Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 6

Unrealistic FAR nomination

An FAR has recently been filed on Austin Nichols by Ilse@. As the main contributor to the article, but also as a student currently on exam leave, I am unable to work on the FAR until the 22nd and asked for a delay in the FAR until I could actually address issues. Instead Ilse@ seems to intend to push for delisting because neither I nor the other contributor to the article will be available during the FAR period. As she put it "There is always the opportunity to renominate the article later on."

I have to question what the point of this FAR is if no-one who has worked on it, who knows what information is available, where to access it and who has the dedication to work on any problems raised is going to be able to do anything for the entire duration. I am happy for this article to go through FAR when it is possible for me to work on it. I was planning to update Austin's article in light of the new information available through the John from Cinncinnati publicity after my exams anyway - an FAR is a great opportunity to get some external feedback. If Austin is FARCed while I am away, I will simply fix it and renominate immediately when I come back. Net result: a collossal waste of everyone else's time who contributes to the FARC and FAC and a very annoyed Dev. So why bother? What exactly is so difficult about delaying an FAR for a mere twelve days? DevAlt 13:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry; the practice here has always been to allow extra time when needed and when someone is working on it. It's not at all likely to be FARC'd if you're planning to work on it within the month—I don't believe that has ever happened, as long as the FAR was notified. We can leave the FAR up, as someone else may work on it while you're in exams. Did Ilse notify the Projects yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We can just consider as not actually starting until the 22nd. Marskell 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Extra time will be granted. Joelito (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Major new sections implemented at MOS on hyphens, en dashes and em dashes

Reviewers here may be interested to know that the MOS, which is undergoing a gradual overhaul, now contains detailed guidelines on hyphens and dashes (until now, there were virtually no guidelines). As you may know, Featured Articles are bound to follow the MOS (Criterion 2).

A rationalisation of the several articles covering this topic is planned. Tony 09:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

€2 commemorative coins

It has been suggested that €2 commemorative coins would be better as a featured list than an article. Would it be necessary to start up a FAR to discuss it? Gimmetrow 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• You should only start a FAR if you can identify specific FA criteria which the article fails. If it is promoted a featured list, then it will be both a featured list and a featured article. I see no harm in that, in fact, only good. DrKiernan 12:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. It's more of an article than a list. It's an article that contains lists, but there is way too much prose for it to be called an organizational "list". — Deckiller 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT rewrite

A rewrite of WP:FICT is being proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Rewrite proposed. Needs polishing, clarification, and so on, but it's a start. — Deckiller 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hamersley, Western Australia

I would like this article reviewed by people not directly involved in the creation of it. It has created some significant discussion since I started editing it a few days ago. See discussion: Talk:Hamersley,_Western_Australia#this_article. I disagree with the status of Featured Article for a number of reasons:

• History section - is very long and verbose. it's not "well written" in my opinion as it's not concise. almost every single planning decision is included up to 1980 (not all of which is notable) yet there is a considerable gap from 1981.
• Some editors think I am questioning the comprehensiveness and factual accuracy. Not true. it is well citated and referenced. My issue is with the number of facts, some of them are minor, like the relevance of the history of bus services, or that school used to be a community hall till 1975. the only thing I would question about comprehensiveness of this article is this Talk:Hamersley,_Western_Australia#Jump_in_history.
• However, I think the article fails the last criteria of Featured articles: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"
• Structure is not clear and does not bring out the suburb's key notability or key facts. Compare the readability to other featured article locations: Birchington-on-Sea or El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda.

Thanks for your consideration. Michellecrisp 05:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed re-write of the page

How would you feel about a re-write of the page. I'm particularly thinking of how to make it more obvious that (1) FAR comes before FARC, (2) 1 FAR at a time, and (3) notifications. DrKiernan 11:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing featured articles This page facilitates the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. The process involves: Nomination for featured article review (FAR). Nominations last for two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Here, reviewers do not declare "keep" or "remove". If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed. If deficiences are not addressed, the article is placed on the featured article removal candidate (FARC) list. Articles cannot be listed directly as FARCs; they must first undergo a FAR. Reviewers may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments that focus on the outstanding deficiencies in relation to the FA criteria. Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed. Extensions to the review period are granted if requested by editors working on the article. If, after a period of review, the deficiencies have still not been addressed and there is no obvious momentum to do so, the FA status is removed. If consensus has emerged that the changes have brought the article back to standard, the review is closed. Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nomination procedure Please post only one FAR request at a time. Please improve an article that you nominate for review to the best of your ability. Please specify which criteria the article fails and propose remedies. Please do not list articles that were recently promoted (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances). Please do not add reviews for pages that are Today's Featured Article or listed as one of the three recently featured. Place {{FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Hit "Save page". From there, click on the "add a comment" link. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue. Hit "Save page". Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Hit "Save page". Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}} to relevant talk pages (insert the article name). Relevant talk pages include the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FAR indicating notifications completed. NB If an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1 Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Periodically automatic review

I checked several featured articles and unfortunately found that most of the articles which were accepted 2 or 3 years ago can't stay as FA unless some improvements have been done. In fact, the standard of choosing an FA article has risen so we need to review old FA articles after every 1 or 2 year periodically. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

These are several examples of the first featured articles which don't achieve today's criteria:

• Trench warfare: weak lead and insufficient in-text citation(even it have a tag for this issue).
• Helium:The long lead of this article doesn't have even 1 reference.
• Franks: This article has several citation needed and expansion tags.
• First Battle of the Stronghold just compare it with the new articles which have been chosen as good article (not even featured one).

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Soon, there will be 1500 FAs; reviewing each of them routinely isn't feasible. Trench warfare is currently under review. Leads aren't always referenced; the body of the article should contain the citations to text that is summarized in the lead. Have you left talk page messages at these articles about the deficiencies and the need for review? You're welcome to submit any articles that don't meet current standards (preferably limiting to one review at a time per nominator so you don't overload FAR with reviews you might not be able to keep up with). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Sandy. This same line of thought has been used occasionally to argue for reconfirming all 1000+ admins, and the counterarguments which have always knocked that idea down apply equally here. Raul654 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Good on you for getting involved Sa.vakilian, I am a bit more optimistic as I think many of the current FAs have reached a point where they are fully referenced and superior to what is actually published in many popular texts. Amazing really. We're trying to do what we can but at the end of the day it is a volunteer phenomenon and no-one is bound to do anything. Quite a bit of stuff is being picked up at FAR...and if it isn't...well it can be delisted and resubmitted later. Fascinating process all round really. :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR notifications

I have been accused of "recruiting" because of FAR notifications[1]. Of course, that's not even close to the most inaccurate thing said on that FAR about respected editors, but whatever; apologies don't seem to be the order of the day among the regular editors of that particular article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And now, I've been accused of canvassing.[2] OK, do we stop notifying, or is anyone going to correct these accusations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm slithering behind the scenes, too <hisssssssss ... > [3]

Ignore them. Notification is very helpful and flinging accusations of canvassing is a form of a personal attack.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Easy for you to say :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I secondd Piotrus. Those people obviously have no idea how FAR works. This is definitely a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, and I'd rather err on the side of damned if you do. It's not like you have any kind of personal investment in these articles, so it's hard to see how your actions could be seen as anything but Wiki-gnomelike. — Brian (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they've decided I have a personal investment, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Easy, indeed - I am getting accused of canvassing every few days (being a participant of several noticeboards makes that almost obligatory...). I am suprised you had to wait for your spate of that particular trouble so long :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Should I consider myself "initiated"? Do I really want to be here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The answers would be: 1) apparently; yes and Do you have any choice? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you find the time, Sandy. I would have thought you had other things to do. Is your secret base under the volcano finished? All your henchmen trained? The nerve toxin perfected? You really need to concentrate on the important things if the timetable for Operation Doomsday is to stay on track. Leave it to your squad of blind ninja monkey assassins to deal with these people. This talk page is secure, right? What? No...wait...please...I can expla... Yomangani^talk 01:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Lots of choices, but it seems Yomangani's gotten himself into a fix and now I'm morally obligated to unleash the ninja to his rescue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore. And go on notifying: it's very decent of you to take the trouble, and it helps to make FAR work; it is very much appreciated. Wikipedia could actually do with a notification culture and less of this fussing about canvassing. Maybe we should all notify the main editors of all articles when we edit them or say something on the talk page: everything would go much better then, I'm sure. I admit that I have in the past asked people to consider commenting at FACs. That way the article gets attention. Nothing wrong with that unless you ask your henchmen to support, which would be wrong, and I haven't got any henchmen (or henchwomen). Please find that extra skin you lost recently. FAR is a rhino job, and no mistake. Just remind yourself, that actually, you are sitting at your desk with a glass of port (well, I am, anyway) and that all this is virtual and that you don't give a flying sausage (when your real-life neighbour comes round and attacks you with a frying pan, that's when it's time to give a flying sausage).qp10qp 17:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you all know that I'm not notifying anymore; someone else will need to take this over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that someone has stopped you. But this is just a hobby, and you don't have to do anything you don't want to do. Thanks for doing it for so long! (This is the moment where I should volunteer to take over, but I'm too selfish, I'm afraid.) qp10qp 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, when I read that specific FAR I wanted to jump right in and give my two bobs worth of opinion of how full of horseshit most of those people are talking, though I'm sure you wouldn't want that now would you? :) LuciferMorgan 00:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not have a bot do it?

Wouldn't a bot be better for this anyway? It could find all links to user pages on the FAC page and notify them automatically once an article gets listed on FAR (or it could only notify the creation user of the FAC page). It could also do the same for any WikiProject the article is a part of by looking for WikiProject templates on talk pages. While annoying, I am still glad to get bot notifications on my talk page when an image I uploaded needs attention. I don't think it is possible for a bot to be accused of a selection bias on notification. --mav 19:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it :D And let the bot get blamed for canvassing :) Perfect :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone be interesting in finishing up the notifications at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spoo, so I don't have to "slither behind the scenes" and canvass?  :/ Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The two Projects and the main editor (155 edits compared to the next active editor - 7 edits) have been notified. DrKiernan 13:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds good (I thought it looked sparse, but didn't check stats). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I was never actually notified at any stage... Just putting that out there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You had already commented at the article before Dr Kiernan did the notifications, so he probably saw you were already on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR closure

moved from Talk:Intelligent design

I believe this was done in error. Over the last 12+ months I and another user have closed every FAR (knowing that this would be a difficult one I decided to do the refs myself). It seems to make so much sense to close the contentious ones early—why keep the shouting going?

But where it's contentious it is far better to let it run its course (which averages about six weeks) because it makes it less likely that it will be nommed again soon and avoids the appearance of COI. By closing now, before actually going to FARC for the direct kp/rm comments, the door has been left open to someone in two months suggesting "no, it didn't actually have a full review because it got cut off early based on pressure from page regulars. So I'm renomming now."

In any case, I have no intention of wheel warring over a closure, but I would like not to leave this one as if it's case closed. The refs do need to be done, the prose does need to be audited, and yes, the weaker refs need to be removed from the strings of five or six. Marskell 12:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe this discussion belongs more correctly at WT:FAR, so I'll be moving it there. Marskell, our posts just crossed in the night; I reopened it just as you moved it to archive. Let's discuss at the proper place—WT:FAR—as this move can only destabilize WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Copied here as well

I am undoing the closing per long-standing talk page discussion and consensus with the featured article director, Raul654; featured article discussions aren't closed by just any admin (as other processes are) because that would destabilize the processes and result in a free-for-all at FAC. FACs are closed by Raul, and FARs are closed by Raul, Marskell, and Joelr31. While the ultimate result for this article is most likely to be the same, it's important that—as with featured article candidates—featured article reviews are closed accordingly. Let the process run; let the article benefit from a review, which it hasn't yet enjoyed because of the shouting. To any admin closing this FAR; you are contravening long-standing support and consensus of Raul654 as the featured article director. If anyone disagrees with the long-standing consensus regarding the featured article director, please take that up on the FAC and FAR talk pages (where it has been discussed many time) with Raul654; allowing any admin to close FARs and FACs will only result in a free-for-all at FAC. Because I haven't seen an endorsement of this closure from Raul, the featured article director, I'm re-opening the FAR. Please discuss with Raul654 (talk · contribs). It's not about this article, but in this case, allowing the process to run will be better for the article in the long run. Please don't open the door that allows any FAC and any FAR to become contentious in the future, and will not give a full and conclusive result to this FAR. The article deserves to have a correctly-closed FAR to avoid future criticism of the process. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology from the editor who closed prematurely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A minor correction -- I didn't close it (being a non-admin), but requested that User:BozMo close it. BozMo was acting at my request so yes, I'm ultimately the one who screwed up the process and from whom an apology is due. Sorry, I'm new at FARs and throw myself at the mercy of the court. Raymond Arritt 13:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I'd better go leave a note for BozMo, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Ah, I see the confusion; Raymond's note was from BozMo's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with closing the FAR (it's basically a circus, with some people who honestly think that the article has problems and others - POV pushers - using the former group as a smokescreen to try to get their POV put into the article). However, I agree with Sandy that it wasn't closed right - that Marskell, Joey, or myself should have been the one to close it. Raul654 13:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

However, thanks to everyone and in particular to SandyGeorgia for patiently dealing with this extremely touchy review. Several useful points have been raised which are being considered, and a continuing review on the talk page looks likely to achieve worthwhile improvements with the necessary consensus. Ta, .. dave souza, talk 14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Dave, I didn't intend to disregard your remarks; we editconflicted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul. I would not like to see the article move to FARC (or be closed yet), as that will only further the problem we've seen at FAR, namely, that the review process has been ignored and "voting" rather than discussion has ensued, while valid issues that should be addressed in the article have been overlooked in all the shouting. We have a long-standing precedent on FAR of extending reviews as long as work is ongoing and progress is being made. If we can finally get the regular editors of this article to stop shouting at each other and making unfounded accusations and instead focus on addressing the valid issues that have been raised, it may be possible to close the FAR as a Keep without moving to FARC. Or, if it does move to FARC, the conclusion will be stronger if the review (rather than shouting) will finally get under way. If we move to FARC now, my concern is that Marskell will still be stuck with making the corrections himself, which is sadly what is happening now (normally, I would help him, as ref work is so tedious, but I'm hesitant to set foot in that article). Separately, I suggest we need to initiate a discussion here at WT:FAR about the need to be more strident about removing "Keep" and "Delist" declarations during the review phase. No matter how many times I reminded them of the purpose and tried to re-orient the participants on that FAR back to review rather than "voting", it hasn't happened, so valid considerations are being overlooked. Perhaps we need consensus at FAR that in the future, we'll simply revert any posts that misunderstand the purpose of a review, and prematurely declare "keep" or "delist" during the review phase, to assure that discussion remains focused on improvements. FAR is designed to be a careful and deliberative process; this FAR hasn't yet taken advantage of that process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we not notify as you've done more recently:

Please do not declare Keep or Remove during the article review phase. The instructions and purpose of the review are detailed at the top of the WP:FAR page. Thank you. DrKiernan 14:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I lost count of how many times I did that on the ID FAR, and it helped zilch. Further, people who should know better still entered "Keep" or "Remove" during the review phase, which only shortcircuits the purpose of review. I'm suggesting we should do something stronger; strike them or remove them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be a feature of that particular review, the red line seems to have worked on the other two reviews. I haven't studied the ID FAR closely because it's too long and boring (rather like the article). Won't striking out comments on the ID FAR just inflame tempers even more? DrKiernan 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good points, DrKiernan; and that FAR is so unusual, that it might not make sense to form a guideline around what has happened there. They broke the mold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it helps I did try and find the guidelines how these things closed I did it as I said [4]. If I missed it, sorry. Actually sorry anyway. But a note somewhere might help. --BozMo talk 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is of my personal opinion that the review was closed for its own good. Considering the nature of the article and the stress of improving such an article I fail to see how anyone could find it reasonable to start an FAR for MoS issues. It is not helpful but disrespectful. Opening an FAR is pretty synonymous with saying the article is so lacking in quality that the magnitude of the problems need to be fixed otherwise the article can no longer maintain its status. All the issues should have been discussed on the talk page and been attempted to be fixed by the people advocating this FAR. When I say attempted I don't mean disruptive commentary about speculative general concerns like "Copyediting needed" but proper identification of specific issues. One of the contributors, "Kenosis", seems more than willing to discuss and help with any stylistic or wording concerns as others. The disrespectful nature of opening an FAR as I explained above opened 2 channels: people who are upset and angered by such assertions that the article is quality poor and people who see the FAR as a channel to discredit the article for their own agenda. There are people behind this usernames and should be treated as such. No one has ever tried to discredit a history author by identifying spelling errors and instances of Old English usage - minor concerns. 74.13.94.166 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Your post assumes that lack of FA-status equates with poor quality. It does not. An A-class or GA-class article is not of poor quality, it just isn't of FA-class quality. If I mark a student essay as a B+ or a C-, I am not disrespecting the person who wrote the essay or being disruptive, I am assigning a fair mark for their work. The same applies, if I publish a paper in a low-impact factor journal, because it was rejected by a high-impact-factor one. DrKiernan 09:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Humble plea

Would it be possible for someone to either make a decision as to whether or not this FAR is open or closed, or to explain the process by which we can progress the making of such a decision? As things stand, discussion of the future of the article is being carried out on at least three separate pages, which can't be of benefit to anyone. Tevildo 20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The FAR is open; it's stately clearly above by Raul654, and on the FAR page by Marskell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is all as clear as mud.--Filll 04:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

FA sorted by "year quality" and other ponderings

I am sure most of us has thought at one time or another "how nice it would be to review all FAs periodically", and of course we all reached the same answer - that it's technically not feasible. But despite our best efforts, we have many FAs of vastly divergent quality. Cutting my ponderings short, I may have a solution.

