Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] List of FA nominations

On the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, Rick has recently flagged those articles that are no longer featured with a rust coloured star. People here might want to browse that list looking for older ones that have not yet been FARed, but need to be. Marskell 16:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten noms, four days

No stopping new people nominating, but could the regular reviews go easy for a while. I'm fairly certain a glut reduces the work done on each individually... Marskell 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that: it seems to be some kind of record. No noms from me until these work through the process. Hope it was just by chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Regular reviewers as in "LuciferMorgan" lol. To be honest I disagree with Marskell as concerns the "glut" thing, but of course that's a cool thing about democracy. I think it's all relative to what is being FAR'd - some topics are more cared for than others. In my defence though, after the Downfall debacle I didn't nominate for a good while.
If articles don't reach criteria and are defeatured, it really doesn't bother me to be honest. Every time a poor FA gets de-FA'd, I think the respect of FA slowly rises. People at FAC work their backsides off to get FAs, while 100s of below FA standard FAs are already featured. My only happiness about the month long review is that it gives an opportunity to the editors who edited the article a chance to work on the article, and gives reviewers a chance to give an article a thorough going through. Right now, it'll take a few years to get through all the below standard FAs - not good. LuciferMorgan 14:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The overriding concern is improving content, whether we have 12 or 1200 below standard to get through. Our highest volume month for nominations was October—it also had the lowest keep %.
As for your own noms, the only concern is that it seems to signal that your not going to work on the articles much yourself—three at once is a lot to pay attention to, and increases the workload for all of the other regulars. Marskell 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It's important that we be able to help out when editors are willing to bring the article to standard. For example, I had intended to work on Rainbow, Roe v. Wade is waiting for guidance on improvements needed, two music articles have asked us to provide cite tags, we need to check in on Evolution to see how they're doing, I'm trying to work with Monty Hall and Superman, and we still have feedback needs on Dalek, Panavision, and Mozilla Firefox. Add to this my own commitments elsewhere and keeping up with FAR notifications, and something has to go in my workload - this probably means I won't be able to spend time in Rainbow, which I nommed thinking it could be saved. The number at any given time isn't my concern: it's the number that require our input and guidance because editors are attempting to come to standard. Another concern is we've got two back to back that require astronomy input (Sagan and Comet), so I also try to keep an eye on Projects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the "increases the workload" bit. Apart from heavily reviewing the articles, I don't see much apart from minor work on the actual articles, so please don't blame me on "workload" issues. Whenever people working on the articles nominated want my input, they're free to ask me. As concerns citation tags, I have absolutely no intention of providing them since the joke that was the Operation Downfall debacle, followed by the Palladian FAR when nobody but me was willing to speak their mind - that's two keeps I disagree with, not to mention the "Real Love" one where a "Critical reception" section was nowhere to be seen. If more people say keep without good reason like the Palladian debacle, and less say straight that articles need work, then FAR is pointless anyway. This is the reason I pay absolutely zero attention to the monthly statistics, which are totally pointless when jokes like Palladian are made. Maybe I should've tried this for Iron Maiden - contacted the Metal wikiproject and had them all to vote Keep for no reason eh?
In future though I'll notify the relevant people when I nominate an FA for FAR, and'll update the List where FAs at FAR are flagged. I already have the FAs I've nominated for FAR on my watch list, and when editors wish for my input they've already been able to ask - this has happened at the Dalek FAR, happened on the Punk rock FAR, and others, and they're perfectly willing to ask me right now whenever they like as they have been before. Nobody can say anything different. I'll do the notifying bit etc. though and then nobody'll be able to say anything about me. Good day. LuciferMorgan 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Lucifer, I meant to point out that trying to help articles keep their stars can be a labor intensive project, requiring a lot of feedback. You also have a point that it's "not our job" to have to do all this work (providing the cite tags, for example) - when there are no editors working on an article, I don't try to help, but when a good effort is being made, I do. Anyway, I didn't mean to single you out - the overflow right now is no one individual's fault (we also have FuriousFreddy working on two music articles at once) - it's just something we regulars can watch out for, so that we don't overload one editor or one Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've helped with Dalek as concerns cite tags etc., and even now am co-operating with them so that their other FAs are being improved without FAR. I've gotta watch though cos I think some editors think I'm trying to do WP:POINT, and they'll report me to Raul and I'll get blocked. I help when a good effort is made, but to be honest most FAs go through FAR without any good efforts being made. If you check all the articles I've nominated, only Dalek has work being done on it so far.
As concerns feedback though, I can fully handle it, since FAR is 99% of my Wikipedia work. Apart from FAR, I don't really do anything else (as for the article I'm working on, I'm leaving it for a few days). I'll make sure not to overload a certain project as I've already been making sure not to. Sorry for being temperamental though. LuciferMorgan 17:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I had nobody in mind when I started this thread. Re your specific points:
If you pay "absolutely zero attention" to the statistics, I'm curious what is informing your disagreement with "more noms = less attention to each". There is not enough sample months to reach a definite conclusion, but if you divide the number of nominations by contributor time it seems obvious that a correlation exists. Sandy's time is the best example.
Here is the before and after for Operation Downfall. Large improvement on LEAD and general structure; inline cites from zero to forty. If that's a debacle in terms of improving content, then we need more debacles. The single outstanding issue was an anecdote; the remainder had been compromised over. The line was either in or out and was tangential anyway—not a remove basis.
Palladian architecture: I'm glad you stick in when you're a minority. I realize there's people who will ignore 1c, so we need people who are sticklers for it. But only one person in that review questioned any of the information specifically (Indon). Not one person commented on the writing except to say that it was fine. "Needs more inline citations" is like a transative verb: objects must follow for it to be actionable. And I do try to pay attention to this—I wasn't willing to close "V for Vendetta" with its themes section, and I won't close "Dalek" with its current Culture section. But the primary point is whether there is doubt of factual accuracy and there did not seem to be any. Ideally, omniscent beings would judge—in the meantime, I don't see a debacle here either. Marskell 19:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
