Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Archive 1

Archive 1

Any comments?

Obviously, this is partly a humorous page. However, the list of team members is intended to consist of those who have volunteered to support the team goals, which are serious. Please add or remove your name as you wish.

All edits are welcome, both to the humour and the goals — and to merge the two. If there is some convergence between them, it may be worth deploying this page somewhere in Wikipedia space. Otherwise, it will just remain as a diversion in my userspace until it fails an MfD. Comments welcome! Geometry guy 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now moved this to a subpage of WP:WFA, as several editors have signed up to the goals, and it is becoming increasingly inappropriate to leave this list on a subpage of my user page. Geometry guy 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I really want to thank you guys (and guyesses) for so generously taking on the task of helping us out over at Murder Madness and Mayhem. I hope we do you proud! As you'll be able to see, I've edited wikipedia a fair bit, but still feel very much a novice. The students even more so... So there are many fingers crossed that this experiment will work out. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For me, the great thing about Wikipedia is its evolution; we all still have lots to learn (well, maybe not all of us!) Looking forward to pitching in ;) EyeSerene^TALK 19:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

UBX?

Just a thought (maybe I've got too much time on my hands?)...

If you're going for FA, if no-one else can help, and if you can find him, then maybe you can hire this user.

Copy/paste: {{User:EyeSerene/boxes/fateam_male}}

In my userspace at the moment, and obviously there'd be a ...find her version for the girlies too ;) EyeSerene^TALK 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like a female version, since the secret of my gender has been revealed. :) Awadewit | talk 16:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a secret...? :) If you'd rather, I could do a gender-neutral version instead (would it use 'them'?) Anyhow, no sooner said than done!

• I think I came out here. :) Awadewit | talk 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Some confusion there I think! I'd have thought it was fairly obvious anyway though, given your editing interests ;) 'Awadewit' always somehow struck me as a female username too (off on a tangent now, I'm convinced that there are phoneme patterns that are fairly gender-specific, and so even seemingly random usernames will often give away gender) EyeSerene^TALK 08:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going for FA, if no-one else can help, and if you can find her, then maybe you can hire this user.

Copy/paste: {{User:EyeSerene/boxes/fateam_female}}

EyeSerene^TALK 17:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice. As an alternatively to genders, you could use "find reliable sources", as on the team page: it is quite a key point. Geometry guy 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wish I'd thought of that ;)

If you're going for FA, if no-one else can help, and if you can find reliable sources, then maybe you can hire this user.

Copy/paste: {{User:EyeSerene/boxes/fateam}}

EyeSerene^TALK 23:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Update and next mission

I've requested an update from team members on Mission 1. Please see the Mission 1 talk page.

Also, we should start thinking about Mission 2. Although this task force is still experimental, I do believe we have the resources to operate more than one mission at a time. The first mission is, admittedly, rather a biggie, but ideas for the next would be much appreciated! Geometry guy 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like it to be different from the first one: meaning just one article. Wrad (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should start small as well. Also it would be easier to start with an article whose research was already complete since we are not really here to do research. Awadewit | talk 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How about The President (novel) page? :)--Mfreud (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's already part of Mission 1, but I appreciate the suggestion, and the smiley!

I agree with previous comments that we need a second mission which focuses on a single article, where the sourcing is already done, as a complement to the current mission. Any suggestions for a WikiProject or article to approach? If it only interests half of us, that's great, because we can then look for a mission to interest the other half! Geometry guy 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't think it's selfish, but someday, maybe in a few months, I might ask you all for help finishing off some of my FA projects? I've collected quite a few lately, such as sundial, X-ray crystallography, the universe, Catullus 2, Kepler problem in general relativity, Usher syndrome, list of scientific writings of Albert Einstein, and problem of Apollonius. I'm not sure why I have such a hard time finishing them, but I think I'd enjoy working on them more if I did it with friends. Unfortunately, they're still pretty rudimentary and largely unreferenced. :(

