Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to retrieve it from the current archive. Current Archive location: Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop/Archive 1

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 FAC-help project 1.1 Copyediting only 1.2 MOS help 2 Assembly-line thinking 2.1 Proposal 2.2 Review 3 Credit where credit is due 4 Another project? 4.1 List 4.2 Found one 5 * cough *

[edit] FAC-help project

It has been proposed, and the proposal has received a lot of support at the FAC talk page, that we start a system whereby editors can get help on the final steps of the FA process—copy-editing and MoS work—from users who are skilled in those areas. I've tried to kick this sort of thing off at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles page. I don't know if that will be its final resting place, but I do want to get something started and start working through exactly how an FAC copy-edit help page would work. Wrad (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation on the FAC talk page. I think this idea has a lot of potential, especially because I see a lot of vague comments such as "Prose needs work", or "You need a copy edit". As a content stuffer and a pretty good writer, it's a bit disheartening to see these comments not detailed. There doesn't seem to be much to do to address them. In whatever the project devises, I hope the end result will be constructive and specific. --Moni3 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the idea!! :) I'd encourage everyone who's interested to put their sig in the appropriate place on the project page. I don't know that this will be the permanent location for this idea, but it would be nice to see what kind of support we have. Wrad (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I'm not fully focused, so please ignore me :-) But. I still don't get it. We already have WP:LOCE for copyediting. We already have WP:PR for MOS and other issues. We already have WP:1FAPQ for bringing together resources for working on FAs. And we have the WikiProject. So, I'm just not clear on why another process is being proposed, and what distinguishes it from all the other things already in place. Help? My brain is fuzzy these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. All of those things you listed are not currently focused on nearly-FA articles. The LoC has a huge backlog of articles tagged for copyediting that are nowhere near ready for FA. What is the point of copyediting something that has bigger issues, even needing to be completely revamped and recited? Also, I've very rarely received any help at Peer-Review with MoS. WP:1FAPQ has always struck me as a club for people who are capable of single-handedly creating FAs in one quarter. Those kinds of people are pretty rare. I just think there should be a place where the best editors in certain areas can do the best work in places where it will last the longest and be the most appreciated. Wrad (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it even simpler: John is a talented new user. He thinks his article is almost ready for FAC, he just knows it needs a copy-edit. Where does he go? He doesn't know anybody, yet. Is there anyplace he can go to get MoS and copy-editing issues fixed in less than half a year? None of the places you listed really fit the bill for what he needs. One per Quarter comes close, but seems restrictive. Can people just walk in and get help, or do they have to be on the list? If it is possible to just walk in, I don't think that page makes that clear enough. It may be taking on something bigger than itself. I believe the "Help" portion of that page could be quite easily transfered to a more all-encompassing page which would include users working on FAs who were not part of the One per Quarter group. Wrad (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that simply starting another project, without better rationalization of current projects, is not an answer. (Though I totally empathize with Wrad's intetions.) You'll go to this new page and you'll be given a reply by whom? What editor that isn't available already on countless lists and projects? FWIW, I started both WP:1FAPQ and Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and I'm already lukewarm to both. I think we need to consolidate what's already there, advertise them better, and consider requirements rather than relying on the goodwill of people willing to thanklessly ce. One requirement (not as crazy as it sounds) is that you must have someone with an FA done already to vet your first FAC before you nominate. Marskell (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, in looking, that's completely redundant with PR volunteers list. Marskell (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So how do you do that consolidating? The basic idea I originally had wasn't to make a project. It was to have some way to separate articles which just needed CE MoS help from the rest of the pack to make it easier for copyeditors to see where their skills might be most appreciated. That's a pretty simple and unobtrusive idea. How do we make it happen? Wrad (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The way to make copyediting attractive is to give it the power to achieve something worthwhile. As Wrad points out, there is little point in copyediting an article which needs substantial changes in content, because it will just need to be copyedited again. But if we had some way to say "this is FA, up to MoS and CE fixes", then making those fixes would suddenly become a much more appealing activity. Geometry guy 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the basic idea. The rest is just fluff. Wrad (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Someday, wikipedia will get so big and quality will be improving so fast, that people will say, "I'm really good at this step in the article-improvement process, so I will go to this place that lists articles needing this kind of help." It's already happening now. There are new-article people and GA-people and FA-people and they all go to their the places they feel comfortable in. This is just another step in making it easier for people to work in their niche. Wrad (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As in previous, the PR volunteers list already exists; it can be retitled to include FA, but the basic solution is already here. But we don't have enough volunteers and/or nominators contacting them. In the absence of volunteers, a list to solicit volunteers does nothing. Requiring certain steps prior to FA seems the only definite answer. Marskell (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And "this is FA, up to MoS and CE fixes" is a red herring. I've done ten; if there are issues, they are never MoS alone. And note bad prose is not some "minor" fix. It's unfortunate how this meme has spread. Marskell (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is this place you speak of? Also, there are plenty of people who volunteer to copy-edit near-FA all the time, just no central place for people who aren't "in the know" to get help. Sheesh, whoever said it's a minor fix? Have you even read the discussions we've had about this? I'd rather not repeat myself again. You've done ten what? FAs? CEs? I don't understand. Wrad (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the note "bad prose" doesn't indicate a minor fix: Many of the comments I have seen (and received a few myself) aren't specific enough to address. They're blanket statements that have no meaning. Bad prose means bad prose, but it's subjective since people generally have their own ideas about what good prose is, and so vague it's impossible to fix to match that statement. Wrad, I'm an expert on nothing I write about here, but I am an expert in stuff I don't touch with a ten-foot pole at Wikipedia: curriculum and assessment. If you want help for FA reviewers in how to make better comments that editors can follow, I can assist with that. Drop me a line and let me know.--Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. Maybe repharse, if you want to continue talking. I'll only point out, for the third time, that this workshop has already produced a central place for volunteers. Marskell (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not what we're asking for though. Wrad (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. When you've figured out what you're asking for, ping me. Marskell (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just said what I'm asking for in very simple terms: "to separate articles which just needed CE MoS help from the rest of the pack to make it easier for copyeditors to see where their skills might be most appreciated." It's a central place for articles, not volunteers. Wrad (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject page, in the initial form you have it, is a volunteers list. (User:Wrad can help with humanities.) I've suggested this is redundant. "...articles which just needed CE MoS help..." I've suggested is a red herring. There is nothing new suggested in this thread. Marskell (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

... I made it very clear that that project page was a feeble, early attempt that I wasn't sure of. Let's talk about the actual issue and major goal here. How is it a red herring? Most editors have agreed that it isn't and that such a page would indeed be useful. Wrad (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The major goal is volunteers. We already have fora soliciting them; without specific requirements (must have Y's approval) or exclusions (cannot comment without Z) another cry for volunteers does nothing.

As for red herrings, before I say One More Word, find me an article that has been denied FA status solely because of MoS issues. Seriously, find me it. Marskell (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with Marskell that articles denied FA because of MOS or CE issues are rare. However, I think that many writers dislike FAC because of MOS complaints, and many find CE problems hard to fix. If it were possible to get an article to "FA pending MOS" status, I think some writers who dislike MOS might be willing to push the article to that status. That would allow someone else, who can do MOS fixes, to participate in the process and get the article over the last boundary to FA. For this to be worthwhile, one thing we would like to validate is that there are in fact writers willing to take an article to FAC, who would like to be able to ignore all MOS opposes, so that they can focus on content. Their reward would not be an FA, it would an article that would not meet FA for MOS reasons. That's fixable. (I know that CE errors could be more substantive.) One benefit to this is that it could attract back to FAC writers who froth at the mouth over MOS opposes. Does that clarify the idea? Mike Christie (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, honestly. Who are you talking about attracting back? Giano and Geogre? Worldtraveller? I know there are editors who really hate the general citation expectations post-'06, but that's a small group. (And citation expectations are not to be conflated with MoS.)

"...one thing we would like to validate is that there are in fact writers willing to take an article to FAC, who would like to be able to ignore all MOS opposes, so that they can focus on content." Who? And why should we ignore all MoS opposes? Finally, are you seriously advocating a third level, alongside GA and FA? I would oppose this on its face.

(Sorry to sound so snarky Mike, just my mood at the moment.) Marskell (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not snarky, just asking for answers, which is fair. I'm not sure who could be attracted back. I've certainly heard some of the poeple you name complain about FAC culture: I think they might be among those who would return to FAC but that couldn't be the only goal. And no, I'm not talking about another level; I think "FA-pending-MOS-fixes" status would have to be something that operated more like a clean-up template, not like a level. I also think it should expire after a couple of months to avoid it becoming a de facto level.

