Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Archive 15) Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates (archive) (Archive 13) →


Contents

Proposed policy change on FAC reasoning

I am proposing a change to FAC reasoning, eliminating the rule that suggestions that an article should never be frontpaged be ignored. Please come discuss it at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candicates/never_proposal --Improv 19:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I think you're also missing the point that being a FA and being featured on the front page are different things. That quote from the FAC criteria you highlight is about not keeping an article from being featured based on it's topic. The main page is just an article selected from among featured articles. It has long been held that certain featured articles can be agreed upon to never be put on the main page. I've never followed up on how that is done in practice, but you can ask Raul654. - Taxman Talk 16:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Why is it so imposiblly difficult

to find a list of some sort that can show me all of these wonderfull featured articles ? I really did try. I checked all of the search results of the phrase and found nothing but internal referncing to "Featured article candidates" etc'. This REALLY SHOULD BE QUITE EASY to get. Even as a link from the main site ,yet it is so alluding ,I still cant find it. what is there to hide? The Procrastinator 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you looking for WP:FA? Dave (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
On the main page, you can click "More featured articles." When you're looking at the talk page of any FA, you can click the "featured article" link. You can also look at WP:FA which redirects to Wikipedia:Featured articles. Hope this helps. Dave (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

YES ,thank you so much Dave..:-)

Yes, we clearly go to great lengths to hide the list ;) Raul654 09:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we should put featured crap on the front page and password protect the featured articles. :-) 09:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I should get a dollar for every time I have to cite user:Raul654/protection Raul654 09:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I wasn't just saying that the articles should be protected from editing... I was saying that they should be encrypted so people can't find them. "Wikipedia: the 7337 encyclopedia that only h4X0rz can edit" Dave (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The Teet encyclopedia? --TidyCat 10:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm clearly not a member of the elite. Dave (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You boob. (Couldn't resist ;-)--TidyCat 11:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Also see Category:Wikipedia_featured_articles. — Wackymacs 11:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

New inline citation style available

For those of you who missed the signpost story, I wanted to let you guys know about the new (long promised) native Mediawiki citation style. It's described at m:Cite/Cite.php. It works in much the same way as the ref/note template does, but it automatically generates your reference section for you. You can see an example article at Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven). Here's the diff where I made the switch from the ref/note style. Raul654 13:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it completely done (is it prone to change)? Should we be making the switch for all of the articles? Broken S 16:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll check it out. From a first glance, it appears this fixes my major issue with the older ref/note system, which was how easily people could mess up the order and screw the cites up. Figure I'll be an early adopter of this standard and try it in an article I'm working on now. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 16:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It's changed (for the better) since I updated the Beethoven's article last week. When I made the switch, citing hte article multiple times threw off the numbering scheme (e.g, if you cite the first reference 4 times, all hte other references would be 3 higher; this has been fixed so that the first refernce is cited as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and the second is 2). Other than that, I doubt we'll be seeing any big changes. Raul654 19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It also use to italicise everything, which was annoying. That got fixed yesterday. (All the styling is controled by MediaWiki: messages). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I've been using it in the articles that I update, such as December 2005 in rail transport and List of railroad executives. I've found it exceptionally handy, especially when multiple locations need to refer to the same citation. Slambo (Speak) 16:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Great. I JUST learned ref note and now this. :P I'm No Parking and I approved this message 16:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
That's really quite exciting. I doubt that many people will notice the announcement here either though- if the use of this is to be encouraged, it should have a prominent mention at WP:CITE. Mark1 16:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice! Although, since the notes can no longer be edited directly, this will be somewhat more difficult to use with traditional Chicago-style footnotes than the ref/note system is. —Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I mentioned it to an History of New Jersey talk page, and it was applied. Check out the difference --ZeWrestler Talk 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Mostly looks good, but think of the havoc someone will wreak when they mistype </ref>. Oh, well, I guess that problem already exists with a lot of other markup. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if that particular mistake was made, the consequent error is exceptionally easy to spot (there will be a chunk of prose following the footnote portion). And I've only made this error once while converting Saffron and History of saffron. Overall, this new method is much more idiot-proof. Saravask 03:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yup. It's such a pleasure to be able to use section editing and still add footnotes, and to not have to worry about reordering the footnotes when reordering text. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Words cannot express my joy at this development. Finally section editing with footnotes is actually viable. Johnleemk | Talk 04:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to prevent the small citation numbers (e.g. "29.1") from appearing, other than omitting the name parameter on the ref? —Kirill Lokshin 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to stick with note+ref label, FWIW, because from what I see in the Beethoven article, that model is much easier to work around in edit mode. This ref model leaves giant bibliographic references in everyone's path, and repetitive ones no less. Also, since the numbering isn't "hard," when you're section editing, the numbers "convert" to whatever's the order on a section-by-section basis, rather than relative to the whole article. For example, when looking at the whole article, the "Composition" has notes in order: 2, 1, 3, 4, 5. When in edit mode, they become 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Similarly, when the "Premiere" section is in edit mode, notes 6 and 7 become 1 and 2. jengod 19:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not 2-1-3-4-5; it's 1-2-1-3-4-5. The first 1 is from a previous paragraph. So when you go into section editing, the numbering changes because the previous reference is omitted. Raul654 19:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
And 6 and 7 convert to 1 and 2 while in edit mode, because refs 1-5 are "omitted." This strikes me as confusing. Also, I think it assumes that all references when placed in running text, are formatted identically, which is how it knows to create 1.1 + 1.2 + 1.3. Without identical bibliographic phrasing (say, in one the year is at the end and in another the year is the beginning), would it create two separate references? jengod
The 1.1, 1.2 is explicitly controled by giving the first <ref> a name, like <ref name="zippy">blah blah blah</ref> (this will make 1.1) and then making another ref referring to the name: <ref name="zippy"/>. Personally, I dislike multi-refs, and always stick with single unnamed references, but then, I did with the old methods too. As far as repetitive bibliographic data, that's a style choice too: I'd just say Johnson p. 234 for the second ref to the same book. (Or use a separate References section, and have all footnotes in short form.) I haven't got it all cleaned up yet, but you can see what that sort of thing looks like in garlic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Aha! I'd just say Johnson p. 234 for the second ref to the same book. (Or use a separate References section, and have all footnotes in short form.) Yes, that's approximately what I'm doing with dingbat (building), albeit using a different technology (ref-note/label-note). Mmmm. Muy intersada. jengod 20:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at User:Amcaja/Draft and tell me why I'm getting errors from using this new system? It worked fine until I tried to use the much more complicated system for having duplicating notes show up as "2.1", "2.2", etc. Thanks . . . .— Amcaja 03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I didn't realize that the ref name had to be in quotes. Fixed it now. — Amcaja 03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this implemented in a better way? The ref/note system is not bad, the only enhancement that it needs is a seperate automatic numbering system. How about having this reference in the middle of the text you want to edit: Hillier LW, Graves TA, Fulton RS, Fulton LA, Pepin KH, Minx P, Wagner-McPherson C, Layman D, Wylie K, Sekhon M, Becker MC, Fewell GA, Delehaunty KD, Miner TL, Nash WE, Kremitzki C, Oddy L, Du H, Sun H, Bradshaw-Cordum H, Ali J, Carter J, Cordes M, Harris A, Isak A, van Brunt A, Nguyen C, Du F, Courtney L, Kalicki J, Ozersky P, Abbott S, Armstrong J, Belter EA, Caruso L, Cedroni M, Cotton M, Davidson T, Desai A, Elliott G, Erb T, Fronick C, Gaige T, Haakenson W, Haglund K, Holmes A, Harkins R, Kim K, Kruchowski SS, Strong CM, Grewal N, Goyea E, Hou S, Levy A, Martinka S, Mead K, McLellan MD, Meyer R, Randall-Maher J, Tomlinson C, Dauphin-Kohlberg S, Kozlowicz-Reilly A, Shah N, Swearengen-Shahid S, Snider J, Strong JT, Thompson J, Yoakum M, Leonard S, Pearman C, Trani L, Radionenko M, Waligorski JE, Wang C, Rock SM, Tin-Wollam AM, Maupin R, Latreille P, Wendl MC, Yang SP, Pohl C, Wallis JW, Spieth J, Bieri TA, Berkowicz N, Nelson JO, Osborne J, Ding L, Meyer R, Sabo A, Shotland Y, Sinha P, Wohldmann PE, Cook LL, Hickenbotham MT, Eldred J, Williams D, Jones TA, She X, Ciccarelli FD, Izaurralde E, Taylor J, Schmutz J, Myers RM, Cox DR, Huang X, McPherson JD, Mardis ER, Clifton SW, Warren WC, Chinwalla AT, Eddy SR, Marra MA, Ovcharenko I, Furey TS, Miller W, Eichler EE, Bork P, Suyama M, Torrents D, Waterston RH, Wilson RK (2005). "Generation and annotation of the DNA sequences of human chromosomes 2 and 4". Nature 434 (7034): 724-31. PMID 15815621.  I know it can be shortened by using et al, but still some references have long titles and it makes text a whole lot harder to read. --WS 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So do fancy tables, a lot of images, and any number of other things. In the end, it's not a WYSIWIG editor. I have found it considerably easier to edit using the new system, but your mileage may vary.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) discussion

