Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


FACs needing feedback
edit
Brian Horrocks Review it now
Last of the Summer Wine Review it now
Roman Catholic Church Review it now
Strapping Young Lad Review it now
SummerSlam (1988) Review it now
SummerSlam (2007) Review it now
Archive
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, April Fools 2005, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Shortcut:
WT:FAC

Contents

[edit] Triaging suggestions

One of the things that struck me during my recent FA was that the suggestions and comments fall into a couple of broad categories:

  1. leaf raking - minor MoS issues, punctuation, etc.
  2. references - although the V says we only need these for "controversial" comments, FA basically means you need one per para
  3. copyvio - comments on images and licensing
  4. content issues - prose, completeness, major MoS issues etc

I personally feel that the first of these issues is of little import, to the point of being ignorable. Yet when I'm looking the FAs, including my own and the others I've gotten involved in here, it seems that the vast majority of comments fall into this category. What became even more troubling is the fact that many of these comments were often parroted from the MoS without any explanation of why they might be important, and on further investigation, several turned out to be wrong. In a more general sense, they were actually statements of opinion masked in MoS trappings.

I believe the FA might be improved if there was a triage process available. For instance, if the process gathers 25 comments, if 20 of those are minor MoS or sp/gr, I find it difficult to believe that that article is not FA as a result. On the other hand, clearly one copyvio is an auto-fail. Although this seems obvious, I cannot divine any visible manifestation of such a system being used. I'm thinking along the lines of a scale that could be applied to comments in the FA that "score" them, so that even a large number of low-scoring items would not be a fail.

Does this make sense?

Maury (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think most people have a feeling that FAC is really the final step for an article to becoming 'perfect', so as long as a single person has commentary on an FAC that is actionable, then someone needs to take action and fix it. Gary King (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That's great if it were true and only a small handful of comments were being offered, but clearly the vast majority of FAs generate huge laundry lists of comments. Some of these are contradictory (see Cygnus X-1, for instance), and others are simply wrong (galleries). There needs to be some way to discuss and even discard comments, when appropriate, without getting bogged down in minutia. After all, the article is going to change in the future after the FA passes or fails, so if a missing period is all it takes to fail an FA, does that mean removing one makes it FAR fodder? Don't answer that last question too quickly. Maury (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
See WP:WIAFA, criterion 2; anything that can be fixed, should be fixed, and minor fixes are easily done. If all else passes, and only minor MoS issues remain, someone (like Epbr123) will usually fix them, so this is never an issue and articles don't fail on minor MoS issues. Also, because you don't see visible manifestations of something doesn't mean it's not happening. Also, FAC is not a vote and numbers (like 20 out of 25) have little meaning; the question is have all actionable objections been addressed and all important areas been reviewed. Finally, the biggest problem plaguing all review processes (not just FAC) is a shortage of reviewers; we don't need a system that creates more overhead to account for issues that are already covered. P.S. There is no such thing as a perfect article, as far as I know; just the best it can be relative to WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find any widespread evidence that minor issues are being fixed by 3rd parties. As you note, "the question is have all actionable objections been addressed", and my concern is what exactly is "actionable"? Maury (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"Actionable" is something you can take action on. If you have a biography article and someone tells you that the biography should not be featured, then that is not actionable. If someone tells you that you need a reference to cover a controversial statement, that is actionable. A missing period won't fail an FAC; plus, it is easy to fix, anyhow, so one would assume that the missing period would be added before an FAC is promoted in any case. Gary King (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, every once in a while I'll take a recent FAC and fix dashes, correct reference/puncuation/spacing issues, and so on. (Here's a small recent example) I don't bother posting anything on the FAC to that effect, as the things I have just fixed are no longer an issue, so you may not be aware that these things are happening. I'd be surprised if I'm the only one doing such things. Pagrashtak 04:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a perfect anything, but FAC is the last step towards building the best article you can build. After that, you've theoretically done all you can with an article; that is the ideal result, anyways, at least in my opinion. Gary King (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking for perfection, I'm asking whether or not there should be a simple way to indicate when a suggestion does not have to be implemented without a fail. When someone says "oppose, you need to add x" and then someone else says "oppose, I don't like that you added X", what do we do? The current process seems to default to the last comment, right or wrong. Maury (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest you respond back with something like "I agree with X that Y is better for the article, so I will keep it that way" and then Sandy can make up her mind on that FAC. Gary King (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Wow. That flies in the face of everything I understand the Wikipedia to be. Single points of failure are supposed to be found and eliminated with all due haste, especially on the wikipedia. Maury (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanking new featured-list criteria—food for thought?

Dear colleagues—After two weeks' debate, the new criteria have been implemented. This represents a reduction from 420 to 220 words, and from 15 to seven categories/subcategories. We hope the new design attracts more reviewers and makes the requirements clearer for nominators through their crispness, simplicity and brevity. Food for thought WRT the FA criteria? Do I sniff repetition, over-complicated hierarchy, and the unnecessary inclusion of universal requirements? TONY (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this list could be adapted to FA with very little effort. It seems far more "natural" language so editors don't have to sort through WP jargon to come to the point. The only serious "addition" that would need to be made for articles is the prose should be compelling in addition to professional. Lists can be dry as that bottle of Chablis in my fridge I've been avoiding, but full-prose articles should be engaging. Perhaps:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular, naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources, and non-free content—a featured article has the following attributes.