One thing we might consider doing together as a group is saving articles at FAR, such as action potential? Alternatively, our sundry friends surely have articles that are approaching FAC, such as To Kill A Mockingbird, Zwingli and Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975-1999). But they might not yet be ready for us to descend on them en masse and uninvited; they might not need us, either. ;) Willow (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with any of those. I've been able to bring Green to GA status, and have brought together some editors from the color project who are pretty excited about it. Might be another good choice. Wrad (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not a member but I'll throw an idea out there: scour FAC list for people working on their first FA, have a nearly 'complete' article but need an extra push (review/copyedit/endorsement/attention/etc). Paleolithic-style diet, Reactive attachment disorder, and Flag of Germany come to mind. --maclean 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another option is to pick an article that has just passed GA and see if we can help that author improve it the rest of the way. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, here are my top 5 candidates:

• Leonardo da Vinci - Important historical figure, former FA, currently at GA, recently at FAC, well-referenced. It has it all.
• Albert Einstein - In a similar state
• History of Earth - well-referenced, cool topic, writers recently tried to get a PR but to little avail.
• Electricity - another important topic, GA
• Green - important topic, GA, tried a PR to no avail, has a following of editors

I think of all these the choice is obvious: Leonardo da Vinci. He fills all categories. Wrad (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments. I like the idea for a brief action on a current FAC. Reactive attachment disorder is a bit messy (it had to be restarted), and of the other two, it seems to me that Paleolithic-style diet has the greater potential for FA-Team help.

Wrad's list would be a great next step. I'd love to see Leonardo da Vinci promoted: I think this may require the FA-Team to demonstrate its people skills (in particular, we need the involvement of an enthusiastic Willow!). Albert Einstein is also promising: it was passed by one of GAN's more experienced reviewers. As a summary article, History of Earth looks a bit tricky to me, and I'd suggest postponing FA-Team involvement. Electricity is a recent GA, so may respond well to FA-Team involvement, and Green is backed by Wrad and some excited editors (!).

Post Mission 1, Willow's list is full of promising options: provided, of course, she (or other editors) can find reliable sources :-)

Proposal. Lets get involved in Paleolithic-style diet as Mission 2, discuss which of Wrad's suggestions to take up as Mission 3, and think about Willow's suggestions for Mission 4. Does that work for the team? Geometry guy 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy's already asked me to help review Paleolithic-style diet, so I'll recuse myself from major help with the article to avoid COI. I was just about to look at it and see what suggestions I could come up with :) Karanacs (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting involved in an existing FAC doesn't seem to me to be the original intent of this group. I think the best thing we could do is find an article with enthusiastic editors who have no experience with FAC, but who know content. The goal is to add skills to the editors; making an article FA is secondary, surely. We're trying to increase the overall set of editors capable of taking an article up to FA. If we focus on articles rather than editors we're not increasing Wikipedia's capability; and we're not even increasing its quality output if our efforts would otherwise have gone to other FACs. I haven't looked through all of Wrad's examples above so I can't comment which would be appropriate, but if Green "has a following of editors", none of whom have FAC experience, then I'd suggest that's a good target. Mike Christie (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That is what I had in mind with the idea of existing FAC of new editors: empowering/training new FA-editors. There certainly is a number of angles that can be taken. That angle is FA-motivated-individual and bold-enough-to-approach-FAC but needing-an-extra-push. I have since engaged with Reactive attachment disorder. --maclean 19:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another article we may consider is King Arthur, which also has a following of editors good with content but unfamiliar with FA. Wrad (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Both the above look good - I'll go with consensus on this ;) EyeSerene^TALK 08:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike makes some excellent points, which helped bring our mission into focus for me. I hadn't clued in that we're not here to catch fish, but to teach people fishing. I'll likewise go with the consensus on our next specific topic; King Arthur does seem tempting! :) Willow (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree King Arthur seems a likely target, though Wetman, one of the editors there, does have an FA under his belt already. If others agree, perhaps Wrad (who I see is also editing that article) could ask on the talk page if they'd be interested in an FA push with our assistance? Mike Christie (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my contributions to the page have been pretty minimal, mostly copyedits and adding pictures. I really don't know enough about Arthur to contribute a lot source-wise. Wetman seems to have contributed at the same level as me. I've mainly been watching the page and waiting for someone who is familiar with the sources to step in, and in the past few weeks someone did. He/She is pretty new, but wants to get it to FA and knows his stuff. I'm hoping other people from WP:KA will start to gravitate toward the page as well. Wrad (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave them a note. Wrad (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with King Arthur for Mission 2, which suggests Wrad for mission coordinator again, unless Mike would like to step in. Or we can rotate the coordinator for Mission 1 as long as we keep WP:MMM au fait.