As this discussion drifted away from the actual FAC nomination, I moved it over here. Anville 11:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I've excised the insults that Giano applied to me above. Please refrain from personal abuse.Tony 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an insult, and personal abuse? [1] Giano | talk 11:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's right, Giano, which is why I excised your kind link to it here as well. Please participate in this process without resorting to personal insults and belittling. It's not appreciated. Tony 12:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not remove my edits. I am sorry you feel an obviously light hearted phrase was offensive to you. However, your sensitivities do not give you free licence to remove other peoples edits at whim - or make unfounded allegations of personal attack. Please remember that. For anyone interested in this perceived insult (imaginations must be running riot) the link is once again here. Please leave it here. Thank you. Giano | talk 14:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No way, man; I'll remove it every time you put it in.Your behaviour is offensive to me. Back off. Tony 15:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • GIANO! Mio Bello Bambino! relax! Tony is doing no more than your buddy Bishonen did when he/she/it removed my comments here. And he has JUST as much right. Your remarks, if not deliberately insulting, are clearly and deliberately provocative (I also find them snide and childish). Ironic, is'nt it, that personality issues aside you and I are on the same side about this article and Raul's right to submit it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Look, Giano, three things, all directly relevant to FAC, this nom, and this nom discussion as it has unfolded (in easy to follow point form):
1. When you address me with Obviously it's a hornet's nest here so I'll leave you in it to sting away, I take some offense at being likened to a possibly dangerous pest insect that is generally to be avoided or preferably killed. Avoiding cruelty to stinging insects is NOT on most people's agendas: annoyance, fear and hate more likely are. Touchy? Just reading the English the way it was intended... More importantly, that comment is uncivil in a rather vicious and extreme way and you're...off-topic.
2. As things possibly "escalate" here in what I see as a current Big Problem with FAC in general, what may be the normal sharp asides of vigorous debate become more problematic. For example, are you acting as an agent provocateur, trying to goad the outspoken few into making themselves seem in one way or another, to use a fine old phrase, off their rockers (could that come in handy for later use in some "Request for" proceding, I don't really know my around all that...)? (Or do you really believe EVEN JUST A LITTLE bad spelling and awkward sentences (that wouldn't get an A in a junior high writing class) are "OK" for now, and equal "compelling, even brilliant writing". And that's just the tip of some of the specific problems with recent FAs.) I'm not seeing some plot here, but at least maybe group dynamics where ranks get closed and things get ugly and people can revert to...uh, type. This IS the way of life and human nature and all that, but isn't WP supposed to be yet another stab at some sort of implausible ideal...? (And, Giano, caught in a hornets nest, one presumably watches out not to get stung... Thank you for the warning.)
3. I'm perplexed here, at the renom of Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) by the FAC Director specifically because the FACD also just promoted several FACs despite standing objections, from me from others, that I think clearly identified fundamental FA problems. I am concerned that editorial judgements beyond "adding up consensus" are being made. Concrete is preferable to abastract so, just one before-and-after illustrations: the Apple Macintosh promotion in Dec, then front page Dec. 27, and the current apparent gang-support (mob-support?) of the Dec 31 front page Iowa class battleship now in a FARC proceeding, where practically every voter admits the problems with poor writing and/or jargon named in the nom, but still says, "let's keep". I say before-and-after because I don't know when Iowa class was FA-ed, but I do know there are serious FA criteria problems with the Mac article, that are still there in the FAC transcript. It's just rather difficult and possibly useless to act after the FAC, especially when it seems FAC seems somewhat unstable at present, and once an FA, there's strong defense... (there are several more examples from my last seven weeks in FAC)... So, if Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) as renominated represents the FACD's personal interpretion of FA criteria well met, then that view must logically extend itself to the fine points of consensus arbitration, particularly in cases where objections exist, but aren't (apparently) overwhelmingly supported; if the Director judges objections for merit against the FA criteria, that's editorial review, not arbitration, and I don't believe the FAC Director is meant to be Editor-in-Chief (if so, lemme know, 'cause that changes everything about FAC)... --Tsavage 16:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As I've said higher up this page this is not the place, but so much now seems to have been written off subject, so what the hell. - My agenda here was to vote on an FA, albeit one written by Raul, who (IMO) has as much right to edit as anyone else. Having dared to say so, I immediately realised there was an undercurrent here, and another agenda (hence the hornet's nest analogy). I truly have no view, I have complete trust in Raul to make sound judgements; if others have less faith, then let Jimmy Wales himself adjudicate on Raul's edits. I appreciate the points you are making, and you may well be right - I don't know, and don't hugely care - the project is a success, made even more creditable by good referencing. There are now hundreds of articles that are more informative and better researched than the few that become FAs - and that is the proof of Wikipedia's success. FAs are now tending to be a few uniform articles of a generally good standard. On the other hand, Tony bounces around, forces the English into his own limited vocabulary, issues imperious commands (ie "please fix") on subjects about which he knows little if anything , and leaves rude and sarcastic edits (e.g: as recently as today: [2] ) which generally put intelligent editors backs up. This is detrimental to the system. (Yes Tony!...That actually is an insult..recognise one now!) Giano | talk 21:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Giano, please don't tease, and especially don't post deliberate insults, as you've unfortunately done now. Tony, please stop removing text/links from other people's posts. WP:FAC is a discussion page, not an article; you don't have the right to edit comments that have been posted here. The only exception is very clear personal attacks, and the text/link you keep removing is nothing of the sort. Your notion that clear personal attacks are defined through "Your behaviour is offensive to me. Back off." is mistaken. Compare WP:NPA, which is an official policy page: The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly. If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." I have restored the link in one of Giano's post above so people can see what all the brouhaha is about. Please dont remove it, Tony. Apart from the don't-edit-other-people's-comments issue, I will hold you in contempt of the 3RR if you do. Please just don't. If you feel that strongly about Giano's [silly] comment, I suggest you ask him to remove the link. Giano, perhaps you'd like to consider removing or striking through some of the message you just posted, as a gesture of good will. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC).