Isn't it true that many nominators are ill-equipped to address all aspects of the FAC criteria? They may know their topic well, but not understand how to cite, or what reliable sourcing means, or how to comply with MOS, or how to write clear encyclopedic prose. It's clear they can bring a lot of value to the production of FAs, but how can we best use their talents? Take Rjgibb: he took [[Wormshill] to FAC (the nom is now restarted; see the old nom here). His recent essay (on his user page) started this discussion. He's never going back to FAC, and it's because of MOS. I haven't asked him, but I wonder if he'd be interested in taking another article to FAC if he knew he could just ignore the MOS opposes. If the article got "FA-pending-MOS", which is plausible in that case, he could ask a MOS-FA task force to clean it up. If they did it successfully it would get to FA (via Raul's approval, as usual). As it stands, Rjgibb is lost to FAC. Wouldn't the ability to separate into specialized tasks both make him more likely to contribute, and improve our ability to scale FAC?

I posted a possible method at WT:FAC#Some thoughts on FAC (under the subheading "Method"); I'm not sure if you've read that discussion, but if not, there are some more details there. Perhaps I should repost those here? Mike Christie (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You ask who? Answer: me. Anyone else care to add their name? Wrad (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you, in last. Marskell (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, man. You seemed to think that no one would want to do what he said people want to do. I'm living proof that isn't correct. Wrad (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Wrad; from where I'm sitting your posts are a little hard to keep up with. I didn't mean to be unnecessarily annoyed. Marskell (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Marksell, in your call for anti-red herring proof, you left out articles who haven't reached FA because of copyediting. Everyone acknowledges that criteria 1a is the most difficult to meet. There are plenty of examples of that out there. Might as well take care of MoS problems as well while we're at it. And again, this isn't a call for volunteers, for the millionth time. Wrad (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting only

If you really want personal examples of people who would take advantage of this. I am a huge one. I've got a huge list of article on my user page that are almost FAs, but I don't bother submitting them because I'd get creamed on criteria 1a. Some of them I haven't even bothered fixing beyond GA because I know I cant get them to FA. I'm just not a copy-editor. I get frustrated because I can't find anyone to help. I don't know where to look. I think that this would at least give me a place to put my articles so that copy-editors could pull them the rest of the way if they wanted. Then maybe I'd pull another one real close and get it copy-edited. Wrad (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost here. Isn't that, at least in part, what the League of Copyeditors is for? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I believe they do try to prioritize material that needs copyedit because there are comments to that effect at FAC. The suggestion at hand would be a formalization of that relationship to some extent, and might serve to focus copyediting attention more specifically on FA-worthy articles. Mike Christie (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If I put a copy-edit tag on those articles, as the LOC asks, it will just be one of the over two thousand articles that have those tags on it. It won't get copy-edited. Ever. If I bring my article to FAC it will get creamed because it wasn't copyedited and people will be mad because you aren't supposed to knowingly submit stuff that doesn't meet the criteria. Thus, I won't really get that prioritizing notice that the LOC might give a failed FAC, even though it might not have as much merit. Wrad (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do understand the problem. But maybe we just need a new tag that flags the copyedit request as being for an FA candidate? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOCE already has that (had that?), and for a long time, I was maintaining over there the list of FA candidates that only needed ce help. Last time I checked, no one was maintaining those categories/lists over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I just checked this; the list is all out of whack, and not being maintained to actually reflect FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found a place you're talking about and I am satisfied: this link. Pretty much exactly what you said. I think this link should be provided to anyone who's nomination is failing on CE grounds, rather than just mentioning the LOC. Their page isn't all that easy to follow and it's easy to get lost in the muck. Wrad (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is a mess, the articles listed in each category aren't correct, that project worked well when Gzkn started it (but s/he left), and for a while, I maintained it. Someone needs to take over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) So if I want to help keep it in line, what do I do? Wrad (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the page suffers from "no leader". I think you only need to keep up with the FAC and FAR pages, and move things around on that page so that the FAC category is truly FAC articles. But the page design is so cumbersome, that I gave up even doing that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) By the way, back when I was maintaining it, I always specified which FACs had overcome all hurdles except ce, and that ce was a priority for them. Makes no sense to ce an article that's not comprehensive or has neutrality issues. I always left a note, only remaining issues are ce, help appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And this page worked well, you say? Wrad (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a period when it was a Godsend. That's why I say we have all the pieces, we just need to re-energize them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That whole LOCE project seems to suffer from a lack of leadership IMO. Shame. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Gzkn (who launched and fed that page for a long time) was a huge loss; the loss of good editors is the ongoing shame of Wiki :'-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not wrong there. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I personally feel that that project is even more important now that it ever was. We're experiencing a quality boom. More and more articles are approaching FA status faster and faster. Copy-editing is like a brick wall for me, and I know it is for other editors as well. How do we get a new leader or director and fix the project? Wrad (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Wiki. You want a new leader? You're appointed.  :-)  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Wouldn't a leader of copy-editors have to know something about, um, copy-editing? Wrad (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's the page organization that needs leadership, so the copyeditors will be attracted to it and find it useful. And, we need to reward those copyeditors with barnstars. What is needed is organizational skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to just see what I can do and what happens, happens. That's my wiki-philosophy. Wrad (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the LOCE page is as bad a SandyGeorgia thinks. It was partially automated a few months ago, so its not as cumbersome as it used to be. There aren't that many articles listed in the wrong section. Epbr123 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the FACs needing help go back to April 2007. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed that way to me, too. Happy-melon seems to be doing some things with it, but it still needs some help. Wrad (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has hit the nail directly on the head I think. Copyeditors need to be attracted to it and they need to find the work rewarding. This is a volunteeer projcet after all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wrad (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Give a guy a break, for heaven's sake. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and [10]. :P Happy‑melon 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All of these different methods of doing the reviews etc just bemuse me. I'm a technical sort of soul, so I understand them easily enough, but I don't understand the need for them. It seems to me that all of these "aiming towards quality" wikipedia areas can, and should, all use exactly the same method of organising themselves. And it seems to me that the current FAC process is the simplest and easiest to understand process. Create a subpage whose pagespace and talkspace can be used to discuss the requested review/ce; transclude it to the relevant wiki-space (GAN, PR, project PR, project A-class, LoCE, FAC, whatever). One place to comment, respond and talk. MilHist reviews already use this method, and other benefits are that gimmebot understands the FAC structure, {{ArticleHistory}} supports it readily, and archiving is easily done (again, as with current FAC).

Even further ahead than that, it could be possible that each article be given an automagic "review" page, much as it has a talk page. That review place could, with dev changes, be the place for all of the discussions related to improving an article. This, of course, is a pipe-dream, but a nice thought. Carre (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I would also like to endorse the LoCE. I took three articles from either non-existent, or start-class to FA in the last 4 months of 2007, and couldn't have done so without the help of LoCE. Working with those articles and those editors has left me with decent working relationships with good copyeditors, such that I can now bypass WP:LoCE, but without that project I would never have made those relationships. Carre (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would very strongly oppose a migration towards a "review" page for each article, be it automatically or manually generated. Consider this FAC I was involved in, which literally drowned in its own ink. The FAC of Wicked (musical) I've been participating in has spilled over onto the talk page, two WikiProjects and a CFD. Consolidating all that information into one place is a recipe for confusion, animosity and apathy. Secondly, what do you think the talk page was originally intended for? I'm sure it was originally expected to be "a place to comment, respond and talk" about improvements to the article. The talk page has clearly been found lacking in that regard, to the extent that over time, we have removed review processes from the talk page and centralised them at GAC, FAC, PR, etc. Separating the comment location from the review process will force a reversal of this trend and almost certainly result in the review process becoming less consistent and more haphazard. It will also reverse the trend that has been growing on Wikipedia for editors and articles to group together 'behind the scenes' to enable resources to be applied where they can be the most useful, and for editors to work where they can do the most good. The reason that FAC and GAC are places where articles improve dramatically is that they are places where they are forcibly introduced to a group of editors who focus entirely on pointing out the improvements that should be made. In the same way that people interested in chemistry will hang out at WP:CHEM and those who know a lot about Harry Potter will be drawn to WP:HP, good copyeditors congregate at WP:LOCE and good reviewers hang out at WP:FAC and WP:GAC. Anything that we do that fragments these review institutions risks breaking up these groups of editors, and that can only be a bad thing. And finally, remember that we have resisted for years the temptation to turn GAC into a "watered down FAC". We all agree that PR is useless, but no one can come up with a better solution. The League of Copyeditors simply wouldn't work if it did anything other than copyediting. All these institutions work differently because they have to in order to be useful. If the LOCE branched out into general review, it would be come PR, become hopelessly backlogged, and fail miserably. If GAC became watered-down FAC, it would be sidestepped by editors who couldn't be bothered to participate in two weeks of community discussion when they'll just have to go through it all over again at FAC. The differences between the review systems is what makes them all useful in their own way. They're all imperfect, and could probably all do with an overhaul, but lumping them all together is simply not the right way to fix them. Happy‑melon 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS help

I think that copy editing and the MOS should be separated here. Copy editing is actually quite difficult and as several people have pointed out in this discussion, not everyone can do it. Learning the MOS and making an article adhere to it, on the other hand, is something anyone can do. It is just memorization. There are two big problems in the way of adherence to the MOS: it changes frequently and it is big - we don't need a MOS that dwarfs the 1000-page Chicago MOS. I think if we had SandyGeorgia's "MOS CliffsNotes" (or whatever it was called) that people could work from that changed only every six months or so, we could set up a little MOS factory that articles went through before FAC. That way there wouldn't be petty disputes over the MOS at FAC and the reviews could focus on substantive issues. Awadewit | talk 06:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assembly-line thinking

I think the discussions about specialized tasks -- MOS and copyediting are the two examples that have been used -- highlight an important fact about the way articles are currently constructed. The collaborative ethos underlying Wikis doesn't require any particular division of labour, and so many of the FA writers are essentially solo or work in small groups -- they take primary responsibility for taking the article all the way to FA. (I'm going to use FA for my examples since I'm more familiar with it than with GA; I'd be surprised if similar comments did not apply to GA.)