And not to worry, Lucifer - your work here is very valuable - sometimes you just have to pick your battles, and get the most important improvements we can :-) I also try to expend more effort on articles when we're likely to see the same Project members back here again. I don't mean to imply I was sacrificing work on Rainbow through anyone's fault but my own. I feel the time spent right now on Math Projects articles, and on Dr. Who/Dalek articles, is a better investment of my time because they have other articles that will eventually come up for review, whereas Rainbow has no one working on it except "us" - might as well help the Daleks and Math folks understand what sorts of things we're looking for on review, so they'll hopefully address their other articles with deficiencies before we have to look at them. Along those lines, I'm troubled that we've had three math articles up in six weeks - we need to give them time to adjust and do the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I heavily disagree with Marskell as concerns Palladian architecture. Nobody commented for Removal due to intimidation because of Giano (I won't say what I think of this "person", and I use the word loosely) - there's a few people who thought the article needed more citations, and the fact it was closed makes FAR / FA / FAC look an ass. Much better articles have lost their status. That article will definitely be nominated for FAR again in future - I don't question any of his decisions, but I 110% question that one. It was a sheer numbers thing, despite the fact my comments were actionable. I'd like it noted this is nothing personally though, and I happen to like Marskell and think highly of him. LuciferMorgan 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No Lucifer, it wasn't a sheer numbers thing. Criterion 1c is factual accuracy NOT inline citations. You are misunderstanding the difference. Of course the article could use more inline citations, but nobody was specifically questioning its accuracy and work had been done to provide citations. Outriggr had struck his remove, Indon's primary point had been met, and you had not raised anything specific until pressed (Giano was willing to work, whatever the tension).
As for Giano being a person, I'm fairly certain he is one; you should be careful of WP:NPA even if not speaking to the person you're attacking directly. I can tell you very honestly that I had no contact with Giano or any of his wiki-friends prior to closing it. Marskell 20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I'll add: Giano did violate WP:DICK; I understand that that would be annoying. Marskell 20:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Giano actually refused point blank to add a citation to things I requested citation for, so I don't think he was willing to work to be fair. He said the thing I wanted a cite for was "obvious", but I didn't find it obvious. And the reason I didn't raise any specific citation issues was because there was so many. When I questioned the amount of inline citations, I felt I was questioning factual accuracy at the same time. LuciferMorgan 20:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say that it was a numbers thing in one respect: when a number of people whom I have reason to trust suggest the information in an article is accurate for a general survey, then I tend to conclude that the information is accurate... Wetman, for instance, is one of our best architecture editors (even if I've never gotten along with him...); Giano does fine work in the mainspace, even if he's tempermental on talk. Ditto Geogre.
"What?! We just have trust people's word?"—with book refs we do have to, unless we happen to have taken that particular course and have the references ourselves. McGinnly did do the cite per paragraph thing for most of it; this isn't perfect, but I have no reason to suspect the page numbers he's citing fail to correspond to the information.
Nuff said on this, I suppose. I'll leave it for you to decide when to do this, but one suggestion might be to add a small group of fact requests on the page itself first, rather than the blanket "not enough inline citations" on the review. Either might annoy people, but specificity never hurts. Marskell 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't know enough about the subject to comment specifically on the Palladian architecture situation, but see my post above. "Needs more inline citations" is, by itself, a non-statement; you might just as well post "needs more cowbell" for all the use it is. Particularly for articles in specialized fields, the specific statements in need of citation would ideally be identified by someone at least broadly familiar with the subject. One of the things I note in that discussion is the repetition of comments like "whole paragraphs without inline citations"; this is not about counting little superscripted numbers, and that perception is probably contributing to authors' malaise about fixing up an old FA. Personally, I would have felt unqualified to make a definitive judgment whether that article is adequately cited or not, and one of the general challenges of FAR is that commentators sometimes make that judgment with fewer inhibitions than I. Opabinia regalis 02:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It didn't matter how much was known about Palladian architecture - when I read the article it made certain opinions, and all opinions should come with citations to avoid being original research. Eg. if I said a certain band was influential I would've been asked for a cite, but when an article says a certain architect or type of architecture is influential they aren't asked for a cite because people are scared off by the subject. LuciferMorgan 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not true. "The Beatles were an influential band" is a statement that does not require a citation. — BrianSmithson 22:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mention the Beatles actually to set the record straight - you did. Besides anyway, if memory serves me correct, that very article was demoted from FA status a few months ago, one of the reasons being the lack of citations in supporting its statements, and is currently facing the same battle at GAR. Furthermore, if an article states a band has been influential, it does require citation - eg. if I said X band was an influence on Y band, this would need to be proved. LuciferMorgan 00:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I fully realize that I was the one who used the Beatles as an example of a situation where a citation would not be required. At any rate, I agree with you on "X band was an influence on Y band" requiring a citation, unless the bands in question are the Beatles and Wings, I suppose. The point was, though, that certain "opinions" are universally held, and should not require citation. That the Beatles or Elvis were influential is one example. -- BrianSmithson 02:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Lucifer, I doubt anyone is "scared off" by a particular subject or its editors; perhaps they aren't asked for an explicit citation because the statement is entirely uncontroversial. I don't know any more about the Beatles than I do about Palladio, but I consider the general influence of both to fall into the corpus of common knowledge. Willingness to defer to subject experts on what is uncontroversial in their field is a good thing, not a sign that people are "scared" by the material. Opabinia regalis 05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you mean Brian. It's true such a Beatles citation wouldn't be needed saying they are influential, but if someone said "The Beatles influenced X band" I'd probably like one for that. As concerns the Palladian architecture argument, nobody will sway me on that one, and I 110% think it should've been removed, and'll welcome the day an editor is bold enough to bring it back to FAR and face the wrath of certain people (I'm not gonna name names). LuciferMorgan 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roe v. Wade