In terms of Mike's general points, I agree we are here to encourage FA producers rather than FA production per se, and his comments brought things into better focus for me too. I don't think we should restrict ourselves to helping those with no FAC experience, as these are not the only editors who need encouragement, although I agree that they should be our main target. For example, the justification for involvement with an editor's first FAC (which I understand to be the case with e.g. Paleolithic-style diet) is that we encourage the editor to go on to produce more FACs. Geometry guy 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have begun Mission 2. Wrad (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Mission 3

Proposal for a Mission 3: What might we do to have FA Team help students in a seminar course on the Long Poem from the University of Mary Washington bring the article they have added to featured article standards? Here is the misplaced edit we put on the FA Team Project article by mistake:

Long Poem Objective: assist WP:LP in bringing the Long Poem article to prominence and featured article status. Under the sharp tutelage of Professor Mara Scanlon and her senior seminar at the University of Mary Washington. Jgroom (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to start a page for proposals. I have a feeling we will be getting more and more as time passes. Wrad (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and the University of Mary Washington reference should have tipped me off earlier), I can vouch for Jgroom as a good thing. Heh, and I think I may have led him to you... Beware, the word is out about you, FA-Team! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I for one am impressed by how hard jbmurray's students have worked, and at the results we're getting. I'd be very interested in learning more about the Long Poem project. However, right now we're right in the thick of the last couple of weeks of pushing this mission to a close, so I don't think we can spare any attention for another project for at least a week or two.

Jgroom, could you let us know a little more about your timeline, and how many students would be working on this? Jbmurray's project has been a big effort, since it involves 12 articles. Long poem is likely to be a substantial article, but still less work than the WP:MMM project, so it might be quite doable. How long is your seminar going to be working on this? Mike Christie (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Christie, jbmurray certainly did lead us to you, and with the unbelievable work of the FA Team, I'm sure there will be many, many more. I know I will be touting your work far and wide as jbmurray already has. The Long Poem article is a bit different from jbmurray's WP:MMM class projects in that it is more contained and most of the article was written in a separate MediaWiki installation since January. They have done much of the work independent of Wikipedia, and when we saw the work you all were doing we were encouraged to push it on Wikipedia as soon as possible. Much of the contribution jbmurray has already made to the article are along the lines we were thinking. Correct citation, templates, formatting, etc. There are nine students in this seminar and they will be working on the article for another month, and longer if they are so inclined. I recognize the time line is short, and we have approached it a bit differently than jbmutray, so don't be too concerned about making time for us given the projects you are currently working on. Consider it an act of solidarity for getting universities contributing to this amazing resource, and a plug for the FA Team more specifically. What you are doing is remarkable, and needs to be recognized. All that said, I'll push the professor and the students to create a proposal page and link to it from here. Jgroom (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments; I think the whole FA team is enjoying this mission. I'll let the others comment, but I know I am unlikely to have any spare bandwidth until the Muder, Madness and Mayhem mission is over -- this is a hobby that I already don't have enough time for, and I suspect some of the others on the team are in the same boat. I see Wassupwestcoast has left a note at |WikiProject_Poetry, which is a good idea; however, WikiProjects vary a lot in their level of activity, and I don't know whether you'll get any useful response, though I hope you do. I'd also say that it looks like you've done a lot of good work already.

If nobody here has the spare time to work with your group, then some of us may still have time to keep your page on our watch lists. If you post specific questions there we might be able to respond.

Jbmurray, what have you been saying about us?! Mike Christie (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Me and my big mouth! But I blame our mutual friend Brian.  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In about two weeks, perhaps we could help out with this? I would really like to, but I am biased because it is a literature topic (my field!) and lit topics are so poorly covered on Wikipedia, particularly general articles such as long poem. Such articles are very difficult to write. Awadewit (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recruiting