This is an artisanal process, as opposed to an assembly-line process. Artisans take responsibility for the entire task of producing a product; an artisan making a chair might cut, shape and carve the wood, make the joints, assemble the chair, and sand and varnish (or paint) the result. Nobody who wanted high-volume chair production would divide the labour that way.

So if we want to scale production of quality articles, should we consider more explicitly dividing labour? We already have LOCE, and we've talked about a MOS task force. But I'm thinking of slightly more specific breakdowns.

For example, suppose there is a WikiProject that is moderately active but which hasn't done much FA work. The WikiProject members are probably primarily interested in content. Suppose that a small group (probably one or two would be enough) of editors with good MOS and CE experience agreed that they would prioritize working with that WikiProject on articles that could go to FAC. Then the WikiProject could improve article content, pass it to the copyeditor, who would pass it to the MOS guru. After one or two iterations the resulting article could be taken to FAC, where all three of those experts would be available to fix whichever problems were identified.

The goal of structuring things this way would be to put people in roles where their expertise is valuable, rather than force people to learn new skills. I would think a successful WikiProject following this model could produce at least one or two FAs per month. Even at that level of effort, though, the copyeditor and MOS guru would have time to support multiple WikiProjects.

The difference between this and the existing system is that LOCE (for example) is just a labour pool with an input hopper. There's little prioritization of resources, though I understand articles at FAC are given priority. With the right project to provide content, I think this approach might enable much faster production, as editors would feel not only that their efforts would be supported by other experts but that they would be more likely to succeed in pushing articles to FA. That would in itself be motivation. Mike Christie (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is considerable merit to this thinking. I think that this style of operation is the one some of the more successful WikiProject have already chanced upon - WP:ELEMENTS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System etc have restricted themselves to a very small set of articles and have concentrated their varied resources on those articles. IIRC WP:SIMPSONS has set up a GA/FA production line which has been quite successful. However, working in such a line is not something I would personally find enjoyable - although I do admin work at the LOCE, I don't do very many copyedits myself because I dislike doing exactly the same thing too repetitively. I find something like TfD different because each case is unique, but with copyediting, and I expect MOS, GA review and even FAC, most reviewers will find the same things wrong over and over. That wouldn't interest me, and I suspect many other editors feel the same. By contrast, I'm sure there are many editors who would love to find a place on a production line such as you describe. I suppose it's just the luck of the draw: editors group into WikiProjects by interest, and then the character of the WikiProject is shaped by the editing styles of its editors. Happy‑melon 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a production line person myself, either, and I'm not entirely sure we should promote the idea of people or projects cranking out articles like machines. I'm afraid the articles themselves might become cookie-cutter. One the major problems with the "style guidelines" at various subject WikiProjects is that too many editors believe they are written in stone and they fail to design articles around the subject. Not all novels or films, for example, should be written about the same way; some need much more discussion of genre while others need much more discussion of style. I think we should encourage careful planning, careful thought, careful writing, and careful research at every step of the article-development process. I'm not sure this proposal does this. I'm open to convincing, but I'm skeptical right now. Awadewit | talk 04:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the assembly line metaphor either. In an assembly line, you do your job, push the object along, and never see it again. With wikipedia, we need something like an assembly line, but with more communication between editors. Wrad (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps I picked the wrong metaphor; what I meant to focus on was division of labour, not repetitive tedium. For example, in a project that used this approach, everyone interested in FA production would presumably be watching the article and its talk page at every stage. The content editors would be on the alert for changes to meaning introduced by copy-editing, and would be there to respond to queries from the copy-editor about organization, unclear intended meaning, or other issues. The MOS specialist might be able to operate a little more independently but would probably ask for more info about sources, and occasionally article organization issues might come up if, for example, there were MOS problems that required some level of reorganization (such as short paragraphs). So the communication Wrad is asking for would be there, and I hope the tedium would not.

So I conceive of it as teamwork, with specialists on the team. The real reason to do it would be scaling production of FAs. I think it's true that artisan production can be very effective, but I don't think it's very scalable. If articles produced by this sort of teamwork would be poorer articles, then Awadewit is probably right: we shouldn't try this approach. I'm not convinced that's true, though. Mike Christie (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you put it. One example of a WikiProject that already has this sort of thing going is the Dinosaur project. Wrad (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the Shakespeare project have something like this? The Hamlet article and the William Shakespeare article ended up working this way, but I'm not sure that led to a quick FA process. What it led to were superb articles. I think the teamwork helped distribute the work on complex topics that no one wanted to tackle alone (go wiki, go wiki!) and that should always be encouraged. Since the most time-intensive work in researching and writing the "first draft" of an article, I'm not sure what can be gained by dividing people into copy editing specialists and content specialists, beyond the gains we already have. I continue to think that MOS specialists could contribute something because we could recruit wiki-gnomes, but I am less sure about the proposal overall. However, perhaps we should just try this out and see what happens (I am all for experimentation). Perhaps we should be like scientists and gather some data? :) Awadewit | talk 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind of what we have going on at the Shakespeare Project is a rough division of labor along these lines: We have an FA collaboration and a GA collaboration going on at the same time. Editors who have strong FA skills such as copyediting, etc., are encouraged to work on the FA drive. Editors who are especially strong when it comes to research work on GAs. The GA collaboration typically becomes the next FA collaboration once the older collaboration succeeds, and a new article is picked for GA work. Editors who research and write the "first draft" work closely with the editors on the "FA team" to fix issues. Editors also have different strengths in research, for example, I usually deal with textual analysis of the plays while others prefer to work on performances and film versions. Add it all up, and we get a pretty good article in about 6 months, with another article's GA "first draft" completed and in line for the next FA collaboration. None of this has ever really been officially oganized, it's just how it works. It's the best project I've ever been in.

I would argue that this organization does move things faster. None of these articles would be FAs if it wasn't for the project, the subject is just to hard to do alone in a similar time. The trick is to get the process going without making things machine-like, and that just takes a lot of good editors who know how to negotiate. Wrad (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent after ec) When I discussed this with Mike previously, I pointed to the example already mentioned by Happy-melon: Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System has taken virtually every major body in the Solar System to FA. It's truly fantastic and it's exactly what core articles need across the site. Maybe "assembly line" is not a perfect analogy, but it's not completely wrong: it implies systematic work, systematic talk between editors, and playing to the strengths of each. How did Solar System do it? How do we replicate it? And this is an interesting question: did the actual project make the achievement? I've been a minor contributor to the content improvement on Solar System, and I think it fair to say that it's just been a handful of editors: Worldtraveller (before he left), Ruslik0, RJHall, Serendipodous, Volcanopele, myself. That's it: just a few people working together. (I'm definitely leaving people out, of course: hundreds of editors have contributed to the Solar System articles.) I'm really not sure that the project was the reason. It's been an informal interpersonal dymanic, with informal goals between editors. I've had the same with the felines. I'm sure others have had the same with their frequent subject areas. Only MiltHist has achieved exactly what we want from projects: a true, cohesive group that can be roused to look at an article. Other content improvement in specific areas has been single editor or small group driven.

Anyway, two ideas in this regard (small and big):

• Small. A "pact" structure. A group of editors (about five) informally agrees to a pact: X area will be FA by Y date. For instance, I might sign up with Casliber and others to make all of the large felines FA by the end of the year.
• Big. A yearly Wikipedia wide FA drive on a vital subject area, that is (as much as possible) open to any editor. An obvious first candidate: countries of the world. After Pokemon and sex, countries turn up highest on page load counts. Everyone can contribute something.

