequately sourced. I have left some comments on the FAR page. These need to be corrected or it will be odds-on to be delisted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Double checking before nominating

Selena is a FA which was promoted in July 2006 and on the Main Page in December 2006. In October 2010 it was kept after a FAR. At that time the article was 2236 words; it is now about 8637 words. The prose is nowhere near FA standards, there is all sorts of trival detail and many, many references of questionable value have been added. In October 2011 AJona1992, who has added most of the new material to the article and has been pretty uncooperative at the FAR and on the article's talk page, opened a peer review where he said the article no longer met FA requirements. Brianboulton and I agreed that the place to take this was not PR, but FAR. I wanted to check here before nominating - it seems to me the easiest thing to do would be to revert back to the version that was kept at FAR a year ago. What do you all think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Did Ajona start editing it after the FAR? If so, a new FAR would be in order; he doesn't understand Wikipedia policies. But wouldn't it be much more expedient-- and better for the article-- to get ANI attention to Ajona's editing, have him banned from editing Selena articles, and revert it to a featured version? At one point, I worked on it (not sure if that was at FAC or FAR), and it wasn't too bad-- a revert is probably better for the article if Ajona has damaged it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

hmmmm ... I just looked back several years, and I can't locate a revision worth reverting to-- I think FAR it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not being disruptive. I asked WP:RfC if I could expand it and they were in favor of my additions. I don't know why people still think I am a bad person. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My gods. FAR for sure. WAYYY overlinked. No need to link things like "backup dancer" or similar. Weird capitals: "At the time, Selena was not of Legal drinking age." Lack of knowledge of the context: "drew a crowd of nine thousand to the summit in Houston." "The Summit" is/was an arena in Houston, not a "summit" of a mountain. Patoski is listed in teh further reading, but it's used extensively as a source. Bad. And very very bloated. Why is "The gun used to kill Selena was later destroyed and the pieces thrown into Corpus Christi Bay in 2002." considered encyclopedic? It belongs on a fansite, at best, not in an encyclopedia. Opinion without attribution: "Tejano music has not recovered since the death of Selena...". All that from a quick look at the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Those can be easily fixed though. The part about the gun is encyclopedic and has been there since the article was promoted and passed with that statement. The last sentence is sourced and true. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are just the things that jumped at me. They are just the tip of the iceberg with the problems with the article - FAR is the correct spot for it. And it needs a severe cut of prose and bloat. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg indeed - the article is riddled with problems. From POV content to nonsensical sentences that are, to put it mildly, grammatical nightmares. I worked on the article a bit a few months back and I also found problems with sourcing (ie sources present that do not support the content it cites, etc.). Ajona asked for opinions about the article recently and quite frankly, I do not believe (s)he is terribly interested in other editors' opinions about the article as most comments about the content are being met with responses that basically dismiss the many problems present. I think Ajona is under the impression that as long as something has a source, it belongs in the article. My suggestion to Ajona was to look at a version that predates the additions that introduced all the problems to at least get an idea of what the article should contain. In reality, I believe the article should probably just be rollbacked because, at the present, it needs to be extensively pruned and reworked to bring it up to at least basic Wikipedia standards. I don't know if a topic ban is in order, but a mentor might be highly beneficial. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies again Pinkadelica. I asked at WP:RfC if I can expand the article because no one did not want me to do anything. So they took in favor of my additions because of WP:BOLD. But like I said on the talk page, I didn't leave the article for other users to clean up after myself, I left a section where I asked users if anything should be fixed. At first no one even commented on it until months later. I am a guy btw :) and no one would even want to mentor me after looking at my history - they would all run away just like the first two I had :( Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(OD) The October 13, 2010 version of the article appears relatively stable. Reverting to that version is the best idea atm. Just follow the link, open the edit tab and save. Brad (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

