Template talk:FAR-instructions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] FAR / FARC instructions

I'm going to attempt some non-substantive editing to try and improve clarity and readability.... I'll discuss my thoughts here...! see you in a bit! - Purples 09:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

well, there you go! - none of the changes are intended to shift meaning at all - and i hope they look better, and read clearer - thoughts? - Purples 10:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored. It removed an important explanatory clause about extensions granted, violated WP:MSH with a lot of capitalization of section headings, and created lengthy subdivisions. The only substantive change was the deletion of a significant clause, and the change resulted in a clunky page, while violating WP:MSH (one of the MOS guidelines upheld at FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My concern about the explanatory clause was that it locks in extensions ('further time is provided') without setting parameters in a way that a) could be open to abuse (ie. you can't close this, i get further time) and is b) unnecessary to spell out (ie. is 'instruction creep').

Re: WP:MSH - firstly, would you mind responding personally - ie. I'd love to hear your thoughts, rather than only being referred to a guideline, and secondly, though the guideline clearly says 'Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings' (and in general, I'd see this as common sense...) - I believe that in an area so prone to acronyms and shortcuts, to write Featured Article Review would be clearer...

Further, I don't really understand your point in the edit summary about the change being too long, because as you explained, the only change was to remove a clause... I'd like to restore the re-factor because it's easier to read and clearer than a long section of prose.... thoughts? - Purples 23:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed version. On the clause you deleted about providing extensions when work is ongoing, to my knowledge they've never been denied. Before deleting that clause, it would be prudent to hear from Marksell and Joelito. On the capitalization, as I'm often cleaning up (mis)archived files, I can almost assure you that changing Featured article review to Featured Article Review may result in more misnamed FAR files to be sorted out down the road, in addition to confusing editors about WP:MSH (and we really should follow our own Manual of Style, particularly on a page that enforces MOS in FAs). On the paragraph breaks you introduced (same text, more breaks), they made the page look dauntingly long. It's a struggle to get people to actually read the instructions; if they go on for paragraphs and paragraphs, I'm not sure that will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Sandy - I've thought about the capitalize thing, and see that you're right - it's important to follow the guideline on this one. Re : The clause - it doesn't seem that important to me, and my concerns above aren't that strong, but they remain nonetheless.
I'm afraid I disagree with you concerning the page seeming dauntingly long - I feel it's actually more daunting as it is - a long section of prose is of course something an un-intimidated reader will find useful, but my feeling was that to break it down into smaller sections (especially the bullet point concerning who is allowed to close the review etc.) actually aids clarity, and makes it less clunky. best, Purples 03:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, if you were to try the paragraphs without the double indentation, so they won't be so long? Your version went one indent more than it had to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea - I'll give it a go.... Purples 03:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you have a look at your prior version, the final point applies to both FAR and FARC, so perhaps would be outdented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree - done... Purples 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acronyms.....

(partially adressed to Sandy, because we're here in real time - but open to all of course!) - how do you feel about the removal of the acronyms - I don't think they're useful, and add to the 'jargon' flavour somewhat. It also doesn't help that FARC is almost a homophone for something else....! Purples 03:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a revision to illustrate this point for discussion... Purples 03:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, lost my reponse, starting over) that was done recently and someone changed them back. I don't remember who changed them back or why, so not sure what to do there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understanding replacing FA with featured article, but we use the terms FAR and FARC often, so their definition is useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we have consensus that the aim of these instructions is to lay out the process in a clear, non-intimidatory fashion - It's my belief that editor's who become involved will quickly familiarise themselves with these acronyms regardless of their inclusion in the instructions, and that their inclusion detracts from the overall aim.

For me it's the same as encouraging editors to remind each other to be neutral, rather than to adhere to WP:NPOV (for example...) - Purples 03:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

..that said - I do support your most recent edit - makes sense to me.... Purples 03:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So let's see what others think ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
okey doke.... Purples 03:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Para

after the flurry of minor changes above - I'll let the instructions settle for 24hrs or so, but following that would like to change the final paragraph;

Each stage typically lasts two or three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process (extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention from editors). Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that ample time is granted and that the aim in both sections is article improvement, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

to this;

Each stage typically lasts two or three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention from editors. Given that the aim in both sections is article improvement, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

which i think is clearer, and avoids repetition and possible misunderstanding.... Purples 03:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Except the dropped sentence was crucial in the last, ahem, go-round:
  • Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My feelings that that sentence is not such a great idea are twofold; Firstly that we have clearly explained the process using the new bullet points above this paragraph, and secondly that this sentence seems to imply that it is editors' consensus, and not the decision of the FA director + delegates who may decide to remove the list from review.