I agree a strict assembly line may not work (and may kill the fun). But a general structure encouraging systematic attention to particular subject areas would be good. Marskell (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting - it seems like this system has worked in these two instances when people decided to band together. I wonder, though, if it would work without people voluntarily banding together - I mean, I wonder if that was the glue holding everything together, essentially? Their desire to do the project. For example, I would love to do a featured topic on Jane Austen, but that is really too much work for one person. Currently Simmaren and I are working on the JA pages themselves, but we need people for the novel pages. We haven't really had any nibbles. We thought we might pick up some interested parties along the way, but not yet (the JA novel pages are abysmal). I hate to advertise because then I think that the small "pact" of good editors that you want working on a project balloons out of control (I love JA! I want to join!). So, if this is the kind of project that you think could benefit from such a structure, how do you think it should be set up? How do you find the small pact? How do you structure the project? Let's set up a hypothetical Jane Austen project. :) Awadewit | talk 19:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• That would be hard. The difference with Shakespeare is that there are so many who are devoted to improving his play articles out there. A lot of the people were there before the project started. I'd go ahead and try, though. Do you know how to propose a project? Wrad (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not saying we should, what I'm asking is, using the proposal above, what would such a hypothetical project look like, how would it work, etc.? Sometimes it is good to use an example to see how the details would play out. We have seen two successful examples in the past. I am proposing that we see how one would set up such a project without the "banding together" phenomenon. Do we have to wait for such projects to spring up on their own or can be prompt them into existence? This is what I want to find out. (By the way, I do not want the responsibility of establishing a JA WikiProject!) Awadewit | talk 20:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec. response to Awadewit's penultimate.) That's a good contrastive example. "I love JA! I want to join!" gets to the point. Who doesn't love Jane Austen after reading Jane Austen? (Pride and Prejudice is positively awesome—in the old sense of the word! ;). But if I signed up, I wouldn't really contribute because I have no research library nearby. (I contribute, generally, by digesting science abstracts on-line, as I think a lot of people do.) The projects seem cohesive and localized, but in a lot of cases they're just a random sign-up form for people with nothing better to do one afternoon.

The smaller "pacts" idea would work through people who have already contributed and know each other. It would have to be more than two (if it's just two, go ahead and work it out, no process needed). But when you have three, four, or five, you can all decide on a given topic area as a target. Then you have to decide how big your net is. Jane Austen may be too small. Romantic or Victorian literature may be better (troll around for good editors). Pick your targets, and say "X will be done by the end of the year." I don't see that it has to be No Fun. It can actually give you a motivator when you're idly hitting watchlist. Marskell (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Slightly OT: Perhaps you are unaware of ginormous amount of material written on Jane Austen, her novels, the adaptations, etc.? Smiles. Like Shakespeare, it is an industry. "Victorian literature", she gasps in horror! Such a topic would sprawl over dozens of pages. Teams of professional academics are needed to put together anthologies of such periods. What would we need here? Faints. Awadewit | talk 20:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Try these smelling salts. I don't know if it would work to take these projects and bring them to a larger scale. The reason they work is because of their concentration. They are a sizeable group of editors with the same specific (not basic) goal. The only thing I can think that would make this more widespread is to help teach editors how to improve dead wikiprojects. Wikiprojects fail for one of two reasons. Either they have no members, or they have no cohesive goal. Some projects are too big to do anything more than provide the most general guidelines and advice. Others are too small to gather any members. I think projects with goals because they encourage people to join wikipedia. People aren't going to join unless they see something they can do. Wrad (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that different subject areas may be amenable to different approaches. Awadewit makes the point that there is a great deal of material on Jane Austen, as no doubt there is on a subject such as the planet Mars. But the difference, at least in my mind, is that with Mars there is a factual anchor. With a subject like JA, there is an ever increasing body of critical opinion that is perhaps subject to fashionable interpretation. Rather few hard facts in other words. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Slightly OT again: Well, I thought the facts on Mars were changing as we explore it? So which "facts" are the "facts"? :) (I'm just playing there.) I would disagree that there are no "facts" for the JA article - there are the "facts" of critical interpretation. Those are the facts that Wikipedia includes. Critical interpretation has its history (see Reception history of Jane Austen), and the commentary on Jane Austen that was published up until 2006 isn't going to change now. The question is how best for Wikipedia to represent that. The novels and Jane Austen's life are of course open to interpretation, but I don't think we want to start down the road of saying the works of scholars themselves should be interpreted. That would be a disaster for any article outside of mathematics - for any article that includes words or is based on sources that use words. Down that path leads the nihilism of deconstruction. :) Awadewit | talk 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference, I think, is that the sciences apply laws of reason that can be verified again and again. On the other hand, different people reading Austen will get different reactions. That said, even Mars has a culture section. Which brings up another problem I see. Many articles span both the sciences and the humanities, yet there are few projects which cover both. Wrad (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The point that I obviously signally failed to make is that there is a very great difference between a fact such as "the moon is made of green cheese" and a fact such "Jane Austen was one of the greatest authors of the 18th century". One can be tested, the other is simply an opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I was disputing. What you can verify, and we do in the Austen articles, is that someone said "Jane Austen was one of the greatest authors of the early nineteenth century". That is a verifiable fact. Of course, it is that person's opinion, but that is why we rely on scholars - experts, if you will. By the way - side-side note - those kinds of statements are rarely made by scholars anymore precisely because there is no way to argue convincingly for such a statement. Awadewit | talk 23:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You will very likely be able to find a credible source arguing the exact opposite, that JA was a novelist with no talent whatsoever. But once it has been proven that the moon is not made of green cheese, that claim becomes of historical interest only. Unlike the case with novelists, who are perodically fashionable and then not. The word fact appears to mean different things to different people. That X thinks Y is indeed a fact, but it has no bearing on the truth of the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not arguing that Jane Austen scholars know the truth about anything. What I am arguing is that particular scholars have made particular arguments - that is a fact and those are the facts that we use in the articles here. Awadewit | talk 00:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, I'd just say that Malleus' example is actually a good one. Mars is to Solar System what Austen is to early 19th century British literature. My point about casting a wider net is that we want FAs to cover categories as much as possible. It's great to have Austen as an immediate goal but who's doing the Bronte sisters? We wouldn't top-notch coverage of Mars, while forgetting Venus. Marskell (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be a better example if it were possible in any way to list "Victorian writers" or "Victorian works of literature", but such a list is near impossible. With "Solar system", it is actually possible to contain the list (using common sense). With "Victorian writers" and "Victorian works of literature", the list is near endless (even using common sense and avoiding fights about the "canon") and "Victorian literature" itself would cover, as I mentioned, dozens of pages: 19th-century periodicals, 19th-century novel, 19th-century poetry, Fin-de-siecle literature, etc. This is why I fainted at the prospect. :) Someone is welcome to undertake such an enormous project, but I would consider it a monstrous undertaking - a never-ending project. It is not a project for five people - unless those five people are doing nothing else but reading 19th-century literature and scholarship on it. Awadewit | talk 04:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

(unindenting to change the subject): I'd like to try to answer the question that emerged higher up about how we might go about planning a project to test this idea. How about something like this:

1. Find two volunteers (perhaps you, if you're reading this!) who can copyedit or who are good with MOS compliance (or both)
2. Identify a project that has:
   1. Active participants working on content
   2. Few or no FAs from the project
   3. Sufficient access to reliable sources to meet FA standards
3. Suggest on their project discussion page that we'd like to try the experiment of forming a team with them as one participant, and two additional editors who know how to copyedit and do MOS work to FA standard.
4. Let the project pick an article and start work.
5. If I were one of the two copyeditor/MOS editors, I'd stay fairly quiet during the development process, but I would be available to answer questions if they had any.
6. The project says they think they have all the necessary content in. The copyeditor works on the article until both they and the project team are happy with the result. The MOS expert comes along and does a pass.
7. The project nominates at FAC. (I suggest we make this a project nominator, as has occasionally been done, rather than an individual.)

The hardest part is identifying a likely project. I think we should look for an existing WikiProject since that will demonstrate existing commitment to content. Perhaps a good way to go would be to find a high-level project that has lots of subprojects, such as WP:HISTORY or WP:FOOTBALL, and ask at the top level for subprojects to volunteer. Then the two CE/MOS volunteers could agree between themselves which subproject they want to work with, using whatever criteria they please, but probably including criteria 2.1 to 2.3 above. E.g. 2.3 may be important for articles about pop culture items -- does the project understand what reliable sources are for that topic?