With action heating up on WP:MMM, I wonder if this would be a good time to actively recruit other FA-knowledgeable editors to help with this last week or two. Names that occur to me include qp10qp, Yomangani, Ceoil, and Roger Davies. Any others? Are any of these not good fits? I'd be happy to drop each of them a note asking if they're interested in helping out. Mike Christie (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend Carre too, particularly when checking for MoS minutiae and if good-quality GA reviews are needed, although I'm not certain how active he is right now (so that was probably a completely useless contribution come to think of it...) EyeSerene^talk 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea. WP:MMM has provided a very good test of the FA-Team idea, which seems to be working quite well. There is a good opportunity to encourage others to join in. Geometry guy 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I skipped Carre per EyeSerene's comment but left a note for the others. If anyone thinks of other possibly interested editors, please feel free to steal the text I used in my note and leave a similar note on their talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Point me at one that isn't getting much attention and I'll dip in when I have a spare few minutes. Yomangani^talk 00:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How about The General in His Labyrinth? It's passed GA and is in peer review. If you could help the students figure out what is needed to take it to FA, that would be great. If you are willing to take this one, you might also add your name to this section, which is helping us figure out which articles need attention. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

Could William Wilberforce be a candidate for the FA-Team? I've been sort-of involved with this article for a year. However, the real heavy weights are two editors - Agendum (talk · contribs) and Slp1 (talk · contribs) - who have the abilities to take this article to FA. I don't know if they would want to but I'm leaving a message on the talk page about the FA-Team project. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oooh - my period. I would love to work on this topic. Don't tempt me.... :) Awadewit (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Slp1 (talk · contribs) is on board. It won't be a rush...just an onward push! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And, Agendum (talk · contribs) is on board. Probably in about a fortnight, any FA-Team people who care to can wander over and see wassup. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you drop a reminder on my talk page? Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll drop a reminder when things have progressed a bit. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This article recently passed GA. Wrad (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Academe

I found this blog about academe and Wikipedia which I thought people here might be interested in, given the current mission. Mike Christie (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll note I responded to that blog entry. And then again to the debate it generated over at Larry Sanger's blog. I think it's worth noting, however, that the tone of most responses was negative, and moreover, perhaps even more positively, that even the positive responses revolved around reading Wikipedia, rather than contributing to it. I'd have thought that, from Wikipedia's point of view, that has to change. And I'd like to think that MMM is a step in that direction. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Riding the FA wave

Check out the nice idea by Wrad on the FA-Team frontpage to start a list of editors who've found FA zeal and/or wiki-addiction working with us (sweet FA, perhaps). Any others want to add their name to the list? Geometry guy 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And if you don't like the blurbs I've given you, feel free to change them. Wrad (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I add another embarrassed face here?! ^_^--Abarratt (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! Today, the UBC... tomorrow, the world! EyeSerene^talk 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow...two new addicts? Kudos guys! I'd sign up if I wasn't already addicted. :S dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit request

I'd like to call upon the FA Team! If any of you esteemed members would like to drop by the article for the esteemed/forgotten literary critic and anthologist Rufus Wilmot Griswold and take a look at the prose, I'd be much obliged. The FA review seems to be going well but a good copy edit would be very welcome. I wrote the article without much help and, as you can imagine, am a little too close to my own writing to see any problems (Read: Curmedgeon says, "If you ask me, it's perfect. Hrumph." But that's why I'm not being asked. :) Really, any help would be quite welcome! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New members

There have been quite a few editors joining the team in the last few days, so welcome to Ohana United, Sceptre, Dank, RC-0722 and Tony. It's good news that the team is growing: the highly successful first mission has undoubtedly helped. I'm looking forward to discussing where we go from here. Geometry guy 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The people at King Arthur are still patiently waiting for some reviews. No need to wait too long to take the next step! Wrad (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be just about time for our postmortem (although we should at least wait until User:jbmurray gets back next week to participate) so that we can decide how best to focus our efforts next. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we also need to wait for the open FACs to conclude. Geometry guy 19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes to all. New members who have yet to comment are invited to look in at our two FACs. As detailed here there are also two articles still at GA Review, one of which needs a review, the other of which needs a decision. I have to take an enforced wikibreak for this conference, until Sunday evening. But feel free to start post-mortem issues if you want. I suspect it'd be good to start a dedicated page. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new too! :) I'll do a GA review, if you like...apparently I'm good at those (shifty eyes)! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bummer...taken. Erm...anywhere else I can be useful? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You can always check out Mario Vargas Llosa at FAC right now. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking now! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur needs a peer review, but the old one has been closed, so someone needs to open a new peer review. Hopefully, it will get more attention this time. Geometry guy 09:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Article that could use some help