However, that goes against the WP:RfC (that I had requested) and the ethos of WP:BOLD. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Jona, "Be Bold" does not mean "Be Reckless". You have added added more than 6,000 words of text, including several new sections and large-scale expansions of existing material, to a featured article. Nobody is saying that you are a "bad person" for doing this, but it is clear that you took on a task to which your skills as a writer are unequal. In a recent peer review nomination you wrote: "But as you may know, my English isn't very good..." I accept that you edited the Selena article in good faith, but with little knowledge of or regard for the procedures for making wholesale revisions to a featured article, and in blind disregard for your own shortcomings. Your editing efforts are I think misguided rather than malicious. It would benefit you, and the encyclopedia, if you voluntarily desisted from editing Selena articles for a while, and accepted mentoring. As to the article itself, under the provisions set out in WP:OAS I think it should be reverted to its FAR "keep" version of 13 October 2010, as a starting point for any further development of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad, I've reverted. If Ajona's destructive editing continues, ANI might be a good venue-- I haven't looked at this version for WIAFA compliance, but it is most assuredly better than what's there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll stay away from the Selena article but I'll try and ask other editors if they can improve it with suggestions instead of just expanding it myself. However, I know that no one will want to add anything I would suggest as I tried that for a year. Well SandyGeorgia continues to call me a "destructive editor" even though I pointed out that I did not expand the article without any authority and I did not leave the article to be improve my other users. Also, I tried the mentorship but no one wants to even mentor me. I had three past mentors and two of them left me for unknown reasons. I asked my third mentor but hes way too busy in RL. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I did no such thing ("call you a destructive editor"): I said "destructive editing". That you may have done it in good faith doesn't help the article, but the editing is not the editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well "destructive editing" isn't a nice thing to say either. How was my edits even destructive if I asked for permission to expand the article with the content? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AJona1992, you yourself wrote in the second peer review "The article is currently a WP:FA, however, with my additions, it no longer meets the criteria ...", which seems to me to indicate that you recognize that your edits "destroyed" the FA status of the article. The most important thing here is the encyclopedia - edits and actions which improve it are good and to be sought, while those that make its quality worse are to be avoided and prevented (and undone). Despite everything you may think, this is not about you. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What is adequate notification of issues on a FA that could trigger a FAR?

I have started a FAR on Encyclopædia Britannica, but this FAR was delayed, because a reviewer claimed that there was inadequate notification that had to be on the talk page according to FAR rules. I nominated the Encyclopædia Britannica article for a FAR, because the article text fails criteria 2c, because of inadequate in-line referencing of the prose and also no referencing in the table. There has been a very visible {{Out of date|section|date=August 2010}} template on the article on a poorly referenced section for about one year, and so potential editors had plenty of notice to revise the article already, and I feel that extra notification and discussion on the talk page about a FAR unduly delayed improvements or de-listing. The maintenance template was recently removed with this edit having been on the page for more than one year. The "Out of date" template invites users to make improvements by saying; "Please help improve the article by updating it." I think that notification with this maintenance template that has been in the main text of the article for more that a year is adequate notification, and, in cases like this, I see no need for additional notification on the talk page of a Featured Article prior to triggering a FAR. Snowman (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The maintenance template and the FAR notification are two separate issues. The FAR instructions require that you start a section on the talk page of the article signalling your intention to and reasons for nominating the article for FAR, and give interested contributors a week or two to respond. A maintenance template does not count as an FAR notification. The talk-page step does delay delisting, but need not delay improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I understood the gist of Snowman's comment to be that he wanted to change the notification rule so that if there was a maintenance template in place for a certain period of time (a year?) then the requirement for a talk page notification would be waived. I don't agree with this, for reasons I have given previously, but I am very interested to hear the community's input on the matter. One quibble, though: It was not a reviewer who said there was inadequate notification, it was a delegate (Nikki). Mainly a technicality, though. Dana boomer (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I agree that the notification requirement should be waived in such cases-- it's just not that hard to do, and you may discover something about why the template is there that you didn't know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Maint tags aren't always accurate. I often see tags on articles that don't need to be there. I believe the original idea behind the talk page notice was to prevent frivolous nominations and it seems to work well. Brad (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)