Meanwhile the participants in this workshop watch and evaluate. How does that sound? Mike Christie (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How about the United States Project? So far, there is only one FA state article. That seems to show that there is potential. Wrad (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Any structure needs to have, at its heart, one or two editors who have already done one and/or are highly committed. And we wouldn't need to compartmentalize too strictly ("you are the MoS person; you are the content person"). Just make a team that fits. As yesterday, I think countries of the world is an obvious candidate. Universally topical, high page load counts. Book sources are good but you can still contribute with net sources. (Wrad's also make sense but the non-American may be slightly put off if we choose it to make a first team.) Marskell (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All good points; and the Wikiproject page shows multiple recent edits, so perhaps it is quite active. Anybody want to volunteer to try this per the above suggested approach? Mike Christie (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to be a copy editor when the article needs one. Awadewit | talk 05:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Before noticing this thread, I had been thinking about posting one: a wider, annual FA drive with countries as its first target. To avoid the random sign-up problem, we would contact people who are already FA writers, perhaps those with more than three FAs last year that you posted on my talk page, Mike. Then we look for others who are a logical fit (non-Anglosphere editors who are heavy contributors, for instance). Then we create sub-teams and get rolling. It would mean, for instance, that Mike Christie, while planning his next dozen Anglo-Saxon topics, would leave one month aside to work on a country. I could be on a team that covers the UAE. If FA contributors get involved, we could easily do two dozen countries this year. I'll draft a page, if you like. Marskell (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to participate in this sort of thing as a part-time activity -- more or less in exactly the way you describe -- but I actually think the "proof of concept" we're looking for here should not involve taking FA writers and re-purposing them, even part-time. For example, suppose we post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and get several editors interested in bringing Uruguay to FA. If those editors are not FA-experienced, but the assistance of someone like Awadewit (in her copyediting capacity, rather than her FA-machine capacity) can get them through FA with reasonable speed and leave them willing to try to do it again, then we've shown we can add resources to groups of interested content editors that help them reach FA. I think your approach is focused more on treating FA writers as the key resource than what I had in mind. Or did I misunderstand you? Mike Christie (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of participating part-time as well. I would have no idea how to start researching a country (for example), except for its history (!). I think we should encourage FA editors to contribute in their areas of expertise - not pull them away from those areas. I know when I start researching outside my areas of expertise, I start to feel at sea very quickly. I would like to think of FA writers as mentors, maybe? I have done this a couple of times for new editors who haven't taken an article through FAC and it has worked out well. We can provide advice about article development (at the later stages), revision, copy editing, and the MOS, based on our experience (I've developed a handy-dandy checklist and I know there are other such things around as well - we could pool them). Thoughts? Awadewit | talk 05:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say that there was one thing that changed the Shakespeare project more than anything else, and that was our FA collaboration on William Shakespeare. At first, none of us had any real experience with that sort of drive, but people appeared out of the woodwork over time. When we finally succeeded, we had a sense of purpose. We knew what we wanted and we knew we could do it and we knew how to do it.

I'm saying this mainly to encourage variety in this proposal. Don't focus all on one thing. Dive in to one wikiproject, teach it how to get an FA and what resources are available to them then move on to another project. I can think of several that would be elated at such a boost. And believe me, the momentum carries long after the star is put on. Projects can transform over things like this under the right conditions. Wrad (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that argument. I'd been thinking that we could diagnose that the problem was (for some people) copyediting and MOS), and so I was suggesting teams that included CE/MOS skills, allied with the content skills that could be found in a project. I think what you're saying (and Marskell too) is that if people who know how to get through FAC work with a project they are likely to leave behind them a more engaged, more FA-capable team.

I am trying to imagine what the experience would be like if I did this with a project. One thing to avoid is any form of saying "Hey, we're FA gurus, are you willing to benefit from our august brilliance?" That might not establish quite the collaborative relationship I was thinking about. Another point: one nice thing about having someone who is a pure copyediting genius (someone like User:Finetooth) is that they are clearly a specialist. I have no particular skills that would give me any special authority in a WikiProject such as the countries; I've no sources to help them; no knowledge of what the standard or agreed-on format for a countries article should be. I'll be honest: I've no particular interest in developing those standards with a group like that. I'd be willing to participate as a copyeditor (though I'm only so-so as a copyeditor) because I already know what I need to know to help in that way. If someone with FA experience is actually willing to dive in and coach a project right through to FA, then I think Wrad's right, that's going to be very beneficial -- it's not what I had in mind, but I think it could be very helpful. These people would be "FA Coaches", and would be in great demand, I would think. Mike Christie (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want to take people from their specialization, as Awadewit says. And, of course, it is true that having a few FACs doesn't suddenly make you a content expert on all that you survey. I was just thinking of repurposing some fraction of the time that heavy FAC nominators spend anyway toward a) helping people into the process, and b) core subject matter. Thinking about it, "Mike and Wrad, go do a country FAC" doesn't really make sense; we're here to do what we enjoy.

But as people commenting are willing to at least ce and offer tips in such a project, some version of it can happen. Rather than "coaches", I'd suggest the perfectly benign "helpers." Nothing patronizing about that title. You go to a project and say, "we have a half dozen FA helpers who'd like to set some informal targets here." Wait for people to respond, and search for a few who seem good candidates at the same time. And then set up small, friendly, target-based teams. Succeed with one country and you may find you enjoy it and do another. Most important is that first time nominators enjoy it. Marskell (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically what happens when a project creates its first FA (especially if that FA is one of their top-priority articles) is they a) learn a lot of things about format, referencing, style, and other guidlelines, b) Make connections with other quality editors on wikipedia with many different strengths, and c) (possibly most valuable) as they research high priority articles within the project, they become more familiar with the research materials available about their particular subject, which lays some serious ground for future expansion. Knowing where to look is half the battle when it comes to research. Wrad (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm convinced this is worth a shot. I'd be willing to sign up to talk to a project (and the countries project looks as good as any) and ask if they'd like to team up to try to make another FA. Who else is interested? Maybe if we can get a short list of people to sign up here, we can then post a note on a WikiProject talk page and see what happens. I think three editors from this group would be good. I'd think minimum qualifications are either you've been through FA successfully a couple of times; or you've done a lot of copyediting or MOS work; or you do a lot of FAC or FAR reviewing. Any of those should make you very valuable to a group of editors that know content. Mike Christie (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in. I was thinking I can send them article PDFs from databases I have access to, if needed. Wrad (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to try this as well. I have experience in all of those areas, except FAR, however most of my FA experience has been solo or duo writing. It is important that we have people like Wrad that have been a part of "FA teams", I think. It is quite different to do what I frequently do - write an article in near isolation and then come out of my cave to ask for a peer review, copy editing, and go to FAC - than it is to work with a group of people on an article (the wiki ideal). Since we are going to be asking the project to form a little group, we need someone who has experience doing that. If people here think that all three members of our little group need a lot of FA-group experience, I will accept that and not volunteer. I just want to make sure that we have that area of expertise of well-covered. Awadewit | talk 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you'll be fine. Part of the point of "helpers" would be the "fresh eyes" aspect they bring to a copyedit. You can certainly do that without having participated in a group before. Marskell (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading this thread with interest: there are plenty of nice ideas here. In particular, the idea to connect content experts with a few helpers who have some experience of the FA process is a great idea, and could be rewarding for everyone involved. It is the kind of activity that fits under the umbrella of WikiProject Featured articles, if this is successfully re-energized.

The latter may need some rebranding to generate interest, so, hoping to inject some humour into the deadly serious FAC process, I created a homepage for this subproject/task force/idea :-). The aim was to take away the "FA guru" impression that Mike was worried about, simply by not taking ourselves too seriously. However, such an approach may actually be too silly to develop, in which case it will just remain a subpage of my user page until it fails an MfD :-) Geometry guy 19:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ho ho ho. I think the first step is to prove we can actually help! How about this as a draft for a post on the countries page?

Subject: FA team for one country?

There's been some discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop about how to increase featured article production. One suggestion that came up was to find a couple of volunteers who had plenty of experience working on FA articles, and ally them with an active team from a WikiProject that knew the content side of things and was interested in taking an article to FA. The goal would be to get another FA, help the project ramp up FA production, and discover if this is a good way of sharing skills between content editors and people who know the FA process. We have three volunteers: Awadewit, Mike Christie and Wrad.

So is anyone from this project interested in picking a country article to bring to featured level? If so, we're certainly ready to help. The things we think we can help on include:

• How to do research and what constitutes a reliable source
• Balance
• Stylistic issues related to the manual of style, from what needs to be in the lead to how to cite to use of summary style
• Copyediting

We won't know much, if anything, about the content of the particular article we'd work on. In a way that's the point of this idea -- the editors at this project presumably know and are interested in the content, which is why you're part of the project. What we think we can contribute is the other skills needed to take an article to featured level.

If you're interested, please post a response right here. The first question would be which country article to pick. Our only input there would be to avoid starting with a country that we know is likely to have some very contentious issues, such as Israel, the United States of America or Iraq. It would be better to try this idea out on a less controversial article. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(end of draft) Comments? Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: I can say if a source is obviously unreliable (Joe Schmo's blog), but I may not be able to direct research in certain areas. This is what I hope the content editors already know. I wholeheartedly agree that we want to stay away from the most contentious countries. We want this to be an experiment in FA-writing, not an experiment in diplomacy. :) (By the way, I love Geometry guy's FA-Team page - I think we need humor. I, apparently, have no sense of humor at all, so I welcome the lightheartedness. Awadewit | talk 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Awadawit! I agree that "How to do research" is a small weak point, but apart from that, Mike, this reads very well. Lets hope the plan comes together. Geometry guy 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait for Wrad to comment, since they're part of the team. If Wrad has no significant edits I'll post a version of the draft above to the countries project page, and a note here to say it's done; I'll tweak the research/reliable sources bullet to say we'll try to help, rather than that we can help. Mike Christie (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. If nobody answers we'll go to a different project. Wrad (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I posted a note here. Let's see what happens.