I know I'm not a member of the project but I thought you guys might be interested in lending some help to get the The Third of May 1808 article up to FA status by the 200 anniversary of the depicted event. The article is currently a FAC and could use some help to become featured in such a short amount of time. Remember (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've started working on this. Awadewit (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

Does anyone know about the Tzatziki Squad? It seems like we share some similar goals. I just learned about it and reviewed an article for them. Awadewit (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. More the merrier. Wrad (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oldest FAs without review

Rudyard Kipling is one of Wiki's oldest continuous FAs that have not been reviewed. Any interest in tuning it up so it can avoid FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Could everyone stop suggesting such fascinating topics! As someone who is studying children's literature, this article is SOOOOO tempting. I have wanted to delve into it for a long time, but it would be so much work and I am in the middle of Mary Shelley and Jane Austen right now! Ahh! Someone pull me away! Please! Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got 100 more where that come; guaranteed FA saves if Wiki's most talented team worked on them, and probably guaranteed losses otherwise. That's scalability, taking advantage of editors who have long been here and will long be here, but need help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Kipling would require substantial research, though, and I just don't have time for that. If anyone already knows about Kipling, I'm ready and willing to help, but that article needs to be rewritten from the ground up (note the significant omission of a section on his writings). That is a significant investment of time. The FA-Team was supposed to promote the writing of FAs somehow, not actually write them (I thought, anyway). If we could fine someone who knows about Kipling - has the research ready to go, etc., this project would sound more enticing. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's a different story; I was hoping the basic research was in place. Darn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Paralysis by analysis :-)

It is obviously going to be impossible to hold off an MMM post-mortem and related FA-Team naval gazing any longer and there are already many interesting ideas being raised, but I'd like to propose that we carry out such analysis on a separate page, in order to keep this one fairly focused on matters such as current and forthcoming missions. I've created an analysis subpage with this in mind. Would it be okay to move the previous three threads on scaling to the /Analysis talk page? Geometry guy 13:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Mike Christie (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will make the fork unless objections are raised soonish. Everyone interested in helping the FA-Team improve (post the completion of 99% of Mission 1), please click here to watchlist the analysis page.

I'm also concerned that this discussion started before Vargas Llosa closed; any possibility everyone will hold off until the principle editors finish the work ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to hold off until then, but it seems that "then" is fairly soon now, as the main outstanding issues have been addressed. Geometry guy 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus a day to celebrate :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea :-) I've moved the scaling threads to help us focus on such celebrations. I implore all editors not to watchlist the FA-Team analysis page until all successes have been duly celebrated on this page :-) Geometry guy 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you tell me. I'm going to revert myself then (again, was surprised you created the page so soon). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My above post was not entirely serious. I think it's the right time to get a separate page going, so that those of us who want to analyse commit to the idea that we are starting to analyse how the FA-Team has done with Mission 1 and so on. If I haven't captured the mood, my edits can be reverted. Personally, I'm not going to post on the analysis talk page for another day or so, but I think all of us should feel free to post when we feel ready. Geometry guy 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'll be holding off commenting too for a while (or at least, as long as I can resist the lure of something more interesting than preparing Electronics course notes)... EyeSerene^talk 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian Projects

And, I just popped another sample of articles I consider worthy of FAT talent on the proposals page. The Indian Projects are rife with motivated, willing editors who just need some help getting over the hump; Preity Zinta is a perfect example. Those editors have been busting their chops since their last failed FAC, and the article could probably be spiffed up in well under a week if it got the kind of attention and talent available here. Perhaps an easy test case ? They're on their way to FAC after many months of preparation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is a good case, and several FA-Team members already know the article, e.g., in my case, through GAR. Geometry guy 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes <whack, d'oh> ... I forget too easily :-)) He just left a talk page message to me that he's going ahead and nomming. I couldn't tell him to wait for y'all as I'm not sure of the interest level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to comment as an individual. I can't count for the entire team. Geometry guy 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bat-signal