There's an involved editor looking for a list of improvements needed on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roe v. Wade - I don't have time to get to it today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR and the FAC bot

The bot for the FAC process has been through trials and seems OK. If FAR would like the bot to handle repetitive FAR tasks, it would be nice if it could be set up parallel to how FAC works. Basically, there are two pages, one for promotions and one for facfails. The bot checks each page for changes, adds closing tags to the FAC discussions, and updates the article talk pages appropriately. If the FAR archive could be split into a keep archive and a remove archive, it would make the coding for FAR a lot easier. (You could still transclude both those pages into Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive.) A discussion would be closed by removing it from the regular FAR page and putting it on the appropriate keep or remove archive.

The bot-assisted FAC process will assume that future FACs are always at WP:FAC/[PAGENAME]. This implies that when a FA is demoted, the old FA discussion at WP:FAC/[PAGENAME] should be pre-emptively moved to WP:FAC/[PAGENAME]/archiveN, and redirect cleared, so a formerFA can be re-nominated. The bot would handle this automatically. Gimmetrow 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm understanding. All we need to do is separate our archive into a Kept and Removed archive (which can be transcluded back to an overall archive). Then, when closing a FAR, we only need to remove it to the correct archive, and the bot will handle everything else on the talk page (we still need to remove the article from FA and add it to FFA)? Will the bot also remove the star on demoted articles, or do we need to do that? Also, repromoted FFAs create special circumstances (e.g.; DNA) - what are our steps? Will the bot also indicate if the FAR is kept or removed by adding something to the actual FAR page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The bot will handle the talk page. The bot will not update WP:FA, nor WP:FFA. It could remove the star from the article for formerFAs. It will also add headers to the FAR discussion pages, similar to the FAC discussion pages. Note that there already is a Template:FAR top but it is not being used. I would prefer a different background color, and a couple html comments will need to be added for the bot to find, but the bot will just add this template to the FAR discussion page. Since few articles have been through more than one FAR, I don't think there are a lot of problems at FAR like the situation with New York City, so there probably isn't a pressing need to do the pre-emptive archiving of WP:FAR discussions. What other special circumstances need to be handled? Gimmetrow 17:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Repromoted, as in DNA and Platypus. I think (not sure?) the bot handles everything needed on ArticleHistory and in talk page - we just have to move it to the bottom of the page at WP:FFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, there already are repeat FARs, but most of the older ones are filed differently, as FARCs. (See Rainbow for an example - I've encountered many.) There will be other repeat FARs, so we should contemplate how to handle them. Is it a lot of trouble for the bot to preemptively archive them as it does with FACs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If the original FAC pages of formerFAs are archived according to the FAC process, then a subsequent nomination will work fine. I don't see how articles like DNA and Platypus would cause any problems. As for repeat FARs, the bot could pre-archive them, I'm just wondering if that's the best approach. I think FA/FAR and PR are the only places where pages are moved. All the VfD processes use increasing numbers for each subsequent nomination. Gimmetrow 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I created Template:FAR top and Template:FAR bottom a while ago, but I don't think they were ever used (the discussion on the bot struck up before anybody got interested). Feel free to change the colours - they were chosen just to be different from the xFD closing templates, there's no sentimental attachment. Yomanganitalk 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

On the issue or repeat FARs, I suspect we'll see more and more - I tend towards wanting to go ahead and archive them as you do with FAC, so we won't have to face this again down the road. For example, Asperger syndrome went through FAR last July, and it's already trashed again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

oops, retract - since I checked a few weeks ago, it looks like someone came in and did a major revert - yippee! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dividing the archives

Gimmetrow, I assume we also need to divide historical archives so you can point the bot at them? FAC uses a monthly system for promoted and failed:

I don't think we have enough volume to separate by month. Marskell, who gets the honors of doing this work, and how should we set up the files? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't bother separating the older archives. Gimmetrow 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Give me 24 to respond to this fully. Marskell 03:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Marskell decides is fine with me. Joelito (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The process