One other point: I don't think there's any reason we have to restrict involvement to Wrad, Awadewit and me; I named the three of us in that post because we all said we were willing to commit to giving it a try. I hope many other people reading here will follow the discussions, if the countries project picks up this idea, and will chip in with comments and assistance. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review

So, the proposal is to get Projects to bring more articles to FAC, but there are at least 20 FACs at this moment that don't have sufficient reviews for me to promote or archive (meaning, I end up having to archive by default, and then get hollered at for archiving FACs with no input). Similar problem happening at FAR. Not enough reviewers, plenty of FACs. When these Projects bring articles to FAC, who is going to review them?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really glad that you've introduced that note of reality. The fundamental problem is a lack of reviewers. Not just at FA, but also at GA and PR. The topic of how to encourage more reviewers was an an early one discussed here that proved too hard to address, but it remains fundamental. No point in pushing more and more FAs into the mixer unless someone is actually prepared to turn the handle. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Discouraging. So disappointing to archive someone's FAC because of no response. Someone once wanted to start a system to reward reviewers. Maybe that's a good idea after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall recently that I got involved in Jim Bowie's FAC, only because I'd seen you somewhere appeal for reviewers. The reward for me was to see the article get that little gold star. I've also reviewed quite a few GACs just because they appeared to be languishing, not because I had any particular interest in the subject, but that's another story.

Without looking at every FAC though, it's hard to know which are in urgent need of reviews. Would it be workable to have some system like say, the RfA, summarising the current state of play with each nominee? Instead of that massive FAC page? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am religiously updating the urgent FACs template (linked at the top of WT:FAC), but it seems no one pays attention. Perhaps if more editors linked it on their talk pages? We don't need more systems; we need people to notice the one we have :-) I add those most urgently in need of input, even though there are many more. Maybe you all wouldn't mind transcluding User:Deckiller/FAC urgents here? (The FAC page wouldn't be massive if I could promote/archive more efficiently, which I can't do without reviewers :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, which I've taken to heart. :-)--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) An experienced reviewer is worth his/her weight in gold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When I'm ready to do an FAC review, I nearly always check the urgents list first to see if there's anything there I feel competent to review. It's a useful list. To your other point, Sandy, I think more FA writers will also turn into more FA reviewers, though I also think a reward system would be a good idea. Mike Christie (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I proposed some sort of award program, but it didn't go anywhere. Who would be in charge of it and what would the awards be for? We never really answered those questions. Wrad (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We should all be in charge, although it creates a bit of COI if I give out awards. Woody gave out some reviewer awards once. We should just take note of good reviewers and barnstar them. For example, right now, Karanacs' reviews have been real lifesavers; solid, thorough, comprehensive reviews that I can count on to cover the issues. Someone should barnstar that person :-) One good review offsets a ton of fan support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on BuddingJournalist. Enough awards exist; we just need to hand them out more. Karanacs did just get a nice thank you for a review. Marskell (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Indopug has also done some great reviews lately. (By the way, the problem with any automated reward system is that it would equally reward "good" and "less good" reviewers.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but this isn't a fatal flaw. Not all FAs are created equal, but we get equal credit for each of them at WP:WBFAN, and those who are motivated by competition to rise up that list benefit Wikipedia by generating more FAs. I don't think that leads to weaker FAs. Similarly I think a list of Wikipedians by featured article candidate reviews would be at least worth trying.

A related thought: with Raul recently having delegated FAC activities to you, I wonder if there is room for a "clerking" function at FAC? I'd thought about this before as someone who could (for example) summarize long, complex FACs for easy decision-making by the director, but on reflection I decided that summarizing and making the promote/archive decision were very closely related and this might not be a clerking task. However, another clerking function could be to take each closed FAC and identify reviewers who deserved credit for a high-quality review. Shouldn't take more than a minute or two per FAC. Would that be something you and Raul could delegate? Would anybody be interested in volunteering to be FAC clerk? If so, it would be extremely easy to put together a list of top reviewers. Mike Christie (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've given a lot of thought to the backlog at FAC, and the truth is, the only thing holding up FAC is lack of quality reviews. I don't think a clerk would help (I'd rather have that person doing reviews). I used to sit down twice a week (at least) and run through the entire page, making sure Raul had enough input on each FAC to make decisions. I can't do that now (COI), but I often have to input comments myself because of lack of review. I run through FAC several times a day looking for FACs I can close, and they languish because of lack of review. So, while I sit and wait for reviews <smile>, I have plenty of spare time to keep up with the clerkish work myself, although it would be grand if someone else backed me up. Add external link checker on previous FACs. Make sure talk page templates are prepped for GimmeBot on all FACs and FARs. Run through external link checker and flag FACs which have dead links, prompting nominators to review. Prompt nominators to followup on revisits. Check the FAC and FAR categories regularly for malformed, incomplete, not submitted noms. Archiving Wikipedia:Goings on every Sunday night is a pet peeve of mine and Rauls's; no one does it regularly, although the instructions are there in the page. Seriously, the only holdup at FAC is lack of review. There are several FACs sitting there now which could be archived but haven't received a single review, and there are several that could be promoted with a few more reviews. If I archive and promote on no input, or just one or two reviews, there are always complaints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(← Unindent to avoid interfering with the "clerk" thread) GAN has a "reviewer of the week" programme, coordinated by Epbr123. Every Sunday, the top 5 reviewers (by number and thoroughness of reviews: the precise algorithm is a state secret) are listed at WT:GAN and the top reviewer is awarded a medal. I'm critical of a lot of things at GAN, but this is one thing that seems to work extremely well. The competition is very healthy and friendly, and the Sunday postings generate a bit of cameraderie between reviewers, and often a bit of light-hearted banter. Geometry guy 15:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Without divulging state secrets <smile>, how do you avoid awarding reviewers who add something to every FAC, regardless of how useful it is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been several attempts to uncover the algorithm, but this is the closest we've got. Perhaps Epbr123 can be persuaded to send you a heavily encrypted message via IRCcarrier pigeon :)

I guess the idea should be to focus on thoroughness more than number of reviews. The sheer amount of text that a reviewer contributes in bytes might be a very rough approximation to that (although at FAC, this might reward a particularly prolific contributor whose reviews are not, shall we say, universally well-received). Actually, there probably isn't an algorithm: instead Epbr123's judgement (in listing the reviewers of the week) is trusted and respected. Although it is questioned from time to time. Geometry guy 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting :-) IRC is a bad word in my view, and I don't even know where to find it. In hindsight, "less than well received" reviews can be determined by the outcome of the FAC and subsequent reviews (a whole lot of raving supports followed be a detailed oppose with all the problems puts the Supports into perspective, and an Oppose that is deemed unactionable when the review closes is apparent), so perhaps it's not that hard if it's done after the review closes. Perhaps Epbr could be persuaded to work his magic on FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree: each week Epbr looks at the reviews which were closed in the last week, and the same approach could be used at FAC. Then, as you say, it is not so hard to determine which reviews were useful. It is probably best done by someone who is well-recognised and respected at FAC: Epbr is at GAN, but I've no idea if this is so at FAC. If so, there is no harm in asking. Geometry guy 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea, and I hope Epbr123 is willing to give this a try. One suggestion, Sandy, if you do ask him; how about letting him know your perspective each week about which reviews at the "urgents" list were particularly helpful -- giving extra weight to people who focus on the urgent reviews would be a way to encourage more reviewers where they're most needed. Mike Christie (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mike and Gguy; I'll get around to this just as soon as things settle down elsewhere (not holding my breath). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have the conversation with Epbr123 myself, and I'm sure others would also be willing to do so, but if you think it would be good to wait till you've got time to participate more in the conversation we can just let it sit for a bit -- it's not urgent. Mike Christie (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than re-summarizing to Epbr, I left a link to this thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The GAN Reviewer of the Week is decided using a points system, where a reviewer is given a number of points for each review they perform. The points depend on the review's thoroughness, evaluated using various criteria, and the reviewer with the most points at the end of the week wins. I would be willing to adapt my system for FAC, although I also wouldn't mind if someone more respected at FAC would like to do it instead. As per Mike's suggestion, it would be possible to give extra credit to users who review under-reviewed articles. The system would also give credit when reviewers fix articles themselves, not just when they leave comments at FAC. Epbr123 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're more than qualified. Any thoughts about the way to get started? Is an introductory note on the FAC talk page a good idea to get feedback? A lot of FAC regulars are unlikely to read this page, so a note there might be sensible to get feedback from others there, before getting started. Mike Christie (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Two concerns. First, I want to get Raul's feedback before taking it further. Second, I've been thinking about the half-joking-but-not "secret algorithm" aspect, and how to put something workable in place that really addresses the issues without encouraging drive-by voting and ineffective commentary. If Raul likes the idea, I'm in favor of Epbr doing this, but perhaps we could discuss the algorithm on not-IRC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll step out of the conversation at this point. I hope this can work out; it could be a good way to generate a little friendly competition that would benefit FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll run it by Raul once the evolution thing is better sorted out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Credit where credit is due

It is easy for us to worry that what we have here is just a talk-shop, so I thought I would draw attention, for those who haven't seen it, to a recent thread on the peer review talk page. The supportive commentary is backed up by objective evidence: the peer review page is now bulging at the seams. Geometry guy 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, I have proposed that peer reviews be listed by topic, in accordance with some of our previous discussions. Please comment at WT:PR#Organising the PR page. Geometry guy 19:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased with how the volunteers page has turned out, at least anecdotally. I've had three ce requests in the last ten days, and I assume it's because of the list (perhaps because I'm listed second under General copyediting). I have an idea, still vague, that we might use it for the "FA helper idea."