  1. Prose. It features professional and compelling standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject and provides a concise overview of the article.
  3. Comprehensiveness. It is written in summary style, but does not neglect major facts and details.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes a logical hierarchy of section headings.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Visual appeal. It is visually appealing, making suitable use of text layout, formatting, and—where appropriate to the subject—images with succinct captions or "alt" text.
  7. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.
--Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, nice work, Laser. I wonder what other people think. Do "tables" and "colour" need to be explicated thus? TONY (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC) PS I presume you intended that the lead be included; that contains the critical mention of "in addition to the requirements for all articles" clause. FL people were keen to highlight some of those requirements in the lead (well, I fought to keep them out of the criteria, for good reasons—I think the criteria should not be a checklist of selected universals). TONY (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative on the lead. Not sure about tables. My experience is that a lot of full-prose articles come here with tables but they're normally not up to any kind of standard. No consistent formatting, citations, etc. --Laser brain (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean move this over to the main criteria? My first instinct is opposition. We've fought tooth-and-nail over the WIAFA wording and I'd need to be shown why it's not working as it stands. Marskell (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Particularly, I'd be opposed to devoting so few words to factual accuracy and reference formatting. Marskell (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoops - Marskell, if you click the link in Tony's original post you'll see that information is included in a lead to this list. I neglected to copy it here, but I meant for it to be included. --Laser brain (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I clicked through. It blue links V, CITE, and RS but doesn't unpack them at all. "Consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing" is elided, amongst other things. Certainly seven is an improvement on fifteen but this list is far too sparse for me. Marskell (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added the lead and placed Laser's proposal in a green box. Tim, be my guest and tweak the list of universal requirements in the lead, as an experiment: what needs to be added, and what should the order be? I'd soon enough dispense with "(taking particular care with living persons)" and "what Wikipedia is not", which I've removed pending comments. TONY (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. The FA criteria are fine and do not need to be backed down like the FL criteria have. All this shortening will do is make it harder for new reviewers to know what to look for, and result in less good reviews rather than more.Collectonian (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Having not yet had an opportunity to fully ponder the changes, I might note an immediate concern with the new iteration of "comprehensiveness". What exactly is a "defined scope" (defined by whom, scope of what, etc.) I'm further concerned about the loss of a workable definition: "the article does not neglect major facts and details". I realize there may be implicit redundancy with WP:SS (i.e. it's okay to omit minor/trivial facts and details), but I think the existing verbiage is needed to "defend" against the common "it seems too short" comments, as it requires the reviewer to articulate the missing "major" information. Am I missing something in the new criteria that serves an analogous function? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Comprehensiveness" is framed for listed and would have to be rewritten for articles, you're right. Collectonian, what does "backed down" mean? I've tweaked the list, having had no idea it would appear here so soon. TONY (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Meant to be watered down. I.E. its too generic and reduces the criteria for FL rather than actually make them any better. Another of my formerly favorite aspects of Wikipedia affectively ruined. Collectonian (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, there's a lot of fluff and repetition in the current criteria, which are far too long and complex. Although this version needs development, I do believe that its brevity and clarity point to just the type of wording that will attract reviewers: so much easier to deal with for all parties. TONY (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Oh, and if you're talking about generic, what's worse than the current "is of appropriate length"? What does that mean? But the worst aspect of the current criteria is their casual mixture of universal requirements with those that are specific to FAs. They should clearly be separated. Apart from all else, to do otherwise is to send signals that the universals are not taken seriously for WP's articles in general. TONY (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, I'd rather have fewer GOOD reviewers who do thorough reviews than a bunch of bad ones. The "fluff" encouraged the former, while this will only attract the latter and result in even more pointless, unthoughtout support for lists that shouldn't be passed. Its this new "criteria" that is nothing but useless fluff, where as the former criteria was comprehensive and well formatted. You've also basically ruined all on-going FLCs and FLRs that refer to the criteria by number, as many of us reviewers do. No such numbers now. Yeah...great job. Collectonian (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Fluff encourages good reviewers? Yeah right. TONY (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad you agree. This new fluff criteria won't encourage good reviewers, and encourage even more low quality list submissions. Collectonian (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No, these cr. have no fluff: that is reserved in huge dollops for the current wording. You've got it in reverse, and quail at the thought that you can't see that. TONY (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I've got it right, as someone who actually is (was) involved with featured lists, as opposed to you who just came in, screwed it all up, and will now go back to not actually doing anything useful in the FL process. These new criteria are not "criteria" at all, just regurgitating existing basic MoS stuff. Collectonian (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If I can make my way through your illiterate comment, it looks like offensive rubbish. TONY (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with our current criteria and think they're working fine. Each time we've tweaked them, we've tried to stay true to the long standing numbering scheme so that editors encountering an older FAC or FAC will know where improvements are needed and what 1a, 1d, etc. refer to; altering the numbering scheme will render these older FACs and FARs less useful to new editors wanting to improve an article and understand its deficiencies. We currently have ten points; this condenses them only to seven, loses some points, and combines some in ways I'm not convinced will help. I'm particularly concerned that it loses an important point, 2c (consistent citations), and combines 1b and 4 (comprehensive and length), which are two separate issues. The loss of 1c and 1d as specific points (now in the opening sentence) are theoretically not a problem, since those apply to all articles, but in practical terms, why would we take away a specific actionable point of opposition, and also take away the reminder to reviewers to check for those issues ? I don't really see the need to change WIAFA unless a problem with it is demonstrated. As to "universals are not taken seriously for WP's articles in general": they aren't. Articles get all the way to FAC, through other content review processes, before issues are identified. Let's not take away the specific reminder to check for these items. The current numbering scheme has a specific correlation to actionable opposes; I'm concerned that this obscures that one-to-one correspondence between criteria and actionable oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And this is a very confusing thread (maybe because I'm not feeling well today): it's titled as featured lists, but discusses changes to WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate the current wordings. TONY (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Me too. They read like a government form. "You need to fix this, see 2a." Ugggg. Maury (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to rewrite the criteria so comprehensively without making material changes to their meaning. To take one example, the current criteria call for "engaging" prose with an aspiration to brilliance, while these call for "compelling" prose. That doesn't mean the same thing, and I don't think the new meaning is better. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but that is a superficial change that can easily be substituted; why don't you now? The general thrust is the removal of that stupid repetitive announcement of items at the top of 1, which are then repeated in a labored fashion on the second level of the hierarchy. The awkward MOS components. The fluff. Tell me, how many of you know what 2b is without looking? 3? 1b? TONY (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I know what they are, but I guess I don't count as the norm, since I have to sort through them 50 times a day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly there are some strong opinions on this, all of which have come from those heavily involved in the FAC/FLC process. I wonder though - does a list like this better serve its other audience, the people who write and submit FACs? --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Having worked with Tony on the FA criteria, I'm surprised to find out that he suddenly hates the wording. Everything here is subject to reevaluation, of course, but those criteria have served us well. Wording that develops canonicity is a good thing for the site, and much of WIAFA has done so. Why fix what isn't broken? (I can tell you what every point is without looking, BTW, but perhaps I'm a special case.) Marskell (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec reply to Laser) The ones who don't read it or the ones who don't need to ???  :-) In other words, good point, but it's the reviewers who most often need to reference the actionable issues. By the way, there's another problem in the way summary style is referred to in the sample: not all articles (need to) use summary style, some articles don't depend on daughter and main articles. Comprehensive and length/summary style are two different things. BTW, we've got an awful lot of discussion of change on the table right now, and at least Laser is still actively reviewing FACs, while most are languishing under the real problem at FAC: lack of reviewers. Solving the issues at FLC, and finding ways to improve the encyclopedia are great goals, and we should all engage, but in the meantime, while this page is one edit conflict after another, FACs and FARs need to be reviewed or they can't be closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Tim, I don't like them because they're unnecessarily complicated in their structure and layout, need to be stripped of meaningless wording such as "is of appropriate size". I don't want the substantive, actionable meanings—which you can understand with a lot of hack-work—to be changed. They should be as short and east to comprehend as possible. TONY (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to FA criteria

  • Changes: Since there is such rampant conservatism here—sorry to be blunt (you're mostly my good Wiki-friends)—I've done the bare minimum by removing the frightful repetitions and bolding the themes of each criterion/sub-criterion. The "means that" mantra has gone. The substantive meanings are untouched. The hierarchical structure and numbering/lettering are untouched. It has shrunk by about 11%. THE OLD JUNGLE; THE FRESHENED UP VERSION; THE DIFF TONY (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Sandy. Can you explain your caps comment? His Grace and I are video conferencing at the moment, and can't work it out. Also, I think there's a weakness: "a lead:". But neither of us can come up with anything better. TONY (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A joke about the end of your previous post (above), where you hollered in all caps :-) Send my greetings to His Grace, and tell him my chocolate supply is running low. Video conferencing? And you expect me to move beyond IE7? Ha !! I still think there's a weakness in that we haven't gotten back to some older wording about overwhelming table of contents hidden by toclimit, but I seem to be alone on that score. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wholeheartedly in favour. As there are no material changes, why not just post them? --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
<Moved from Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the train wreck that some sourcing is, can we make some sort of mention that the sources need to be of the best quality possible? Or not be biased towards online sources? I get tired of repeating myself endlessly about this sort of thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that is (or should be) addressed at WP:V, WP:RS; I share your frustration that articles get through peer review and GAN, and all the way to FAC, with non-reliable sources or low-quality sourcing, and that few reviewers seem to check these issues, rather are relying on Ealdgyth to do it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, gods, no. I'm not even stepping foot in the policy pages. I have dreams of actually editing articles sometimes! I'm trying to be preemptive, and do more over at PR about sources. I'm very happy that Laser's backing me up on sources, as well as Karancacs. Relata and RelHistBuff have helped a bunch also. It's just frustrating that folks don't see that using the best sources possible is in Wiki's best interest.... (tears hair out). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's understandable. It's about easy availability and cost. Paper sources have to be ordered by interlibrary loan (fiddly, time-consuming) or bought (expensive). It's much easier to write something directly from web sources. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. A helpful user allowed me to access his ProQuest account, so at least my FAs will have more print sources, never fear! (and I've been running out text for others who need some off-the-net/paygate sources.) By the way, this brings up a point; if we have sources which are borderline or are not readily clear as fitting WP:RS, should we state so in opening the FAC?, i.e., "Joystiq author for current ref 55 is XX, whose work has also appeared in XX and XX." or "Ref XX is only being used for interview" or stuff like that? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I know I'd appreciate it, but I'm not sure Sandy or Raul would like it, as it may add more junk for them to read through. Honestly, the biggest thing everyone can do is get their refs formatted consistentely. The link checker tool now shows me the domain name as well as listing the publisher that's stated, so it's pretty easy to see where folks try to "fudge" on the two not matching. This needs publishers listed though, so that's a big step that'll help. (The FAC for the History of Indiana is a mess because of all the help I had to give on getting the references formatted, which I don't mind, it's a new editor to FAC and we need them to come and not get bit, but it does take a lot of time.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is the difference between the publisher and work fields of {{cite web}}? I've used the work parameter more often just because it's italicized and therefor easier to read, but the template instructions never specified what it's for, in contrast to publisher. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Take this as a personal opinion, but I think the work is like the title of a book, and the publisher is like the corporate publisher that does the work, but that's just how I understand it. I can't say I'm really picky about which is which, honestly, because I'm just not that into citations and the proper formatting thereof. (I know it's bad of me). I just want the information in a form I can understand, and that it be consistent through out the article. Oh, and not in arcane abbreviations either! Whether there are periods before or after things just doesn't bother me that much. Books I'm a bit pickier, but even then, as long as I can figure out what the publisher is, and read the stuff, it works for me. Sorry, got long winded again. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It's ok. :P I guess maybe I'll post the RS info on the talk page and link to it on the FAC page, to save space and Sandy's sanity, then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent (assuming you mean the article FAC's talk page, be sure to link to the individual FAC talk page from the FAC, since talk page links aren't visible when viewing the entire FAC page). I've never been convinced on this "only used for an interview" reasoning, and wish someone would find the time to go over to the reliable sources noticeboard, or WP:V, and get that ironed out. The issue is we sometimes see borderline notability articles being sourced largely to interviews hosted on personal or non-reliable websites, and I'm not convinced that problem has ever been sorted, or if we want featured articles largely sourced to non-reliable interviews. Some of these interviews are hosted on Joe Bloe's website.com, and we have no way of knowing the interview is true or even happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that just because it's an interview it's reliable either, but one step at a time. (And no, I'm NOT going to step foot in the RS or V policy pages. No way.) Let's get the interviews hosted on reliable sites, and that'll take most of the concerns away. I'm not against interviews, but they are really primary sources, and should be subject to the same considerations and concerns of other primary sources.
Opening another can of worms, what stand our chances of getting something about using the best sources possible into the FA criteria? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) Per our discussion here, I made a slight tweak to 2b to make it a little clearer that editors don't all believe the hierarchical headings and table of contents need to be exactly the same, but we all agree that both need to be organized logically, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with multiple columns in Template:reflist