  • We create Wikipedia:Featured article review/keep and Wikipedia:Featured article review remove to begin with.
  • We move reviews off the page to the appropriate target. At this point we update WP:FA and WP:FFA as we do now, remove the stars but don't worry about the talk page.
  • The bot checks and add's Yomanangi's Template:FAR top and Template:FAR bottom to the review page.
    • Does the bot first move WP:FAR/[PAGENAME] to WP:FAR/[PAGENAME/archive1] or should we have done that?
  • The bot adds {{FARpassed}} or {{FormerFA2}} to the talk.
    • If the reviews are going to be moved to the archive, make sure to update these templates so they point there.
    • Can the bot add the oldid= and date= to the keeps as is done now? Example syntax: {{FARpassed|date=January 25, 2007|oldid=103203088}}
  • When the noms for a month are through, I can still go back and lump them altogether in a new archive spot? Marskell 09:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the bot can also remove the star from the article, so your steps are reduced to 3 (move to archive, update WP:FA and update WP:FFA - everything else is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that should be all that humans need to do. In order for this to work, the bot needs some way to tell "keeps" from "removes". The archive page could be kept as-is if there were a clear way to differentiate these that will be stable. Since you seem to want to lump them back together somewhere, it might be easier to just add a hidden template to the current archive page that will tell the bot where keeps stop and removes start. (Yes, the header does this, but it would make the bot programmer's life easier if the bot could just look for templates - this could even be handled by putting the current headers into a template.)
  • The bot will tag discussions as closed based on the date they were placed in the archive. The bot can move WP:FAR/[PAGENAME] to WP:FAR/[PAGENAME]/archiveN. For removes, the bot needs to move WP:FAC/[PAGENAME] to WP:FAC/[PAGENAME]/archiveN in order to make it fit with the bot-assisted FAC process, which assumes WP:FAC/[PAGENAME] is always available for a new FAC. Of course the bot will update links on the talk page and the FAR and FAC archives to reflect the page moves. Removing the FA star is a simple step.
  • The new template is {{ArticleHistory}}. The bot will update that, with oldids. Gimmetrow 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up points:
  • Replies:
  • Then you won't mind if I change something in the archive so it's easier on the bot?
  • I don't think I can use the "related changes" of a category to track new listings.
  • I said above the bot can manage {{ArticleHistory}} including oldids. Gimmetrow 06:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Somehow I missed "with oldids" :). I'm going to do the monthly cleanup of the archive tonight or tomorrow. We can try it after that. Marskell 14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to process the pages in the current archive. Can you leave any pages in the archive that are not processed yet? One of the anti-vandal checks limits the bot only to working on pages still remain in the archive. Once they have been moved to a /archiveN page, they can be removed. Gimmetrow 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey great. It processed them all over top of Joel's and my work. The "kept" and "removed" headings are enough for you? It's no problem creating two seperate pages, if you like.
Nothing on FAR due to be archived quite yet (maybe Superman later), but next time we'll leave the article talk alone to let the bot do its thing. Did we agree the bot would remove the star? Marskell 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I coded up looking for those specific headings. Just don't change 'em ;) Gimmetrow 16:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damon Hill Review

Not sure what to do with the Damon Hill review - holding off on Project notification until others give me a clue how to proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked the nominator about it. Marskell 15:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
On quick glance, I don't see problems in the article - it concerns me when POV is first raised on FAR in an otherwise sound article, when there has been no attempt first to resolve the issues with talk page discussion. The nominator asked the critical editor to respond on FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm closing it since no concerns were raised by the nominator. Joelito (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anne of Great Britain

Can others pls have a look - this has been referenced. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anne of Great Britain Are there other issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some statements use words like "probably" etc. as though the statement is speculation and not fact - these statements need citations. LuciferMorgan 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [1]

Just thought you might wish to look at this thread. I have a few strong opinions as regards the thread, but what p***** me off the most is their failure to differentiate between FAR and GAR - FAR has a better established workframe which aims to work with editors / Projects and give them sufficient time to work on their articles etc. Seems we're widely hated amongst Wikipedians. Oh well. LuciferMorgan 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily come to that conclusion because of one disgruntled editor. Further, that argument is bunk and resulted because they're disappointed at the failure of an FAC candidacy - a situation which could have been entirely avoided by first running the article through peer review, since it wasn't nearly ready for WP:FAC. As an example of what's wrong with the argument, consider Barack Obama and Gerald Ford - highly edited, recently on the main page, and both came through fine because of committed and involved editors who are also good writers. The Beatles Project needs better copyediting in general - the "high profile" argument is a straw man. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There's more people than them that dislike us. The one who originally nominated Marilyn Manson for FA called us "the goon squad" a few months back, and a few others have said other things. The argument didn't actually result due to the failed FAC (may have contributed though, but actually the appearance of the Beatles at Good Article Review ([[2]]). My annoyance was at the seeming consensus that GAR and FAR are much the same, which I happen to disagree with - I think FAR has a much better, more consistent structure in place than GAR does at present. Eg. GAR sometimes informs a talk page about a review, whereas FAR informs the main editor, the Wikiprojects and article talk page - just an example. Furthermore, I don't think GAC will mean much until it's more like the FAC process where people vote etc. The fact one person can give a GA, and remove one, makes it a bit meaningless.
I agree with your sentiments regarding the Beatles Wikiproject - I was much surprised when all those FAs went through FAR without much effort. They do need better copyediting, but I have faith in that Andreas - he's keen and willing to work at articles, and has done some good stuff. He'll learn as he gains experience.
The "high profile" argument is indeed thin - it's like saying "My article subject is more culturally important than yours, so I get extra brownie points" - it'd bring FA into total disrepute. The fact that all FAs are subject to the same requirements is what has made it successful. LuciferMorgan 15:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I left a brief note about not conflating the two processes. FAR does indeed have "a better established workframe." I didn't really get the point anyway. On the one hand he was suggesting that tags related to quality on high volume articles will bite newbies, and then he advocates extra levels of protection—the surest way to bite newbies. *Shrugs*. Marskell 15:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I say we just keep doing what we're doing, and pass over resistance and insults. Those reactions are inevitable in a process that keeps standards high. Tony 02:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep - lots of that goin' round - to be expected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purging mentions of bad-faith FA and GA nominations