If the intention is to signal that there is no big deal about moving to the removal candidates list (and I'm afraid that many editors will find this move fundamentally upsetting / disturbing nonetheless) - then I think we've covered that adequately with the final sentence of the para. (although that sentence is probably due a re-write too!)....

That's the reasoning behind why I still feel my alternative suggestion above is better. - Purples 06:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the FA director and delegates decision based on editor consensus. This sentence is crucial to clearing up the misunderstanding that happened last. If it is not very clear that the article is within criteria, it moves to FARC for "keep", "remove" declarations. Removing that sentence brings back the past misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The difference is crucial. If, for example, an uninvolved administrator read through the instructions to the point where they state ".. unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria" I feel they would read this as a clear indication that if they determine consensus is clear, they can remove the article from the list. This isn't in fact the case (is it?) - and rather than continue to qualify / explain that this is one area of the wiki where editors (administrators and non) aren't free to act upon consensus (ie. remove the article) - we should just leave the instructions as written in the bullets (which I think cover everything comprehensively).

To be very clear about your intentions specifically - do you feel that the sentence is vital to communicate the presumption that an article will move from review to the list baring firm consensus otherwise? - cheers, Purples 07:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was added without any discussion or explanation as to why it was crucial, as I recall, and as noted earlier it appears to be instruction creep. Is it intended to remove any discretion from the director/delegate as to what constitutes consensus? The implication seems to me to be that any contentious article would inevitably go to the list as long as a pov pusher had some objection. Is this the intention? .. dave souza, talk 08:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Could the sentence be removed if the third paragraph of the FAR section becomes: "The featured article director, Raul654, or his delegates Marskell and Joelr31, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage or, if consensus to close is unclear, that the nomination be moved to the second stage." ? DrKiernan 12:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just tried to compress it somewhat. The sentence is meant to indicate that if there's any hint that people still have actionable concerns, it will be moved down to get clear kp and rm comments. This is least harm. The review period is often diffuse with lengthy postings (which is a good thing—it's meant for discussion); a keep majority may be apparent but it doesn't hurt to make it clear and it avoids the charge of closing early. See here, for an example. Marskell 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

I hate to say it, but we need to add back "If an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1" because of what happened at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. Can we drop the paragraph "Reviews are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to featured articles, from updating and light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to the addressing of more complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and neutrality." to keep the length down? DrKiernan 13:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

oops, I just reinstated that, and then came to the talk page, GMTA? It was always bugging me when that was dropped. I'm not sure about dropping that other sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of hidden template

Could we hide the extended instructions as in the example below? DrKiernan 08:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about it. It hides too much, and it's visually, I dunno, distracting or something. I agree in principle to the concept of hiding pieces, just not sure I like the look of that way of hiding it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you suggest? DrKiernan 13:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing featured articles
Shortcut:
WP:FAR

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are two stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • A peer review stage where issues, improvements and feedback on the article are discussed.
Further information on FAR

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • A second stage where editors may declare keep or delist/remove FA status.
Further information on FARC

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

[edit] Proposed changes

The old wording of the first paragraph on FAR is;

  • Here, issues are raised and proposed improvements discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". When listing, a nominator must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and may propose remedies. The ideal outcome is that the issues are addressed and the review is closed at this stage without a change in status. Nominations should be made with the goal of improvement rather than removal.

This plainly does not emphasize the instructions not to vote keep or remove for FAR enough; or we would not have to keep on reminding people at individual nominations. There would also be fewer protests that this is mindless bureaucracy if we gave the reason. Similarly, placing an emphasised direction to notify wikiprojects and authors will get it done more often.

I therefore propose:

  • Here, issues are raised and proposed improvements discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". When listing, a nominator must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and may propose remedies; it will often be helpful to mention specific flaws so they can be discussed or fixed. Please notify all WikiProjects to which the article belongs at the same time.
  • This process is chiefly useful to the encyclopedia because it improves articles; the ideal outcome would address the issues and close the review at this stage with no change in status. Nominations should be made in order to improve the article, not to demote it.