Since multiple columns in reference lists are common on featured articles someone sugested we bring this up here as well (it has also been mentioned on wp:vp, wp:mos and wp:wai so far)

There have been some discussion on Template talk:Reflist about problems with multiple columns in {{reflist}}. One solution would be to remove suport for it. Another is to remove "number of columns" (i.e. {{reflist|2}}) support in favour of "columnwidth" ({{reflist|colwidth=25em}}) support and somehow disable multiple columns for some browsers that don't work properly with this. Some users suggested it might be better to have a policy change? (I'm guessing they where referring to MoS?). If you have any thoughts about that please consider taking part in the discussion.
— Apis (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple columns are not visible in Internet Explorer since that browser don't support that feature yet.
— Apis (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I posted there but will do here also, "I'll accept anything as long as I still have an option to show the references in columns, even if it is off by default." Gary King (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Get rid of your IE, which is, well, shit. There are superior freeware alternatives, among them Safari for Mac and for Windows. TONY (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I know at least a few WP:FAC regulars that use Internet Explorer as their primary browser, unfortunately. Gary King (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Takes five minutes to download and organise a MUCH better one. The worst thing is that I've heard from those who should know that Microsoft has absolutely no intention of improving the functionality of IE in the foreseeable future. Dump it, I say, and don't compromise the project to accommodate persistent deficiencies in that browser. TONY (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you have already backed Safari, I feel compelled to also suggest Mozilla Firefox. Go, try it now! Gary King (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[Did! Downloaded Firefox during the week after reading this, and well it's great. Never had seen multiple cols before; but I definitely approve.] Ceoil (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I only tried to point out that 75% of all users probably isn't aware of multiple columns being used, not start a browser war.
— Apis (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
...And that even if they aren't using IE, many alternative browsers, if not updates, don't display them either (Safari 1.x, for example, in OS X Panther.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From the Peter Wall FAC

This belongs here instead. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Regarding Cenarium's mention of three months, I'd like to point out (and ask someone else to fill in the details, since I'm traveling, and can't remember which article it was) that Yomangani once brought an article to FA status very quickly, but if my memory serves, it had previously gone through DYK, meaning it had mainpage exposure before coming to FAC. I could be wrong; this is from memory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The Four Stages of Cruelty came to FAC 17 days after being created, having previously been through DYK and had a peer review. --Peter Andersen (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I remember this TFA, it had already been substantially peer reviewed before FAC. I said three months like this, but maybe one month is enough, or at least a review or a DYK so that it gathered community's thoughts beforehand. Cenarium (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, this article is up for DYK at the moment. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) See this discussion, which seems to establish Kreutz Sungrazers as the record-holder: nominated within 18 hours (and only 21 edits!); featured within 7 days; see also this discussion about what Raul terms the fastest "true living FA." And Second Malaysia Plan was submitted within 20 minutes. But we may think that times have changed, and that a new policy should be instituted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Those discussions and examples are from 2005 and 2006 - there are probably more recent ones. The criteria could be debated as well. If, for articles moved from userspace to mainspace (or cut and pasted, if only one person worked on it and doesn't care about or want to preserve the working record of the creation of the article), you could look at the time from moving it over to being featured, and then you might find some more 'swift nominations' and records. Also, some stubs are worked up to FA very fast, even if they had been stubs for a long time - looking at the first edit by the person taking it rapidly to FA is the better starting point. Also, some articles (like your 20 minute one) are created entire and then nominated within a few minutes. It also took a while to get promoted (10 days), but that depends largely on the speed of the FAC process at the time. A good example (and possibly the winner, though for controversial reasons - it was being targeted for a specific date to appear on the main page) is George Washington (no, not the president!), created at 07:27 27 March 2007. Nominated at 07:41, 27 March 2007 (that is 14 minutes later, with the only edit being the one to create the article), the promoted version linked in the Article History template is timed at 16:35, 31 March 2007 (4 days, 9 hours and 8 minutes from creation and 14 minutes less than that for the time betweeen nomination and promotion - depending where you take the promotion point to be). The article then went up on the Main page at 00:00:01 01 April 2007 (you've probably twigged by now, yes?), so it almost certainly will forever hold the record between time of creation and being featured on the Main Page (4 days, 16 hours and 33 minutes), and for the time between promotion and appearing on the Main Page (7 hours and 25 minutes). There was undoubtedly a huge furore when it appeared on the Main Page, and it was nominated for deletion at 02:32, 2 April 2007 (actually rather a common occurrence for controversial Main Page FAs - someone should do a list). Sadly, it was speedily kept (see here) after only 38 minutes, so it doesn't have a deletion discussion that lasted longer than the FAC discussion... :-) There, I think we have a winner, but this seems to have been a special case due to the push to get a suitable FA article for the April Fools Day theme for the Main Page - you'd have to ask Raul to be sure about that. For the record: the article is George Washington (inventor) and User:Pharos was the creator and primary author. Carcharoth (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is becoming a bit of a hot potato, and attracting a lot of comment here. That's fine, and I'm grateful for the thought and attention that is being paid to this FAC. I thought I'd just resume a couple more general issues, which I do not see as actionable, but which are important and could well be reasons for the article's failing. I disagree with these argument, but I understand them, and think them eminently reasonable. This article is something of a test case, and if it helps us rethink policy, then that's fine by me. OK...

  • Several have said that this is "too soon." I can see that the fact that it came to FAC within 24 hours of creation can seem, well, cheeky or "hubristic." I think the article should stand on its merits, however. At present there's no rule about how long an article has to have existed before coming to FAC. But it would be eminently reasonable to propose such a rule: whether it's a month, as Cenarium suggests, or a week, ten days, whatever.
  • Several have also pointed out that it has not been through GA or Peer Review. Again, I think that the article should stand on its merits. But it does seem eminently reasonable to argue that an article has to go through such review processes before coming to FAC.
  • I'd also point out that there are very few comparable articles. There are no FA articles of living businesspeople, as far as I can see; the only equivalent GA articles are Mona Best, Heather Higgins, and Steve Fossett (the latter recently deceased, of course). I think this article stands very favourable comparison with those.
  • Some do, however, continue to have problems with featuring an article on this topic, especially when there biographical details that are not in the public domain. Again, this article proposes a way of dealing with that: in brief, by not treating an encyclopedia article as a biography, or not a biography in the normal Wikipedia sense, concerned above all with the personal. But I could see why people might reasonably suggest that all Wikipedia articles about people need to follow a certain format, and that if the necessary information is unavailable, that it should fail.