First, there is one one pretty flawless standard of quality: the main FA votes. The official and unofficial standards for articles, however, is constantly evolving (which as the author of many FAs spread over 3 years I can personally vouch for).

Second, successful FARC reviews raise the FA quality, but they are also affected by the same 'improving quality requirements over time' issue.

Therefore I would suggest dividing the FAs into time period, preferably by month, but at the very least, by year. We should make our main list of FA sortable by time (sortable tables are supported by wiki) or maybe create a series of subpages 'FAs since 2006', 'FAs since 2005', etc. Succesfull FARC could upgrade old FAs to the new 'year' category. This way we would have an easy list of 'what needs to be reviewed due to age', and we could also direct the readers to 'new FAs only' for much better quality then the general FA page which, as we well know, has articles ranging from excellent to 'what the heck is this doing here?'.

Alternatively, we could introduce a discussion/vote process separate from FARC for the 'year upgrade'. The idea is that the articles in 'year x' should have been accepted by FA discutants in year x (FA and FARC standards differ a little bit). Therefore perhaps we could list such 'year upgrade' FAs on the normal FAC page, with the (year upgrade) added to the title so people would be aware this is not a normal FAC. In essence, they would be a 'candidates for current FA standards', but if they fail, they would not be defeatured (this is FARC domain) but simply would stay in their old year quality cat.

Comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's especially useful to expend effort breaking this already tiny slice of Wikipedia into even smaller pieces. More urgently, please don't turn the main list of FAs into a sortable table; the page would become far too long. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems is already a good proxy for those that need to go through review. About 80% of removals have come from the list over the last 12+ months and most on it are early '05 or prior. I don't know about introducing an entirely new discussion/vote process, but a list could be of use. If nothing else, we might use it to indicate what has been reviewed already and when. Marskell 14:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Subsections

WP:FAC says " Do not split a FAC page into subsections", to avoid what is happening at FAR. Should we add same here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A concern

I have a concern about the FAR process. An FAR on Intelligent Design was recently closed as "keep" by an administrator. SandyGeorgia had made some pretty offensive comments on the page, including that the writing was "embarrassing"; she also became involved in a personal dispute with one of the writers. Despite this, she overturned the closure of the FAR, re-opening it and causing great confusion and ill-feeling. She has now explained her actions by saying that only Raul, Marksell, and Tony1 close FARs, and that any FAR not closed by them is "mistakenly closed." [5]

I can appreciate Raul being given priority to open and close FAs or FARs, but I see no reason that, in his absence, any other admin or editor shouldn't be able to do the same thing. Can someone indicate where it was agreed that, Raul apart, only Marskell and Tony1 are allowed to close FARs? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

She meant User:Joelr31, not Tony. I don't believe there has ever been a particularly formal discussion on the issue; Joel and Marskell did them all for awhile and seem to have grown into the regular closers. Sandy and LuciferMorgan, at least, believe that for the sake of regularity only those two (plus Raul in his capacity as FA director) should close the discussions. Personally I find their logic unpersuasive, but I haven't bothered to press the point by closing one myself. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But above she says it's Marskell and Joelr31, not Tony. Can someone say which it is, and where this was agreed? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the point needs to be pressed, because Sandy's overturning of the closure has led to a lot of bad feeling, and the loss of yet another FA writer. We can't have a situation where a group of people self-select and decide that only they are allowed to make certain decisions. We can agree that only admins may close them, or that any editor may, or that only Raul may, but it needs to be discussed openly. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

May I ask who is the FA writer you are referring to?Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk. He has said he's done with FAs now. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, which FAC has he submitted? I've never seen one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be obtuse. You know he wrote a lot of the ID FA. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The ID closure was unique in other ways so I'm not sure it is a good example here. Certainly if a normal close was reverted simply because it wasn't performed by Joel or Marskell I'd feel quite comfortable re-reverting. A pretty thorough and formal discussion (as was had when Raul was endorsed as FA director) would be needed to establish this process as outside the normal Wikipedia operating pattern; thus far there has been no such discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony1 does not close FARs; I misspoke, and meant Joelr31. I'm sorry for the confusion; I was having a concurrent conversation with Raul that related to Tony, and mistyped. How is someone lodging unfounded charges against me and three other editors [6] characterized as me "becom[ing] involved in a personal dispute with one of the writers"? Raul answered [7] and informed FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) (FM) of his response. [8] FM didn't respond; I contacted him twice, three days apart, to continue discussion, noting that he had been absent from Wiki and had not responded. [9] [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the close above, at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#FAR closure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha. "Do not discuss: go elsewhere." SandyGeorgia is again avoiding the issue and trying to employ the passive voice dodge. The question is open and the charge outrageous. There is no FAR director, and there certainly isn't a panel of annointed. Anyone may close an FAR, and what you have done, SandyGeorgia, is edit warring. Geogre 12:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As things stand, anyone may close FARs. For that to change, there would need to be a discussion and an agreement. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...very interesting. Nothing on the Article page about it - is there something in the archives? I think given the lively interest in the process then a poll is in order. The extreme length of many of teh discussions would make my eyes bleed...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It would also be good to decide when they may be closed. It seems unwise to force something to stay open for two weeks when people have already decided and the page has become toxic. It also smacks of process fetishism that people supposedly aren't allowed to say "keep" or "remove." It seems to me that if an admin or experienced editor decides it's better for the project that an FAR be closed after a few days, so be it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the header to a July 8 version by Marskell, as that was when these instructions were added to the top of the page. I removed "Reviewers do not declare "keep" or "remove" during FAR," which was a bit scary: people can say whatever they want. I also added that any uninvolved editor may close an FAR; if that's not wanted, we need to have a full discussion and reach an agreement. I added that no consensus to remove the status means the status is retained, and that, while 2-3 weeks may be recommended, FARs may close earlier or later depending on the closer's view of the consensus. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well then there are two issues really here aren't there. One is plasticity WRT time intervals for each part of the process and the other is who should be able to close them. I'm not really fussed if an article whose issues have been addressed successfully sits at FAR for 2 weeks before being Kept before progressing to FARC (Is this what you refer to above?). I wonder whether the division is arbitrary and it shouldn't all be the one FAR (like FAC) where people can vote or fix as they see fit. In any case I think it needs to be made clear who can close a debate on the FAR page cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I should add that i am not too worried about the time intervals but the closing issue should be sorted - and a poll restricted to that question alone to avoid a real can o' worms...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I'd prefer a discussion to a poll. I also don't see the point of having these two processes: FAR and FARC. It seems completely unnecessary, and we're not here to put our volunteers through the mill. Does anyone have a view on merging them i.e. creating one streamlined process for discussing how to improve an FA and, if it can't be improved, removing its status? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It was never formalized and, in fact, anyone can close. (Though to throw this open completely would be an enormously bad idea.) The earliest tiny thread on closing I can think of is here and it has since come up a couple of times without trouble. In passing, Raul has supported Joel and I doing it. The logic: it makes closing consistent and reduces wheel-warring; with set people you know who to post to if you have a question, or to yell at if you have a problem (I've had my share); FAR is process heavy and thus best to have people who understand the process (when you remove you have to edit four pages, for instance).

Much of the problem is rubbernecking. People stop by a difficult one and decide the process doesn't work, when 9 out 10 it works just fine. Everytime a third person has become involved in closing it's because of dispute, and it aggravates as much as it helps (e.g. Kim Bruning deciding to close Global warming out of nowhere or, in this case, BozMo closing but not removing the review from the page).

Finally, you break it you own it. By all means we can shake FAR up, but people need to be prepared to stick with the process if they want to change it. Marskell 06:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem from my personal experience in commenting and repairing stuff and FAR that Marskell and Joelito are doing just fine as they are, since there are only about 0.5-2 applications to process per day. It's good for consistency to say the least. The second is that I'd rather not have any old person close them because people will abuse it to ask their friends to close it etc. At least under this system we have experienced and veteran FAC/FAR/FA "article connoiseurs" doing it: these people are proven to be passionate about "FA artwork" and will do things very objectively. If anybody could do it, then we will end up soon like popularity contests at RfA and a person with a lot of friends can vote stack a bad article to FA. I don't think ID is an article where this would happen, but if the criteria for being a closer/assessor is loosened up things like Torchic and Bulbasaur would get through. Those articles got through because of a mass Esperanza bloc vote by a group of people who mostly don't even write articles. In some RfAs a weak candidate can get through because they are popular, but in FA, this doesn't happen because it is judged on merit. Let's keep it that way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's too process-heavy, too closed, and too hurtful and exhausting for the participants. We need a more streamlined process with less instruction creep. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If streamlining means turning it back into a vote, I would be leery. We save articles precisely because don't allow twelve pile-on removes in the first 24. As for hurtful...I'll pull out the old "inactionable" rabbit. Marskell 06:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

By streamling, I meant one process instead of two. What is the advantage of having FAR and FARC? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting to the old instructions is unacceptable. We already know they don't work, that's why the new instructions were introduced — to prevent all the problems with the process that occurred in the past. My re-write is much clearer and succinct than the old instructions, and have been proved by the fact that there have been no problem FARs since the re-write was introduced. DrKiernan 07:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"...is unacceptable?" Let's drop the passives, please. Was there proper and open discussion on how "they don't work?" Was there consensus or merely silence on the fixes? If the matter is open for discussion now, it would be helpful not to wave one's hand as if it were just so simple: the new instructions obviously do not work (if "work" = amicable cooperative editing), as they license yet another insistence on differential editiorial rights. Geogre 12:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't change the spirit of the instructions or the process itself, just the formatting of the text. DrKiernan 12:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We just had a huge problem with the ID FAR, and regardless, the tone of those instructions just wasn't appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you're using one single example out of hundreds. Hundreds of FARs have worked, and one hasn't. You're putting too much emphasis on a single example. DrKiernan 11:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the ID FAR began before the new formatting was introduced. DrKiernan 12:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll, but other processes are separate. Wise advice that, "you break it, you own it". A lot of editors work here to help keep featured status on as many articles as possible, and the current process is designed to that end. Yes, it's top heavy, because it would be so much easier just to run a process where we vote and Remove. This process allows more articles to retain status. I hope you'll consider not "breaking it". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with ATT. Please don't try to cast aspersions. It really isn't helpful, and it's the kind of thing that is causing concern about your approach to this whole process. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I say a poll is better than more discussion (I mean for the decision on who gets to close FARS ONLY) is that more people will participate and hence a more democratic consensus achieved. Reams of discussion does a great job of driving many away so that a few folk in the middle of it can then dictate policy under the guise of consensus. This is why a poll for the simple question of who gets to close is the best. I did not participate before the rearrangement last year but things seem to work fine for the most part. Did any of us really think topics such as evolution and ID were going to evolve without alot of argument and emotion? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That will just mean that all the stars will be blown off, as no article will be improved. That's what I thought this process was at first (ah, those innocent days), but I've bought into the process as it stands now. It is better to improve articles than to leave them in a bad state. DrKiernan 07:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The current system is better, it rewards hard work. The poll system will just allow any guy to stack popularity votes. I'd rather this not end up like RfA, and in addition, FAR improves the articles and focuses a concerted set of eyes into identifying imporvements. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But what is the current process? We can't have a situation where only Marskell and one other are "allowed" to close reviews, based on whatever criteria they decide at the time. And where reviewers aren't "allowed" to say keep! That simply isn't on. And can someone explain what the benefit is of having both FAR and FARC? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you understand that, BInguyen. A full review helps assure we won't see them back here in a month. We allow time to address the issues; then time to declare Keep or Remove. If we replace that process, and allow anyone to close, we'll just get a pile-on vote to Remove a lot of articles that no longer meet standards, instead of our 1/3 save rate. And if we allow just anyone to close, many articles would have been closed as Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to close, Sandy, as Marskell confirmed above. If we want to limit it in some way — for example, to admins — fair enough, let's discuss it. But it can't be limited to two self-appointed people, with you turning up as an enforcer — even when involved in a personal dispute with one of the writers — if an admin decides to close one, which is what happened at ID.

Rightly or wrongly, there's an impression that this process is being misused, so it needs to be opened up, at least a little. I stress "rightly or wrongly," because it's the perception that's causing people to stay away from the FA process, so it's the perception that needs to be fixed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I realise I've written something ambiguous and corrected above. I reiterate - for the purpose of FAR itself a discussion is better than a poll and agree that the ultimate goal is to improve articles.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've restored that an uninvolved editor may close, though I've left the other changes. I'm happy to change it to any uninvolved admin if people prefer, but I can't think of another process that any admin isn't allowed to close, except RfA, RfAr, and RfM, and they all have open processes for choosing members or bureaucrats. Therefore, I don't see how we can limit this any further. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I can think of another of far more relevance: FAC. See comments below. Marskell 10:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

SV, adding in an extra instruction, as you did, is not a restoration of previous instructions, it is creating a new one. One that is not agreed upon. DrKiernan 11:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the extra instruction? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Any uninvolved editor may close the discussion if it appears to have reached consensus."

That's not an extra instruction. That's the lack of one. The default position all over Wikipedia is that any editor may do anything. If we want to restrict certain processes to certain people or classes of editors (admins versus non-admins), we need to discuss, reach consensus, and sometimes we need elections. We don't self-select and decide that only we are allowed to do something. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm interlining above and appearing to make an appearance like infernus ex machina, let me state in my own voice my position. SlimVirgin is right about this "it has been decided" nonsense. This do not "get decided." Instead, people decide them. If we need analogies to other sensitive parts of the project, we can, of course, look at the XfD process, where only administrators can close, and we can see how rarely they do get terrible problems. Contentious, hot topics are precisely when hamfisted closes are out of line. In fact, SandyGeorgia's reversion of an administrator in the name of purse-lipped finger wagging, whether it was actually for the sake of this idol of "rules" or something else, is exactly what creates friction, poisons the atmosphere, and is an alarming attempt at asserting power, pure and simple. None of that is allowed. Without consensus, there is no authority, and without authority, all we have is someone puffing up. Geogre 12:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, anyone can close an XfD, not just an admin. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll to clarify who may close

OK - to clarify, please comment on the following options:

• That only the three current editors who have been the de facto closers may close FARs;

1. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Essentially, I have no problem with the current structure. DrKiernan 11:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• That any uninvolved admin may close;

• That any uninvolved editor may close.

Please post your views below.

Given we're doing one and saying the other we better solve this now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked this a little so it's less poll-like, but I also think deciding by poll is not a good idea. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My only real opinion is that this should not be left to any uninvolved editor, regardless of whether I'm one of the few closing. It's absolutely a recipe for disaster. If you want to start this discussion, I'd suggest asking Raul what the rationale behind having one closer at FAC is. If it works there, I don't see why we should have the precise opposite stance here. Marskell 10:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to post the same points. If anyone knows what the initial justification was for making FA director a specific person, rather than a role, I would like to hear it; that argument, whatever it was, is likely to be relevant here. Mike Christie (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a connection. Raul's been doing this forever, and is the FA director with widespread approval. He's also an arbitrator and bureaucrat. That situation doesn't pertain here, and we saw an example at the ID FAR of the current set up being misused, so it does need to change.

Why does anyone see these closures as any different from AfD, for example? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I'm a newcomer, and I haven't heard from the FA director himself, but my take on it is this: it was ratified years ago that only Raul654 would decide the consensus on what is or isn't an FA. Consequently, it is his choice whether an article is or isn't FA, and only he can close FACs and FARs. Now, he can't do everything and so, he has delegated authority to Marskell and Joelr31.[11] Why change that: why fix something that isn't broken? DrKiernan 11:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it is broken, and because it goes against every policy and practice on Wikipedia that two people can self-select and decide that they, and only they, may close a discussion, even if other admins turn up to close it.

I'm trying to get an idea of numbers here and who does what. Joel's edits show 264 edits to FAR and FAR/archive. [12] Marskell's show 624 edits to those pages. [13] So do these figures mean that Marskell is doing the bulk of the closures, or am I looking at the wrong figures? Also, is it correct, as Sandy said, that two-thirds of FAs fail at FAR/FARC? Finally, can someone explain what the benefit is of having two processes? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If we scrap FAR and go straight to FARC, or have one process only, the votes to remove will stack up as soon as the FAR starts. That will lead to even more problems if a keep result is declared, or just mean that articles are removed from FA without being improved. DrKiernan 11:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"If we scrap FAR and go straight to FARC, or have one process only, the votes to remove will stack up as soon as the FAR starts." How do you know this, as a matter of interest? And why would it necessarily involve no improvement?

Also, I wasn't suggesting scrapping FAR, but either scrapping FARC or combining the two into a slightly different process. The question remains: what exactly would be the problem with having just one process, and why would it be a problem? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't what you're proposing what happened, and failed, in the ID FAR? People would either !vote "keep" or "remove" without actually focussing on discussing proposed improvements, and instead polarise into two opposing and intransigent camps. DrKiernan 11:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that happened under the current system. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

DrKiernan - I agree it isn't broken - just that it currently isn't spelt out on the article page. Essentially the poll is to make it official, as it currently isn't and the rules as stated on the page are not consistent with the reality. If you're happy, put yer moniker under mine above :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the curse lies not in our rules but our rulers, and perhaps it is in the law and the lawyers, but we are running into problems with people trying to tell other users in high standing that they are not allowed to touch. Perhaps what is needed is a clear explanation for SandyGeorgia so that she can understand that what she is saying and doing is out of line, if such were possible. Perhaps what is needed is a new set of principles. However, we are here, and saying, like the King of New High Brazil, "This is not happening" as the island sinks isn't going to be a good way forward.

Polls are not evil, but they're not exactly legitimate unless we have quorum. They need to be open for a long, long time, and the franchise has to be carefully understood, and we have to ensure that people vote only once and not once-per-name, but it's hard to establish consent, and therefore authority, without some demonstration.