I'm sure if the situation had been reversed, you would not have hesistated to strike the [silly] comments yourself. Without giving the provacatuer a chance to retrack or apologize For instance You have every right to take up for your friend, but when you employ your admin powers and threats thereof for this, it becomes a clear case of ABUSE. Which if FAR worse than a few petty, personal insults. So the injunction "Please just don't" applies to both parties here.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the wise advice. I have struck through one word, which was probably a little unfair (I apologise Tony - I'm sure you know a little about a great deal) I suppose it is a deliberate insult, but perhaps tact and diplomacy are something that Tony needs to learn. I will be a contented man if in some small way I have helped achieve this. Giano | talk 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Folks, please! First, Raul, you might really want to let this one slide off for a while, as there is a massive amount of heat and very little light in this deliberation, and I don't think the people objecting are being too picky. That said, Raul doesn't have to give up writing, or nominating, FAC's when he takes on the job of promoting and featuring them, because that job is not simply left to his discretion. Raul has to, and has, follow the voters here. Otherwise, he'd just promote it in spite of objections, so the hand wringing over conflict of interest is a bit hysterical and licensed. Second, Giano, you were being provocative, but not insulting. Tony was prepared, however, to see an attack anywhere, and you had to know that. Third, Tony, you need to shrug off things. Giano doesn't approve of the way you do things. Ok. So? He's one person. If you think he's baiting you, he's not actually attacking you, and when you rise to the bait, you're showing an interest in escalation. (Otherwise, you'd just be sly, yourself.) FAC is supposed to be deliberative, and not a tragic stage or political tabloid. If we stay focused on this article, we're going to get on with our lives and actually make for better FA's than if we start playing the who-struck-John. Geogre 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could move the slanging match and comments on Raul's role (as opposed to the article) to the talk page; anyone thinking of adding a comment will take one look at this discussion (41K already!) and run away. It may not be too late to fix objections if we get back to the matter in hand. Mark1 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Object: deliberation is now longer than the recommended article maximum. :-) (What a mess!) Geogre 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not happy about what has gone on here at all; I have a right to contribute without degrading comments from this man. PLEASE remove this appalling exchange NOW. Tony 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Try not to blow it out of proportion. Take a break, have a cup of tea. Giano's comments weren't degrading or appalling, and even if they had been, the best thing you can do is ignore it. But Giano - please - go ahead and remove whatever Tony1 finds insulting. Step up and defuse this sensitive situation. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As long as this diversion remains here, there's reason to pursue the issues it raises. If this page is to be ruled by the the anti-intellectuals, by those such as Giano who, by their own, admission, can't write to save themselves, then all is lost. Sloppily written FACs will still be promoted, sending a signal to all WPians that amateurism is the accepted standard. Tony 23:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Tony, you really should stop, there. You're getting into dangerous (and silly) areas, and it is never wise to assume that style sheets are eloquence or that standardized diction is euphony. Bunchofgrapes has good advice: you're really getting bent out of shape over nothing. Geogre 00:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I said what I mean, and I won't step back from it. I don't see my self being bent out of shape at all. Tony 00:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Tony, my friend, "anti-intellectuals", is a bit harsh. I think PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALS would be a more accurate term in this case, don't you think? That aside, I must disagree with you about this article. I think it is feature quality. Raul did the subject justice and he has every right to submit his fine work. I believe everyone here should be a CONTRIBUTOR FIRST with all else is secondary if not tertiary. Let us try and keep focus on the matter at hand here...please. I have let Giano, and those holding his leash, know exactly what I think of his insulting remarks and their threats against you. There is bias here, my friend, you are right about that. But it has nothing to do with this article or its main contributor. Peace mate...for now :> --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ciao Ghost - Well fancy us being on the same side (well almost) I see you have put a link above to the kerfuffle following Tony's RFA failure. That is a little bit below the belt to Tony, and I don't think you should have done that. It's not fair to him. Even I don't go there to discredit someone. Regarding your comments immediately above "pseudo" or "anti intellectual" it does not really matter what we are because all we can do here is regurgitate information and reference it to creditable books - preferably not those we may have written ourselves. Own research and all that is frowned upon. As for not being able to write, half the encyclopedia knows I'm dyslexic, and if they don't then they have pretty poor powers of observation, as for grammar, I tend to treat it a little like house-work - let those that enjoy it - do it. However, as for style that is individual and we all have a perfect right to our own, as much right as Raul or even Jimmy Wales himself to write what we like, when we like, where we like, in whatever manner we like. So long as it is generally acceptable English. It seems to me Tony has a problem accepting the views and styles of others on many subjects - and sees threats and insults all around him. That must be difficult for him, but it's not my problem. Regarding your final point about bias here - Perhaps you should make a comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen which seems the current place for discussing her behaviour. I don't think there is bias here, just look at the link you put in above - pretty nasty stuff and you're still here to edit. No there's no bias just a lot of opinionated people, of whom you and I can probably be included. Giano | talk 12:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a newsflash for you Sunshine, I'm dyslexic too (Dyslexics of the world UNTIE!). I battle against AADD as well. But I don't use them as a crutch for my mistakes nor an excuse for being a jerk (I can find myself plenty of other excuses for that, thank you). By the time I was diagnosed, I had almost completed my masters, so clearly it is something which I can overcome. You seem to have overcome yours pretty well too. So that dog don't hunt. BZZZZZZ, Sorry, wrong answer, but thanks for playing! As for Tony, his only major problem I see is he needs to try and abide by the principle of DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. Even you must conceed, Giano, that NONE of us came away from his Rfa and aftermath smelling rosey. It was a grand mess which created a lot of bad blood that has now fermented and spilled into this discussion. Given the personalities and egos involved (and no I'm not letting mine off the hook here either)I don't see this going anywhere but down...possibly to the road of another Rfc...once everyone stops snikering about "Hollaback" Wilerding's.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
My goodness, and now pseudo-intellectuals? Astonishing! Go straight to arguing the person instead of the issue, and you set the stage for either your own personality coming into question or the other defending his person. That's a fool's game, and only a fool would set it forth. Geogre 14:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting age