Again, I disagree with the above points; but I think the debate about them is worthwhile, in a search for consensus. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is way off topic for an FAC for a particular article, but I would disagree with such a rule. Articles can be of featured quality as soon as they're created, depending on the author, and these rules would only work to cause problems in non-controversial cases. For example, List of North Carolina hurricanes (1900–1949) was "published" on March 30, 2008, and got submitted to WP:FLC within hours. The article was promoted to a featured list less than two weeks later. However, with this rule, Hurricanehink would have to wait a month to submit an article that was obviously ready right from the outset. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, why should articles have to go through GA or PR before being submitted? Not only has that never been a requirement, but when you get reviews like these, they aren't necessarily helpful. Again, if an article is ready at the outset, editors should be free to submit it at the outset. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. External reviews (though rare) can, if good, stun FAC into awed submission. How common are external reviews? Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Technically, you could (using tabs) create the article and nominate it at FAC at the same time. Would be a bit silly though. The bottleneck would always be the FAC discussion, and nowadays the wait to go on the Main Page (for those lucky enough to even get there) is a bit longer than it used to be. Only a special "theme" (like the April Fools Day example I gave above) would be able to short-circuit the process, or if you produced an FA article a few days before an anniversary event or something, but even then I doubt people would nowadays stand for a FAC discussion of only four days, unless lots of people worked hard on the article during the discussion, or lots of people gave it glowing reviews in the first few days, or (this is more likely) the nominator was able to point to a pre-submitted and prepared external review that was done before the article was dumped on Wikipedia in that oh-so-silly single edit - I agree with what Bantman said in the April 2005 discussion:

"This little game of finding the "fastest" FA, while entertaining, is misguided. Many of us are able to write FA-quality articles on our own. To challenge a record such as this, all that would be required is to "hide" a developing article by writing it entirely offline, and then contributing it as a completed article once it is finished and nominating it on FAC straight away. While contributions such as those certainly add good material to Wikipedia, they also serve to destroy the best aspects of Wikipedia. Such a program of article development creates a strong, perhaps overwhelming, sense of ownership both on the part of the author and in the perception of the community at large. It also makes collaboration on the initial article impossible, and strongly discourages future collaboration and editing in general. Wikipedia is special because we can all edit each other's work; this "contest" serves to defeat that feature. Instead it transforms WP, and especially the list of FAs, into more of a classical publication in the vein of magazines, where fine but essentially unchangeable articles are presented for the readers' enjoyment -- but not their contributions. I think that feting an achievement (and thereby encouraging challengers to it) that does not serve the best interest of Wikipedia and what it stands for, is a mistake." - User:Bantman - April 2005

So this is probably a good point to stop. And good luck to those who try in vain to find this discussion years later in the WT:FA archives... <evil grin>. Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That was easy... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant people trying to find this discussion years later. Large parts of this discussion (mea culpa) should be at WT:FA or whichever talk page it is that gets the most traffic - can never remember. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked Raul about records and the promotion of George Washington (inventor), and he replied here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, unlike all those previous examples, I began this article onwiki, rather than pre-preparing anything. This was the first edit. Also for what it's worth, I did the research while I was writing. This is why it's gone through (in only just over 48 hours) 236 revision. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What are we searching for consensus on? I'm not quite sure. That the time frame from an article's posting to its nomination for FA is too short and there should be an imposed minimum time in the mainspace to allow other editors to verify its contents? Or something else? --Moni3 (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. A number of people were objecting to the article because it had been submitted too soon, and without going through either FA or PR. I said this was an unactionable oppose, albeit perhaps a reasonable one. Consensus (here at least) appears to be moving towards saying that it's not reasonable, either.
The other issue (see TonytheTiger's oppose on the FAC) is whether an article for which we don't have the subject's DOB, marital status, or other personal details, can become featured. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I once decided to see how few edits I could get an FA with, so I created Authentic Science Fiction offline and loaded it up, and nominated it one minute later. It was about ten days before it was promoted, so it doesn't beat George Washington (inventor), but I bet it's the current record-holder for nomination. (Though someone with two tabs open could get it down to a few seconds, of course.) I guess I should add that I don't see a reason to forbid this; the FAC process should be about the current state of the nominated article rather than its history (except for the stability criterion of course). Mike Christie (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm a little baffled, then, as to why the FAC of Peter Wall has led to such discussion of the issue, with multiple editors objecting about the speed in which it was nominated. I was even accused of "hubris." In fact its nomination seems relatively leisurely, all things considered, by comparison. I suspect that it's the Elderly Instruments affair that continues to reverberate, but I could be wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
BLP policy is new in relation to some of the older discussions, I believe this is the only BLP among the other articles discussed, and BLPs require extra care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, possibly. I do think that a lot of care has gone into the BLP issues here, too, but perhaps that's a comment more for the FAC itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)
That was my reason for asking: infoboxes aren't required, GA and PR aren't required, and the Elderly Instruments affair may have been fueled by an off-Wiki campaign and some sockpuppetry. I do review BLP promotions with extra concern, and believe that we have an obligation to take extra care where living people are concerned. A person's life is different than an "old" and stable piece of artwork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with you. As I've said repeatedly at the FAC itself, BLP issues are my number one concern (far more, for instance, than the remote possibility that this article may be taken to be promotional). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I read the conversations in both places, so I'm still not sure if consensus is being asked for, or just discussion. I'm not one to impose standards like this on others' writings, but I see the points of multiple sides. I wrote my 4 latest Everglades articles in a sandbox and posted them as complete as I could get them, so it appears as if 44k articles with full citations just appeared. I don't feel comfortable enough to rush it to FAC. That could be my lack of confidence depending on perception, but I think my topic is too important to rush through anything, and I'm asking for as much help as I can get, including off-wiki help. But these are my decisions to make.
If editors can submit articles for FAC as soon as they're posted, does that give undue burden to the FA reviewers to point out simple problems that could have been taken care of at PR or GA? I'm not maligning jbmurray's writing, and I've only skimmed through Peter Wall and it appears to be a fine article, but not every immediate posting may be written as well. I pushed two FA's through without GA formalities and I don't think I'm going to try that again soon, but again, that's my experience. But - how often will this sort of thing happen? (And will the frequency of it be affected by competitive announcement of record holders for shortest time posted at FAC?)
Another issue to consider is, of course, who does the nomination. jbmurray is well-known now at FAC for good reason. He's written or helped a few articles though. I worry sometimes the name of the nominator precedes the article's content. It's tempting to consider all bird articles by Jimfbleak an almost automatic FA, like HurricaneHink's storm articles. As reviewers, we should take the time and effort to consider the articles going through to make sure they're receiving the proper scrutiny for FA.
So - consensus on what? Did you realize what monster you would unleash with this nomination, jbmurray? --Moni3 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I thought this article might prove somewhat controversial, but I didn't think it would attract the comments that it has. I didn't, for instance, think that the speed of nomination would prove much of an issue. I would have mentioned that in the nomination if I had thought it was a cause of concern.
Rather, as I said there, I thought it was a test case for how (or whether) to write a short article. And also, to some extent, it was a test on how to write a biography. I guess I had particularly in mind issues that I raised at the Preity Zinta FAC, where I described the article as "awfully uninspiring," at the Getting It FAC, which I felt was thin without contextualization, and to some extent also at the Skin & Bone GAR, where I also called for setting the subject within some kind of context. I was trying to "walk the walk" having talked a fairly critical talk regarding those articles. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I was once challenged to write an FA from the ground up, without help. I didn't really have that challenge at the forefront of my mind, but I do think it's worth saying that writing an FA need not be a time-consuming process. I put a lot of work into Peter Wall in a concentrated period of time. But if you have some idea of what you're doing (and I feel I have some idea, at least, but so do others and it's not a question of magic), the process of writing an FA need not be traumatic; perhaps it should be demystified somewhat? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, jbmurray. By suggesting it's not all it's cracked up to be, you may get all sorts of articles not ready for FAC with surprised nominators hurt and confused why their articles they put very little work into got slammed. I think effort is relative to subject, experience, and the inherent talent of the writer. On one hand, I think encouragement should be given as often as possible, but there's a reason so few articles are FAs. It is a lot of work. Although this has given me an idea for the ubiquitous how to do an FA essay: From neurosis to FA in ten short steps! --Moni3 (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Writing an FA on a book or a hurricane may not be a time-consuming process, but perhaps you've never tried to write an article on a religion, for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, of course, some topics are easier than others. I've been helping out a bit at League of Nations, but I find that especially a really daunting task. But going back to the point here, and Peter Wall. I think it'd be nice if there were more examples of fairly simple and short FA articles on (say) people, films, and books, that could be models for how such articles should be written. I find the current models, for instance the biography template, very uninspiring, and indeed downright unhelpful. (The same could be said for the templates for films and books, to a large extent.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Heh. I'm not saying "it's not all it's cracked up to be." It is a lot of work, and I worked hard on Peter Wall. It wasn't something I just tossed off, though it helped that I did feel I knew what I was doing, and had a fairly clear idea of what I wanted the article to look like. But you can look through the revision history to see that much was changed en route. It was a real case of multiple revisions, restructurings, and so on; it just took place over a relatively short period of time.
What I am saying, however, is that it isn't a mystery. Lots of people either never come close to FAC, or when they do say "it's unfair, I wrote a great article, and people didn't appreciate it." Maybe this is the teacher coming out in me ;). But anyone can learn how to write a featured article, I think, and should be encouraged to do so, rather than to complain that FAC is full of naysayers and pedants, and so on. Heh, it is fully of naysayers and pedants, and I'm sometimes one of them; but that doesn't mean the task is impossible. Tony's advice on how to pass criterion 1a is a great step in demystifying the process of writing well. But we should all be looking for ways to encourage more people to write FAs... which is not the same, of course, as encouraging people to bring unprepared candidates to FAC.
We're singing from the same hymn book here, of course. I just want to emphasize that writing an FA is an achievement, an accomplishment, but one that (with guidance and practice) almost anyone can manage. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
And often best done in a team that includes at least one word-nerd, who might best be brought in half-way through and just before submission. When the article was written and how long that process took are totally irrelevant to FAC. Totally. TONY (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, indeed. And of course, teamwork is most of the fun of Wikipedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it gives more work to the reviewers, which are said to be lacking furthermore. While the FAC process is a good opportunity to have community imput, I think that an article should be given the time to embed. Because as remembered, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, some people are able to create quality article on their own, but the place of the article in this wide network that is Wikipedia, matters. In the FA criteria, 1e is relevant. But I think that it's not enough, so indeed, I believe that we should wait a certain amount of time before a FAC. Cenarium (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York Routes 28 & 32 contrast & compare