Shortly after it was created, Execution of Saddam Hussein was nominated as a feature article, on December 31. It was quickly, unanimously shot down. It has since been nominated as a good article, also shot down. It was also nominated for the 2006 Wikipedia CD selection. I am not able to assume good faith on any of these nominations. It is patently obvious the article was not even a 'good' article. It's easy to speculate on why it was nominated, but it only takes a single user to nominate in bad faith.

I want the tags removed from the talk page that the article has been considered for feature article and good article. I think those tags, to a real extent, are taken as a sign that at least some significant part of the Wikipedia editor community think the article is a great article. It makes Wikipedia look bad, IMO, to have those tags on weak articles. Tempshill 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The tags are useful for history purposes if the article reaches GA/FA standard again. I can't see how they suggest a significant part of the community think it is great; it only takes one editor to nominate. Trebor 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Plus, if people are curious, all they have to do is click on the link and see how big of a landslide it was. — Deckiller 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the people who read this talk page here are aware of this, but the tag, to me, sounds like it is full of portent; I think the 'facfailed' tag alone does lend some heft to the article that's unwarranted. A fix could be to just make the 'facfailed' banner tiny instead of this big thing, and mention in it that the tag alone doesn't mean anything, etc. Tempshill 06:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If an FA didn't get any comments other than object and WP:SNOW, and was never put into the archived nominations log, then precedent exists for removing the tag. Often, a message is left on the talk page (which will eventually become part of the talk page archive) linking to the FAC page, especially for good-faith nominations made unknown to the article editors. The same thing has happened with GA nominations. (This is, by the way, why the bot does not simply find as many archived FAC pages as it can and list them on the talk page.) Gimmetrow 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another overlong Quarterly report

So we've been at this new process close to eight months and the archive for the sixth month was finally completed a couple of days ago. Sept: 7kp, 21rm; Oct: 4kp, 33rm (ouch!); Nov: 13kp, 18rm. The total is 24 kept and 72 removed, exactly 25% versus 75%. This is down from apx. 32% in the first three months and under the old process—the floor hasn't fallen out or anything, but it's just enough of a dip to be noticable. Random notes:

  • Avg. 32 nominations per month or just over 1 per day. This has remained remarkably consistent.
  • Apx. average number of bolded keep or remove comments in FARC (excluding those struck): 4.4 in November; 4.5 in August. By this rough metric we did not see an increase in reviewers.
  • Apx. number of words per review (total in archive / number of reviews): Sept., Oct., Nov., at 1152, 1263, 2258; June, July, Aug., at 1433, 1600, 1624. Similar when averaged, with a spike in November. By this rough metric we did not see an increase in commentary.

So we're on a plateau, which isn't a bad thing. More reviewers remains, of course, the greatest need. One last point of interest:

  • The total number removed for the entire eight months is 153. Of these, 125 or 82% were on the citation problems list. This tells me that a) the list is a good means of identifying poor quality FAs, and b) we have roughly compartmentalized the FAs that need to go through the grinder—when we're through the list a large part of FAR's purpose will have been served (though of course FAs will continue to decay and we'll still need this process). Marskell 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Realism

I think we need to look at FAR realisticially; we can only support ten reviews and 3-4 removal candidates at a time. Perhaps we need to make a clear cutoff? We need to focus on improving the articles, not removing them. By overwhelming this page (and WikiProjects), we are injecting FEAR into editors, who will feel helpless. Also, we might need to be a tad more kind with our criticism, including myself (although I haven't been on FAR in a while). — Deckiller 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how you arrive at the ten and 3-4 numbers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Those are just example numbers; either way, I think we should put a limit. This way, we might be able to keep more of the FAs in the long run. — Deckiller 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I see a very different problem. Our experience is that things start to get difficult if the number of noms approaches 40 - which it rarely does. We can't keep the articles whose original editors or Projects don't want to source them, upgrade them, improve them, expand them, prune external links, etc. I do agree that we need more active help from reviewers on articles that do have editors willing to do the work and are seeking feedback - right now there are about half a dozen of those. Some people spend more time making FAR talk page comments than helping those editors, and I'd love to see more reviewers jump in to help. The problem isn't the number of noms - it's the lack of people willing to help. There have been dozens of reviews where I've been the only person giving feedback to editors who want to do the work. In other words, Tyler, we need you on the FAR page, not on FAR talk  :-) At any rate, we don't defeature articles when editors are actively working on them; the bottom line when there is a bottleneck is simply that the half a dozen or so of us who do the review work here have to work harder - the result is not more defeatured articles - the result is more demands placed on the time of a few reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for starting such a rant, because I have been juggling so many tasks and Tony is away. I'm just afraid that people will get burned out. But Sandy, you did clarify something; we don't close articles that people are working on. I should've used common sense. Perhaps I should've looked more carefully before I made this half-arsed topic. — Deckiller 23:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that makes two of us who are frazzled without Tony :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
What happens when we get too far above 1 per day is that we eventually have a pile of eight or ten straight in FARC that have remove comments and nothing else. (How are the 24 sitting in FAR now going to look in two weeks?) It's depressing from a content improvement perspective. We decided a while back that we wouldn't police nominators or remove noms, but it would definitely be nice if the people nominating would be willing to come back to work on the articles. Marskell 05:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the FAR page, but am prioritising the articles I nominated for FAR. At the moment the only one which is having active work is Quatermass, which I've commented where I'm able and Sandy's been nice enough to put her 2 cents in, as has Marskell (sorry if I've forgotten anyone else). The two aspects I find annoying are that the original FAC nominators sometimes don't wish to get involved, and sometimes the FAR nominators seem to disappear after their nomination. LuciferMorgan 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I missed one