Hello there. Sorry to interrupt. Can anyone tell me how long I have to be a registered user, before I can vote on Featured Article Candidates? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. Aspern 15:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

FAC is more a discussion than a vote. The important thing in deciding if an article makes "featured" status is not that it has more "support" than "oppose", but that all major objections have been taken care of. If you've got suggestions on how to improve an article, feel free to add them. --Carnildo 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes and don't be put off the place by the "discussion" above, we all love each other really, even old Ghostie has a soft centre. Giano | talk 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Your views will be taken into account, although a lack of edits, if you are in a startling minority, will probably be used to assess how familiar you are with Wikipedia's policies and articles. There is a fallacy in such things, but it's the best defense we have against vote drumming and article wrecking. (I.e. if you are the only objector, and your objections are wild, folks will look at the number of contributions. If you're supporting in the face of a number of objections, it won't make any difference at all, as articles are promoted only when all substantive objections have been addressed.) Geogre 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No new FA?

Did you recently up your standards? I use to enjoy reading all the new FA from the lists at signpost, but for the last two weeks no new FA. Hopefully you don't run out of articles to front page. I would help if I wasn't busy trying to get wikiproject Nebraska off the ground.--Rayc 22:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No - Raul654 just didn't promote any last week, but there were lots (14!) the week before, and he has just promoted seven more today (see WP:GO). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, just as long as one is produced per day.--Rayc 05:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the current average is running at well over 1 per day, but there is a large backlog of old ones still to go on the front page (if that is what you are worried about). In any event, we could always start from the beginning again. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

Double whammy today

OK, Giano may never speak to me again and it's inappropriate to focus in any way on individual contributors, but I will mention that two articles mainly authored by Giano grace the English and the French Main Pages today: Holkham Hall and Baroque sicilien. Bishonen | talk 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

Amost a triple whammy: Baroccu sicilianu was L'articulu dâ simana last week on Sicilian. -- ALoan (Talk)
There is a *Sicilian* Wikipedia as well?!
Good gods, this is a huge project...
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

References -- the new witch hunt

Don't get me wrong. As much as anyone, I understand the extreme importance of referencing sources, especially true due to Wikipedia's free-for-all-edits nature, and as much as anyone I like reading verified information.