Did I see someone mention WP:FARC? Well, one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People is in FARC: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara‎. I contend it's POV; others disagree... I hope to do some fact checking this weekend. Any help from one or more steely-eyed, just-the-facts-please fact checkers (regardless of political stripe) would be cause for slavish levels of gratitude from your truly. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Action potential

Another suggestion: Action potential has been at FAR for a while now and WillowW is heroically trying to save it. Copy editing and perhaps some organizational work are needed. Any scientifically-inclined editors would be particularly welcome! Scartol and I have been bravely copy editing away, but we don't always know what we are doing! :) Awadewit (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we put proposals on the proposals page? (it is linked at the top of this page) Wrad (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And if any of my proposals there are lame, pls delete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added this proposal to the official proposal page - sorry! Awadewit (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is definitely on my mind, and I would encourage all those involved with the FA-Team to take a look. Geometry guy 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The largest hurdle there is citation, which needs to come from content experts; I'm not clear how that falls within the realm of the FA-Team, which I understood was to provide help with the FA process, ce, and MoS help when others did the research ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't really FA-Team remit, but FA-Team members may be able to help anyway. I've made one suggestion on the proposals page. Geometry guy 06:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Willow is doing the research. I suggested that we do the other stuff to take some of the pressure off of her. Awadewit (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur

Regardless of what we decide our third mission should be, King Arthur is our mission 2, and I kind of promised the editors there a review from the FA-team. They really don't know where to go from here. As we're coming to a decision on #3, could a few of you review that article and leave some notes on its talk page? I'm sure it would be appreciated. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Re, this, yes, it's featured. Regardless of when GimmeBot gets there, an article is featured when Raul or I move it to WP:FA; this is the edit that defines an article as featured. See WP:FAC/ar. Because I'm off to the movies with the family, I promoted/archived earlier than usual today, so Gimmetrow was probably caught offguard and may not run through 'til later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It confuses a lot of editors when the bot delays, but Llosa is an FA nevertheless. Wrad (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The confusing thing is not that the lack of bronze star: it is the fact that the discussion is still open, so editors might still add (apparently now irrelevant) comments and objections. Geometry guy 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't still open. It's not even listed at WP:FAC! Wrad (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vargas Llosa, Vargas Llosa.... ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, great job to those editors who helped with that article. The fireworks haven't exactly gone off yet (no bronze star), but congratulations is called for! Wrad (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has now been closed and I, for one, am delighted. Congratulations to all involved. It is a really great FA. Geometry guy 00:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow friends! Thanks so much for all your help. Seeing that pretty little bronze star up there does validate all the work that went into this article for sure. Thanks again team. You guys rock. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Madness!

		Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem
		On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank the entire FA-Team for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. We are endlessly indebted for the amount of time, care, and enthusiasm you all put into this project. Thank you so much! On behalf of the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur peer review

I've started a peer review for King Arthur. Please look it over to help the editors get this to FA status. At least one of them is pretty new and very motivated and is likely to become a regular FA writer on King Arthur articles with a little help. Let's get Mission 2 going! Wrad (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

well...

Guys,nice job! Murder, madness, and mayhem is over. See WP:MMM. We now have two open missions. We should either focus entirely on King Arthur or pick a second mission. I say let's vote right here. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Focus entirely on King Arthur until it is a FA. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Pick a second mission. See the proposals page. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. . I think it would be good to have two missions. It will help us take advantage of our specialties and interests. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please}

I think we may need to wait until after the postmortem to decide what kinds of/how many missions we want to run at one time. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of starting another mission. We have sufficient resources and energy (we effectively handled twelve missions during WP:MMM, although they were, of course, interrelated). The analysis can proceed in parallel and inform the development of our strategy; it shouldn't inhibit it, or restrict our energy. Geometry guy 23:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another mission sounds good...if I recall, the people working on King Arthur have been to FAC before (or some of them have), and ideally, this team should be helping those who know nothing about FAC get there. Show them it's not that bad. I have an editor in mind as someone firmly against FAC...I'll try and convince him to do a project with us, but otherwise, any other tasks...? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other tasks. We just haven't picked one. See the nominations page for possible missions. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 11:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Aah, thanks for pointing me to that! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article icon

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand

I found Willow's going and now that of Newyorkbrad very upsetting. What has this to do with the FA team? Well, as stunned Wikipedians flounder about for a way to pay tribute to Nyb, some editors have come up with the idea of trying to make an FA in his honour, since his parting message reveals his regret that he never did one. The article they have chosen is Learned Hand, which apparently Nyb was interested in bringing to FA one day. I wonder, given the thread concerning Willow's FAR above, if the FA team might consider widening its remit a wee bit to be on hand to help in specific cases, not just with new or inexperienced editors. When editors like Willow and Nyb leave, their future FAs go with them.