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Abyssinia, Henry was promoted two and a half months ago, not the requisite three. Just noticed. It does have faulty (unreliable) references, so if we remove it, it will be back in two weeks: consensus as to whether we should remove it or continue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I see little reason to have a waiting period; if an article doesn't qualify, it doesn't qualify. However, if it will keep folks happy I see no harm in postponing review for another month... -- mattb @ 2007-02-07T23:31Z
I agree with mattb regarding the waiting period. –Outriggr § 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't. We can't have everyone who is disgruntled over an FA promotion coming here the next day, or the next week, unless there are extenuating circumstances. If people have issues with a recent promotion, they should attempt to work them out on the talk page before coming to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Then so be it... As I said, as long as we wait long enough that people can't raise a fuss about how long we've waited. -- mattb @ 2007-02-08T00:35Z
Actually, I just meant in this case. Yes, there is no point in lawyering over two weeks. –Outriggr § 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for the 3 month rule-of-thumb waiting period is to prevent FAR effectively being used as an appeal of a recent controversial FAC promotion (not to give undeserving articles a period of grace). If an article is promoted, prima facie, we should accept the consensus from FAC that it meets the criteria. If the article changes radically within 3 months, or substantial new issues come to light within 3 months, then it should be reviewed, but such cases are relatively rare. If the FAR is based on the same issues that were considered in the FAC, then it should not be reviewed within 3 months.

In this case, I would not bother too much about 2 week - let the FAR run. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The rationale behind the 3 mos is solid, but in this case we don't need to lawyer over two weeks. Marskell 13:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DrKiernan

I've left a post at this user's page politely saying that we can't cope with so many FARs at the same time. To be honest I don't know what to do regarding this. Can someone else help regarding this please, perhaps Marskell, Sandy or someone else similarly level headed? LuciferMorgan 09:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I advise moving them all to FARC, and then removing FA status. DrKiernan 09:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you misinterpret the FAR process here, DrKiernan. This is not a voting process and the first intention to nominate is not to remove FA status. FAR reviews FA articles to improve it to the current WP:WIAFA standards. — Indon (reply) — 09:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed. Simply "blowing the stars off" has been discussed, and rejected. Marskell 09:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The process doesn't work in this way DrKiernan. Each article is subject to a month long review, giving editors the opportunity to bring the article up to standard. There's a blurb on the FAR page that may be able to explain;

FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to addressing more involved issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and POV.

When listing here, a nominator must specify these criteria and may propose remedies. The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Here, reviewers do not declare "keep" or "remove". If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list. A nomination need not be made with the goal of removal. Minor reviews of articles that are generally up to standard, but may require a copy-edit, are welcome.

Given there are so many FARs posted, we cannot sufficiently review each article and give feedback to those editors wishing to improve them to standard. I hope you can understand this. LuciferMorgan 09:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How do I delete the "Wikipedia:Featured article review/Name of article" pages? DrKiernan 09:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Request speedy deletion. I would suggest using this template: {{db-author}}. What you could do is leave one of the reviews up. Perhaps the one you're most interested in and would be willing to help out with. Marskell 09:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll kill them, don't bother with the speedy delete template. Yomanganitalk 09:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unexplained movements

Who is moving articles to FARC with strange comments? Tony 13:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A newbie editor, presumably. I think I've fixed it. Marskell 13:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move downgraded articles to GA status?