As another user and I have been the poster of both FACs, there seems to have been a problem growing in one that is not happening in the other.

It seems that the New York State Route 32 article is becoming a battleground over the "Major intersectons" chart that is used in every USRD article. Well, the project standards is to use shields in it to make others understand the difference. Well, this has been brought up on my FAC and the user is not letting go at all. This has become a 5 vs. 1 battle and not helping the situation any.

The problem I am trying to bring up is that this is happening on the NY 32 FAC and not the NY 28 FAC right above it. Is there some kind of reviewing deficiency or is this just a problem that other users are not bringing up on the other FAC? This battle is going nowhere and it feels weird that one article is getting all the abuse from it, and the other isn't at all. Is that really fair? I mean why abuse one FAC when another has the same problem brought up in the other.

Also, this was never brought up in the last 10 FAs that have passed. Why is this so? Is there anything we can do about it? It would help a lot if some compromise was made over this.

Anyway, comments would help. Thanks!Mitch32contribs 00:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mitch, if it's a five to one battle, let it go, as clearly the consensus is to leave it just the way it is. However, yes, there is indeed a lack of reviewers. Also, it appears that you are trying to get my (NY 28) FAC involved with the argument, no? I think WT:USRD might be a better place for this discussion. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd just direct the users to the talk page of the roads Wikiproject, as that is the more appropriate forum for this debate. However, characterizing this little disagreement as a "battle" and "abuse" is stretching it. From what I can see, the 2 editors who take issue with the shields have only posted a couple of one-sentence replies. And it's not like they are adamantly opposing the article. BuddingJournalist 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New editintro for FAC nominations

Just a heads up, I (after bringing it up with Gimmetrow and Sandy) have modified the {{FAC}} template so that it includes an editintro. An example can be seen here. Gary King (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gary ! Now let's sit back and watch how many people will now read the instructions :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks great, but could this also be easily accessible within the FAC page too (or something closeby), so that one can refer to it outside of opening a nom? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's at the very top of WP:FAC. The reason we put it in the nomination page now is because people rarely see the one at WP:FAC; apparently you are one of them :p Gary King (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Guilty as charged, sir! :) (Although in fairness, I've not nominated for two years now.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be better if they were easier to read. The background is rather dark? --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay lighter now. Gary King (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember, prior to --> before...plain English .... :) Seriously though, looks good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have made the change. Even though it's not an FAC! I just can't get away :| Gary King (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm very much mistaken, Casliber was suggesting changing the "prior to" (later on in the text) to "before" - not the other way round... Trebor (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, "prior to" usually precedes an event while "before" precedes a verb. The only other "prior to" is "article prior to nomination" and nomination is an event, so I think prior to is correct in that instance. Same goes for the headline of "Read this prior to submitting an article for featured article candidacy". Gary King (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA and WP:OWN

Why is there a requirement that nominators fix problems with an article. And why should folks "take credit" for FA articles. Is this not against the spirit of WP:OWN? Shyamal (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

When you nominate an article for featured status, you are certifying that it conforms to the featured article criteria. When reviewers point out examples of how it does not, you logically need to fix them before it can become featured. Of course no one "owns" an article, but self-identifying as a major contributor helps other editors know who is best-equipped to solve problems. The major contributors are most familiar with the subject matter, sources, and so on. --Laser brain (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed in general. But it appears that many FA review comments are actually things they could very well have been made to improve the article. Instead comments are provided and the nominator's response seems to be the focus of attention. In other words there could have been a lot more collaboration to improve the article than is generally seen. I have no supporting data to tell if FA "trophy collection" leads to competition or a consequent reduction in collaboration. If indeed competition produces more FAs - then maybe ownership can really be good. I can however see for instance that WP:BIRD has a produced a collaborative spirit that seems ultimately to produce more FAs - and feel that the FA process should finally encourage a form of collective "ownership". One way to make it the process constructive is to impose some kind of cost on opposition. (This is reminiscent of a situation written about by Frey, Bruno http://www.iew.uzh.ch/wp/iewwp117.pdf). Shyamal (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really know what you are suggesting. What's a "cost on opposition"? It's true that the nominator becomes the focus of attention during the FAC but that's because that person has chosen to be the "delegate". I don't see any issues with people "taking credit" for FAs as it's clear to anyone who bothers looking who worked on the article. The editing process here is completely transparent. Additionally, it can be very difficult to find collaborators on almost any subject. For example, I've been asking for collaborators at musical instrument for a couple months now. It's a broad, general-interest topic and a core topic. I've gotten some help on sourcing and outlining, but no one is actually interested in writing the article. Most high-energy collaborations around here are on films, video games, and TV shows. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you haven't had an FAC nomination (according to WP:WBFAN) so perhaps your understanding of the process is not complete. For one, it is usually easier to work on an article alone than to find others who are interested in working on it; a lot of people work on such obscure topics that no one else is interested in spending so much time on it. There are just a number of issues that eventually somewhat lead to WP:OWN, but hey, it's better to have an expert on an extremely rare frog species found only in the jungles of Venezuela than not. I've personally collaborated a few times on FACs with others, mostly on video game articles because those are so popular, and others have been willing to help out. Gary King (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that some FAC reviewers, such as Casliber are regular FA writers, know how hard it is to do, and collaborate by fixing minor errors. Other reviewers seem to take an effectively adversarial approach. Whilst I expect to have to make changes to get articles I nominate through FAC, I find it irksome to get comments on the lines of "there's an ndash missing from reference 43" or "sentence X needs a comma" when it would be quicker and more constructive to fix it than tell me. Adversarial reviewing is bound to make the WP:OWN problem more entrenched. jimfbleak (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I generally don't fix citation errors, because half the time (or more than half) I'm not familiar with the system the article is using. I'm more than happy to fix small typos I find, I just get leery of fixing things in citations where I might make bigger errors than the ones I'm seeing. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Simple answer to Jimfbleak; I took my one and only Wiki stress break once after I was completely raked over the coals, literally, for changing one "s" in a featured article. It was absurd that someone took me to task for an "s", but when I realized it was more absurd that I was bothered by that, I took a week break. My point is, there is no such thing as a trivial change, and depending on how well one knows the nominator, many reviewers have learned to be cautious in making any change to an article at FAC. Further, entering comments on a FAC is a better way to increase the knowledge footprint, since everyone else reading can also learn things that need to be addressed, no matter how trivial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think that a lot of perhaps seemingly trivial points are raised as comments so that the nominator, and others, can learn a few things about MOS that they might not know about. For instance, the use of en dash might not be common knowledge, so sometimes the only way to get the word out is to consistently comment it when it needs commenting on. Gary King (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm a little worried that you think that if reviewers offer a comment about a minor error that is "adversarial". I'm a reviewer and regular writer too. As a reviewer, sometimes I dig in and fix things I see, and sometimes I don't. I tend to not fix things if a) the article/section needs a lot of help, b)the section is really long and it would take time to locate the one comma I wanted to change, c) I don't know a lot about the topic and my copyedits could potentially cause meaning changes, or d) if I'm trying to dig through a large watchlist or lots of FAC and don't have time to provide a lot of help. Because of the shortage of FAC reviewers, unless I'm really interested in the topic I tend to think my time is better spent reviewing multiple articles rather than fix the issues in the article I am currently looking at. As a reviewer, I certainly don't intend to be "adversarial" - I just want to make sure someone sees the issue and can fix it. Maybe because I do spend so much time reviewing, it doesn't bother me when I'm a nominator to have other reviwers make those same types of comments. Karanacs (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, it certainly helps when you've been on both sides of the process, because then you know how others feel. I would put myself in that category, too. I think that a large bulk of reviews come from a small group of people, whereas nominations generally come from a large group of people, so reviewers are usually stretched thin and would rather not want to have to dig in to an article. Gary King (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I often edit articles at FAC and offer them as suggestions. I've received complaints a couple of times, but most of the time nominators put up with me. The reason I don't get well and truely "sruck in" is time, (or lack of it), I have projects of my "own" to research and write. GrahamColmTalk 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content forking and introduction articles