I admit I'm not a member of the FA team, and have no right to be making suggestions here, but the reason I haven't signed up is my fear of making promises and basic never-join-anything attitude, and I like to think of myself as an auxiliary member, so to speak. In the case of Learned Hand, perhaps we can at least keep an eye out for it. qp10qp (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to do something

WP:MMM was an amazing success. Congratulations. But I think we seem to be dying. We only have one active mission (King Arthur). We need to pick another mission. Now. Any comments would be appreciated. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur article

I note that this article has been chosen for support. I have read it through, and it strikes me as an excellent choice. What we have here is a thoroughly sourced article largely written by someone (user:Hrothgar cyning) who has published a book on the subject and knows their stuff. However, they don't really know Wikipedia, so there is much to do in terms of formatting, structure, streamlining, and prose. Unfortunately, the perfect moment to strike has seemingly passed, since Hrothgar hasn't edited since April. The article is strong enough to proceed to FA with or without Hrothgar, but it needs a group effort if it is not to become a burden for one editor. What say we drop on this article like a swarm of flies (or are the flies all out in the sun at this time of year)? qp10qp (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I will start by working on a detailed peer review. qp10qp (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I can help out. Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So far, I've completed a copy edit. I have moved material to other articles (created two new articles) and edited the article down to a reasonable length. I have addressed nearly all the issues at the peer review. On the talk page, I have proposed reducing the notes to shortened notes and adding all the ISBNs, which are largely missing. The main editor will hopefully reply soon. However, I would be interested in hearing from FA team members and Sandy on whether this is a helpful thing to do, since it is not mandatory. I just feel that the notes are unnecessarily dense and detailed at the moment and can be rationalised. The task will be tedious and time-consuming, and so I don't want to undertake it unless it is thought worthwhile. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly a fan of such things, and would be able to lend a hand. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow; those are some dense citations! Pls remember to have Brighterorange (talk · contribs) run his script to fix the faulty dashes in the citations (no need to do all that work by hand). Also, there's an ISBN finder in the userbox on my userpage. ISBNs are nice, but not required; a problem with adding them could be that, when there is more than one listed, you might not know which one the original editor used so that page numbers will correspond. On shortening the notes, absolutely worth it, because long notes make the text hard to work with. The citations need a lot of cleanup for consistency; they're all over the map. Are you all aware of the monobook script that allows you to edit refs? See Dr pda (talk · contribs), User scripts, Edit references (on his user page); I use it when I have to do a ref cleanup job this big. It does have some bugs, so you have to check your work, but it saves a lot of time for this kind of job, because it pulls up the refs separately for you. Also, if the original editor is gone, don't forget to notify the talk page of a pending FAC, so you comply with our new FAC instructions about notifying significant contributors. Looks like a worthy effort that just needs some elbow grease. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Elbow grease has been provided by jbmurray, Awadewit, and me. Close to ready for FAC, I think.

Sandy, that blasted pda thing played me false and started putting up doubles of itself and saving only from the pre-edited one. Lost my edits for half the refs and had to redo (grinds teeth). Buyer beware. qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Help, I'm drowning in reliable sources!

Most of my mainspace contributions are to subjects that, while easily clearing WP:N as presently-construed, don't have sufficient coverage to reach FA. Just for a change, I've decided to bring Pierre Trudeau to FA status. I'm in the fairly preliminary (off-wiki) stages right now, and things are going passably. My biggest problem so far? I have too many sources. Given my usual work, this is kind of a nice change, but it's still baffling me.

Example: suppose I want to say that Trudeau set himself apart from many of his Quiet Revolution allies by his disdain for ethnic nationalism. A true statement, but one that probably still needs a footnote if it's going to be in a featured article. So what source should I use? I could choose one of the five full-length Trudeau biographies I'm using (all of them about equally prestigious, and all differing from one another mostly at levels too detailed to be relevant to this article), which all make this point. I could use essays that Trudeau wrote disparaging ethnic nationalism and denigrating his allies for their failure to do so. I could use press accounts from before he was Prime Minister that make a very similar point.