As it is, it's obvious that any uninvolved administrator should be able to close. It's also obvious, at least to me, that any dispute between such ought to be handled by an existing forum. I suppose we cannot use DRV, but we can come up with blind and helpful guidelines for disputed closures. We can't so long as a Council of Experts is trying to keep control, of course. Geogre 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why by any uninvolved administrator? There's nothing required in closing that can only be done by an admin, is there? Something I haven't thought of or was that a slip of the keyboard? Yomangani^talk 12:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not because of the tools, but because we can at least say that the users doing closes have demonstrated community trust. I.e. it stops a sockpuppet or nonce account from doing the close in favor of the author. Granted, on FAR that shouldn't happen very often, but I was trying to head off the suspicion. I don't think all of our admins are very trustworthy (famously so), and I think some of our non-admins are extremely trustworthy (famously so), but I was thinking only that RFA is a demonstration of community trust and that violating the trust can lead to RFAR. I.e. it's not because I think there is anything special about admins except successful RFA. Geogre 13:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nine out of ten? Is that good?

Marskell and Sandy, you seem to keep saying that "nine out of ten" or "most" FAR/FARC reviews work fine and improve the articles, and any other perception is caused by "rubbernecking" at the so-few-as-not-really-to-matter problematic reviews. But do you really think nine out of ten is good enough? (Let alone "most"—I don't like the sound of that at all.) It seems to me that FAR ought to strive for, if not the impossible goal of "all reviews work fine", then at least "almost all reviews". For example: a more open process, with more explicit instructions about who may close, might have gotten a review such as this one briskly closed, and wouldn't that have been rather a good thing? Or do you see it as being among the nine out of ten successful article improvements that "reward hard work"? It's true that as a direct consequence of the review, I went to the article and added a page reference. So The Country Wife is to that extent better now. But what was the price? I've stopped putting my work on FAC. Well, that's my decision, nobody else's fault. But I believe that review was also one of the last straws for User:ALoan, who doesn't edit here anymore.[14] [15] "Any old person" speedy-closing in the absence or unawareness of the "experienced and veteran FAC/FAR/FA "article connoiseurs"" (Blnguyen) would have avoided a huge amount of hurtfulness IMHO. I'm sorry to see you quip above that "hurtful" is "inactionable", Marskell. That feels a little glib to me, when I think of ALoan, who had done so much for FAC and FAR and written so many FAs. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

Clarification: I don't recall ever mentioning this nine out of ten stat; I suppose it's possible I said that and have forgotten, but the fractious FARs are actually few and far between. I can only think of a few, but perhaps that's because I focus on the articles that were returned to status with a group effort, and they stick in my memory more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize ALoan had stopped contributing to FAs too.

I'm disturbed at the claims being thrown around with no evidence. Nine out of ten FARs are fine. Two-thirds of FARCs fail (with the implication that they deserve to). If we allow any editor to close, even more will fail. And so on. But these are just opinions being bandied around. The bottom line is that there is a trust problem, and there's no point in ignoring it any longer, because it continues to get worse and more widespread. It's in the interests of the defenders of the current process and the critics to put a stop to that, so I hope we can cooperate to get it sorted. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "Country Wife" could have been a much simpler FAR. All reviewers had to do was say: "Looks OK to me. DrKiernan 00:00 A Date" and move on. Where do people find the time to post long, windy tracts? And where can I find this time? DrKiernan 11:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The critics as you call SlimVirgin them will continue to sit by the sidelines and continue their long term tirade of moaning, let me assure you. The reason I feel why ALoan has discontinued writing FAs is due to the changing of FA criteria over the years - mainly, the 1c criterion. I believe this is the same for other former FA writers, so if they have a problem with the criterion then they should voice their concern on the criteria page. FAR cannot change the FA criteria. LuciferMorgan 11:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

ALoan has, either temporarily or (let's hope not) permanently stopped contributing to Wikipedia, not just to FAs. Since he didn't expand on his motives, other than to say he wanted to avoid wikipolitics and had real life commitments, we can assign him whatever motives we like, but let's not. Yomangani^talk 12:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The FA criteria appear to have been taken over by the same small group. And it's not just the criteria as written that are problematic, but as enforced, which is often very aggressively, very disrespectfully. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't broken at all, which is in no uncertain grossly incorrect SlimVirgin. Marskell and Joelr31 do a fine job with the benefit of their own expertise, and certainly have an objective approach. They understand FAR more than any other administrator. It works well, and in fact it works better than FAC may I add (Raul's role as FAC director having widespread approval simply isn't true, so where you got that false truth from I have no idea). I don't like the idea of any admin closing an FAR in any sense of the word, and if anyone tries implementing it I hope they're ready for an argument - if any admin can close an FAR it means they can close any FARs of articles their Wiki-friends hang around on, which I certainly disagree with.

FAR isn't broken - the people who have their beloved articles on FAR should shut up whining, and start improving their articles. Every few months there's someone moaning about FAR - the truth is they want an FA star to be eternal, and they don't like the idea it can be taken away if their article doesn't meet current standards. And to correct you, there is not two processes - it's one process in two separate stages, and has plenty of benefits. The first stage is FAR, which gives editors two weeks (or more if requested) to assess the article's problems, and to attempt addressing them. Marskell, Sandy etc. all are there to give feedback on how to improve the article etc. The second stage is FARC which is where articles go if it hasn't been brought up to standards yet - only then do people vote "Remove" etc. If there was just FARC I'm certain less articles would be brought back up to standard. Nothing needs fixing - I just think the gloves need to be hung up instead for a change. LuciferMorgan 11:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You contradict yourself by arguing, on the one hand, that everything is fine, and on the other, that people keep turning up to "moan." In addition, good editors are either leaving Wikipedia or no longer contributing to FAs because of the process fetishism, and that's something that can't be ignored.

It is your opinion that Marskell and Joel (an editor I don't know) take an "objective" approach. I got concerned when Marskell made a statement last month that reliable, mainstream sources were being actively suppressed on Global warming (he gave the Wall Street Journal as an example), and that this was the only reason the article maintained its FA status. [16] I couldn't figure out what he meant at the time, but now I hear that he has self-selected to be one of only two editors, apart from Raul, who decide how to close FARs and FARCs, I find the statement even more worrying than before. It sounds as though he is using this position to control POV. Even if that is wrong, that's what it sounds like, and perception is what we're discussing here.

This is in addition to trying to change various policies to fit his view of what FA standards should be (or threatening to ignore them if the changes don't go through), and the general process fetishism that has developed since SandyGeorgia and Marskell became involved.

I am sure they do good work, and I don't mean this to be criticism only. But at least some of the criticism is valid, and it needs to be taken on board voluntarily, so that it doesn't go any further and so we don't lose any more writers.

The way to start is to open up who may close these things. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin... let's be honest here. You're really annoyed because Sandy reverted your close, which is the truth isn't it? And because you're annoyed, you'd like to make sure that the next time you wish to close an FAR according to your agenda, that you can't be reverted. Furthermore, if it wasn't for the reversion, you wouldn't be fueling this thread. This is definitely true as far as I am concerned, and I'd like to hear what your reply is. LuciferMorgan 13:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I have reverted no FAR closing of SlimVirgin's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, SlimVirgin didn't close it, Bozmo did, and SandyGeorgia didn't revert SlimVirgin. What one earth are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well in the opening statement for "A concern", SlimVirgin reverting the close on the Intelligent design FAR. LuciferMorgan 20:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms seem to include: (1) some people have expressed a lack of trust of the process; (2) certain tasks have become the responsiblity of 2-3 people; (3) those people are self-selected. (My apologies if this is incomplete or inaccurate; please correct me if so.) With regard to (2), specifically: is delegation (by the community, and by some reversible means) of a process to individuals fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia policies? Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike, you've misunderstood; I'm sorry for not being clear. I have no problem with certain tasks becoming the responsibility of the people who step forward to do them. That's how Wikipedia works, so if you end up with two people being the ones who usually close FARs de facto, that's great. What isn't great is when it seems to become de jure without discussion. An admin recently closed an FAR and was reverted by SandyGeorgia, who told him that only Marskell and one other were "allowed" to close FARs. It led to a great deal of confusion and ill-feeling, with one good editor basically not wanting to edit anymore because of it, and it's one of the reasons I would like to see a change.

Apart from the above, the criticisms include: (1) instruction creep and process fetishism at every level of the FA process since SG and M became involved; (2) a belief that whatever they do is ipso facto "best practice" and that policies and guidelines must reflect that; (3) a threat (by M) to ignore policies and guidelines if they aren't changed in the way he wants; (4) an explicit claim (by M) that mainstream, reliable sources are being actively suppressed on at least one FA, and that this is the only reason it retains its FA status; (5) rudeness and aggression (on the part of SG) when criticizing some FAs during the FAR/FARC process, leading good writers to want no further part in the FA process.

The bottom line is that when we deal with FAs, we deal with Wikipedia's best writers. Even if the particular FA in hand isn't great, it's still an example of the best. Because people put so much work into these things, we have to be respectful, and we need a fair, open, and respectful process. We don't seem to have that anymore, and I would like to see us try to restore it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this respectful process mean then that the absolutely appalling behaviour by a fair few editors at the Intelligent design FAR will be held to account then? Does this also mean that FeloniusMonk's disgusting behaviour of accusing several editors on Sandy's page (including two admins) of being in a plot to overthrow Raul will also be held to account, and he will be stripped of his admin powers like he should be? Until this is all held to account, I do not believe that anyone is trying to "restore" a respectful process and any attempt to excuse the behaviour at the Intelligent design FAR is horseshit to be frank. LuciferMorgan 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so. The problems were that there were these hidden instructions that we were supposed to instinctively know about, that only 3 people could close FAR, and that where it says "consensus" it actually means "the opinion of one of those three". More clarity about the process would help.. dave souza, talk 12:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't habitually agree with Slim Virgin but I have to say in this instance I think she is absolutely right. There is no reason why we shouldn't have anyone close the FARs and I think there should be some written guidance on how to etc. Somethings might be done better by a small tight team (e.g. the schools wikipedia) but that isn't the wikipedia way. --BozMo talk 12:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how you can have anyone closing FARs and just one person closing FACs. They are the same administrative process. You either have it one person or anyone, but not both. DrKiernan 12:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SlimVirgin: Thanks, that does clarify things for me. One other question, if you would: it seems that there are two sets of issues here: one about roles and process, and one about specific incidents and behaviours. Assuming for the sake of this question that the complaints are justified, in which direction do you feel the causation runs? Does the unacceptable behaviour lead to the roles being inappropriate? Or is the de jure delegation such a departure from appropriate methods that it encourages the behaviour? I ask because I'm not clear that there is any connection; and if no connection exists it would seem natural to separate the discussions into one about civility and one about process. (To be clear about my own opinion: I haven't yet decided whether there's any problem with the current roles, and I haven't yet followed up all the links to the incidents you mention above, so I have no opinion on those yet.) Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

These are good questions, Mike. As I see it, the problematic attitudes led to the creation of inappropriate roles, and those roles now reinforce the attitudes. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, Slim, although I don't think it's particularly relevant to this dispute. But it seems to me that in the past 18 months the amount of work required to produce an FA has increased markedly, with very little improvement in the ultimate products -- most of this work has been expended in a way that is not very useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have a sense that there's a degree of "make work" going on, though that's perhaps very unfair. But I do wonder about the point of so much process, which tends to feed off itself. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't make myself clear about ALoan. I meant that he quit the project, not merely that he stopped contributing to FAs. I've talked with him, but won't quote him here, because of the assumption of privacy. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen's comments are right on. As for "DrKiernan," saying that the solution was "looks good to me," that is directly at odds with the foolishness of FAR that he praises ("discussing the issues"). I defy people to click on the link she provided. "This should be FAR because it has no citations and the prose is awful," and then we get an answer "looks fine?" Oh, I don't think so. The charges are so utterly absurd that it would take not a saint, but a positive fool, not to note their inanity. Further, if we then see people are doing their common practice of nominating to FAR because it just passed FAC with an objection they themselves had made, and if that's one of the "experts," and if it's obviously a witless misreading of the standards of FA, it would be wrong not to point out how ridiculous it is. The nominators, of course, have nothing if not self-satisfaction and purity of virginal ignorance, and so they will answer back -- always in deferral (please see standard page, then talk page to FAC, then the talk page of the project drive page, then the talk:FAC:talk:FAR page, as we settled this to our own satisfaction positively days ago) -- and then we have experts vs. self-inflated "experts on what is an FA." Of course the pages turn to acrimony. Why can the answer not be for the -bots that nominate and the fools who are trying to change to make themselves the owners of the entire project page to say, "I was wrong?" Wouldn't that work?

It is absolutely obvious that what is going on here is an inappropriate, policy violating reversion by SandyGeorgia that was based on some non-consensual assertion of power. Let's make it very, very clear: silence is not assent, and assent is not consent. Volunteers are the backbone of Wikipedia, but that also means peer oversight of each and every action. "Marksell is the only one who usually closes" is fine. "Marksell is the only one who may close" is absolutely not. Geogre 12:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To be clear Geogre, "Marksell is the only one who usually closes" is the only claim I've ever made. I have never wheel warred with another admin and I never intend to, and I've never claimed some final prerogative. If you want to make a decision on an outstanding review right now, I won't complain.

(And thanks Piotrus, below). Marskell 13:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite. You're not in the docket by any means, here. While I disagree fundamentally with some of your objectives, that's all in the realm of the usual disagreement that people will have. You were not the one trying to overturn others, not creating the friction, and volunteering, as you have done, is nothing but laudable. Geogre 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents: SandyGeorgia's reversion of SlimVirgin's close was inappropriate, and her understanding of the process is in error, and it is mystifying to me that anyone would think that this sort of bureaucratic thread-pulling is anything other than harmful. Re-reverting SandyGeorgia's unclose is/was the proper move. Nandesuka 13:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification again. I have never reverted SlimVirgin's close. Can we try to be accurate, please ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For information, it was BozMo's close that SandyGeorgia reverted. There had already been a lot of comment from SandyGeorgia, telling people off for not following the rules, and as Slim has pointed out, insulting the editors. The ID article was brought to FAR by an editor who wanted to make improvements to the prose, and met resistance from others who thought the meaning of the prose was being altered. The discussion attracted pov pushers wanting to change the meaning rather than the style of the article, and reached (barely) 2 weeks when BozMo evidently felt there was no consensus to take it to FARC and closed as keep. Not realising the (unwritten?) procedures. .. dave souza, talk 13:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarifiction: The premature closure was endorsed by Raul (above, on this talk page), as incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Further clarification; there's no indication this closure was "premature". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, as an author of 20 FAs, several of which has been through FAR(C)s, I'd like to say that my experience here has always been positive. One could perhaps wish for more editing of the reviewed articles by the reviewers, but we all have to prioritize our time. If I ever stop contributing to FAs or this project, it will certainly not be because of any problems with FAR(C), but because of the growing torrent of incivility - one that has unfortunately spilled to FACs, but as far as my experience goes, not to FAR(C). Thus I'd like to extend my complete support to the FAR(C) team - thank you, guys, for the hard work. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one out of ten. <shrug> If you're content with FAR/FARC, it's good. As for "incivility," I see that blooming in technicolor from FAR/FARC, and not from the authors. I see it vomited forth from power grabs, whether here or on the subject of nations. I see it coming from ever increasing attempts at silencing peer review and peer input and assertions of power. I find all these Eddie Haskell routines to be the height of invidiousness, the most effective way of creating a clique rather than an encyclopedia, and the best way of replicating anti-democratic aristocracies of them all. What do I know, though? Geogre 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also for the record, as the main contributor / author of one FA, it was an interesting experience I've no wish to repeat without particular motivation. My interest is in article content, others have FAs as a priority and good luck to them. If you want more editors to contribute FAs, avoid making the process unnecessarily unpleasant. As you say, civility is essential. This was the first FARC I've participated in, and it was marked by confusion and a, let's say, sharp tone from SandyGeorgia who was acting as organiser at the same time as making pointed comments about the article and by implication the editors who'd worked on the article. Perhaps just the way it seemed to me. .. dave souza, talk 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Various replies

Hm, another fascinating thread. First, to respond to one thing directly: I have had nothing but cordial relations with ALoan, who is certainly one of our best contributors. I agree with Y. that assigning motives is unfair. "Hurtful" is an inactionable because no change to process is going to make people more or less civil. We can't force good behaviour through our FAR instructions.

If the process itself encourages or facilitates the hurtful behavior, which I feel this does, then it needs to be addressed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Is nine out of ten good enough?" Let me reformulate: if this is thrown open to everyone or even every admin do people think that the amount of troublesome reviews is going to decrease? Some how I doubt it. I think you'll have more revert warring, more COI accusations, more of Tom whispering to Dick by e-mail that he'd like a favourable closure, and more messes in general.

Slim suggests that the example of Raul closing FACs alone is irrelevant. I simply don't understand that. Leaving aside the people, here is the question of principal: is it sensible to limit FA closures to one or two people? If it's sensible at FAC why is it not sensible at FAR? And those questions are distinct from my edits to FAR. I care much less about my doing it than about than about keeping the process sound and the content improvement happening. If another trustworthy editor with experience on the FAs and moderate views on the arguable issues (read 1c) were doing it, I'd have no problem. I think every admin is a bad idea. If we do decide on every admin, then we need to go WT:FAC and ask whether it should be thrown open as well. Marskell 13:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul is trusted by the community as a bureaucrat, an arbitrator, and as FA director, so the issue of who closes FAs is not the problem. If he were closing FARs and FARCs too, there would also be no problem, but he's only one person and can't do everything. Also, there's a difference in significance between deciding to promote, and having a discussion about how and whether to improve.