However, I cannot deny the fact the massive referencing paranoia recently flooding this page (as well as the FARC page) to object or remove articles. Why? Because its so easy to pick on it. It has came to the point that users who don't like an article for WHATEVER reason (think its POV, covers a subject they'd rather keep secret, don't like another editor, don't like the prose, etc etc etc) decide to pick on the slightest misreference because they can make a valid (if lame) point, and often successfully wikilawyer their way to having an article bounced off featured for a minor technical point that has to do with references.

I mean, how lame it is to object an otherwise perfect article because it uses a footnote rather than inline citations? How dull is it to knitpick every word and punctuation, and pounce on a comma being placed outside quotations when a source is cited? To what length people go to expose flaws that it would have taken them much quicker to correct themselves, and then use it as an argument against the article's quality? How many times have you seen people follow the letter, rather than the spirit, of Wikipedia, in regards to "properly referencing sources"?

Referencing is no doubt important, but we should NOT tolerate this paranoia concerning it. It is true that FA's are supposed to be our best work, but perhaps you should remember some other important principles we have concerning:

I think the approach to references should be JUST LIKE ANY OTHER part of our review criteria. That is, it should definitely cover the main bases, and provide justification for the article's text. However, this does not mean that truly MINOR matters (such as referencing in a style you don't like), or not having a reference for an unimportant point where the bigger subject is referenced, should be a CAST IN IRON argument for defeaturing or denying featured status to an article, much like the same way we don't approach prose, composition, or pictures in a die-hard manner.

Once again, I'm not denying the importance of referencing, or asking that it should be dropped from requirements, but I do ask that

  • 1. Approach the rule, like any other rule, with a "certain degree of elasticity" (quote from our MOS)
  • 2. Understand nobody and nothing is perfect
  • 3. Understand, that referencing, like any other principle, should first and foremost apply to the general theme, meaning and interpretation the article conveys, rather than every word and letter
  • 4. Admit that using a less-than-perfect referencing style still does NOT mean the article is unreferenced
  • 5. Try fixing minor errors you see yourself yourself before bringing them up here

And most importantly:

  • 6. STOP using "references" clause as an ironclad principle of arguing against articles if it is obvious its not references what you are after, but other issues, but you choose this one because it's so easy to pick on.

There's something to think about.

Sincerely,

Elvarg 21:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please show me a clear example of what you are talking about, because otherwise, you're violating WP:AGF. I strongly doubt that any significant portion of wikipedians have so much malice in their hearts as to lie about the nature of their objections to an article. My personal stance is found at User:Spangineer/inline citations. With respect to your claim that it's "lame" and "dull" to have the citations in the correct locations, I heartily disagree. While I wouldn't oppose an article's candidacy on those grounds, professionalism is all about consistency. Scientific journals use a set format, Brittanica uses a set format, for that matter, any notable publication uses a set format. By the nature of Wikipedia, we can't, but there is absolutely no reason to ensure that the articles we call our best should not have consistent formatting. Some people, however, take issue to people changing their formatting style, and as a result, bringing it up on a FAC is the polite thing to do.
Perfection is impossible, but what we're asking for is not perfection. Perfection in references might be using all printed sources, using no source more than twice, using multiple sources for the same point, maintaining exact formatting, and not overburdening the reader with excessive inline citations. Some of these are easily attainable, some are not. To say that the ones that are easily attainable should be allowed to be ignored is unwise and unnecessary. If it makes the article better, and it's easy to do, why not do it?
Finally, you seem to suggest that when it comes to referencing, we fail to see the forest for the trees. Sometimes, that may be the case, but at the end of the day, if the article states something that someone will at some point want to verify or use in another work, that something should be referenced. Period. I will not ignore blatant referencing problems in FAs, because if our best articles lack something that crucial, we have proven that our critics are right; that this is an encyclopedia that can never be taken seriously. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not just thoroughly reference any WP:FAC article, thereby avoiding the need to speculate about the motives of people objecting over poor referencing? Jkelly 19:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, an article with a decent number of references is fine with almost all editors either during the FA voting or FARC.--Alabamaboy 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what Elvarg (talk · contribs) is more referring to is the feeling that some people who comment on FACs are more willing to complain about a problem than fix a problem. In my FAC experiences, I do see some of this and I think it has somethin to do with the way FAC is setup. A nominator is expected to guide the article through FAC so often users come in and make comments opposing, expecting the nominator to make all of the changes, regardless of their magnitude. Of course, often those users never come back to change their votes, but that is an entirely other matter. I think this is a common sentiment, yes, but if the nominator decided to nominate the article, that means they are willing to do whatever it takes to get to FA status. I know I was! :-) — Scm83x talk 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The nominator does not "own" the article (and neither anyone else does). The nominator merely points out the quality of the article, and offers some reasons for why it should be nominated. The opposers also have to present valid reasons, and together a consensus is supposed to be reached. FAC is not supposed to be a battleground, although too often it is, and the nominator should not carry the burden of proof when "defending" the article he nominated -- and he does not have any more responsibility than the next editor (including his opposition) to improve the article. Elvarg 23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course there are two rather good reasons why people here ask for references rather than just inserting them: firstly there are a lot of articles going through the process at any one time, and no-one wants to start fixing 20-odd articles; and secondly the actual author of the article is best-placed to tell us what references he used. Incidentally, if anyone is really objecting because they don't like a particular style of referencing, then Raul will certainly ignore their objection when it come to tallying up. Mark1 20:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Based on my last two months in FAC, I think this discusssion is timely and important. The points made so far do miss a critical aspect of the situation. The insistence on (heavy) use of citations creates a variety of cases where the quality of FAs IMO can be significantly diminished, and in to a great degree takes our eyes off the goal of identifying "really good articles" by putting a lot of focus on an ill-defined area. References can be used to give the appearance of objectivity and academic credibility where it may not exist, they can be misused by referencing extremely dubious sources for the specific material they are supporting, and they can plain clutter up an article making it literally hard to read. These are the three obvious types of problem I've noticed. Examples from recent FACs:

  • Schabir Shaik Trial - promoted despite standing objections related to use of inline citation. Here, the nominator, in attempting to meet requests for citations, started footnoting everything in sight, then gave up partway, explaining that it seemed an ineffective approach. This left a bizarrely formatted article that I imagine would cause most thoughtful readers to question what was going on. The first three of eight main sections have at least one citation per paragraph (30 in total); the rest of the article (75% of the text) has no citations.
  • Radhanites - promoted despite standing objections related to sources. Here, my conclusion as a FAC reviewer was that the article did not internally support itself. Without getting into too much detail, who the Radhanites were is (based on the article iteself) largely scholarly speculation, as only two paragraphs from a single historical account exist to describe them (again, as noted in the article). I felt that the article should have been more properly titled "Jewish merchants of the Early Middle Ages", of which much more info is apparently available, instead of making it appear that the Radhanites were (likely, or, possibly) these "Jewish merchants". It seemed to me like some sort of propaganda exercise. I'm not claiming ANY scholarly insight or even general knowledge of the topic, but was simply working from the article. A rather "impressive" list of (print-based) references were cited. I did some searching and found that one of the central titles was a book from the 1940s which expanded on the above mentioned two paragraphs, IOW one scholar's opinion, and many others were encyclopedias which may have drawn from that source. In the FAC discussion, another reviewer stated that some citations were simply wrong (e.g. did not refer to what they claimed to). That was a heated exchange, and no clear outcome was evident, but clearly, someone there was wrong, IOW some citations may have been simply window dressing. So here is a case where the article clearly wouldn't have made FA without citations, and where the citations bolstered a (again, IMO) dubious conclusion, and the supporter of the nom didn't see fit to address the questions in any detail.
  • Bulbasaur - currently in its third week of FAC. Here, in the lead paragraph, a double citation, to CNN.com and TIME Asia online, supports a claim about the Pokemon character's popularity. In this instance, the use of contemporary news media seems entirely inappropriate for the claims being supported. I looked at the source material, and these were both "casual" articles, one of which stated in effect "as a quick look at some Pokemon web sites will tell you...". This rather indiscriminate use of "any old source material" just to for the sake of citation is, IMO, ridiculous. At least, a formal survey of some sort, some kind of formal statistical undertaking, should be used to cite for something like measurement of popularity. Recent news media are OK for facts and figures, quotes, and to illustrate perhaps the type of popular coverage given a topic at a point in time, but not for quantitative stuff.

These aren't isolated examples. The Radhanites situation is I suppose exactly what references are for in an academic setting, but they are difficult to take to task (foreign language is another problem I ran into, e.g. Spanish-language refs, which isn't BAD, but a problem if and when checking). The other instances, are more common. particularly loading up articles with unnecessary citations (as addressed in the original comment in this thread: "3. Understand, that referencing, like any other principle, should first and foremost apply to the general theme, meaning and interpretation the article conveys, rather than every word and letter").

I fully understand and support WP:Verifiability and its related guidelines, but this shouldn't be pushed to the point of creating spurious and pseudo-references for the sake of appearance.

My current approach in FAC review is to scan the References section, treating it as a bibliography. If a sufficient number of general titles are presented, and nothing there raises a flag, I'll read the article, where any problems are usually quite evident simply from reading... That only makes sense. An article should first stand on its own (clear, logical, easy to read, self-contained, consistent), not on its citations. I think that, at this stage of WP/FAC, this is sufficiently reasonable excepting those specific cases where possibly controversial assertions are being made. (Sorry for the length, I'll come back and try to edit down.) --Tsavage 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Shot down

How do any articles ever make it to Main Page when 90% of nominations get shot down by unanimous objections? Captain Jackson 00:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The other 10% are what you see on the Main Page; this is consistent with Sturgeon's Revelation, incidentally ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The number of articles unanimously shot down would reduce if nominators spent some time reviewing how other unanimously promoted articles meet the FA criteria. Most editors don't, so the noms get shot down as a result. Spending some time on WP:PR and actually listening to and implimenting the suggestions given there and asking for more is a good start also ignored by most. - Taxman Talk 17:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

References: the new new witch

Look, folks, let's be absolutely clear, eh? There is no requirement for one style of citation over another. There isn't one at WP:CITE, and there isn't one for FAC. Citation is mandatory, but parenthetical vs. inline is an absurd battle to wage. I do not like inline notes. When I see a note, I expect it to be an emendation, to actually say something. Otherwise, it's as John Barrymore said: "Reading a footnote is like running downstairs to answer the doorbell on the first night of marriage." Provide a parenthetical, and, if I have read the references first (which I have), then I know which work you're referring to as I go. That's far better than a tiny number and flip-backs, for me. I've written my share of Featured Articles, but I will never use the inline style. Remember: it's a style. It isn't an obligation.

I demand citations for controversial facts, and I demand citation for inaccessible facts, but something like "he was a noted controversialist" doesn't need a note when the body of the article is going to explain how many controversies he fought in. When the evidence is right there in the biography, the adjective is supportable and NPOV. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, but it's not an academic clipping service: it's an encyclopedia, and that means that things are said that are supported, not that are repeated.