Why don't we, instead of dropping articles all the way back down the ladder as far as quality, automatically demote featured articles that are deemed not featured material to GA status. From there, they can be demoted again, but it doesn't make sense to have to go back to through the GA process again if the article is very good anyway. It would save on the backlogs and make a lot more sense. Of course, if there is an article definitely not deemed suitable for GA, just strip it of its rank. This makes a lot of sense, so I'm surprised it's not already happening. └Jared┘┌talk┐  19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The GA and FA processes are not presently linked and should not be, IMO. The FA process has it's problems, but it's not haphazard, like GA. Marskell 19:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally, the articles removed at FAR either have substantial issues (prose, POV, stability), or a great lack of references. In either case (given the current push at GA for well-cited articles), these should "generally" not automatically become GA. There are currently about 350 former FAs, and only about 20 of those are GAs. Having looked at quite a few of these articles recently, I would say that most of the other 330 would not pass GA now. There are a few exceptions which might fall into the "broad coverage" of GA but not "comprehensive" of FA, but given the turnover at FAR I don't think it is a big burden on the GA process to handle these. Gimmetrow 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Marskell and Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel the same per Sandy, Marskell and Gimmetrow. LuciferMorgan 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Since GA has a process for promoting articles then demoted articles should never be automatically given GA status. When the demoting problems are minor I usually downgrade to A status unless the article falls under either the Biography or MilHist wikiprojects. These projects have processes for promoting articles to A status.
If the article has major problems it should be downgraded to B status. Joelito (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The FA/FARC process and status should be kept as afar apart from the GA thing as possible, IMV. The GA process is too ad hoc and lacking in rigour to be formally linked here. I'd get rid of GA if I had a magic wand. Tony 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intended to facilitate improvements

I came here after noticing a long time featured article that had been demoted. "FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs" <-- Is this a joke? Featured article review and demotion of featured articles can take place without any editing of the articles or discussion of articles on their talk pages by the reviewers. People who might take an interest in helping the article do not even know that the article is being demoted. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it is hard for me to imagine that this "FAR" process is constructive for the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 03:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We leave messages on user and project talkpages, as well as a notice on the article talkpage itself. — Deckiller 03:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides multiple Project notifications, I doublecheck that every article is noticed on its talk page with a FAR template, and notification remains on the article talk page for at least a month in every case; can you pls tell us which article you're referring to, that wasn't noticed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I queried JWSchmidt about which article was the problem, and had feedback from him; he correctly points out that when the FAR tag was placed on the article, there was no edit summary. (Our instructions do say to indicate FAR listing in the edit box.) On the other hand, there were eight Project and User talk page notifications on the Carl Sagan FAR, with no input or feedback whatsoever from anyone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not hold featured article reviews on the talk page of the featured article and in a section called "featured article review"? This would increase the chance of people who have the article on their watch list noticing that the article is under review. --JWSchmidt 14:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
People have been discussing problems with that article on the talk page since 2005; it sat of FAR for more than a month. It really should come as no surprise that an article that fails all the FA criteria was demoted (in 2007). FAR cannot notify everyone when an article is nominated; given that you don't appear to actively edit the article (3 edits in the last 500/ 2 of which were reverts) and that you have been generally pretty inactive for 2007 - it's no ones fault that you missed the FAR discussion. FAR actually seems to work pretty well as is. --Peta 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles without specific problems

I'm think of putting Barack Obama up for FAR sometime in the next few months. Not that there's anything I see wrong with it, but the article was passed in August 2004 (before he was even elected to the Senate), and since then Mr. Obama has become a leading candidate for President of the United States. Obviously his article has evolved tremendously since then, and will probably undergo changes of an equal scale several times over in the course of the campaign. Would FAR be the appropriate place to certify that it's still of featured quality, even if I don't have any specific problems with its content now?--Pharos 07:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It just went through a FAR a few months ago; check the article history. It wouldn't be appropriate to bring it back if it's less than a few months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I was just thinking off the top of my head.--Pharos 07:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, less than a few months ago—closed Jan 23. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
May be better after everything dies down. LuciferMorgan 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should get a peer review instead. Tayquan hollaMy work 18:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed FAC - why?

The recent FAC application for Japan failed. Why was this? Votes were overwhelmingly for. If it is because some people opposed it, please explain how it is possible to remedy two diametrically opposed complaints - see the first two "oppose" votes. John Smith's 17:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps ask at User talk:Raul654. There were 5 opposes. I can't tell if the first one is resolved, but the second and third imply incompleteness, the referencing issues in the fourth seem addressed, and the fifth was likely ignored by Raul (gallery? FAs should almost never have a gallery...) Gimmetrow 19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not fix 'em?

Often people complain about "trivial" issues such as formatting etc, that could be fixed by the person noticing the problems instead of bringing them here, which just means things get fixed more slowly and take up more people's attention. Why don't people just fix themselves? Is there anything we could to encourage that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.26.4.35 (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