Marskell, what in your view is the difference between closing an FAR and an AfD? Why can't we treat them alike, in terms of who gets to close? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually have one technical difference, noted above: DRV. Now what's interesting is that my understanding is that FARC started to be DRV. I.e. a single person (Raul) demoted, or didn't, and then, when things were on the line, there would be a discussion. However, it has elevated itself (since I don't want to accuse people of anything wrong) to becoming AfD, but with extremely few participants. Each of the authors hauled before FAR/FARC feel all alone, complain bitterly, and "are assured" that these things "have been decided" and "are referred" to pages and pages away from the deliberation. No assessment of whether this is the best way forward "has been" held, that I know of. It may, in fact, be the best idea. It may, in fact, be the case that we're committing atrocities by still having stars on Lord Emmsworth articles. It may not be, too. SandyGeorgia and LuciferMorgan have averred that it is really quite bad that these old articles are still FA's without review. There is, therefore, an inherent motivation for them to be highly involved on these pages. Those of us who do not agree with that have a choice of either showing up for every FAR to say, "You guys are nuts" or spending our time on more pleasant things. The consequence is that there can be an echo chamber of like voices that can distort its own founding sentiments.

However, if we do go to an explicit AfD model, we really need to have an appeal process. Geogre 14:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Apart from voting at FARC a "Remove" or "Keep", I'm not actually involved at FAR that much anymore Geogre. The arguing here is enough to tire anyone out, including me. If you check the Intelligent design FAR, I never even commented. Your opinion gives the impression you feel that I'm one of the main instigators at FAR - the truth is, whenever mine and your opinion has differed as concerns a specific FAR, Marskell has usually ruled in your favour (by community consensus). As concerns old articles, each should be judged on their own merits. If they meet what is deemed by consensus as current FA standards, then great. If not, they're open for review at FAR for the whole community to debate upon. It's a shame that your opinions of FAR are discoloured by our previous disagreements - my opinions at FAR are disagreed with by FAR regulars sometimes too. There isn't any collective entity - it's just all people with their own opinions. Sometimes they're similar opinions, sometimes they're not. LuciferMorgan 14:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm..FARs generally have had a helluva lot more work put into them and they take a whole lot longer to read and work on and require alot better handle on FA criteria to assess consensus for a start. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that Raul is trusted by the community? Where do you get your consensus? There hasn't been a vote on whether he is trusted, so your assertion that "the issue of who closes FAs is not a problem" is simply untrue. There's been many debates on Raul's position in the past, and many on different sides of the fence. It certainly isn't irrelevant, no matter how much supporters of Raul would like it to be. LuciferMorgan 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was ratified as featured article director in August 2004 (unanimously: with 17 people supporting me, and 4 or 5 saying that we should have an election if someone else wanted the position, which no one did). This is not to mention my adminship request (unanimous - 2-0), my bureaucratic request (near unanimous - roughly 50-2, if memory serves), and my election and subsequent re-election to the arbitration committee. I think it's fair to say I have earned the trust of the community. Raul654 13:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Can everyone vote then so we can see how many people sit where? It ain't consensus yet but will get us alot closer than musing over motives of past editors I've had no contact with (no disrespect to ALoan but I don't feel like trawling thru diffs to find out) - this is what I mean about burying consensus in text whether wittingly or unwittingly cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your credentials Raul, but even you know that you have your critics. We both could agree there are people on opposite sides of the fence as to your position as FAC director. "Earned the trust of the community" suggests everyone wholeheartedly is happy with your FAC decisions, but this isn't the case. Some meet approval, while some are debated upon - the FAC restarts are a talking example, which instigated differing debate recently. LuciferMorgan 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul certainly is trusted by the community. I was never arguing otherwise. The question again is the principal not the person: why have one process at FAC and the opposite process at FAR?

We can't have the same process because there's only one Raul, and his position is very dependent upon the trust the community has placed in him, in election after election for various positions of responsibility. The attempt at linkage is inappropriate because the situation at FAR isn't similar at all. There we have two self-selected people who haven't gone through any election other than for adminship, and whose selection process was invisible, and is now being objected to. There's no denying there are issues here, because several people are pointing them out. Therefore, it needs to change. The question is only how, so perhaps we could discuss that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re AfD, the main difference is two orders of magnitude in volume. It's simply impossible for any one person to look after AfD. And...there are serious systemic problems with AfD (that probably can't be eliminated given the volume)—votestacking and inconsistent closing come to mind. If this is open to all admins are we going to start talking about keepist and removist closers (God help me for writing that). That's an outcome that would be awful for FAR. Marskell 14:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, your argument is boiling down to: wouldn't all this be a lot easier if Wikipedia weren't an open wiki? True, but it is. Therefore, we can't have a situation where two editors decide for themselves that only they are allowed to do something. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> I see no problem with Raul's position as director, but this stushie has arisen because one of the appointed (?) heirs has taken it amiss when an uninvolved admin acting in good faith responded to requests that the FAR be closed to end the disruption. If a select corps is needed to close FARs, then they should be appointed by the community and openly listed so everyone knows what to do when the outcome of a FAR seems obvious, and disputes belonging on the article talk page are being spread across three pages. ... dave souza, talk 14:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

With the notable exception of LM and Tony1, one of the few things that wikipedians do seem to agree on is that Raul does a pretty good job in difficult circumstances. What is odd, is that whilst our FA director is responsible for promoting articles, the appeal of that decision - FAR(C) is left to anyone who can be bothered to show up and then the consensus is judged by.....well we're not quite sure. It seems to me that the ultimate responsibility for what is or isn't an FA should remain with the director - if he choses to delegate the decision then fine, but that will have to be explicit and weighed against the likely community response to any appointment. --Joopercoopers 14:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe - you must have read my mind. See below (which I posted following an edit conflict with you). Raul654 14:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Way back in 2004 (back when I created the FARC page and wrote its initial rules) I did all of the FARC closings myself, along with FAC noms. Marskell and Joey31 gradually evolved into the roles they currently occupy, as de-facto closers, with me only doing occasional closing FARC/FAR noms. I have always considered them to have been tacitly delegated this job by myself - I never explicitly said for them to do it, but as they became more active on FAR, I became less so. That's how I see the situation. Raul654 14:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's good (and I'm happy with the current situation) but we have a situation where the FAR page differs from practice which has partly resulted in the reams of text here. I figured it'd be good to settle in one way or the other now so that this didn't happen again. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with two people as a matter of fact doing most of the closures. What is damaging is the claim that only these two are allowed to, and that any other admin who closes will be reverted. Bear in mind that the ID FAR was closed because of the state of the debate, and the admin who closed it was acting in the interests of the project. It's not for SandyGeorgia to decide otherwise because of a rule that no one has ever heard of, especially as she was one of the more aggressive critics at the FAR. I therefore think we need to extend who is allowed to close to make sure this doesn't happen again. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame Joopercoopers that you feel I have a negative opinion as concerns Raul's job at FAC. I've had three FACs thus far, and on those he has done a sterling job handling them in my opinion. I'm just trying to illustrate that no man's decisions can be agreed with 100% of the time. Sometimes I disagree with Raul, sometimes I disagree with Tony1, and sometimes I agree with them. That was all I was trying to say. Everyone has their own opinion, and no persons decisions can ever be met with 100% approval - that goes for my decisions, or anyone else's. LuciferMorgan 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]I agree, it's why we need good leadership - rather unusually in this experiment of consensus and 'community', in the FA director there's a postion of power with the responsibility to not just maintain standards, but to make all feel they are listened to and respected. That you won't always agree is a certainty, but a civilised community accept this, because they know that next time, things might go in their favour. The question is do Marskell and Joey31 enjoy a similar respect? --Joopercoopers 14:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion they do enjoy a similar respect, but that's an opinion. A lot more people are familiar with FAC than they are with FAR, so the only time they come to FAR is if an article they edit is being reviewed. Sometimes this doesn't set people in the right mood. LuciferMorgan 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Trying to find something between opening it up to all, and having only two people do it, given the objections. My suggestion is that we create an FAR page on how to close, which will give instructions and advice, and will list editors who are allowed to close. People will submit their names to Raul, and he will add their names to the list (or tell them to go ahead and add themselves), so long as he's satisfied they won't cause problems. That is, the bar should not be set very high, but the list also shouldn't be too long. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm all right with this proposal, except for the "bar will not be set high" part. In effect, this proposal is that I should explicitly designate people to do FAR rather than the tacit system we have now. That's fine by me. However, my overriding concern is that the process is consistent, and that is something that that is inherently contrary to having lots of people do closings. Raul654 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul, it would be up to you to decide how high to set it, based on the need for consistency and therefore a smallish list. As for the consistency aspect, would Marskell be willing to start a page describing how best to close them (how to judge the consensus, which templates to use, and so on)? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bar will not be set high" suggests that degradated FAs will be allowed to retain their star in their current state, and not be subject to current standards. As far as I am aware, there was a debate on this and the consensus was the old FAs would be held against today's standards. I don't like this proposal at all, and still cannot see what issue SlimVirgin has with Marskell and Joelr31's record in closing FARs - I think they have the most experience, are most qualified, and do a better job than any other administrators. Opening it up to everyone else is rife to cause problems, and also conflict of interest. LuciferMorgan 14:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there was a debate on this and the consensus was the old FAs would be held against today's standards. - The requirement for inline citations was added in March of 2005. The question, then, was what to do with older FAs that did not meet this new requirement. Four months of debate followed, which was resolved in July when I decided that it would be our policy to hold older FAs to the newer standard. Raul654 14:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. LuciferMorgan 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant the bar for which editors would be accepted as closers would not be set too high, but as Raul said above, it needs to be set high enough to ensure consistency of approach. How could allowing other closers cause a conflict of interest? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Easily could, and will. It would mean that administrators can close FARS involving articles they've personally contributed to, or which their circle of friends have personally contributed to. That's why FAC has only one director instead of 10 or 20, otherwise articles which may not fully meet FA status may get promoted. Same would apply for FAR - articles which may not meet current standards may be kept due to conflict of interest. LuciferMorgan 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If we end up going forward with this proposal, I have absolutely no intention of appointing anyone but Marskell or Joel31 for the foreseeable future. The ID FAR aside, I'm generally pretty happy with how FAR is run, and I don't see any reason to change that. Raul654 15:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then that proposal won't work, because the point is we need to open it up. There are too many objections to only those two editors doing it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's easily dealt with by asking people not to close FARs on articles they or their friends have written or expressed strong views on. What we saw at the FAR ID was a clear COI, in my view, with SandyGeorgia leading the criticism, then reverting the "keep" closure so that Marskell could be the one to close instead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: not necessarily correct. Because Marskell was involved in helping bring ID to status, it's likely that Joelr31 would have made the closing decision. At any rate, it was in the article's best interest to have a clean, undisputed close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

FARs are usually closed by Marskell, which has been procedure here for quite some time. There was no conflict of interest - Sandy was just making sure that FAR procedure is followed in my opinion. When anyone has been allowed to close FAR in the past, it has descended into chaos. If Marskell closed with a "Keep", she wouldn't have reverted this - as far as I have been aware, Marskell and Joelr31 are the FAR equivalent of Raul and I have no problem with this.

As concerns it being easily dealt with - firstly, this proposal isn't needed in any sense, and secondly simply asking admins not to close FARS their friends have written won't work. Who would judge who has a conflict of interest? This is a situation that isn't necessary, and this proposal isn't needed. LuciferMorgan 15:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I don't really think that "consistency" is the idol others do. I would rather be right than consistent, but I would like for the ground rules and the expectations to be clear and coherent. Those who find their work subjected to these tribunals should be able to say, "What you're saying is not applicable," and the people closing should be able to say, "The following four objections are not actionable." I would rather the people be chosen from those most dedicated to quality of article than those most interested in uniform look, for example. If the person were an academic, I'd be even happier, but that way lies the expert editing that we reject. Geogre 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean you'd like to know why an objection is or is not actionable? That's a fair expectation, and I think it's better if a person's decision in closing is made coherent so that others know why that specific decision was made. I still don't like this proposal being offered by SlimVirgin though. LuciferMorgan 14:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm very pleased for Marskell and Joel to be appointed.
• I don't think appointees should have to be worker ants (sysops).
• I think it's essential that avoidance of conflict of interest be worked into the written principals for closing FARs and FACs. I can compose a draft text for this if people are interested. Tony 15:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to have something about FAR and FARC, but there shouldn't be linkage to FAC, for the reasons we've discussed — basically that Raul has the community's trust to do what he does. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

ID FAR closed once and for all

I've closed the Intelligent design FAR. It was having a markedly corrosive effect on both the article, the article's authors, and the FA process in general, so I decided that a restart would do far more harm than good. Raul654 14:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. .. dave souza, talk 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wording

The easiest and shortest wording on the project page could be something like, "FARs are only closed by the FA director or his/her designated proxies." DrKiernan 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a genuine proposal, or a sarcastic comment? Sorry to ask this, but it's best I know before making a response. LuciferMorgan 14:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a genuine proposal. Please do not make overtly sarcastic comments in reply, as I have a thin skin and am easily offended. DrKiernan 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic DrKiernan - I respect you as an editor, so please don't get the wrong impression. I was just curious as to your suggestion since nothing has been decided upon yet - it's just being proposed at the moment. LuciferMorgan 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. It was a comment meant generally rather than to you specifically. I wanted to get in quick with a short, sharp suggestion in order to preempt the creation of yet another lengthy addition to the instructions. DrKiernan 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pleased by it. It really is a little too close to apostolic succession for my tastes. Raul is a good FA director, but that doesn't mean that he possesses Bush's gifts for looking into souls. I'm sorry for having no suggestion of my own to make, but proxy designation needs to be understood as designation for a place, time, or task, rather than a beatification. Geogre 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"but that doesn't mean that he possesses Bush's gifts for looking into souls" - (Off-topic) Ok, I admit, this cracked me up. Raul654 14:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I got a million of them, and they're all from him. (What I was getting at, to get back to topic, is, "BillyBob can close this one, or SallyMae can close that one," rather than, "This is my angel, and as you treat h/h/it, so you have treated me.") Geogre 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Options - 1. some type of RFA (god no!) 2. Appointment 3. Lottery 4. An arbitrary bar - any user with X FA's 5. A gladiatorial contest of wits 6. Anyone until they are boo-ed off by consensus........ --Joopercoopers 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea to limit it to people with a certain number of FAs. That would cut the list down dramatically, and it'd also mean they'd have a better idea of what they were doing, and of the need to be careful of people's feelings. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's my prefered option although it's trickier with collaborations - who decides who was the 'principle author' - it's not always clear. --Joopercoopers 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The easiest, simplest option with the least instruction creep is appointment. DrKiernan 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If any user with X FAs was arbitrarily barred, that would mean Raul would end up barred by that rule as well. That wouldn't work since most administrators have got an FA or two to their credit, so hardly anyone would be eligible. LuciferMorgan 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that I have something like 9 or 10 FAs to my credit, right? Raul654 15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC) - Whoops, you misread Jcoopers comment above and then I misread yours. Jcoopers proposed that in order to close an FAR, you have to have a certain number of FAs to your credit. You thought (I think) he meant that any user with more than a certain number was "barred" from closing a FAR (he meant bar as in a minimum requirement). Raul654 15:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, sorry about that - a minimum amount of FAs as a bar wouldn't work. That'd come across as elitist - that'd mean Emsworth would be most eligible, even though most of his FAs are being reviewed periodically (that's not a criticism of Emsworth, before anyone replies). Most big FA cotributors I've spoken to seem to be happier writing FAs than becoming involved in the actual process of FAC / FAR anyway. LuciferMorgan 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really it just replaces free-for-all with meritocacy --Joopercoopers 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I have 3 FAs to my credit, and even though I don't want the job, I don't think people would be queuing up to approve me in such a role (even though I know FAC rather well). It should be more than a simple FA count. LuciferMorgan 15:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"It should be more than a simple FA count" - I consider this discussion almost entirely academic in that sense. Either it's by appointment as described by SV and/or Dr. DrKiernan or we keep the system as it currently exists. (And if it's the former, I intend for it to be done in such a way that it doesn't significantly disturb the way FAR operates) Other proposals are academic. I don't want to over-engineer the wheel. Raul654 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since, as far as I can tell, no has has seriously objected to Dr. Kiernan's proposal (which would not substantially alter how FAR works) I've gone ahead and implemented this suggestion. Raul654 16:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm intercutting, but I was AFK. Yes, I object without any clarification. I object seriously, without any clarification. I really don't want royalty. No guru, no method, you know. I don't have a problem with designation for particulars, or even with the "anyone until there is an objection," but life peers are a mess. The reason you work so well, in my opinion, is your antiquity. You're somewhat immune to the fashions and waves of grasping hands by virtue of simply being at it for a long time, but I see a huge number of Eddie Haskell's, and what they won't say to you, they do say to others. I don't like the idea of everlasting grace dispensed by human hands. (Sorry, SV, for cutting in front of you.) Geogre 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I'm going to remove that, because it essentially ignores this entire discussion. Too many people are objecting to the current set-up for it to be feasible to continue with it. The situation has to be opened up to some extent. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not follow. Dr. Keirnan's suggestion was exactly equivalent to yours, sans the "low bar" provisio, which I said I didn't like, and you said was entirely up to my judgement ("Raul, it would be up to you to decide how high to set it") Therefore, I assumed you would agree with adding it (Dr. Keirnan's wording) to this page. Raul654 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposal has the virtue of making explicit something which was apparently understood only by the few. In the particular case of ID a debate was repeatedly going off topic and becoming a damaging opportunity for pov warriors. Requests were made for the debate to be closed, with no apparent response. Obviously it's the responsibility of the FA director to ensure that debates are monitored to ensure that such problems are kept within acceptable limits. .. dave souza, talk 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul, what people are objecting to (among other things) is that only Marskell and Joel31 are allowed to close. Therefore, adding precisely that to the page ignores all the objections, and indeed this entire discussion. There are too many objections, all from regular editors and admins, to ignore, so we do need to open it up. We can either open it entirely to any editor or admin, or we can restrict it according to whatever formula you want to suggest, but the list has to expand. We also need clear guidelines for how the things are closed, because currently editors have no idea what to expect. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The above simply isn't true - please stop saying "what people object to" SlimVirgin, and please be more correct and say what you are personally objecting to. You're voicing your own opinion, and you aren't a representative from some kind of collective entity. The "people" as you call them will voice their own personal opinions, and don't need someone else trying to speak for them. LuciferMorgan 16:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR is not perfect, and the ID FAR was an example of the system going really bad. However, it is important to remember that:

• The ID FAR went really wrong because of the confluence of a number of factors: The nature of the article is that it attracts POV pushers, who used the nom as a smokescreen to attack the article; the siege mentality in the article regulars that this constant attack from POV pushers has engendered; that I wasn't around to intervene as much, owing to the internship I'm doing; the misunderstanding about how closings work; etc. The ID FAR is clearly not the common case.
• FAR, by its very nature, is a hostile place. FAC is about giving people credit for a job well done; FAR is about, in essence, taking it back.