A few of these slipped under my radar and I am a bit dismayed to see that things like Introduction to evolution and Introduction to general relativity passed FAC without substantial discussion on the content forking issue. In the latter it was just tabled, not worked out like it probably should have been. If we continue out the trend to it's logical conclusion, it doesn't reach a good place and here's why:

  • Very simply it represents content forking, with double the maintenance and a lot of redundancy that could be reduced by handling the issue in a better way. If an article is too difficult to understand then it is not aimed for the right audience and it should be fixed, not forked.
  • It creates problems with deciding what is the right path to the content. Connectedness of information is very important and is perhaps Wikipedias greatest strength. Content forking creates a problem of what should link to the introduction to article? If you think about it all articles should link to one or the other, not a little of each. And if it's one or the other, only one should exist

It's not to say that lots of good work hasn't been done, but it's just a bit in the wrong direction. I know people will oppose this because they've put work into these articles, but we really have to focus on what's best for the project. So on to the solution:

  • Proper use of summary style. Make the intro article the main article because it is more approachable for the layperson, and then move progressively more detailed and difficult material into subarticles. That's what summary style was conceived for as a way to have the best of both worlds. People that have a need for easier introduction have it and all of the detail is still available. Of course that's not easy to do, but no one said great writing would be. I believe the longstanding practice was to avoid content forking and I believe it was for good reason and we should return to that, and can do so with no loss, instead actually improving the project. - Taxman Talk 14:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Taxman, I agree with what you've said. Are you raising the issue here to encourage FA reviewers to be more aware of possible content forks? --Laser brain (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(Disclaimer, Taxman and me have chatted about this on IRC for the last few hours (on and off).) Yeah, I think that's the essence of it—reviewing prose, images, sources, etc. etc. are obviously important, but sometimes reviews/reviewers will miss "bigger picture" issues such as the one raised here. giggy (:O) 14:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and to get a bit of more specialist knowledge input before I decide to take this to some type of proposal stage. I thought this was a good place to get people that know what it takes to create great articles. But this way we can head this type of thing off at the pass and then cover what's already been done. - Taxman Talk 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I brought this up on an FAC once before and was roundly chastised for the suggestion that introduction articles were essentially forks. I agree with you, but I think we'll need a lot more opinions from other pieces of the project to determine what the consensus actually is. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Giggy, reviewers didn't "miss the bigger picture"; the issue was discussed a lot (maybe not all on the FAC, but it was discussed in both cases in many places), and consensus went with the intro articles. I'm not saying consensus can't or won't change or whether I agree with it; only that it wasn't a case of reviewers missing the big picture. (And that's one of the problems with IRC discussions; you may have misunderstood, missed, or misstated something else that the rest of us might not know about.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It is exceedingly difficult to discuss anything that you, Sandy, disagree with, without being accused of not having read Archive 45.83 and not having filled in Form 29.3 section 2a. Clearly only those who have spent as much time around FAC, FAR, and other such processes are yourself are entitled to discuss them. Thus I will recuse myself from this discussion. Best wishes, giggy (:O) 15:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Recusing from an open and transparent discussion won't address misimpressions delivered over IRC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well that's why I brought it here, so we can bring in the people that know what's going on and calmly reference the relevant points from past discussions. I had wanted to get some general input before raising the issue so I did. As simple as that, so no need for hostilities please all. Please leave outside issues outside and focus on the issue at hand. - Taxman Talk 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Taxman, I don't recall where all the various discussions took place, but it was discussed in several places (perhaps not all evidenced on the FAC). Perhaps TimVickers (talk · contribs) knows where past discussions occurred (I just don't remember), but more important now is to figure out where to locate a new discussion. At any rate, it's a complete mistake to think this flew under FAC's radar, because it didn't. Also, there is Category:Introductions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For now lets discuss it here since it is here and does affect the FA process substantially. Then we can go elsewhere if need be. Basically it seems like what occurred was a local consensus that didn't match with longstanding more broad consensus. In any case now the issues are on the table and we can discuss the merits. If someone can find the links to the previous discussions you mention that would be interesting. Only one of the two FACs covered it and not really in an in depth way. - Taxman Talk 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, the best way to find the old discussions, and get more people involved for now, is to bring in the participants on those two FACs (I'm still getting through my morning watchlist, if anyone else can ping them). The Intro to Evolution FAC, in particular, got quite testy, and there was a lot of discussion in a lot of places. I had a strong opinion on the topic, I can't recall if I lodged my opinion, but since I have to judge consensus on FACs, I'll keep my opinion to myself :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference, I found some of the previous discussions.