In other news, so much for countries. No takers. I think we may have a bit of a catch-22: projects that are active enough to generate responses probably already have content improvement structures in place; those that don't have content improvement structures, won't generate responses... Glancing at that talk, there's a number of unanswered threads.

I created two shortcuts, WP:CRW and WP:PRV, for this and the volunteers page. Marskell (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the obvious talk page shortcut for this page. Geometry guy 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thx, the talk shortcuts are often missed. Marskell (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another project?

Per Marskell's post above I think it's time to try another project with the FA helpers idea. How about trying a big project like WP:HISTORY? That's so big that surely a lot of people will be watching the discussion who haven't written FAs, and also there are so many separate sub-interests under that heading that the existence of history FAs doesn't mean everyone in that project has experience writing them. Any other suggestions for where to try next? Mike Christie (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We could do that one. Wrad (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Although it also shows some unanswered threads. I wonder if the super-big project titles really have minders. WP:BIOGRAPHY is another obvious choice. It's talk page looks slightly more active. Marskell (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If we prefer something smaller, perhaps something like WikiProject Greater Manchester would be appropriate. (Here, I'm linking to the edit history: I think that is most helpful in showing activity.) In this particular case, we have a known known, in the form of Malleus, but there are a number of WikiProjects like this around the globe. Geometry guy 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The big thing isn't size, it's motivation. Wrad (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that suggestion highlights part of the point that brought this up. Greater Manchester matters, but it's not something I'd specifically devote time to (unless directly asked—I'll try to answer any specific request). If editors from Greater Manchester are already doing their business, great. But we don't want to divert time to something that's not well-hit.

I don't want to slight people working on more obscure projects. (Not all of my nominations are exactly vital.) But the idea is to encourage FAs on core subjecct matter.

But perhaps we can't even do this? Actively seeking FAs may just seem weird on a project talk. Good, passive structures (like the PR volunteers list) may be best, counter-intuitive as it seems. Marskell (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We could also drop a line at the middle ages project and ask if they'd like to get Middle Ages to FA. I think we should keep trying. I don't even know what the PR volunteer list is. Wrad (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is, sir: WP:PRV. Fairly self-explanatory :). Marskell (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the WikiProject Greater Manchester isn't small and obscure, and it's getting quite up to speed at producing GA/FAs. Of course, I am biased. ;-) If I was going to suggest a project it would be WikiProject Cheshire, for the simple reason that after a few disheartening efforts at FA they've pretty much given up on it now. So I don't entirely agree with Marskell; I think seeding projects to become confident and capable of producing FAs is what this ought to be about, acting a bit like a virus. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't either. The idea is to give our skillset to groups that are struggling to find it. I personally don't care who they are, as long as they have a serious drive to get an FA. Wrad (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And then, I think, to move on to the next, which is why I made the comparison with a virus. I don't know if the Cheshire project would welcome the FA team or not, but it does seem to me to be the sort of project that the team should be looking for. Some very able editors who have lost faith with the FA process. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(←) I have some sympathy with Marskell's view that dealing with a localized topic may not generate enough FA-Team interest, but I think we have to start somewhere if we are serious about it. If this process works, it will get noticed at FAC, and then those who need help will come to us, rather than us seeking them. Meanwhile, I think the edit history is a good guide, and WikiProject Cheshire appears to be a bit quiet right now. Maybe we should try something US based such as WikiProject New York? Geometry guy 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered approaching individual participants listed at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries to see if they want to make an FAC push? Like LaNicoya's Nicaragua, Willow's Universe, VanTucky's Domestic sheep, Wrad's Green or Red, BillC's electricity or Cedars' telecommunication. This could get you some quick, prominent victories and potentially net a few competent allies. --maclean 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The color project has put Green up for PR, but not received much comment. It might be a good candidate. Anyone can research it. Wrad (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Marskell's view is interesting, but it's counter to what I had thought that this FA team was set up to do. If I understand Marskell's position correctly, then the thing to do would be to pick on an important but neglected article and then buff it up a bit. I had, on the other hand, thought the purpose of the team was to empower and motivate projects, regardless of whether their subject area was considered to be interesting important or not. Silly me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should do a little of both--try to get big time articles, but maybe start small and rely on the ripple-effect of success to get the word out. The most powerful thing on wikipedia is success. Wrad (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need to create an artificial rift here (strike that "silly me" please Malleus :) You're views are not silly!). I think we should try anything and everything, and see if we can find out what works. Countries didn't work, lets try a few other ideas. Geometry guy 23:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with that last comment. My view is that the article subject simply doesn't matter; we're trying to help content editors tackle FAC and the content is their concern, not ours. I also think we should try to find projects rather than individuals: the goal (in my mind) is to establish FA production lines, not individual motivated editors (though that would certainly also be a benefit). So far Cheshire seems the best possibility just because of Malleus' comment that they have tried FAC and given up. Perhaps a post there (from Malleus?) would be a good way to test their interest? Mike Christie (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that, and I'll also contact directly a few of the major contributors to that project who I know have lost faith with the FA process because of some bad experiences in the past. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend, Maelleus. If there's a project that has specifically asked for help in the past, by all means let's provide it. That core subject matter should be prioritized in general strikes me as self-evident. (Although it would take a while to sort, I've long thought that a separate FA list should be created for those articles that have a corresponding Brittanica entry.) The Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries is interesting. What happened with it? Were any winners ever announced? Marskell (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No sweat, I wasn't in the least offended. :-) I agree with your general point that there are some articles that clearly ought to be worked on, personal interests apart, and having a corresponding Britannica entry seems as good a way as any of choosing which those should be. Given the apparent difficulty of interesting a project in the FA team idea, I'm wondering whether it might be worth considering altering the remit a little, to proactively target those important articles that appear to be finding it difficult to get to FA? I guess I have something like the DIY SOS TV program in mind. The problem though, of course, is that this is a volunteer project, and most people will quite reasonably want to work on whatever they find interesting, as opposed to what might be generally agreed to be important. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a buildup of support on the Jesus talk page for another push for FA. Now that would be quite an article to have on our list of deeds done. I'll keep you posted. Wrad (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am more and more struggling to understand what the purpose of this team is. Is it an FAC SWAT team, that gets called in when the almost inevitable object 1a)s start piling in? Does the team wait to be called, or is it proactive in picking out articles like the Jesus one? How will it change anything? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It aims to help groups of editors learn how to get FAs. There are enough editors at Jesus to make it its own project. It would be a big benefit to all involved. The same goes with your proposal. Wrad (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus is obviously a big article project, but it's clearly open to controversy, and it wouldn't be one that I'd pick if I was trying out this new idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List

Before embarking on helping a particular project, it would be useful to actually list the people who are willing to do it. As the PR list has already gained some traction, it should suffice. I've started a thread on the talk: Wikipedia talk:Peer review/volunteers. When some minimum number is reached, maybe six people, we can move it to the main page. Marskell (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a sensible idea, but wouldn't it be worth adding a preliminary sentence saying that's the plan? Right now it reads like it's out of place on PR talk and doesn't mention that it's going to be moved, or where. And would you put it on PR? Wouldn't it make more sense to put it on FAC? Mike Christie (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a note to the section. I do imagine it would be at FAC, perhaps even in the FA template. The list can possibly be renamed if it's scope is extended in this way. I don't think we should create a second page for it—a one-stop shop to pick up your volunteer. Marskell (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note left at WT:FAC, here. Marskell (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, how about moving the list to that new section you just started at WT:FAC? That's surely the natural place for it and it will be visible for discussion as well as assembling more names. Mike Christie (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Done. Marskell (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It occurred to me that the natural way to use that list would be to post it somewhere and let editors who want to take an article to FAC approach individuals on the list. This is not quite what I had in mind -- not sure if others would agree. I'd been thinking that the value of the list was to allow people to sign up for any future team-based efforts to assist a project get FA status. As it stands, this is going to be more of a mentoring volunteer list -- that's rather different. Is that intentional? Mike Christie (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be on a non-team-based mentoring list. Wrad (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely decided, but leaning toward a mentoring list. First, our experience with going to projects is decidedly lukewarm; Malleus' latest was well-posted and did generate comments, but I don't know if there's a full project to take on there. Are we going to find one? Hey, countries was my big idea, and that didn't work.

A mentoring list, undirected, may be better. A passive structure, as above. But. It needs to be more than eight (if it succeeds at that number, it will be a victim of its own success, as those eight get swamped by requests). And we should come up with a checklist of common FAC concerns before bringing it out in the open. It's nice to say "hey, we're great editors" but, really, let's not take for granted that two, twelve, or twenty FACs makes you the perfect reviewer. An FAC concerns list (including a "quick MoS") would be useful in its own right, even if the list doesn't work out.