With that said, I agree with the others above that FAR works well in most cases. Not perfectly, mind you - but as well as can be expected. It saddens me greatly to hear that good users are giving up on the FA process, and I an open to any suggestions to improve it - especially to prevent people from quitting on it. However, changing who closes the FAR will not fix any of the problems I have just lain out. In fact, I think it will tend to exacerbate some existing ones, and create new ones which we have not seen to date. Raul654 16:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It will alleviate the sense that a very small clique has taken over the process, has substantially increased the instruction creep, is attempting to close the process off to "outsiders," attempting to force their own ideas on the policies and guidelines, and has driven off several good editors, and generally discouraged people from writing FAs (among other concerns) because of process fetishism and rudeness. These issues have been raised repeatedly for about a year that I'm aware of, and probably longer. The ID FAR was just the last straw.

One thing that would help, in my view, is if SandyGeorgia were to take a break from being involved in any FA process, at least for a few weeks. Perhaps if she could use that time to write some FAs herself on subjects where she has to start the research from scratch, it would give her a greater appreciation of the work involved. I don't expect her to pay attention to this suggestion, but I'm making it anyway, because I think it would help a lot.

Failing that, the next best solution is to involve others in the process. But something has to change, because the entire process is being brought into disrepute. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to interpret your comment that I should write an article from scratch to have a greater appreciation of the work involved. Not only have I done that, but I wrote almost every daughter article, stub, and related link for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome. There is essentially *no* missing content on Wiki in this topic area because I built every single piece of it from almost nothing. And I won't be writing another FA this summer (I have 3 planned, and was working to help bring autism back to status before all of this became a timesink), as real life will take me away from the internet in a month or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But Sandy, you already knew about that topic, and so far as I know, it's your only FA. I'm talking about starting from scratch, in an area you know little or nothing about, and writing and researching it yourself. It can be a huge amount of work, and to get to FAC with it (or FAR/FARC) and be abused is heartbreaking. It sometimes seems as though you have little appreciation of that, and I think you need to apologize to the ID editors for some of your comments. But I'm glad to hear you're taking a break. That alone will help. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not a medical professional, so yes I did need to start from scratch to write a medical article, and in those days, there was no one on the Medicine Project to help me. I can't fathom what benefit it would be to Wiki for me to write content in areas that others know better, but I help on scores of articles—or I did, until this timesink. I certainly don't know much about autism or schizophrenia or any other FA I've helped bring through. Please apply a consistent standard where apologies are needed; Tim Vickers and Tony Souter use their real names on Wikipedia, and they've been maligned professionally by a person who uses a nym.[17] IMO, for people who use nyms to say the kinds of things that were said about them rises to an intolerable level. This has been my concern for two weeks; it's still not retracted or addressed. It undermines Wiki's code of conduct for an admin to make those kinds of statements about fellow editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord, Sandy, can you write anything without talking about how many wounds you suffer for your incomparable virtue? I'm sorry, but we had been talking about closing FAR's and your improper reversion of a closing and your assertion that only three people may do that. Instead of ever once apologizing for the error, admitting the error, or relaxing your fingers on the throat of FAR/FARC, you want to go back to how dreadfully you have been treated. As they say, I'm sorry you feel bad. Geogre 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to undertake actual dispute resolution if you genuinely want to see this addressed (I imagine that process would come to nothing given the nature of the offense) but complaining about it here isn't doing anything, except increasing the likelihood that anyone searching for Tony or Tim will encounter FM's remarks. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

One large reply at the bottom of the page, so as not to make multiple entries. I don't know where to locate the pieces and the diffs because I don't know bot terminology and processes and the bot is gone now; Raul can clarify. A while back, a group (I don't recall who) came up with the idea of using a bot to tally FAs and FFAs so that the numbers could appear on the main page and elsewhere. The bot didn't ultimately succeed, and I never supported it because, as I feared, it kept breaking. As part of that bot, Raul654 agreed to a "whitelist" that included Marskell and Joelr31 as people who could be counted at WP:FA for article removals, and Marskell, Joelr31 and myself as people who could be counted at WP:FFA for article additions. I'm sorry I don't know the terminology for this or where to locate the discussion. That was confirmation that Marskell and Joelr31 were designated by Raul to handle the Removes. I'd like to think it also indicates something about what Raul thought of me; because I'm not an admin, I had to be specifically added, and Raul and I have always gotten on fine, AFAIK. I have never seen either Marskell or Joelr31 close a conflict of interest (Marskell does the bulk of the work lately because Joelr31 had some off-Wiki committments, but when Marskell gets involved in restoring an article to status or if there's a potential COI, typically it's Joelr31 who makes the closing decision). They were not only given the trust; they've earned it since. I still have no answer (in spite of asking three times in three places) from FM about the original charges of a "group" trying to "undermine Raul". I've attempted over almost two weeks now to resolve that, and my last entry on FM's talk page, trying again to talk about this, is still unresolved.[18] My attempt to resolve it with him seems to be part of what led to all of this, since it came up as soon as I posted to his talk page in my third attempt at dialogue. I thought admins were supposed to calm rather than inflame; a response from FM all along might have helped this not escalate to where it is now. I still don't know why Tim Vickers was rolled into his charges, but it all seems to have started because I defended him at the administrator's noticeboards.[19][20] Now the good work of Marskell and Joelr31 at FAR/FARC is being questioned. I don't understand this. Discussion of a very good system that has turned fractious a few times is turning into an enormous timesink, but FM still hasn't explained this "group" allegation. I wish the FM charges would be addressed, and the FAR process would be left intact, because it does a very good thing most of the time; Marskell and Joelr31 have given no cause for their actions to be questioned, yet we still don't know why FM questions them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to bring up FM again. This has nothing to do with him. You can see for yourself the number of people who've expressed concern on this page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about FM, it's about the FAR process. Let's focus on that. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the misunderstanding could have been averted if he would just dialogue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this and address the issues people have raised on this page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought I had; there's been no problem with Marskell or Joelr31, they were endorsed by Raul, and we shouldn't change a good process (whose goal is to restore as many articles as possible and avoid pile-on Removes in the Review phase) because of one fractious FAR complicated by a number of unrelated factors, some of which might have been avoided via dialogue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than pointing fingers and trying to assign blame, it would be better to just use this page for discussing the FAR process; that is, after all, the purpose of the page. A user RFC is the place to discuss another editors' behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You said that two thirds of articles fail the FAR/FARC process, so if the aim is to save as many as possible, things aren't working very well. For example, the page said that no consensus on FAR meant it moved to FARC, rather than being rejected. That suggests a desire to remove the status of as many articles as possible. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that more or less (I haven't looked at the stats lately) 2/3 are FARC'd. In fact, things are working very well, because any time an editor gets involved in working on an article, it almost always retains status. The 2/3 that lose status are almost always older, abandoned FAs that receive no attention at all during FAR or FARC, even though we wait a month. Many of the "saves" are attributed to the maligned "FAR regulars" who periodically pick up an article of interest and work together to bring it to status. I won't start naming how many editors have done that, because surely I'll leave someone out who may feel slighted, but there are many, and we work together. On the 2/3 that lose status, there's generally little we can do, as they are older articles, the authors are gone from Wiki, we don't have the sources, etc. The 1/3 that we restore requires a lot of effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the percentage that is FARC'd or Kept has remained constant under the new system and the old, which was more or less a "vote and kick 'em out" process. The new system was designed to be deliberatively slow, with extensive notifications to relevant parties, in the hopes someone will take an interest and restore the article to featured status. Some of the articles that come forward are in such bad shape that they would be immediately FARC'd under a different system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If the percentage kept is the same under the new system as under the old, what is the benefit of the new one? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The new process has been in place since it was decided ("it was decided"—I wasn't around then, I don't know by whom or what process, but Raul discusses it above) that older FAs would be held to newer standards. Hence, the new combined FAR/FARC had to process over 500 articles that potentially were uncited. Considering how many of them are uncited, the percentage of Removes theoretically should have risen. That the percentage hasn't risen is due to the efforts of the maligned "FAR regulars". FAR allows more time for older articles to come to compliance because of the citation change. Most of FAR work is on these older articles; Intelligent design is not the norm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A new thread (sorry)

(It's just hard to digest dozens of new comments)

General thoughts. I have no problem making the closing rationale more explicit. I'm travelling, but can draft a page soon enough detailing the thought process for FAR. The only really critical point has been this: is someone working on the article? Has someone indicated they intend to work on the article? If so, we leave it open. Five days, five weeks—no problem, if people are working. If it's overdue already and a couple of weeks have gone by with nothing in the history, then it is closed, because no process can be indefinite. But I really try to be fair and I actually try to close in-line with what I think Raul would do at FAC; Joel (whose editing has declined after a job move) has done the same, in my experience. Thus, it's not just closing but tracking FARs; stopping by with "How are things going here?" or "Let's keep this on hold until mav is back" etc. It's not all just shouting—I can cite dozens examples of good collaborative work over the last year. If you stop by and only see something like the ID FAR, you think it all bad. But go and look at the keeps in the archives; those are why I edit FAR, and I know the same is true of others.

If I would offer a proposal, it would be simpler: if someone wants to help, then they should come to this talk page, talk about it, and then we can ping Raul if the person is committed to aiding the process. I would say that if Raul is trusted enough to handle a page as big as FAC, then he should be trusted to "tacitly delegate" at FAR. If he and I are on the same page, and I believe we are, then I'll go along doing what I've done. Marskell 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts. Firstly, picking up on SlimVirgin's point about the appearance of trying to delist articles, as of 14:29, 20 July 2007, the statement read "If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed. 2. If deficiences are not addressed, the article is placed on the featured article removal candidate (FARC) list." This was changed to "If the consensus is that the article does not meet FA standard, the article is placed on the FARC list. No consensus for a change in status means the article continues as an FA." In my opinion that's an immense improvement. For a newcomer to the process, the old version seemed to invite a pile-on of opponents to the article's content to try to get it demoted. The second point is, are two enough to monitor articles? There were several requests at the ID discussion to end the agony, and the points you've just made would have been immensely helpful .. dave souza, talk 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dave, we tried over and over; there was so much hollering, no one was listening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but looking at the latter part of the discussion such reassuring comments (for those wanting to keep FA) don't jump out at me. From "If people are going to give substantial objections they should have specific details, not just pithy objections or attempts to game the system. Can we get this process over with? JoshuaZ 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)" onwards there were several such pleas, but no helpful advice. The next comment I've found from yourself is at "Break" where you're discussing reverting the close, without any indication that evidence of efforts to improve could mean a likely keep or that the emerging consensus (as tallied by one editor) appeared unlikely to result in FA delisting. Keeps us on our toes, but if it helped anyone it was those hoping to delist the article for religious or political reasons. .. dave souza, talk 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I tried having a look through the archived FAR to refresh my vague memories and make sure I wasn't being too unfair to you. Certainly, Marskell's comments don't differ much from "In short, this FA review is completely unnecessary. Raul654 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)" However, they seem rather different from "The lead alone is an embarassment to FA status; there is also an external link farm, and incorrectly formatted citations. I avoided this when it was at FAC, but there are clear issues here. Looks like Wiki's worst example of how not to hammer out an NPOV compromise. Continue review; try to fix the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)", "This article is an embarrassment to FA.... Sloppy prose... This thing is dripping with POV and sloppiness; when six and seven citations are needed to source statements, it seems apparent that NPOV hasn't been attained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)" and "...The issues with this article highlight the problems that can occur when an article is promoted without consensus. This is a a process problem as much as an NPOV, MOS, etc. problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)" When you say you tried over and over, is that what you meant? ... dave souza, talk 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I object to the tribunalization of FA. What the directions quoted above assume is that there are always substantial deficiencies. Indeed, if a paper is not an F, you haven't graded it hard enough, as one crusty professor told me, once. I can fail every FA. I can fail every article any person writes. In fact, it's easy to find "deficiencies." Any fool can, and many fools do, find "deficiencies," but "deficiencies" are not a reason for taking something from FA status. "Not being like we do 'em now" is not justification. There needs to be a failing that is substantive, not cosmetic, and which imperils the information, not merely the sensibilities or preferences of people in love with their style sheets. FAR starts with a presumption of guilt and then demands that all objections (those that never would have been actionable on FAC included) be removed. That is not, most emphatically not, a way to get to the best. It is a way to get to the least objectionable, not the best.
• Let the presumption go the other way. Any person listing on FAR needs to prove that the article is not good. I can, I assure you, go into WP:POINT mode and find the FA's of each editor present and show "deficiencies." My preference is to look for excellences. My preference is to live and let live. My preference is to celebrate the skill of our authors and praise this one's scope and that one's gifts.
• You'd better prove your accusations and prove that they're substantial. You do not get to be a secret policeman summoning suspects for your pleasure. I have been the victim of a POINT FAR, after all, and yet, even though everyone recognized that the nomination was in bad faith, it had to go, and go, and go, and go, and the end result was considerably worse (but it had superscripts!) than the original had been. Geogre 22:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why two processes?

I've asked this a few times, but either the question or answer got missed. Can someone say what the benefit is of having two processes, FAR and FARC, rather than just one i.e. one process, whatsoever called, to discuss and find ways to improve FAs, and to remove the status if they can't be improved? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Polls are evil. One thing about the split is that it causes confusion – several contributors "voted" at the ID FAR, and then the reprimands for doing that didn't help build a constructive atmosphere. Perhaps a better process would be to have no voting as such, but a focus on presenting concerns and suggested improvements for discussion. It would then be open to the "whitelisted closer" to invite discussion from participants on whether the process had succeeded, rather than going on to a new delisting process. .. dave souza, talk 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to answer in the thread above. The new system came about when the citation requirement was added. The idea was to *not* allow pile-on removes of these older articles, rather to allow time for them to come to standard. As long as someone is working on them, the article can stay in review. If not, it moves to FARC where Keep/Remove are declared, but even there, we hold them as long as possible if someone is working. We didn't want immediate FARC, as the older FAs would be immediate Removes. Does that answer the question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Two processes exist to make it not a vote. That's the basic idea. You comment and suggest in the first period, and you declare keep or remove in the second. In sum, it's supposed to be what exactly what Dave is saying. Marskell 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question. Why couldn't you have one process in which people comment, suggest changes, make changes, and then declare keep or remove depending on what happens? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't around under the old process, so I'm not sure why or by whom it was decided that a change would help process the 500+ potentially uncited articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the previous process users were supposed to initiate discussion of problmes at the article talk page before bringing an article to FARC (in the hopes of avoiding FARC altogether). The "FAR" stage replaces the talk page notification. While the initial step is now much more formal and bureaucratic, both processes used a two-stage system. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, again (to CP). And the thing was nobody was actually using the talk page. They were just "FARCing" it. The present system was created to address that. Plenty of time--a month to get people involved in general, and at least two weeks before the "vote". To go back to up-or-down keep or remove would be an enormous step backward, IMO. Marskell 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And the ID FAR has been, to my knowledge, the only time participants haven't understood that FAR is for "review"; this is not a common problem. To further clarify the closing, the procedure has been in place for at least a year. Marskell is in a different time zone than many of us. When the FAR was closed, not in accordance with the procedures in place for at least a year, I checked all the talk pages (Raul, Joelr31 and Marskell), saw no agreement to close, re-opened it like I would any other premature (according to the procedure in place) close, and immediately notified Raul, who endorsed the re-opening. Had Raul wanted to leave it closed, he could have asked me to undo it (the botification steps are tricky) and that would have been no problem to me. There is much misunderstanding here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you're defending what you did and spinning it a little. Raul didn't see what was going on, and as soon as he did, he endorsed the closure. You were one of the primary critics, and arguably the most aggressive. You then got into a personal dispute with one of the article writers. You therefore shouldn't have reverted the closure; in fact, it would be a good idea never to revert an admin's closure of anything, but especially not in a situation where you have expressed such strong views. Do you disagree? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I did not get into a personal dispute with another editor. He lobbed unfounded charges at me and three others, and hasn't even tried to follow up. I've tried to dialogue with him, that hasn't happened in spite of four approaches (my talk page, Raul's talk page, and twice on his talk page), and I don't see how I can be accused of a dispute when there's not even been a conversation. As to re-opening the FAR, I plead Pollyanna. I've always done the grunt work at FAR/FAC, the articles we're working on don't usually have such a toxic environment, it never occurred to me I'd be crucified. Of course, in hindsight, that was incredibly naive of me, and I wish I hadn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's worrying that you feel your only mistake was naivety. Do you see how your comments caused or contributed to the toxic atmosphere? "The lead alone is an embarassment to FA status ...," "Wiki's worst example of how not to hammer out an NPOV compromise ...," "Raul has expressed sentiments in this area that may reflect a conflict of interest ..." "This article is an embarrassment to FA ...," "This thing is dripping with POV and sloppiness ...," "Embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing ..." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Toxic environment? Anyone would think there was a multi-million dollar think tank trying to undermine the NPOV of the article! Just a minute.... More seriously, you might have appreciated that FM was under considerable pressure from the little known process you're so used to, and avoided contaminating the FAR with any further discussion about it. You've certainly shown dogged determination in demanding an apology (to others) on his talk page, but that's not relevant to trying to get the procedures here properly clarified and in the open to avoid future misunderstandings. .. dave souza, talk 20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Timing of FAR from promotion

Should the ID FAR have been accepted in the first place? It had only been promoted fairly recently, and as I recall, it was about one editor getting frustrated that attempts at rephrasing what had probably been the FA version were not getting consensus because editors thought they affected the meaning of the statements. The article was certainly receiving attention! .. dave souza, talk 19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict ) I don't know what today's instructions say (since they've been changed repeatedly in the last 24 hours), but previously, the instructions said that articles that came to FAR within three months of FAC were removed. Usually by me, sometimes by someone else. This was established so that FAR wouldn't be in the business of second guessing Raul/FAC. ID came to FAR immediately after FAC, and Raul removed it, as he should have. This was its second time at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Three months isn't long enough. There's no reason volunteers should have to go through that so soon after the rigmarole of FAC. And the instructions have not been "changed repeatedly" in the last 24 hours. Please stop the spinning. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the rules say 3 months but at 4 and a half months there's no discretion about exposing the article to attempts to delist it, and no attempt to consider if the grounds for review are trivial and already being discussed? In this obviously sensitive instance a RfC might have drawn in more editors without the nasty aspects of what inevitably developed. .. dave souza, talk 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Volunteers shouldn't be dragged through this unnecessarily. Can someone explain what the process is for accepting an FAR? Are all FAR noms accepted (opened) so long as they're at least three months after the promotion — and do they also need to be at least three months from the previous one? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

When someone nominates an FA for FAR, they must state why they feel the FA article needs a review of its status, and what deficiencies they feel the article has in terms of meeting the FA criteria.