I haven't finished reading them yet, but I believe on the whole we'll find they fail to address the above concerns. What was added to Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible certainly doesn't consider the better alternative of good use of summary style to avoid content forking. - Taxman Talk 15:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the most recent discussion was the one at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Introduction_to_genetics--BirgitteSB 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only to think it's ironic for those concerned about content forking to start the discussion in so many different places in parallel?
That said: I think any talk of "the right audience" needs clarification. Sure, we might have consensus about the main audience (the "curious man in the street" of earlier discussions), but Wikipedia has many more audiences that derive great use from it. My personal worry about the discussions about "Introduction to..." has been the danger that we might make Wikipedia less useful for those audiences, while not improving it much for anyone else, simply on a matter of principle. That, I would feel, would be a very bad, if all too human thing. Cf. WP:Many things to many people.
I'm somewhat surprised that you claim Introduction to general relativity passed FAC without much discussion about content forking. You did see, I hope, that much of this particular part of the discussion was taken to the FAC review's talk page, a somewhat unusual step which was taken precisely because the discussion about "Introduction to..." was getting overlong for the regular review page?
On content forking: as has been pointed out in similar discussions a number of times, it's not fundamentally different from regular spin-off articles. Think of "Introduction to..." as the spin-off of the article's lede, or of an overview section. The lede should be generally accessible, but that's not always possible given length restrictions. The solution in those (hopefully rare) cases? The same as when any other section of the article gets too long. Summary style in the lede, and a dedicated extra article with the details.
Connectedness: in my view, that's an argument for "Introduction to...". In general relativity, for instance, I find it hard to imagine how you can write the article so that it is suitable for a general audience, while still keeping the links to the many advanced concepts related to general relativity (the related semantic network) intact.
"Introduction to..." plus normal article vs. normal article plus "Advanced ..." article: I have no clear predilection; however, I think the "spin-off of the lede" means that the former concept fits better in with how Wikipedia works. Also, it's the way this is currently implemented, so, from an efficiency standpoint, I would think that is an argument in favour of keeping it. Markus Poessel (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
One of the things that is best about these general introduction articles is that they can give a broad overview to introduce several articles. For instance, I've used Introduction to genetics as an introductory overview to several articles, including DNA, gene and genetics. If you wish to gauge community consensus on if these articles are content forks Taxman, I'd simply suggest you nominate one for AfD with "content fork" as your deletion reason. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a rather curious argument, which if taken to its conclusion would lead to a single Introduction article would it not? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No, but there are a set of related concepts that are needed to provide the background to both the article on DNA and the article on genes. Such a general introductory background would not give the reader any better appreciation of an article on Ancient Egypt, for example, so your argument is untrue. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that these articles are inconsistent with summary style, which I view as being about different levels of specificity and detail. These articles are mostly written at similar levels of specificity but at different levels of technical accuracy. I also think FAC should be careful not to become a second forum for deletion or merge discussions that properly belong at other forums. The discussions to date on this issue, at least for introduction to evolution, suggest a solid consensus that the current organization is okay; I don't think it's the role of the featured article process to contradict those decisions. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, there was a very clear community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Only just found this discussion. Hopefully all the previous discussions were linked. Taxman, did you have problems finding the previous discussions, or were they just not where you expected to find them? My view is that there is a place for such articles, but we need to use the "Introduction to..." titles sparingly and only use it where the two articles can be substantially written in a useful way. I do think the issue of linking should be discussed more - ie. when people follow a link to genetics, should they have to click again to reach the article the might want (the introduction article), or should it be the reader who wants the detailed stuff that should have to click again to reach the "technical" genetics article? Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Found two more discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination). Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical articles

Following on from the above, I have a little list of articles that I personally have found very technical and complex. Does anyone else have ones to add to this?

Unfortunately, I find the last two equally incomprehensible! But then so do lots of people, apparently. Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New (to me) FAC procedure

I've been through the FAC procedure once before; the rules appear to have changed, and in the new rules, there is one part I don't quite understand: 'If there is a "previous FAC" link, leave the link in the new nomination.' – how do I "leave a link" in a "nomination"? Does this mean I should set a link to the previous FAC discussion when I re-nominate? Is this something that will become clearer when I actually start the FAC nomination? I'd be glad for clarification. And incidentally, I vote for formulating this more clearly. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is now a pre-load on the FAC template. Go to any article that has a recent previous FAC that didn't pass, add {{fac}} to the talk page, click on the link to the fac, and have a look at what's there. Then tell us if it's no longer clear. You "leave the link" you'll see that's already there (as opposed to deleting it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It is clearer once you actually do it. For the sake of more timid people, who do not attempt to do something without understanding it, it would be great, though, if this could formulated just a little bit differently, like: "If there were previous nominations, you will see a link to each. Leave those links as they are." or similar. Thanks! Markus Poessel (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I made a change; is it better now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's much clearer that way. Thanks! Markus Poessel (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation detector

I thought I'd share a script User:Splarka/dabfinder.js with the reviewers here. It uses the API to get a list of templates used at link and checks it against the list at MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage, if they match it draws a border around the link and adds it to the count. — Dispenser 06:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks useful. Installed! Gary King (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May FAC stats

See also: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive27#February FAC stats and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive27#April FAC stats

During May, 107 featured article candidates were handled, resulting in 54 promotions and 53 archived nominations. FAC had 800 statements from 242 editors, including:

  • 163 editors with 1 review;
  • 45 editors with 2-4 reviews;
  • 20 editors with 5-10 reviews;
  • 8 editors with 11-20 reviews; and
  • 6 editors with over 20 reviews.

Focusing on the editors who participated in over 10 reviews in May, I revisited the FACs to roughly assess the quality of those reviews. Extra weight was given for extensive reviews and for reviews that were a determining factor in the outcome. Lower quality reviews were often the result of prematurely supporting a FAC in which other editors subsequently identified significant issues, or of unactionable opposes based on non-criteria, such as personal preferences for infoboxes, images, or citation templates.

The top 10 FAC reviewers in May, based on quantity and quality, were:

Honorable mentions go to: Black Kite for assisting with image use reviews; Awadewit, Roger Davies, Jbmurray, and Dweller for especially in-depth reviews; and new reviewer Giants2008 who almost made the top 10 list in only his second month reviewing at FAC.

Thanks to all for your hard work! Maralia (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And an extra special thanks to Maralia for doing this work !!! It usually takes me two to three days, so I really appreciate it. Barnstars on the way (I'm starting now :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You know, I don't really consider it a review to check sources... but I think I've lost this argument with Sandy before. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought I reviewed, like, 5 or 6. 17 is nutty! --Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought I had done more, but it's not the number that counts, but rather the quality, depth and usefulness of the reviews themselves. Well done everyone. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
All that matters is whether the encyclopedia is better or worse as a result of whatever contributions you're able to make Wackymacs. It's not about racking up cricket scores of reviews. Reviewer of the month is yesterday's news almost before it's published. Does anyone remember who the reviewer of the month was for March, for instance? Does anyone really care? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I remember March; there weren't any barnstars because I was too busy to do the stats. Don't be a party-pooper, MF; your fans expect so much more from you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to poop the party, and I just picked March at random; I didn't even notice that there had been no stats for March. Of course all of the reviewers who worked so hard in May deserve their moment in the sunshine. I was simply offering a little condolence to those left watching from the shade. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've barnstarred the reviewers identified by Maralia, but want to extend thanks to all reviewers; every little bit helps. I think it would be very nice if the people behind the scenes could be recognized more often by FA writers (I'm thinking of Gimmetrow who maintains {{articlehistory}} and processes FAC and FAR closings, Brighterorange with his famous dash fixing script, Dr pda who wrote the articlehistory and prose size scripts, Rick Block who maintains WP:WBFAN, and Dispenser for the FA tools that I don't understand :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(bloody edit conflict) :It's nice, very nice, to be thanked for, (and reminded of), all the many hours I've spent on FACs, so please continue. But it's even better when the nominators show gratitude, particularly when one's initial review has been deemed by some to be adversarial. I see a great team growing at FAC—with each member, although not blind to the bigger picture, developing a particular expertise on the criteria. FAC is about achieving consensus; I think we are getting very good at this. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idea