I object stenuously to anyone who goes through substituting style over all other considerations and who goes into style wars with an aim to reducing rather than increasing choice. Don't ask me to use a reference style that will render my article un-editable. Don't ask me to use a style that is unreadable. Don't demand that I violate my professional academic procedures and my personal aesthetics because you have a bur in a sensitives spot over footnotes or some other bit of fustian. Geogre 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a big vocabulary... :) --Tsavage 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You could have shortened that entirely because you are correct there is no consensus for one style over the other and therefore any consistent style within an article is acceptable. Anyone wishing to change that should propose it in WP:CITE and will face a huge uphill battle. Objections based only on which style of inline citations are used are invalid. Simply point that out and point people to WP:CITE. - Taxman Talk 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
And, from WP:CITE, I think this is particularly important as a starting point: Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below. --Tsavage 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That should probably be modified. Featured articles are required to have some form of inline citations (be it footnotes, or harvard style parenthetical citations). Simply posting a list of references at the end of an article is not good enough as it does not tie specific facts to specific sources. Raul654 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Raul, that refers to certain situations like Charlotte Charke or Laetitia Pilkington or Sarah Scott: the biography is not controversial, and all of the factual information comes from the personal memoirs of the subject and a DNB entry, so putting a note up saying "Got this from DNB" and "Got this from there too" and "Got this from there and the novel" and "Got this from there, too, but I also read it in the memoir" is kind of blunt. There simply aren't many good sources for some of these folks. (The folks I mention there really haven't any biographies other than what one finds in biographical dictionaries, and specialists tend to read the primary source document.) Geogre 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Citing a memior that could easily be 100,000 words long isn't particularly helpful to anyone. The cases you cited call for inline citations with specific page numbers. Raul654 22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Or Schabir Shaik Trial, where the nominator/main supporting editor noted in FAC review: I found it silly to continuously repeat the same footnote when from reading the articles its fairly obvious. --Tsavage 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If it were a research paper, Raul, we'd demand that facts that are inaccessible, phrasings that are peculiar, and structures that are unique be cited. Otherwise, "I'm reading this here book, and this is what's in it" is a references page matter. Similarly, "I'm reading this biographical dictionary, and these are the facts from it in a new order, in new wording, with implications expanded and inferences drawn, with hyperlinks" is a reference. Otherwise, like Tsavage says, you just keep saying, "Ibid," "Ibid," and "Ibid" and sound like a swamp full of frogs. (And, for the record, I've read the Memoir of Pilkington like a mosquito on a pond -- alighting here and there -- and so to AC Elias's work I add things from the Memoir, but they're not quotes. I haven't added the Memoir to those references yet, because I got lazy and didn't go find out when the modern edition is. (I used an ancient one when I read it, but I had a great lieberry.)) So the short version is that I don't think the "sometimes References is enough" needs to be changed. Such an article might not get promoted, but it should be possible. What I wrote to object to, though, was the current run of "not inline citation!" for objections. That has gone unchallenged every time, and I should hope that we'd all be reminding voters that references are required, but notational vs. parenthetical is preference. Geogre 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer review automated links

I'm amazed at home many people take their article to FAC without peer review when it's clearly in the instructions at the top. I'd like to be able to see instantly if, when, and how an FAC was peer reviewed. Is there anyway we could make an automated link to each nominee's corresponding peer review? So if I nominate Foobar, it would automatically post a link to Wikipedia:Peer review/Foobar. That way, articles without peer review show up as redlinks. Lovelac7 14:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere do the instructions say that an article has to go to WP:PR first, before being nominated here; it is, however, often a wise thing to do. You may be being misled by the "path" to a featured article: it is simply guidance, not instruction. Some other Wikipedias require a period of peer review before selecting their equivalent of featured articles, but we do not. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be mandatory, but it would be nice to have the links nonetheless. Lovelac7 16:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that the feedback at Peer Review is sometimes non-existent. It leads to me to believe some people take their article to FAC in place of Peer Review because of its greater activity. Gflores Talk 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That is a good point. I'm just now getting the hang of FAC. Lovelac7 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that some articles get little to no improvement on peer review, but showing that the effort was made to send it there should be good enough for many of us. But, if people really want to bypass Peer Review, they should at least check the grammar, spelling and wording of the article, and make sure that any media passes all copyright tests. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Didn't go through Peer Review yet": the newest witch hunt

I'm amazed at the amazement expressed above by Lovelac7, but it was perhaps to be expected, since recently a lot of people seem to be objecting to articles on the basis that they "didn't go through Peer Review 'yet'". Admittedly, I haven't so far seen an objection where that is the sole criticism offered, but I fully expect to any day now, since the lack — or "lack" — of Peer Review is so often objected as a separate point. If the "path to a Featured article" is really making people think PR is obligatory, the "path" should be edited to make it clear that PR is not a Featured article criterion. Never was, and I hope never will be. Such confidently-stated but quite untruthful statistical observations as "very very few articles have [become Featured] without [Peer Review]"[3] reinforce the notion that there's something wrong, something careless or downright immoral, about nominators who offer their articles directly to FAC; that these people are wasting everybody's time regardless of the quality of the article.
Please keep referring to Peer Review if the article genuinely needs it (I often do this myself, and sometimes if the nominator won't take a hint I boldly move it to PR), but please stop scaring off nominators by implying that the PR detour is mandatory. In my experience, as FAC nominator and also as PR housekeeper (a while back) a stint on PR sometimes produces excellent input, but more frequently little or none, or mere kind but useless compliments. PR has problems as it is; it needs to be more dynamic; it needs to keep out the mere content disputes placed there without appropriateness; what PR doesn't need is being choked with articles placed there by reluctant FAC nominators under duress. And we also need to be careful about making FAC nominators jump through so many hoops they tire of taking their articles through FAC at all. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