(If Wrad doesn't want a non-team-based mentoring list, perhaps other don't want the same.) (Noted after ec.) Marskell (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found this page. I see a use for both a team-based mentoring list and an individual list. I "found" the FAC process as part of WikiProject Texas A&M, and since none of us in that project knew anything about the FAC process we would have jumped for joy to have found a team of mentors give guidance on our first attempt. Instead, we had a trial by fire, and I know now that there was a lot we should have been able to fix before getting to that point. If I hadn't been part of a wikiproject, and was just improving an article on my own, I would have liked to have a list of individuals so that I could have asked someone to help me through the process. I would not expect the mentors to be able to identify all the issues, because we aren't perfect, but they can help identify the big ones so that FAC reviewers can look beyond the basics. Also, besides helping walk a person/team through the process, we're also teaching them what to look for in a review, which might help us gain new reviewers too. Of the four of us who nominated Texas A&M University as that wikiproject's first FA candidate, two of us (BQZip01 and I) are now regular reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A team-based idea, with a semi-humorous twist (we need to make it catchy, don't we?) can be found here. Geometry guy 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Like Wrad, I'd prefer to be part of a team, though I can really see the value of the individual mentoring too. I'd like us to keep trying to find a project that would be interested in having a team help them work on their first FAs. How about a post to the Village Pump? Mike Christie (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are now established (if perhaps in name only) WikiProject for every nation on the planet, and the majority of overseas territories. Trust me on this one. It might not be a bad idea to go to one of the "regional" WikiProjects or notice boards and maybe try to set up an experimental focus with one of the new national or territorial projects. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true, there are hundreds of wikiprojects and we've only really tried one. Wrad (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Found one

I have found the perfect project for this. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem. These guys have a lot of motivation and almost zero experience. I think we have a lot to offer them to give them a good experience here. I'm already in contact with the person in charge of the project. Wrad (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been lurking with interest for a while, watching better minds than mine at work ;) I will comment on this though. Reading the Project page it looks like this is a short-term class project. Admittedly, getting articles to FA is always a worthy achievement, but does this have any long-term viability (ie are we after a payoff other than more FAs)? EyeSerene^TALK 15:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the hope is that they will get hooked and become wikiobsessed like the rest of us :) It is also a good small project to test the new method. If it doesn't work, or we find issues with how it is being structured, then we at least won't have discouraged a larger project. Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that might be part of the reason, and it's a damn good one to my mind ;) I realise there are volunteers elsewhere, but I'm happy to offer my services for MoS and/or copyediting if required. EyeSerene^TALK 15:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I, too, have been lurking. This seems like a perfect project to start out with though! I'll gladly offer my copy-editing/MOS services as well. BuddingJournalist 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If this PhD has a good experience. He'll be back, and that means better articles for wikipedia. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

...and maybe his students too ;) The more I look at this, the better it sounds. EyeSerene^TALK 18:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like consensus to me. I'd post something to the project page, but Wrad, you said you were already in touch with the person running this project. Do you want to post something? Either to him, or to the project page; maybe something along the lines of the note we posted to the "Countries" project, suitably tweaked for the circumstances. Mike Christie (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll get on it. Wrad (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) This is a student project, so the real work probably ought to be done by the students? My only concern would be that so many of the volunteers for this team have sound experience of getting literature articles through FA that it might end up a bit like getting your Mum to do your homework for you, and difficult for them not to dive into the content. Just my 2 cents worth. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the students will do the work—the volunteer will look it over and give pointers. It is perfect, in many ways. They already have their target dates and objectives. How are we going to link individual articles to individual volunteers? We do need to be clear that any given volunteer may need to jump out for reasons of their own. Marskell (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I love it when a plan comes together, and what better title than "Murder, Madness and Mayhem"? :) It seems to me that this is a case where we need the whole team, not individuals, to help out on all the pages. Otherwise, individual students may benefit from having particularly dedicated and experienced support, while others may draw the short straw. Geometry guy 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The value of the team seems to me to be that there will be someone available to respond to questions on a fairly quick turnaround. Also, if there are differences of opinion on a point, the editors will start to see how consensus is reached. I also think a sense of camaraderie should form among those of us who get involved and help; just as the editors are learning how to take an article to FAC, we should plan to learn how to take editors to that stage. We haven't functioned as a team in that way and no doubt we'll learn something as we go through that process. Mike Christie (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in contact with the teacher, and he/she has made it clear that help is wanted. I don't plan to do much research, but I think we'll have our hand full on other things. Wrad (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest thing to do is have one dedicated talk spot that we all watch where students can post questions. They can make specific requests for copyediting or ask about policy and guidelines. I still think a "quick MoS" should be drafted in advance. Marskell (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds eminently sensible; perhaps the project talk page or a dedicated sub-page if its participants agree? Maybe those of us who are willing and able to commit should also be listed there, along with any areas we feel particlularly able to help with, so that we can be reached on our talk pages too.

As for the MoS, the teacher has posted a few helpful links already... although I agree that a 'quick-and-dirty' guide would be very helpful. This would need drafting quickly and with the WikiProject Literature assessment guidelines in mind; we don't want to get bogged down in a long 'collaborative' (in the unproductive sense of the word) effort that produces results too late (if ever) :P EyeSerene^TALK 10:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly desirable, but I am a bit doubtful about how quickly we could put something like that together. My own experience with copyediting and stylistic consistency issues, both in and out of Wikipedia, is that the best thing is to learn by doing. If the project starts work on a couple of articles, I'd say we help them deal with MoS issues as they arise. For example, there's no point in going in and making an early draft compliant with WP:MOSDASH, but it wouldn't hurt to move a right-facing portrait to the left side of the page, or to make images alternate left and right, while commenting on the talk page about the relevant MOS guideline. When the article gets closer to being done, some of the more finicky things can be addressed. It might even be the case that by watching to see what issues come up, in what order, and capturing the advice we give in a separate document, we can generate the "quick MOS" reference as a byproduct of this team assistance, rather than the reverse. Mike Christie (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the time factor is my main concern. To clarify, I was thinking more on the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, as a guide to how an article should look, as opposed to a nuts-and-bolts MoS compliance manual. However, if you think this is best coming in the form of on-the-job pointers I have no problem with that. EyeSerene^TALK 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I've posted welcome messages on the talk pages of such project members as hadn't already been welcomed. EyeSerene^TALK 09:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good move! Speaking of moves, encouraged by people signing up, I've moved the FA-Team page from my user space to a subpage of the fledgling Featured Articles WikiProject so it can develop more freely: perhaps this is a good center from which to coordinate our efforts and build the camaraderie mentioned by Mike above?

The goals of this particular action are more or less the same as those of WP:MMM. So, since we already have WT:MMM and the article talk pages, it might be more useful to complement these by a dedicated subpage of the FA-Team page than a subpage of WP:MMM.

Subpages of WP:WFA seem to me to be a sensible place for FA-related activities in general. For instance, the individual volunteers list suggested by Marskell might go there as well, as a nice complement to the team-based approach. Wrad heroically began revamping WP:WFA last month, but there is still quite a bit to do.

As for the manual, if Sandy can be persuaded to have her Suggestions for article reviewers undeleted again, that might be a good starting point: after all, a good way to ensure an article meets the standards is to enter into the mind of the reviewer and fix all the problems you then see. Geometry guy 11:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Wrad wikilinked the FA-Team page in his message to WP:MMM, I've updated the page and added a mission page for this particular task. My feeling is that it would be really helpful to have a "mission leader" (much as Mike is the facilitator here) who can, e.g., contact team volunteers and coordinate efforts to help these articles improve (the obvious choice for such a person would be Wrad, of course). My understanding is that the WP:MMM WikiProject may take off on Tuesday. I hope those interested will be ready to get stuck in! Geometry guy 22:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) I agree. Is someone willing to volunteer? I don't think I have the time to do a proper job of this. Geometry guy, Wrad, are either of you up for the job? I think mainly it would consist of keeping an eye, responding if nobody else does, and generally watching over the whole thing and coordinating resources if needed. For example, from what I can see of their page, they have several articles that will need attention; each of those article's talk pages should be watched since that's where a lot of work will take place. Then there should probably be central communication too. Who would like all the kudos for doing this? Mike Christie (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't do WP for kudos, but I am happy to continue the role (that I find myself in) of maintaining and building on the FA-Team idea, if others are happy for me to do so. In that respect, next week I can send out a message about WP:MMM to FA-Team members, describing the plan and listing the articles to watch. However, I do think that each task which we engage in needs a contact person who leads our efforts. In this case, for me, that person is clearly Wrad. If he is willing to do this, then I will be delighted to provide the back-up which ensures everyone is up-to-date and the process runs smoothly. Geometry guy 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to be a kind of "unofficial co-mission leader" with Geoguy batting cleanup. Wrad (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I will take that as a "yes" :-) — and provide whatever back-up you need. I've added a dedicated subpage for this action. On the main page (now known for short as, erm, WP:FAT), there is also an option for team members to fill in how they can help. I encourage those who want to be involved to add a brief description there if they haven't already. And new team members are most welcome! Geometry guy 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] * cough *

Ahem.

Hey, we're all busy over at WP:FAT, helping out at WP:MMM. Come and help! I don't think there'll be much activity here till mid-April at least, when that project is over. Mike Christie (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)