Let's say I go with the biographies, which seems to me to be the best call. How do I choose which to use? I assume I don't want five footnotes after such an uncontentious statement, so I need to choose one, and I can't figure out any basis on which to do so other than an arbitrary one, so an arbitrary decision it will be. But what about the next statement I need to source that can be found in all five biographies? Should I choose the same one in the interests of consistency? A different one, in the interests of varying my sources? Help! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If the sources say it, they should probably all be cited. I think the most logical format would be to use Harvard referencing, separating sources with a semi-colon in a single inline citation, eg <ref>Smith 257; Brown 75; Jones 86</ref> EyeSerene^talk 07:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I really don't like multiple cites for one bit of information, especially (but not solely) if it's relatively minor.

In this case, I would use one biography; and then perhaps also a reference to something written by Trudeau, with some explanation. So <ref>Smith 257; see also Trudeau's 1982 article criticizing Chretien for his leniency towards Quebecois separatists' arguments based on ethnicity.</ref>. Summat' like that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sage advice as always ;) I don't think multiple refs are necessary for trivial stuff either, but then again I don't think it hurts to quote them for more important stuff - it helps readers follow them up if they want to. Which source would you suggest picking if only one is used? The most recent would seem to make sense to me. EyeSerene^talk 08:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that it doesn't matter which good biography you ref. Jbmurray's solution is OK so long as the article was mentioned in that context by the source you are using. For speed of working, I tend to begin with the shortest good-quality source I can (it will also demonstrate what can be left out), and ref from it until, for whatever reason, I need to check another. Pass over the article later with other sources to hand, tightening nuts and bolts. qp10qp (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have five bios all citing each of these facts, just take turns... a different bio for each fact. Yes, it sounds silly, but it can be quite fun! :) (Yes, I'm actually serious, since it doesn't really make a difference which source you use as long as it's reliable.) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 13:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

essay with comment on women and FA process

I thought this was interesting. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I would support a wikiproject intended to be by and for academicians. (There are some, but they appear to be defunct.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Errm, what's the connection between that page and this one? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It concerns some successful and some failed attempts to make changes in a featured article. It also concerns the integration of academicians and Wikipedians. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course. But it is this being promoted as a possible direction for an FA-Team project? Or...? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no. I just thought it was interesting, especially what she said about Featured articles. I was going to pass it along directly to Awadewit, but thought I'd share a little more generally. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've always thought that females were a bit higher proportion of the core editorship than the article suggests.. also, you may wanna cross-post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies or similar. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think gender can be addressed by building up the number of articles about women. But it's difficult to address it effectively on individual pages if the mainstream scholarship does not; in other words, where the sources for an article underplay women's roles, Wikipedia will end up reflecting that. There is a limit, for example, to how much one can say about Anne of Denmark in the James I of England article. However, they both have featured biographical articles—in that way, Anne's importance is shown on Wikipedia, perhaps more than in other encyclopedias. There is much to do, but I think this approach has potential. qp10qp (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I simply refuse to indent out more than 3 or on rare occasions 4 colons. I am weird that way. However, Rosa Luxemburg & Sofia Kovalevskaya could use some help. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ha; so that's where the sudden Gold Rush women issue came from. I'm not sure I agree with the prof's essay: a redlinked brand new user starts editing a featured article, makes one edit with a few good changes but with formatting issues and the mostly makes other edits which breach MoS --> likely to be reverted as a reminder to slow down and discuss. That doesn't mean it's hard to edit a featured article; it means it's wise to know Wiki guidelines before you start editing and introducing MoS errors. This shows the same kinds of issues we see on other (non-Jb) educational projects; that is, a lack of awareness of Wiki culture and guidelines. For example, this is just WP:OVERLINKing (in fact, three of Peacepanda (talk · contribs)'s first four edits were overlinking), although there were some good changes in the first edit. Some guidance might have saved that class some frustration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, Tony tried for a very long time to get a gender proposal into MoS and he was beaten back by the usual at the MoS talk pages. He still has it somewhere in his user space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1