  • I definitely don't want to scare off anyone with mandatory PR. I'm a relative newbie to the FAC page. (I have one FA to my name: Michigan State University.) I do think the "Path to a Feautred Article" box makes PR look mandatory. It fooled me. Lovelac7 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Bishonen: And we also need to be careful about making FAC nominators jump through so many hoops they tire of taking their articles through FAC at all. Is that a caution or warning for FAC objectors not to object too hard? Like, object if you must, but lightly? I think I understand what you're referring to, but the way it's stated is really an oversimplification and sounds quite bizarre and off-putting... For example, I've objected strenuously on specific FACs, and followed the process through, sometimes as nominations were extended for weeks. Would you suggest that I "object a little less", as a specific example? Or simply make my objection and then go away, rather than follow up on replies...? --Tsavage 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ...? No, it's not a caution to "object lightly". To again take you as the example, I think you do excellent work on FAC. And for simplicity's sake to take me as the example of a nominator, I would have been gratified to have you object strenuously and dialogue critically on some of my selfnoms. (I've probably only listed one since you arrived, though; I've been getting discouraged by the sparsity of critical interest, by no means by objections.) It's a caution against making Peer Review mandatory and specifically against implying that it already is mandatory, and/or that nominators who don't use Peer Review are acting inappropriately. In speaking of "many" hoops, I also had Geogre's points above about referencing in mind. I'm sorry I seemed to be saying something completely different and sounding bizarre. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
  • That sort of thing is what I imagined you were referring to. I commented...vigorously on that last sentence for the sake of clarity. I'm about as new in FAC as anyone, and I know it's a tricky thing finding one's bearings. I don't think Peer Review should be mandatory. I do hope that "new" reviewers feel unconstrained by anything but common sense in interpreting FA criteria, and so, in their FAC comments... Something like that is exactly all I meant! :) --Tsavage 04:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"We don't want to scare off (new editors/veteran editors/FAC nominators/etc)" - the default witch hunt?

I see this used quite frequently, elsewhere as well as here in FAC. As in the comment above. As in a comment just made in Bulbasaur (now entering its second month as a FAC): "Neutral. I feel it's too short, but it's borderline, and I don't want to discourage contributors, so I won't oppose." It's one thing to be civil, contribute rather than complain, and so forth, but it is difficult to reconcile the high and quite explicitly stated FA criteria with what amount to concessions favoring enthusiasm over quality. FAC isn't deciding whether to delete articles, it is supposedly to review articles according to a high and rising standard. The general principle here is, IMO, not not force peer reviews (though that is an explicit pre-FAC guideline requirement), but to consider that a good percentage of articles end up being extensively revised as part of the FAC process. As I've noted many times recently, I find this can completely skew the FAC process, putting most of the load on objectors to certain articles. "Hollaback Girl" (failed), Celine Dion (promoted), Bulbasaur (ongoing) are all nominations that took/are taking WEEKS (not to mention second and third renominations within days or weeks), and undergoing dozens even hundreds of edits, requiring objectors to spend hours and hours following all sorts of revisions. I think that's a central point here. From what I've seen, PR doesn't seem all that effective in generating decent feedback, but if the result of that shortcoming is putting the PR load on FAC, that's a different and real problem... FAC should not be a substitute for (or be seen as "better than") a peer review stage, or simply regular article improvement. --Tsavage 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in Bishonen's keyboard, but, having worked with her in the past, I doubt she, any more than I, would ever want to see objectors go lightly. In fact, I think a number of the articles that are getting weeks on FAC really should have been on PR. For myself alone, I'll say that what brought me to the talk page was a run of nominations lately where the first comment, first response was, "Object: didn't go to PR, which is a requirement. Must have inline citations." Both of those are incorrect, and both are format objections/procedural objections. Substantive objections over length, content, copyright status, stunted development, lopsided development, lack of NPOV, lack of stability, lack of definite object -- these are all absolutely valid objections, and we're wasting the nominator's time by not making them. If we defer to politeness and good feelings when there are substantive problems with an article, all we're doing, at most, is giving it a life as an FA of a few weeks before someone nominates it to FARC. It's the lack of substantive objections and proliferation (and peremptoriness) of format/procedural objections that has some of us old timers frustrated. (Bishonen has several FA's that she wrote from start to finish. There was a creeping tide of format over substance a while back, as copyeditors went wild and elevated their concerns to the top of the list and the front of the line. That was lamentable, and it was brushed aside. The objections lately have looked like folks being misled by the superfices and the lack of objections to qualitatives has looked like a willing ignorance of what articles actually say.) Geogre 04:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This "people are going to FAC instead of PR" problem is hardly new -- I was bitching about this almost two years ago, and helped rewrite the PR process to make it more FAC-like in the hope that this would solve the problem. Again, I think the problem is mainly volume -- there are far more articles on peer review than on FAC. Maybe we should make the archiving regulations more stringent on PR? (For instance, archive all discussions after five days unless they are still ongoing.) Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the history. A little bit of summary is appreciated. I recently spent some time reading through all sorts of old discussions, user talk pages, article histories and the like, and came to the conclusion that that's a sure way to madness - you can't "catch up" on any particular area of WP, wherever you came from, that's where you're at. WP is a mad busy and sprawling place...it's a miracle that it works (great software helps a lot!!)! :) (Regarding PR, I don't think that'll get more active without...incentives. FA (and FA->TFA) obviously has much more sizzle for all sides. It's...um...an interesting process to watch... And fun enough.) --Tsavage 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I put Henry James - the article, not his ashes - through PR for a couple weeks and only one contributor made any remarks. Robth's suggestions were very helpful, but nobody else seemed to notice. So I took the article to FAC, where it did get a lot more comment. Currently, it's 4-2 support-object. I'm hoping to make it 5-1 as I root through the article for one objector's stylistic issues. The other objector hasn't been heard from since her original vote, and it looks like no article on James could be thorough enough to meet her objection. (She doesn't think 10,000 words on The Portrait of a Lady alone would be sufficient.) The point is that I'm getting a lot more criticism and comment from FAC than I ever did from PR. Sometimes I wonder if PR should even be continued. Casey Abell 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Too much rule creep for me, it should be about the article, not technicalities. --PopUpPirate 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned FAC?

I been looking though Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates and I noticed alot of orphaned cantidates that never really passed though here or been abanded. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) is a example. Should we delete them or place them here? Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 08:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do would probably be to dump them into the archive of unsuccessful FACs. Raul654 08:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok will do, thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 08:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Closed FACs

Is it ok to keep editing FAC once they have closed? For example, to strike out objections, to add further comments, to change a vote, etc.? If so, how long would someone have before this becomes discouraged? and is any type of edit strongly discouraged after the fact (ie. changing a vote once the decision has been made)? --maclean25 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why small changes wouldn't be OK; big changes (like changing votes) would be bad though. Raul654 19:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)