The three month related thing you speak of is generally regarded as the standard, but as far as I am aware it isn't a rule (it's a guideline) set in stone. Extenuating circumstances, on rare occasion, may call for this rule to be disregarded. The FAR for B-movie is one example, though I'm pleased to say that involved editors addressed the concerns and it was closed as a keep. LuciferMorgan 02:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary 'til now

Given that people are refusing to vote, I'll estimate................ummmmm.............scanning down the page.......hmmmmmmmm......think most people are happy with status quo (I can only see SV and Geogre really objecting to the current process) so let's make the current arrangements official..........cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the process for appointing "proxies", haven't seen anyone with a better idea. However, there's a lot there about changing the process to make it more friendly and transparent, starting with the innovation of putting "FARs are only closed by the FA director or his/her designated proxies" on the project page, and I'd hope continuing with improving the wording to make it clear that discussions can be prolonged to give editors a chance to overcome any problems that a consensus agrees need addressing.

The other suggestions for improved procedures should also be considered, and for example the "voting" aspect could be reviewed. Maybe very few articles about contentious subjects make it to FA, but from the ID experience a procedure for damping down wild and distressing attempts to push for FARC and delisting looks worthwhile. Closing the process is one way of stopping a discussion that's out of hand, but it does not seem to be an option here. .. dave souza, talk 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There are better ideas, Dave. First, "until objection" would be nice if it were added to the proxies, and proxies don't get transitive virtues. I don't mind if Raul is fingering a person for a few closes, but the idea of permanent glory is pretty antithetical to our general project. Raul himself is an asterisk in this. (For what it's worth, I was opposed to the idea of an FA director when Raul was made it. I wasn't opposed to Raul in the job, if the job were going to exist, but I did not like a czar. It's not our way. The primary virtue of a czar is that it's not a cadre, as cadres are infinitely worse.) This inevitably creates a cadre, a clique, an aristocracy, a group with differential rights, and groups inevitably suffer from group dynamics. Ask any old person at Wikipedia (who has had a job, at any rate): groups compete and cooperate along selection criteria. It could not be worse than that. Even tyrants are better than self-justifying groups. Geogre 01:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm...yeah but these groups exist in wikipedia whether officially sanctioned or not. I can't imagine how FAC would work were there not one director...actually going by what you've just said if it weren't for Raul then there would be a group which in your eyes is worse than a tyrant so.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not quite true. Prior to Raul, there was the usual FAC and then simple promotion. Several volunteers did the main page selection, as I recall. They were generally the Main Page People, as it were -- the people who designed the layout and did a lot with that. Raul can correct me if I'm wrong, but that was his primary expertise prior to becoming czar. It was the fact that he wasn't part of a closed group that kept him from falling into a group (e.g. the Emmsworth FA's that some people hate so much). A flat hierarchy is the Wikipedia way -- simple promotions, simple demotions, volunteers throughout. What has happened in the interim is an exponential growth, yes, but also a literal decimation of the people who will dare go look at FAC, for it has experienced a coup of a different sort of "geek." Instead of layout and design folks who were concerned with the image of Wikipedia through its main page, we have gotten a very small group claiming itself superb experts on "what makes an FA." This "what" turns out to be specifics of stylistics, amazingly, and things that can be gathered by a glance rather than a read. This is the antithesis of a wiki's function. Flat is fine. Top down is ugly but can be benign. Oligarchy is the surest death a community of volunteers can suffer.

The groups might exist, but they must be opposed the moment they become exclusive. A like-minded group of academics edit and cooperate, for example, and they eschew any "Project" or other clubbiness. How do you join? Investigate and write well, and you're in. Another group exists that is the expert on "what makes an FA." How do you join? Either agree with every decree or be sycophantic, because the group is identified strictly by its claim to "expertise." Therefore, it cannot be wrong...ever. See SandyGeorgia admitting she was wrong to revert the close of the ID? No? Neither do I.

Groups exist on their own because people are social. Once they take names, put on shiny badges, begin to develop secret handshakes, and talk about how bad other things are, they're a tumor. The very precise reason a group of badge toting experts must never exist at FAR, in particular, is that such a group would exist and earn its bones by showing how bad everything is. "Oh, you think that article's not bad? You clearly aren't as expert as I am, because I think it sucks!" "Wow, you're awesome." Yes, well, that is parasitism at best. If we can't deworm, we can at least not give valuable prizes to the creatures. Geogre 02:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My Statement to SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin insists I put my personal statement to her on this page instead of her own talk page (where I deem it should be, but she reverted me 3 times, and I don't want this talk page getting more winded). Her goes the statement (which I fully, 100% stand by):

I want it to be noted for the record here that I have no intention of engaging in the FAR debate currently going any further, and the primary reason for this is you. I don't feel your stubborn pressing for promotion is in good faith whatsoever (and you're in no way objective, I am certain on that), and I don't feel you really care about the FAR process. In my opinion, this was borne out of your annoyance that any administrator cannot close an FAR and you have some personal agenda with Marskell and especially Sandy it seems.

As concerns being the "most aggressive", I certainly notice everyone's on the witchhunt as concerns Sandy yet nobody has condemned the absolutely disgusting behaviour of User:FeloniousMonk (and a bunch of other editors) on Sandy's talk page. I brought it up during the discussion and asked for your reply, though you have yet to offer one. Admins like him accusing fellow admins Marskell and TimVickers, not to mention Tony1 and Sandy, of being in some secret pact to depose Raul and undermine you and him, is frankly dumb. Such paranoia is rubbish, and as far as I am concerned he should be stripped of his admin powers. Whether you subscribe to such paranoia is up to you, but your attempts at trying to get Sandy to stop contributing to FAR is rather appalling - she does a damn sight more work there (boring, tedious work may I add) than you, Monk and the rest of you put together. Whether you continue this witchhunt is up to you, but I am in no doubt that this is the promotion of a personal vendetta.

I have nothing further to add, and I don't wish for further involvement in this messy affair. Feel free to continue your witchhunt.

That's my statement to SlimVirgin, which I 100% endorse. It's quite scary to think editors with such behaviour displayed by SlimVirgin are lurking out there in the crevasses of Wikipedia, though that's a common fact of life on Wikipedia these days it seems. You won't be hearing from me any further on the issue because I have better things to do with my time. I certainly don't consider Wikipedia one of those better things these days. LuciferMorgan 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this belong here? Some of us were trying to discuss improvements needed to the process, and since Sandy has taken charge of the process it inevitably involves her. For some reason she's brought up FM's behaviour a few times – my understanding is that he's the leading author of the article that was being subjected to FAR, and not in charge of the organisation of the process. My impression is that Sandy has done a great deal of welcome work, but from my viewpoint the behaviour of those in charge of processes is a great deal more scary than the behaviour of other participants, which should be dealt with by DR rather than here. ... dave souza, talk 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The impression you have is rather blighted then Dave, and I certainly disagree with your viewpoint. This edit made by FeloniousMonk was without doubt one of the most pathetic messages I have ever had the misfortune to read on Wikipedia. The behaviour of the other participants is certainly a lot more scarier to me, especially that of SlimVirgin and her minions with their swords. The fact that admins are among these people certainly bring being an admin in general into disrepute. I suppose the rules fail to apply though once you're granted admin status (yawn). LuciferMorgan 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

An outside perspective

...hi folks - firstly a small disclaimer; my one and only involvement with featured articles to date was to do with The Country Wife whose presence on review seemed a little embarrassing to me. I felt then that something wasn't right with this process, and have just tried to catch up with the furore above.

I'd like to support Geogre in his analysis concerning group behaviour, and I'd like to support SlimVirgin in her raising concerns with the openness of these processes.

I don't understand why only three users should be allowed to 'close' a review, and the arguments why this would be messy seem to me to be very similar to arguments against allowing anyone to edit a page (it is a bit of a crazy idea!).

The FAR / FARC distinctions with associated instructions I'm afraid remind me strongly of Brazil (film), and I'd invite even involved editors to try and read the page out loud without cracking a smile...! - it's certainly confusing.

The way ID editors were treated was appalling, and I believe the problems are systemic - we should aim to build consensus here for a streamlined process (top of head stuff: a 4 week minimum period review to be closed by any uninvolved editor in good standing) to avoid further frustrations.....

thanks - Purples 04:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, these seem worthwhile improvements to me. If it's obvious that the longer the review goes on, the more likely FA is to be retained, then some of the heat might go out of the situation. However, two weeks is evidently enough for a lack of consensus to be evident and for things to get pretty wild. A possibility might be allowing closure after 2 weeks subject to the keep / move on to FARC decision being subject to reconsideration by the famous three. The essential and difficult elements are "uninvolved" and "in good standing". ..dave souza, talk 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Another outside perspective, on SandyGeorgia

I too have not had much to do with FAR, but I came upon this discussion and want to add some comments about SandyGeorgia. I twice have been involved with reviews of Barack Obama and I have to say that in both instances SandyGeorgia was involved, and was highly professional, most civil, and helpful. In my opinion neither review was justified - meaning, the article was, I believe, in good shape and not in need of that kind of review scrutiny (the second FAR was brought by an editor who turned out to be a sock of a very disruptive banned user, bringing the FAR to make trouble), and SandyGeorgia approached both times in an even-handed manner, and in the course of things helped demonstrate how well-sourced the piece is, shutting down the objections most appropriately, doing some of the grunt work herself in fixing ref formats. I have no knowledge of the cases discussed above, but I find it hard to believe that these comments are about the same person. I never felt that she was anything but respectful to the hard work that many editors have put into the article, and that her sole goal was be sure that the status editors had worked hard to achieve was maintained. She was working with us, not against us, and she was thorough, willing to listen, and complimented the work that had been done. What more would anyone want in a reviewer? I don't know SandyGeorgia or the other editors who are involved in the disagreements on this page, and as far as I recall my only contact with SG has been regarding the Obama reviews, so I can't speak about anything else. But some of what I read here sounded political rather than substantive - for what it's worth. Hope this helps. Tvoz |talk 06:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of clarifications

The statement of the current de-facto closure process was added after the description of FARC, which seemed to me almost exactly the wrong place. So I boldly went and put those authorised to close FAs in the FA info section, noting that it's the "current" post holders to pick up Geogre's point that all is subject to the approval of the community. There's still the possibility that we'll think of a better system than tanistry! I also changed "A nomination need not be made with the goal of removal" to "A nomination should be made with the goal of improvement rather than removal". C'mon folks, think positive!

The info box at the top didn't really give much idea of the process, so I've expanded that to briefly summarise what goes on, with an emphasis on concerns being raised and proposed improvements discussed without voting at FAR. This aims to pick up the point discussed above that the focus is on improvement, with demotion being deferred while concerns are being attended to. Oh, and to minimise the sort of utter confusion that just happened. .. dave souza, talk 08:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with your edits, they're just what I was trying to do before Slim reverted me. However, they do lengthen the header, which should be as short as we can make it (I'm referring to the whole header not the first box). DrKiernan 08:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The usual accusation is that I've shortened things to the extent that meaning is lost! Better clarity than brevity. One change I made was from "reviewers" to "participants" , which aims to avoid the feeling that there's and élite of "reviewers" rather than it meaning anyone who comments. This change could also be made further down the header. .. dave souza, talk 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples of civil editors at FAR/FAC

Several people have commented, in various places above, about what they see as incivil edits at FAC/FAR, or in other locations on topics related to FAC and FAR. There have been several previous discussions about the level of civility and the appropriate tone for comments at these pages. Could someone name some of the editors who are regular contributors to FAC and FAR discussions and who are invariably civil, even when they are listing criticisms of the articles in question? I'd like to know who the positive role models might be. Mike Christie (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You, me and qp. DrKiernan 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! However, I rarely comment on the FAC and FAR pages themselves. I think it's hard to write opposes that are both forthright and civil, and I was looking for examples; I don't think I've ever opposed anything. Who would you like to write opposes on your FAC or FAR? Mike Christie (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've just gone through all 8 of my FACs again, and there aren't any uncivil comments. Awadewit and Yannismarou are probably the two editors giving the most consistently lengthy reviews, but there are lots of good contributions from many editors. DrKiernan 10:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of my opposes are here (do a search on each page for "drk" to find them quick): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. DrKiernan 10:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed Yomangani, CloudNine and Casliber are usually quite nice with their opposes. Epbr123 10:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha thanks Epbr123 - Circeus is constructive and prompt to switch if he feels his issues have been addressed. I have a mental algorithm of using Oppose if the article is really not anywhere near FA or is a fly-by nom as well, or Fixes needed otherwise (though I've had a rethink lately on that one) - I think some praise on the article's positives and apology or commiserative tone are helpful - to at least let the nominator know I recognise they've put a deal of work into it and are up to be judged - I offer to get stuck in as well, as this is not an exam but an attempt to impove the content and at the end of the day it shouldn't matter who's done it. Others do this as well (will have a look in a sec and see) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's distinguish between FAC and FAR. On the former, I try to model proper behavior, unless I'm responding to one of the midges who is "oppose criterion 12c-4 has not been filled according to the desk of proper review of oversight." That's responding to another person's objections, though, and the last time I went to FAC, I tried to give very detailed analysis and help, even after supporting or even despite opposing. FAR is another matter. I do not believe that it has any legitimacy left in it right now. When a bad nomination can be made, the nominator admit that the nomination was just to protest how he had been treated, and then go on and on and on and on and on and on because people can imagine things they'd like to change, that's not FAR: that's just dicking around with articles and putting on airs. Good behavior at FAR would be, "Sofixit" to the nominators. This is a wiki. We're supposed to be editing, not sniffing. Geogre 12:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

{Civil FAC/FAR reviewers} = Ø —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.60.107 (talk • contribs)

I find the processes at FAR and FAC very friendly and enjoyable. I have happy memories of the James I of England FAR, which user:Carcharoth nominated. I adopted it, and Carcharoth helped with the process from the start and is now a friend. I have occasionally been given a hard time at FAC, particularly on a couple of Poland-related articles that I helped copyedit; but I don't mind at all, because I enjoy the challenge of calming people down with appropriate edits. I have occasionally annoyed nominators with my comments, particularly for William Shakespeare and Iguanodon, but we must accept the fact that this is a critical process and might not always be comfortable. Most importantly, I have noticed that at both FAC and FAR, an article will usually pass in the end if the editors work hard to respond to substantive suggestions. To sum up, therefore, I do not believe these two processes to be unreasonably hostile. I'm not going to make a list of civil reviewers, because, like Mike and DrK, I find nearly all reviewers civil.

I would observe that two types of article are likely to prove controversial at FAR. Firstly, high quality articles written in a scholarly fashion, brought here for lack of citations: I would support these immediately, because so long as an article is sourced, inline citations are not mandatory. Secondly, controversial articles that are still "live", like ID; in these cases, I would not necessarily blame FAR for any adversarial atmosphere on the review page, since such may have attached to the article before it was brought here (and an article may even been brought here as part of a dispute). Most FARs are however very quiet—too quiet, in fact. qp10qp 13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If I read you rightly, you're enjoying FAR as a sort of COTW (collaboration of the week). You're enjoying it as the opportunity to gather with other interested people and work on an article. That's laudable, but it really isn't a function of FAR. If there were a sort of COTW improvement to the very good articles, where "first do no harm" were a guiding light, I don't think I could have much objection. Currently, someone is working on Sarah Fielding. I'm irascible, but I don't mind if anyone looks in. You'll see that it's all going swimmingly. Without any dogmatism, any arrogance, any smugness, and any threats, it's all going to be a joyful and salubrious thing. FAR is fundamentally adversarial, and it is essentially adversarial with several of the "experts" who chime in on every nomination.