This also shortens the remaining wording, places it in the active voice, and removes such redundancies as the ideal outcome is that. I did think this would be uncontroversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This addition
  1. repeats instructions which are already given in the nomination instructions lower on the page, creating duplicate sections,
    • As I said above, the current instructions plainly need more emphasis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. contains an incorrect and unuseful section, "often be helpful", because explanation of deficiences must be explained in the nomination (it's not a "helpful" optional item, why do we dilute "must specify" to "often be helpful"?), and
    • "Often be helpful" can certainly be strengthened. Please note that this asks for particular flaws, as well as specific criteria; and is therefore not redundant at all. (Expecting our editors to catch the figura etymologica and read "specifiy" as "must be specific" may be unrealistic anyway.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. currently contains wording that introduces an unnecessary exception based on one editor only (Emsworth). We should notify most inactive user talk pages, because other editors may be watching their talk pages (Yomangani is an example). We shouldn't add an exception to the instructions for Emsworth only.
    • I have no problem with shortening, if you will stop grumbling at people for not reading what is not there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you accused me of a personal attack in edit summary[1] because I reverted redundant vague additions.[2] Tsk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I could have used other words; but you have identified no vagueness in the additions and have claimed redundancy where there is none. Close enough to a personal attack for present purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also copyedited

  • Reviews are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to featured articles, from updating and light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to the addressing of more complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and neutrality.

Facilitate is normally bloviation, and I do not see that the italicized phrase means anything more than can improve. Should improve would imply that all these should be done by all reviews, which is not the case. (I don't see checking refenences as light editing, myself, but that could be a substantive change.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that I'm reverting because there's been zero consensus developed. It seems to be extra words for the sake of extra words: "...including particular flaws for discussion or emendation." Ugg. Plain English please. If we want "Nominators are strongly encouraged to provide examples", I can live with that. I don't see that we need anything else. Marskell (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Do tell me: Do you count the unspeakable intended to facilitate a range of improvements, to which you have four times reverted, as plain English? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"To facilitate" could go. The only thing that has really bugged me is the use of the present continuous ("the addressing of more complex issues"). I would like present simple. But, as ever, suggest it on talk. This is only an issue because you seem unable to do so. (The cleanup tag? I mean, really.) Marskell (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The cleanup tag is interesting considering the large number of editors ("regulars" and "non-regulars" at FAR) that participated in the rewrite of the current instructions only four months ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If that's the discussion at the top of this page, it does not appear to address this section at all; if it's somewhere else, please link.Some of the old discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 6, in various sections. DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Did it, in concentrating on the instructions, overlook this passage entirely? I did, until I actually read it two days ago. I first winced at the redundancy and needless passives in The ideal outcome is that the issues are addressed...; doubtless there are better wordings than The ideal outcome would address the issues; but automatic reversion will not find them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying you added a cleanup tag to an important instruction page over one sentence? A cleanup tag usually applies to a page with significant issues, more than the wording of one sentence. I preferred "facilitate" over emendation, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I prefered fixed, myself, as above; but when Marskell reverted without discussion, I had to guess what he objected to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(Left, ec) No, Sandy; the whole section is in bureaucratese; I just quoted howlers from different sentences. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I objected to unneeded additional words and the lack of discussion. "...intended for..." would be fine. Please remove the stupid tag. Marskell (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to do so; provided you, at the same time, redraft into reasonable English. We can all then tweak further; that's how a wiki is supposed to work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the way Wiki is supposed to work is that we work collaboratively to tweak the text, don't edit unilaterally against suggestions of others and consensus, and consider adding tags if discussion fails. It would be nice if you would propose text first and add tags as a last resort after discussion; the tag is overkill. Cleanup is usually reserved for messy pages, not wording differences. DrKiernan worked on some of this wording; I'll ask him to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You have suggested changes to templature. You should bring them up on talk. That's how Wiki is supposed to work. And really Pma, it isn't written in Pig Latin at the moment. I will remove, per your comment. Marskell (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No question that it is not as bad as it was. It still says with the goal of, and other infelicities; I shall tweak, slowly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This change sounds like it's up to FAR reviewers, not nominators, to raise issues; we've seen that in a couple of noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
How about: "In this step, the aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. Possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status." DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status." DrKiernan (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
We could also discuss again whether we should add "Declarations of "keep" and "remove" may be removed by other editors." DrKiernan (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I like both, but probably prefer the second. Not sure we need to remove keep/remove declarations as we may then also remove important statements, but I think we can strike through premature Keep/Removes without need to say so in the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)