This might be the time to bring up on older issue that Tony1 and I fought over a few months back on Raul's talk page (we had different ideas about how to implement this, but Tony really wants an FA of the Month while I really want to recognize good reviews): a proposal to use this methodology to choose 10 FAC reviewers each month, along with several other non-FA regulars appointed by Raul (or Marskell or whomever), to form a panel to vote an FA of the month, where the top 10 FAC reviewers each put forward five articles from that month for voting. Feedback ?? Too much work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the purpose of such a task? Indeed it does sound like too much work, even if someone is determined to do this each and every month. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, an FA of the month, count me in, a new challenge and a great way to celebrate achievement. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony's purpose is to recognize an FA of the month, to encourage additional recognition of fine work and better standards. My purpose was to give reviewers a way to provide feedback into that recognition of good work, since they are the ones who've already been through the articles and can put forward their lists of five for voting, so that the external panel has less articles to read (the 10 reviewers would vote down the top five, which an external panel would then review). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
IN other words, the 10 reviewers only put forward and vote on top five, and any top 10 reviewer who doesn't have time can cede their spot to other reviewers (for example, Tony had planned to cede one to PMAnderson). Then an expanded panel can read and vote on those five articles, allowing Raul/us/someone to bring in new blood to the FA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Something tells me "important" topics would be more likely to find favour with any panel than pop-culture topics would. indopug (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To me, an article achieving FA status is recognition enough in itself. The finest works are already available for those to see by viewing recently nominated articles. I personally think effort should be put into either more reviews or improving articles, instead of a superficial 'FA of the month' that, like the monthly FAC stats, will most likely soon be forgotten. Sandy, your view of this seems to complicate the matter. Lets keep the FAC process simple—as GrahamColm said, its working very effectively. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Something tells me you're very likely right indopug. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of FA of the month, though am neutral as to how it should be chosen: some method that's fairly uncomplicated would be good; I'd even support SandyG or Raul nominating FA of the month themselves. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
My idea is not to have a cast of thousands (or 10) and to make the system as automatic as possible; therefore JB's idea is more attractive than any massive system, but I think neither Raul nor Sandy will have it. I wanted four panellists, and proposed that they have three-month tenures to lessen the work in selecting and recruiting them. I wanted a three-month trial with feedback encouraged during that period (but a one-month trial in the first instance would be fine). And I wanted a fifth person to be short-lister for each period, to sift through the huge number of promotions and select, say six articles; the short-lister and the panellists would be specifically instructed not to allow their like or dislike of topics/areas to influence their decisions. Each article would need to be read properly by all panellists. Asking all to sift through 80 articles is just too much; I do not support that, since it would be onerous and would take our best reviewers away from reviewing; and it's hard to see how a numerical voting system could work with that many items. The idea is not to reward good reviewing by everyone in each period but to do this over a longer period by rotating personnel. Keep it small, keep it easy is my feeling. TONY (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to repeat the whole big discussion that Tony and I had, but ... First, absolutely I don't want this responsibility, and I'm not sure if Raul does. Second, we can't empower a panel of x people, and charge them with reading through 50 to 80 articles a month: no fun, they won't want to do it, too much work. By having our top 10 reviewers nominate and vote to narrow it down to the top 5, you can present a panel with only five articles to read (and our reviewers don't have to read 80 articles, because they've already reviewed them and have a head start). What panel or group will want to read 50 to 80 articles in one sitting ??? Tony solves that by proposing a short-lister; in other words, back to one person, or a few people, doing the choosing, which will always lead to charges of <whatever>, not to mention, who chooses that person? My solution is to reward top reviewers for their work by letting them each nominate five articles, they vote amongst themselves to select the top five, which are put before the panel. For those who are afraid this would mean no pop culture articles, well, this would provide an incentive for better reviews of pop culture articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sandy: Can you clarify whether you're responding to JBM's idea or to what I'm saying ...?
  • Pop: Some worthy pop nominations are promoted, and once in a while need to be highlighted as models for others in that area. This is why I'm keen that both short-lister and panellists be explicitly asked to disregard their own likes and dislikes of topics/areas (just as a judge might ask a jury to disregard certain aspects of evidence in RL—easier here than for a jury, I suspect).
  • Relationship to the criteria: On a dry run of short-listing I performed as an experiment, I came to the view that short-lister and panellists should be steered away from excluding promotions purely because, in their view, they don't quite satisfy every single criterion. I think that having recently promoted an article, the "system" should be aiming for a global assessment, balancing what each judge feels are positives and negatives into a single ranking, period, no feedback, no comments.
  • Who would be the short-lister? Short-listing is a more onerous task than being a panellist and would exclude final judgement, so you might not have people rushing to do it. Perhaps if there are four panellists, five might be selected and asked to sort out among themselves who'll do the short-list each month: that makes three of the five who'll get a go at the time-consuming bit over a three-month tenure.
  • Other comments: As I conceive it, this process should (1) avoid explicit comments by judges, both between each other and externally; (2) require the short-lister to consider selecting a reasonable range of topics/areas (not mostly video games, or science-based, or biography, or history, unless there are extenuating circumstances); (3) allow only questions of procedure by short-lister and panellists, where absolutely necessary, to be put to Raul/Sandy; and (4) require panellists merely to rank the short-listed articles (e.g., if there are six items, their first choice receives 6 points, their second 5 points, etc., the scores for each item added to produce a winner). Query whether to publish the total scores and thus the average rankings of all six: can't see a problem in that. TONY (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS Sandy, are you suggesting that all panellists isolate their five best, and that, say four panellists then have to go through a second stage of selecting five from 20, and then in a third stage to select one from five? Hmmm ... it's three stages and relies on a lot of procedural follow-through by a lot of people. Too complicated. My system requires only one formal stage for any one person. Allegations of bias against a short-lister ... well, it's like allegations of bias against reviewers, isn't it? Just wear it. Over the months, it will pan out. TONY (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of having an FA of the month. I think that no matter how it is determined it will be subjective, and that always causes problems. Having panellists or a group of judges? Just sounds like bureaucracy to me. I'm also not a fan of any kind of super-FA, either an article is FA or it isn't. As for reviewer of the month, while I think this has more merit, I think it'll just take time away from other things, and would prefer people just hand out a few more barnstars. - Shudde talk 10:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur. It will probably prove to be a time sink for already hard-pressed reviewers and I'm not keen on the elitism inherent in either the panel approach or the FA of the month idea. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I won't be participating with any sort of process, my article writing has suffered enough just doing the source checking, I don't have time to do much more processes. Sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All [FA]s are equal but some [FA]s are more equal than others. indopug (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If "FA of the month" sounds too Animal-Farmish, another form of words could be used: "Spotlight FA" or something. It could be written up each month in the Signpost Dispatch, with comments from editors and reviewers. It might not be the best, but a particularly interesting or unusual FA or FAC, that had particular issues. (If RCC were to pass FAC, for instance, it would definitely deserve some comment!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think how it sounds is the issue. I believe Indopug was basically saying that this is a bad idea (or at least, that's how I see it). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm reading through all this, and being rather ambivalent about it. While I think a spotlight FA is nice, and in fact, think all my articles deserve it, I also think effort should be put into recruiting more FA reviewers or making the FA experience - in going through it and being a reviewer - easier somehow. Though I don't quite know how, because it's really not that easy. Perhaps our energies should go toward improving the system we have, assisting Maralia in stats, Ealdgyth as the primary source checker, and Sandy in keeping track of all our random comments. I've long thought a rubric would be nice and logical to have, one much more comprehensive than the GA criteria, but other than a checklist, I don't know what it might be. Also, there is a certain je ne sais qois about an FA, that while making me sound like a pretentious prat, exists in articles. Either it has it or it doesn't. Have I sufficiently hijacked the topic? --Moni3 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this would be a time sink. I'm betting most frequent reviewers could instantly tick off a handful of articles they reviewed in the last month that had that "wow" factor. --Laser brain (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Isn't a spotlight FA called Today's Featured Article? - Shudde talk 23:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply to jbmurray) I remember a while back Dispatches had a segment chronicling FACs that failed multiple times before finally succeeding (Ronald Reagan was an example). I guess such a thing would be fine; the story behind the FA. Yes RCC would be an interesting story and, ahem, so would this one (if it had succeeded). indopug (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Scartol and I are planning on doing a series of Sypecasts on "how to contribute good content to Wikipedia" - could we highlight especially well-written or well-researched or well-illustrated articles there as well? So, if we are discussing copyediting, we could turn to one of our especially well-written FAs, or if we are discussing image placement and manipulation, one of our especially well-illustrated FAs, etc. Might there be a way to teach and at the same time "spotlight" the articles? (Open invitation to those who want to join us, by the way! See our ideas here.) Awadewit (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea, and would like to assist. I don't know what it is you would need. Please keep me in the loop. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supporting

Creatures of Impulse has been co-nominated by me and Ssilvers. Should we support it as well, or is that presumed? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary - it's presumed that the nominators think the article is of FA quality. Maralia (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Before I list...

Can someone read over Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory and let me know if I should bother listing or not? Maury (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried peer review? Ben (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it would benefit from a peer review first. It's a very interesting article; if you take it there I will try to review it tonight or tomorrow. Risker (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
But peer review works best if you take advantage of all the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 (I saw some unformatted citations and incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD, and wouldn't stack the images per WP:MOS#Images). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent article, beautifully written and structured. But it's rather short for an FA, and, not knowing the subject very well, I have no means of knowing if it's comprehensive or not. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Fair enough. Risker, do I have to list? I always seem to break everything when I list anywhere. Maury (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Search for collaborators in the edit histories/summaries of related articles? TONY (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)