I also find that anything having to do with history, biography, or arts is likely to get off-base caviling, while pop culture, pop tarts, and subartistic works get glossed over. The paradox is that this means that junque is getting ignored (lots of footnotes! to websites), while the difficult stuff is getting hammered. I can theorize why, but it's not going to help anything.

The short version, therefore, is that a portal for "let's see if we can make it better" is great, but the framing of FAR is "removing from featured article." The animosity is inherent, animosity toward the authors as well as those who approved it. The superiority is inherent, superiority to the authors and to the people who approved it. The arrogance is inherent. If an article's authors are gone, they may not be around to object, and if the people who voted to approve it are away, they won't be insulted. Otherwise, it's an aggressive act. Geogre 13:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the FAR process must feel inherently punitive. Whereas at FAC, nominators are usually prepared to jump through hoops to achieve a star, here the article has a star already and so nothing to gain. And nominators do not always realise that they should be prepared to take responsibility for helping the article to retain its star. No wonder that makes people grumpy. But I support the idea of FAR because it does not do to have featured articles that are no longer up to present standard.

On the other hand, I agree with the idea of applying a collaboration-of-the-week type approach here. I believe there have been moves in that direction, to ensure that nominators don't just plonk articles here out of the blue but first try to contact the article's editors and resolve any concerns without bringing the article here at all. I'm not sure what the state of play is with that inititiative. I have identified a couple of FAs that I intend to bring back up to standard without calling an FAR.There should be more of that, I think. qp10qp 14:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have been following Sarah Fielding with great interest, since Carch tipped me off about it.qp10qp 14:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And in my opinion, despite the "punitive" nature of FAR, all the regulars, including the above mentioned SandyGeorgia and Marskell have been very civil. I support the current process. Thanks to Raul for clarifying the instructions. --RelHistBuff 14:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Have found both to be extremely helpful and supportive, in particular here and here. Ceoil 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Casliber is certainly one of the most consistently good-humoured persons I have met on Wiki, let alone FAR. Marskell 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm delighted to read that discussions here are normally so good humoured and polite, and find it all the more extraordinary that SandyGeorgia chose to make a very uncivil attack on Raul's decision making during the review of an article where the subject matter attracts controversy at the best of times. . . . dave souza, talk 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal experiences with getting articles I helped get to FA go through the FAR process have been pleasant. In fact, I view those reviews as an opportunity to bring the article to current standard by polishing its star. However, I didn’t much care for the old FARC process, where out of the blue people starting voting to remove the FA status of an article. Now *that* was an adversarial environment that I dreaded. The only upside to the old system was that I tried to preemptively improve some of the more shoddy FAs on my list in order to prevent a FARC. Now I must admit that I wait for the FAR so the article history gets a new review link. --mav 21:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Mike Christie at the top of this section, based on my experience, a regular contributor to FAC and FAR discussions who has been invariably civil, even when she was listing criticisms of the article in question, was SandyGeorgia. My experience was very positive in the FAR/FARC discussion about Roe v. Wade in February of this year. The Roe v. Wade article had been listed as FA on January 26, 2005 and a review was requested this year (at the end of which the article was kept). Sandy was a bit skeptical at some points (e.g. saying that the "prose is a wreck"), but all criticisms were directed at the article rather than anything ad hominem. My attitude was, "if you're willing to keep pointing out what needs work, I'm willing to fix it." And that's what happened. Several other editors joined in (e.g. Trebor, LuciferMorgan, and Jeffpw) and Sandy integrated their concerns into the process. I agree with Trebor that Sandy did "brilliant work" on an obviously contentious and unpleasant subject, without being anything but civil. The Roe v. Wade article had long been neglected, the prose had fallen far below FA standards, and therefore even her remark about the prose being a "wreck" was not something that I took personally, or that was directed at anyone else either. Reforming this particular article was obviously an unpleasant bit of drudgery for Sandy (and for me too), but she made the best of it in a good-natured way. She was very encouraging, with comments like "Keep going!", even as she offered a seemingly inexhaustible list of criticisms, all of which were polite and constructive.Ferrylodge 03:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Acronyms + question of consensus......

I've removed the acronyms again because I don't think they need to be in more than one place on the page (they're referenced under the appropriate headers in the main text) - and i don't think they help the clarity.

I also wanted to reiterate my feeling that I'm unhappy with the closure of a review being limited to three people. Two central issues;

i) I don't think it's necessary, and it seems 'un-wiki' to me

ii) The instruction reinforces the tone of the page (and therefore the process) as somewhat authoritarian, and I believe that this systemically encourages people involved in the process to wield that authority - which i don't think should be there in the first place!

I'd welcome any thoughts about whether or not this is the right forum to attempt to build a consensus to reform this review process? - thanks... Purples 03:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The MOS says, I'm pretty sure, that acronyms should appear in parentheses after the first occurrence of a spelt-out item. That's why I did what I did. But in the greater scheme of things, I think it's OK here. The text is better than when I left it yesterday. Tony 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means raise the question here, Purples, though it's been discussed higher up this page. The way I see it is that although Raul and co would rather they close the reviews, lessons have been learnt, so if an admin or someone else comes along and closes a review (properly), I doubt they will be reverted next time.qp10qp 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Process implications

A couple days ago I had noted on Raul654's talk page, inter alia , "... that there are two procedural standards operating here simultaneously, and a lack of consensus on where the twain meet. One is the dynamic process called WP:Consensus; the other is administrative authority and always-adaptive administrative tradition. Whatever procedure the 'FA cummunity' has developed for FAR is quite unclear, incomplete, and/or not properly disclosed to the wider community." I also had said I'd cobble together a summary of procedural observations with the intent of seeking to get a better handle on underlying criteria for procedure and decisionmaking, particularly as it may arise in cases where there may be controversy and/or confusion. I also said "read that: 'no blame'", and Raul seemed to agree this would be an appropriate approach.

In the interim, I notice that participants here seem to have developed a sharper eye for such underlying and interacting decisionmaking criteria. Reading the above and noting ongoing changes on the project page, I begin to easily imagine that this ongoing discussion might well arrive of its own accord at a more well-agreed, well-justified, more stable and sustainable set of processes than before, disclosed to the wider community at the top of the FAR page in terms that are much clearer and well-thought-out than was previously the case. Kudos to everybody involved. ... Kenosis 15:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Additonal note: What is still missing as of this present diff is an agreed procedure to address the following not-necessarily-exhaustive list:

• 1) What constitutes a valid, acceptable nomination, and how will this be decided?

• I don't mean my answer to sound as silly as it does, but surely this is decided by consensus? Nominations have been removed in the past, and I'm not aware of any dispute when that has happened (believe me, I would know, having had more removed than anyone else!!) DrKiernan 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, this is kind of what I was attempting to suggest that everybody achieve a bit more clarity on. And, how does one get this authority? Is it delegated by the FA Director in response to a specific request? Can anyone do this? Does one "run" for this "office"? All this kind of basic thing, IMO, needs to be made explicit and put in an accessible place that anyone can be referred to in response to a question about it. WP is still in its infancy (OK, maybe early childhood), and I can assure you that this is not the last time such questions will come up. Gotta go for now--Thanks. ... Kenosis 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• 2) What should be done with habitual assumptions by most users and admins that "keep" or "delist/remove" are part of the program. "Keep", when so stated in conjunction with a rational justification, quite obviously means "OK as FA as it is", while "remove" quite obviously advocates moving to FARC when analyzed within the FAR/FARC process. Is this "rule" enforceable on purely procedural grounds, to thereby negate all the opinions expressed in conjunction with the words "keep" or "remove"? In the FAR of intelligent design, many users including many admins posted such preferences or votes, despite repeated attempts at clarification by SandyGeorgia and perhaps others.
• 3) What are the decisionmaking criteria for closure of FARs? It is said to be consensus-based. If closure is to be limited to pre-specified designates of the FA Director and denied to other admins, what's the procedural justification for this? Everybody ought know the process by which this was arrived and be able to defend it explicitly and publicly (assuming, of course, there's no mutiny by users and/or admins). Is the FA director or delegate required to respect consensus?, or are there to be any predetermined reasons for possible overrides of consensus in certain types of situations? If the latter, what are those situations, and what checks-and-balances, if any, will be agreed upon to prevent unfettered administrative discretion.
• 4) Is the director required to show uninvolvement as a demonstration of lack of COI or the possible appearance thereof? Or is this just a "strawman", so to speak?
• 5) What will happen to the presumption presently in place that FARs are primarily to "help" an article?, when that's quite forseeably a never-ending process in some instances. Is the delegate of the FA director required to submit to ongoing objections in cases where the consensus may already be clearly identifiable as "fine as FA" but repetively involved FA reviewers may have other ideas and are unable to change the consensus?
• 6) Are the FA criteria to be strictly interpreted according to the latest permutations of the increasingly fine distinctions as to stylistic guidelines being developed throughout WP:MOS and its increasingly widespread offshoots? Although several new project pages have been added to the original three "policies" (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER + WP:Consensus as a procedural policy, expanded to eight within the past year or so). To date, WP:MOS is not regarded as a policy. Hence, how strictly should reasonable alternative styles developed within local consensus be interpreted in the context of FAs; or is the ever-expanding WP:MOS to be definitive in every respect in the assessment of FAs? Issues like this ought, IMO, be clearly stated "black letter" guidelines made explicit in advance by the community of FA reviewers and director(s). ... Kenosis 17:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are more points, I suppose, but these seem to me to stand out at the moment. IMO, everbody ought be clear on how such issues interact with the process that's agreed upon for FARs, and how it fits in with established WP policy involving WP:Consensus and practical administration thereof. ... Kenosis 17:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Responses:

• 1) This example may help clarify as an example of no serious concerns, minor cleanup needed.
• 2) This may be a result of the XfD and RfA culture on Wiki, and there may be little we can do about it except keep reminding. People drop in and register a Keep/Remove because that's what they're accustomed to doing at AfD, MfD, CfD, etc. We've tweaked and tweaked the instructions, and they're better now, but I wager that won't address the problem. The people who do it don't may not read the instructions anyway. Typically, only one reminder is needed, and then the review work gets underway. FAR is a more collaborative process than the typical pages on Wiki.
• 3) Marskell and Joelr31 can expand, but basically, everything possible is done to keep status. The current instructions don't go nearly into everything that we do in terms or notifications, followup, continuing to dig for people who might salvage the star, checking edit history and talk page, imploring knowledgeable editors to help out, etcetera; adding a full description of everything we do to the instructions would be top heavy. The bottom line is that the goal is to do everything possible to retain status. Most that lose status are because there is simply no editor willing or able to work on the article.
• 4) Raul's involvement is rarely needed because the process works fine most of the time; in fact, he probably thinks of the process as more (I can't remember the exact word he used above, but) adversarial than FAC because he typically only has occasion to view the "worst of the worst". (ref ascertainment bias).
• 5) There have been a few very long-running FARs; they're kept open as long as editors are still working and progress is being made. Again, the goal is to remove status as little as possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• 6) (You added on no. 6 after I responded). If you have an example of any article which has lost status due to strictly stylistic concerns, we should discuss further. I'm not aware of any. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose my main point is that there's major unclarity about these issues and others, that ought be agreed on and placed in a summary of what is the common body of knowledge of substantive and procedural practice wrt FAs. For instance, when something's disputed, as was the case right from the getgo at the FAR of intelligent design, there needs to be bettter clarity and agreement on how to handle it at each stage of the established procedures, and where to look for the information on how to handle it. Anyway, good luck and a wish for success in figuring it out and working it through. ... Kenosis 17:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a lot of questions there, so I'm going to respond to some of them: (3) What are the decisionmaking criteria for closure of FARs? Marskell, who closest the majority of FAR noms, has said that the criteria he uses when deciding whether or not it is time to close a nom is if there is still ongoing work. If closure is to be limited to pre-specified designates of the FA Director and denied to other admins, what's the procedural justification for this? - I'm not really sure what you mean by "procedural justification". The reason I don't want a whole lof of people closing FARs is that it will inevitably lead to consistent standards being applied to FARs, conflict-of-interest or proxy closures, etc. The system we have in place now is one that evolved gradually over time, and (until the ID FAR) nobody had seen fit to question it because it generally worked fairly well. It wasn't perfect, but it was good enough. For this reason, I am against radically altering the way it works. "Everybody ought know the process by which this was arrived and be able to defend it explicitly and publicly (assuming, of course, there's no mutiny by users and/or admins)." Agreed. Is the FA director or delegate required to respect consensus?, or are there to be any predetermined reasons for possible overrides of consensus in certain types of situations? This is a loaded question. I use my judgement for what I expect our articles to be to judge both the nominated articles and the feedback that article has recieved. I do not blindly accept criticisms of the article as being correct or not. Most of the time the feedback is correct, sometimes it is off the mark. I expect Marskell and Joel31 do the same. (4) What you are asking for is tantamount to a Negative proof. (6) "Are the FA criteria [regarding the Manual of Style] to be strictly interpreted?" - You're right that the MOS is this great, growing behemoth and it would be unwise to expect every FA to adhere to every aspect of the MOS. So my prosecription is that authors should do their best to make their article comply with the MOS, and when shown places where their article differs they should make an effort to comply with the MOS, unless (as I have said in the past) they have a damned good reason not to. Raul654 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Very quickly, I'm not asking for "proofs"; these are issues that've already come up once and IMO appear to be in need of being addressed, clarified openly, and the results put into one place where the "way we do things with FACs and FAR/FARCs" can be accessed without having to beg somebody to tell us what's going on and what the rules are. Wrt "procedural justification", the question 'Who makes the decisions?' should be explicitly disclosed. If it's the FA Director who makes the decisions as to what's FA and what's not, fine-- but disclose it explicitly and stop teasing people with mentions of "consensus". Or is it a consensus of certain "FA participants", and if so, how's it decided who gets this status at any given time--all of this is totally justifiable if it's agreed by local consensus and the relevant standards are stated publicly. Wrt "loaded question", I disagree it's "loaded" if that means it's a setup of some kind. As I said, there are two overlapping or intertwined standards at work here, one being consensus, the other administrative. The disclosure explicitly mentions consensus-- if there are exceptions, as was the case at the FAR of intelligent design, they should be made explicit as to what those exceptions are. Is the consensus merely advice? Or is it definitive and dispositive of the FAR? Appreciated your replies, and good luck working everything through to a stable state. ... Kenosis 18:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"these are issues that've already come up once and IMO appear to be in need of beind addressed, clarified openly, and the results put into one place where the "way we do things with FACs and FAR/FARCs" can be accessed without having to beg somebody to tell us what's going on and what the rules are." - Such a page exists, at least in incomplete form, at User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts. It might be worth copying some of these questions and my answers to there. Wrt "procedural justification", the question Who makes the decisions? should be explicitly disclosed. If it's the FA Director who makes the decisions as to what's FA and what's not, fine-- but disclose it explicitly. - Ultimately, when it comes to the FA process (be it featured article candidates, or featured article review, the featured article criteria, etc) the buck stops with the featured article director. If things go horribly wrong (as it did with the ID FAR), it is ultimately my fault. I, or those designated by me, make the final decision for all promotions and demotions. (Although as most everyone knows, I do all the promotions myself). The disclosure explicitly mentions consensus-- if there are exceptions, as was the case at the FAR of intelligent design, they should be made explicit as to what those exceptions are. Is the consensus merely advice? Or is it definitive and dispositive of the FAR? I don't really follow your questions here. What disclosure? I think it's a bad idea to build a system around the exceptions rather than the common case. The ID FAR was a mess for a lot of reasons, many of which can be traced directly back to a well funded disinformation campaign by a certain institution that shall not be named. Is it not a situtation that we encounter routinely, and I'm all ears for ways to avoid it in the future. That being said, FAR and FAC are consensus driven, but with me reserving the right to intervene. I'm thinking particularly of the occasional case where one person raises a serious issue* (as determined by me) with a FAC nom, but gets drowned out or otherwise ignored. However, at the risk of repeating myself - these are not the common case. Raul654 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm back briefly. To answer what I think is an important question, Raul654, IMO the way to avoid repetitions of the events that transpired in the FAR of intelligent design is, as I stated, to make explicit what the rules are, and make them available all in one place, for example Featured Article Procedures, or whatever, and refer people to it when necessary. If the FA Director is charged with the responsibility for making all these decisions, then this should in the future be respected by all participants in the FA community until such time as that way of doing things might officially change. Issues regarding possible appearance of COI and other such things should be publicly discussed elsewhere and brought to a resolution, subsequently including such resolution(s) in the Featured Article Procedures page or whatever it's chosen to be called. To avoid a repetition, when the Featured Article Director notes at the beginning of FAR that it is brought on spurious grounds, this should, lacking compelling evidence that the director is incorrect, be the end of the story for that FAR nomination. Any implications or accusations, for example, that the director has the appearance of COI because the director helped the article work through issues regarding FA criteria during the FAC stage should not, in the future, be brought into a current FAR by others participants in the "FA community". Why? Because the rules are already clear-- the director makes these decisions. Any policy questions should properly be raised as part of a broader policy discussion, not as part of the arguments brought to bear on a FAR project page. Similarly, if the rules are that the Director makes decisions about promoting FACs, subsequent questions about whether the original promotion was in fact based upon consensus are irrelevant, and should not, in the future, be raised on the project page. Why? Because the rules are already there in black and white, and because this is a policy matter potentially affecting future FARs, but which should not affect current FARs that presently are the responsibility of and decided by the Director, Thus, stating straightforwardly what the rules are makes life much easier for all concerned. If, in the future, these decisions become, say, part of an internal consensus process among members of, say, a "FA Committee" or whatever, those future participants should properly be able to refer to the Featured Article Procedures page or whatever it's ultimately called. Whatever the procedure is, best to say it in black and white and call it for what it is. That, IMO, is the solution to possible repetitions of this recent set of events. And if in the future the wider community might demand a broader base of responsiblity and decisionmaking with respect to featured articles, I feel confident that all will readily adapt-- and that too, whatever it becomes in the future, should be written into the, e.g., Featured Article Procedures page. I look forward to seeing further development of the draft at User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts, and to watching it brought to fruition at some point as a project page which all concerned can look to in the future. Kudos for all the hard work you folks have done. And I wish the best of continued success with this generally excellent program of choosing FAs and facilitating the continued quality of existing FAs. ... Kenosis 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul said, If things go horribly wrong (as it did with the ID FAR), it is ultimately my fault. I appreciate the thought, but as discussed on your talk page (and for which I've apologized and learned my lesson), the mistakes were mine (not Marskell, not Tim Vickers, not Tony). Yes, there may be some flaws in the process in that we couldn't get people to understand the purpose of the review, so I'm glad this is being flushed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

An additional answer to No. 2. {{FARMessage}} and {{FAR}} also have wording intended to clarify the process. On notifications, we've only recently tried to encourage nominators to do the notifications (it was becoming too much work for Lucifer, DrKiernan and myself). I often find the nominator adds a notification that reads something like, "I nominated X article for review", without using the template. I doublecheck all notifications, and add the template when needed. Fresh eyes might want to review these templates. The notifications describe the process, so how editors find their way to the page without having read the instructions is always a mystery to me; perhaps the template instructions aren't clear enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I had said above that when I get the chance I'll write up the closing rationale. As Kenosis is pressing this:

• Reviews are left open if there is work going on. That is the primary rule. Work stops for 10 days or two weeks and it may be removed if people have noted remove. Typically, I drop talk messages to editors if a review is dragging and/or prompt the review with "How do people feel about this?" etc.
• If editors I have reason to trust for a specific subject (say, Kirill for MilHist or Geogre for literature) make a kp/rm for a review that appears to be a tough call, I give their comments more weight. I don't think there's anything wrong with this.
• If it's indeterminate or only weak consensus either way, and what remains is MoS micro-issues, it's default kept. Note that's micro-issues (dashes and whatnot). If the article has non-trivial cleanup tags, list sections that ought to be prose, unformatted references, and weblinks thrown in willy-nilly, it may be removed. But this is rarely "my call"; if a page needs serious polishing, then it is usually reflected in the consensus of the review.
• If it's indeterminate but the article lacks references, it's default removed. Such reviews are rarely actually no consensus; if an article lacks references, then you'll almost certainly get removes eventually.
• There is no consensus necessary to start a review. We can't bar the door to something like the ID FAR. Three months is asked on the page as a minimum between promotion and review or from one review to the next. This can be raised; the caveat would be that if a page has altered significantly and isn't recognizable versus the promoted version, a review should be allowed.
• Everything advances to FARC unless there is consensus in the true sense: basically, unanimity that the article has returned to form. (Note that ID did not have this.) This is because it's better to get clean kp/rm comments if you're not entirely sure of consensus. See this from two days ago.
• Prose, I'll say, is the toughest. If everything else is fine I'll leave the thing open til people start working on the prose (see Belgrade right now, if you want to copyedit) or I'll work on it myself. Marskell 14:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

RE the statement "Kenosis is pressing this": Geez, Marskell-- pressing what? If there were no genuine issues worthy of being on the table here, the discussion below would already be over. I offered to cobble together a summary of procedural observations with no blame, and Raul654 told me straightowardly he welcomed it. AFAICT that's what I did above, noting visible progress already made, and following with a bulleted list of a number of more specific tensions that in my observation have already shown themselves to be capable of arising in FAR. I was intentionally quite deferential to the FA community in the assessment and questions above. I didn't request answers for myself but rather suggested that the six numbered sets of issues contained my perception of examples of things that the FA community would be better served in the future if they are able to get a handle on those issues and able to articulate the answers. The very first responses, IMO, didn't address any of the issues and avoided making any clear statement about what the rules presently are, or are proposed to be. I politely moved forward, engaging the Director in a not-very-lengthy mutual exchange that (correct me if I'm wrong of course) was mutually polite and somewhat more to the points, and I also decided to respond at some length to one question he posed (how might a recurrence be avoided in the future). Giving illustrations, I advocated putting the rules down in black-and-white.

For whatever it may be worth, I presently observe that there is still some visible indication of what could easily be interpreted as reluctance to put the rules down in black-and-white. I also observe very rapid and substantial progress in the discussions below and in the explanations disclosed to the reader of the FAR page and instructions for how participants are expected to proceed -- and I'm not even involved directly. Too, I observe that visibly lacking at present are clear procedures for conflict management and conflict resolution, though I trust folks here will figure out some approprate set of such methods in due course and integrate them into the process in some reasonable way. ... Kenosis 16:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have presented seven bullet points above explaining closing rationale. I did not say there were no genuine issues worthy of being on the table. And I meant nothing impertinent with "pressing." Best, Marskell 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the starting of reviews might be worth thinking about as a place to be wiser in future. Maybe a nom should be turned away if it looks like the nominator is currently involved in arguments on the talk page; we could call that a COI nom. The reason this strikes me as a good idea is that FAR would be less likely to get caught in the crossfire that way. (Those who criticise FAR often forget that the people who run it don't nominate the articles themselves; but a hostile nominator tends to become identified with the process itself.) A less procedural point that might be learned from the ID FAR might be for regular reviewers and FAR organisers to hold back a few days before reviewing a new nom themselves, in order to give a chance for any local difficulties to emerge. We only have so many messengers, and if they are going to be shot, let it at least be knowingly, or in a war of their choosing.qp10qp 15:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Those who criticise FAR often forget that the people who run it don't nominate the articles themselves; but a hostile nominator tends to become identified with the process itself'.

Thank you for hitting that nail on the head. Reviews have come up (I'll leave them nameless but I'm not talking about ID) where I've hung my head because I knew arguing was going to occur. But what can you do? If it's the proverbial "just some guy" making a nom, who's maybe never been involved with the article but seems good faith, you have to let it go through. While there were accusations against FOo for a bad faith nom on ID (I make no judgements), a majority of troublesome FARs are just random people nominating. And random people are allowed to nominate. I don't know how to police that line.

But. Buried in our last long debate, I suggested that contacting the original FAC nominator and other heavy writers be a requirement before FAR. That is, you have to exhaust contacting people before you can come to FAR. The example was The Country Wife: the original nominator is still active, and it could've avoided FAR completely. Marskell 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I agree. In practice, some nominators don't read the instructions anyway, so we'll have another enforcement issue to track, similar to notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus at FAR

I've just spotted something on the page – shouldn't "If no consensus for a change in status is reached during the review period, the article continues as an FA." actually be in the FARC section as "If no consensus for a change in status is reached, the article continues as an FA."? If there's no consensus at FAR, shouldn't we go to FARC in order to clean, clear responses? DrKiernan 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend removing the line. A FAR closing is in effect a decision of whether to go to FARC. It should state "A nomination typically lasts two to three weeks. Nominations are moved to the FARC list or closed only by FA director (Raul654) or his delegates, Marskell and Joelr31." --RelHistBuff 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Having a default of no consensus at FAR resulting in a move to the FARC list gives those trying to remove FA listing an incentive to try to avoid consensus. The assessment of what is or isn't consensus is a decision for the FA director or delegate, so this will not mean a change in the outcome, but requiring parties to work to a consensus to move to FARC at least encourages cooperation rather than intransigence. .. dave souza, talk

I haven't deciphered what that sentence means; does someone have the secret code? The idea is to not discuss "change in status" during review; the idea is to review. If the review reveals consensus that there are no deficiencies (notice both Barack Obama FARs as examples), the FAR closes without FARC. Change in status (as in defeaturing) isn't discussed during review. It's discussed at FARC, and even then, not if work is ongoing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Per these comments - and trying to take into account some of Kenosis' points about 'consensus' here being misleading / leading to misunderstandings, i've re-worded the sentence to a version that hopefully reflects current practice, and is nice and clear.... thoughts are appreciated.... thanks! - Purples 06:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

...so now after my rewrites we have several mentions of 'Raul654 or his delegates, Marskell and Joelr31' - this obviously isn't perfect, and I'm sure this could be improved, but for now hopefully it does reflect current practice. thanks all... Purples 06:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Purples, I don't agree with some of your changes, and do agree with Sandy. 1. It isn't up to Raul and the others to determine whether the article meets FA, they should follow consensus. 2. There is never consensus for a change of status during the review period, and so, by your wording, articles would always continue as FA. DrKiernan 07:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, DrKiernan seems to be proposing effective return to the earlier situation[21] where the wording was "If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list." That version opened with "the review of featured articles and the subsequent removal of the featured status of those that still fail to meet the featured article criteria", so if opponents of an article could prevent consensus at the review period, then all it would proceed to voting removal. There have been several changes, as DrKiernan rightly notes above. The revision by Purples is much clearer, showing who has to decide if when consensus has been reached that the issues have been addressed and FA status should remain. If the consensus is that issues haven't been aren't being addressed, then the article's removed to the FARC list. Seems much better to me. ... dave souza, talk 08:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Revised to clarify a couple of points. Presumably if no consensus is reached during FAR that means continued efforts to improve until the Director decides that time's up, and decides whether the overall "consensus" means close or proceed to FARC. Following consensus isn't just counting votes. .. dave souza, talk 08:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not advocating return to that version. Quite the opposite, as shown here: [22] and here:[23]. DrKiernan 08:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have amended my earlier comment to address the misunderstanding created by it. DrKiernan 08:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. The latest revision[24] wasn't explicit that closing the FAR means keep FA, and though that may be implicit, it's confusing for newcomers who may think that "close" means moving on to the next stage. The FARC stage mentions the vote and substantive comments, but didn't make it clear that there was then time to resolve any deficiencies. I've edited it to clarify these points[25]. .. dave souza, talk 11:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC), tweaked and link added 11:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's still a problem; the current version says FARC can be extended. If an article is very close to Keep consensus during FAR that there are no deficiencies or deficiencies have been addressed, FAR may also be extended. In either case, the extension is usually granted if work is ongoing and progress is apparent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added that back in. DrKiernan 11:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is still there: Here, participants may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments, and further time is given to overcome any deficiencies. The sentence ("and" connection) is awkward, and further time isn't automatically granted, it's given in both phases if work is ongoing and progress is evident. I understand the need to clarify the process, but I hope we're not risking instruction creep here. The bottom line is that Marskell and Joelr31 do whatever is best and most likely to result in a Keep without too much delay. Where we've had problems, it hasn't appeared that people have read the instructions anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The over-repetitive nature of the instructions ("the Featured Article Director, Raul654 or his delegates, Marskell and Joelr31" occurs 4 times and "participants may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments, and further time is given to overcome any deficiencies." is repeated by "Reviewers may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments" and "; extensions are always granted if requested and the article is receiving attention from editors.") is addressed in my proposed re-write above where all of these statements are amalgamated into a single summary in the first box. Why don't we try pushing them all together to avoid repetition? DrKiernan 12:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to ping Tony? Clarity in prose certainly isn't my strength, and since there are complaints that the process isn't clear, I'm not sure how to strike the best balance here. But, instruction creep is upon us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another problem. There is a reason for the typical two to three weeks FAR, two to three weeks FARC. Even when an article moves to FARC, a lot of pile-on Removes in the first day have little meaning. If work is ongoing and progress is being made, Marskell and Joel evaluate deficiencies and consensus throughout and at the *end* of the FARC period, and extend the FARC if needed. Now, we've also lost the information about the two weeks during FARC, and editors may fear an article will be defeatured as soon as it moves to FARC. That's not the case. I'm afraid these instructions are moving further and further from the collaborative intent at FAR. I went further back in history and found this version. It would be helpful to recapture the intent—that FARs and FARCs have the goal of retaining status if possible, and for this reason, the full review period is beneficial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another problem. We've now completely lost mention that Keep/Remove are not declared during FAR, resulting in this. We need to get back to clarity we had before on these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've just seen that myself. I am trying to draft a "Commenting in a FAR" section" now, but I do have to leave soon. DrKiernan 13:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

All of this was there before, and it was short and clear. While bulking up the instructions, the instructions were lost. I hope we can get back to some of the simple instructions in past versions, while clarifying the issues that have been raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The instructions can say, "Featured Article Director, Raul654 or his delegates, Marskell and Joelr31" once, and then say "Featured Article director or his delegates" on subsequent occurrences; it's not necessary to spell out the names four times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I've run out of time to do it. DrKiernan 13:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There was significant repetition, and a lack of cohesion in the location of the information. There was too much bolding. See what you think now. Apologies to DRKiernan for edit conflict. Tony 14:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I had added that link to WP:WIAFA for people who skip straight to the instructions; you delinked me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Something happened to the formatting (it's scrolling off of my screen) and we have this:

A nomination typically lasts two or three weeks—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process (extensions are always granted if requested, as long as the article is receiving attention from editors).

A nomination typically lasts two or three weeks in each phase, not overall -- can that be fixed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the screen wrap, but may have introduced bolding you wanted to eliminate (I copied the old span style). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Link found; it's looking very good now, although the two weeks in each phase might be clarified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We lost this at the bottom of the nominating instructions; was that intentional ?

NB If an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I created {{FAR-instructions}}, modeled after {{FAC-instructions}} at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep?

Thanks for an excellent tightening up of the text. This version looks good to me, with the minor quibble that to my taste "longer where changes are ongoing" would be better as "longer where changes are in progress". It gives a clear statement that "The FA Director... or his delegates..., determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so, and that the nomination should be moved to the second stage." However, the next revision[26] includes the detailed clarification that "Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria." While other clarifications added at this edit may be worthwhile, this defines "consensus" more narrowly and could restrict the extent to which the director or delegate can apply their discretion. It seems to me to an unnecessary invitation to further arguments. ... dave souza, talk 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep or not, perhaps it might be useful to also include a very brief note about the director's option to override any arguable consensus for "good cause" such as when, in the director's judgment, consensus fails to reflect fundamental FA criteria. This puts the onus and any rights of refusal squarely on the director, who presently bears the ultimate responsibility for all FA decisions. ... Kenosis 22:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah ... if the director thinks that, s/he should discuss it on the page with the reviewers. I'm for transparency in the process. Tony 07:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Former Featured Articles Wikiproject

According to Wikipedia:Former featured articles, there are over 400 articles that at one time met the Featured article criteria. Many of these were demoted for minor reasons that could easily be fixed by a dedicated group of editors. This project aims to dramatically increase the number of featured articles by first focusing on those former FAs closest to meeting the criteria, and working its way to those in need of more help. This would be done through scheduled collaborations on said articles. While all editors are welcome to join, editors with experience creating FAs, especially those with strong copyediting skills and/or knowledge of MoS are most needed. There is no reason for wikipedia to have any "former" FAs. It should be top priority to maintain them. "Once an FA, always an FA." is the eventual goal of this project. This project would also serve as a "rescue squad" for articles under FA review. Please click the above link and add your name in order to join. Wrad 14:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that "many of these were demoted for minor reasons that could easily be fixed", but I'm glad a group is willing to work to preserve and restore status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I second both of Sandy's points. In particular, I'd love to see the group supporting the FAR/C process itself, so that we can get as many nominations over the line as possible. That's the primary goal—not to demote. I disagree strongly with the notion "once an FA, always an FA". There are several reasons for this. You can probably guess them. Tony 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to the above, other than I concur with both Sandy's and Tony's comments. LuciferMorgan 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "once an FA, always an FA" needs to be reworded to "once an FA, should be always an FA". There will never be a guarantee. I believe the should be is the job for the members of this new project. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 06:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

I don't think it's necessary or helpful to have an automated review on the page of each FAR. The discussions can be disjointed as it is, and the script generally returns repetitive output. Ceoil 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Please remove them. A person could/should highlight these points not an automated script. This is not Peer Review. Joelito (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Davnel to post on article talk only. Ceoil 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Partial closure

I'd just like to say that the closure of Byzantine Empire was a pretty bad call. We seem to be more than happy to nitpick perfectly good articles like Restoration literature and Richard O'Connor apart (even if the former was saved by strong reactions from many experienced editors), but then stick our heads in the sand when faced with quality issues like focus simply because there aren't overly simplistic rules for it.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be grey. My reading is that the closure was qualified with an acknowledgement that there is not yet a hard and fast rule re acceptable size. As far as I know, if there is doubt, and if the grey issue is the only deal breaker, the candidate is a default keep. So the closure was sound, IMO. But prose size should probably be trashed out at this stage, at a wider level, and I'd support you on that. Ceoil 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And I see the problem more from the point of view of volume than focus. Ceoil 00:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am against large articles, but I'm not going to punish one article while other mammoth-sized articles like Ketuanan Melayu get through. We need to address this at WP:WIAFA; I'll support stricter size guidelines (50KB prose) for FAs. But if a topic like B movie gets a pass, the Byzantine Empire certainly does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have the energy to read an article over 45KB. It's hard on the eyes, reading text on a computer, and I get distracted, and jump about on the hypertext. I suspect most others are like this. Ceoil 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So, is the discussion at the talk page of WP:WIAFA or WP:SIZE? I don't think anyone reads Size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WIAFA. Ceoil 00:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)