I haven't seen an FA get demoted for trivial issues, those are in fact usually fixed. It's usually bigger issues (verifiability, completeness, prose) that cause an article to eventually be demoted if nobody takes up the task of fixing them. -- mattb @ 2007-03-30T13:42Z
Well that's good, but wasn't totally my point. 193.26.4.35 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The next post should give you an answer; fixing someone else's work is never easy or fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Some parts (e.g. spelling, most grammar) /can/ be fast and easy but still get reported here needlessly. Bear in mind that it is a minority of reviews on this page that get the attention of the original main author, so there usually will be "someone else's work fixing" going on. May as well be the nominator that does the easy bits. 193.26.4.35 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Most often when spelling, grammar, and other minor issues are mentioned on FAC/FAR, examples only are given, and the work needed is extensive and throughout, and rarely easy or fast. If it's one or two minor mistakes, most reviewers do just fix 'em. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It does strike me as more trouble to point out things like "which" should be "that" than to fix them. So I'd do a light copy edit before making comments. Often, though, the meaning is unclear, so it's better to query the wording on the comments page. The really tricky ones to comment on, as SandyGeorgia says, are those where the prose has too many weaknesses to point them all out individually. Sometimes, when the text was written by non-native speakers, I've done a full copy edit—but that, with my language-nerdiness, can take me a week. I'm afraid I've reached the stage where if an article's prose is uniformly lousy, I don't bother to comment on it but find a more promising article to check out. qp10qp 13:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Tony always places the disclamer that he is pointing towards examples of prose weakness only. However, time and time again, editors reply that they have fixed the specifically highlighted problems, can they now pass. Its far easier to repair one instance of a problem than it is to highlight its wider prevalence, and usually the trivial issues have multiple instances through out the article. Ceoil 22:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we reviewers are not providing a free fix-it service in the FA and FAR/C rooms; some of us choose to specialise in reviewing, thus achieving a much larger 'footprint' in the project by allocating our scarce time to providing examples of larger problems in an article, rather than directly intervening. If you like, this a way of motivating contributors to treat the FA criteria more seriously, to raise their standards, and to network to find collaborators who will help them to satisfy the criteria. This, I put it to you, is the essence of achieving quality on WP.
Nominators and their friends have three self-defeating options with which to counter examples of problems in their writing: (1) "You're trying to push your own stylistic preferences onto us". (2) "I've fixed what you specified; let me know if there's anything else". (3) "Why don't you help us directly rather than shooting from the side-lines". These strategies for protecting mediocrity need to be resisted whenever they pop up. Tony 23:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft

I offered to work on this after I returned from travel because User RN has been very helpful to me in the past. I asked that the review be held because no one apparently was reviewing the sourcing or referencing of the text. I spent an hour and a half this morning, and barely got through the lead only. My concerns only from the lead are listed on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Microsoft/archive1. These are not just formatting issues as I hoped; there are issues of reliability of sources and overreliance on Microsoft itself as a source, based on what I've seen so far. I will continue once I catch up in other areas; IMO this review should not have been closed, and the article has substantial problems with reliable sources and over-sourcing to Microsoft itself. Closing a review with substantial problems means that it's not likely that anyone else will help clean up these problems; I suggest the close was premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been rightly chastised here. I've started to work on the article myself. Marskell 13:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

user:Chahax nominated this article, and I have removed it. While at first glance, it appears this user is uninvolved in this article, within seconds of his adding the nom to this page, user:216.67.29.113 (who has done some pretty ridiculous POV pushing on that article and others - [3]) added the FAR tag to the article. I smelled a sockpuppet, and checkuser confirmed it. As such, I have removed this FAR nom, being that it is being done both through sockpuppety and in mighty bad faith.

Furthermore, on a more general note, I am concerned about how our two most controversial FAs - intellgent design and global warming - are being treated here on the FARC. Global warming (which is currently in the FARC section) is there as a result of POV pushing by a small but dedicated cadre of POV pushers. Intelligent design appears to be experiencing similiar. Raul654 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. In fact it's impossible to nominate an article for FAC anonymously. The fact that you have removed the nomination without any discussion shows that there is a serious problem with the page as I have pointed out. Furthermore you have threatened to block me if I persue this...that's a no-no. I am replacing the nomination. If I am blocked, I hope someone will unblock me. This article (and possibly your adminship) need serious review. Chahax 19:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
User blocked for sockpuppetry and seriously biased editing. Raul654 20:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Chahax, my assumption has been that your addition of this was done in good faith, but although the subject matter is of course contentious and editors present their opinions forcefully, the outcome at present is that a significant change (and improvement) to the lead has achieved consensus. It's unfortunate that you appear not to have added the FAR banner to the article talk page yourself. .. dave souza, talk 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
One point needs making: stability (1e) can't be a self-fulfilling. "It's unstable because I'm making it unstable right now." This is what concerns me about some of the opposes on Global warming. Marskell 07:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
In the past, when an article has appeared at FAR with claims of a POV dispute or instability, and examination revealed no other issues, no attempts to resolve the content dispute either on the talk page or via mediation, and an article that otherwise complied with the rest of WP:WIAFA, we have closed the FAR, asked the editors to attempt to resolve the dispute, and reminded them that FAR is not dispute resolution. That doesn't appear to be the case here. The article was on the citations list, the problems are not recent or confined to a few editors, attempts at mediation have clearly failed, and almost every argument on the FAR in favor of keeping its featured status amounts to arguments that deprecate the entire notion of NPOV. (It's "the other side" that's causing the problem.) The article doesn't have even enough stability to insure compliance with 1c and 2, while 1b, 1d and 1e don't appear to be met. I agree we should continue to watch for articles that come here only with claims of NPOV or instability, as those can be self-fulfilling and we have seen that before, but this is not an article that only suffers from a recent claim of instability or POV. It has long-standing problems, indications that editors don't recognize the fundamentals of NPOV, and mediation hasn't helped. I hope this is not Wiki's best work; we're in trouble if it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I echo Sandy's sentiment. LuciferMorgan 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming FAR: user blocked

This is a lesson to all of us to keep a level head when things get heated. Tony 00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Link doesn't work. Howard Cleeves 18:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum computer

I just reverted an IP edit to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Quantum computer because I was unable to decipher what it was or what happened to the article structure (it repeated my previous post and several sections 3 times). If anyone can salvage anything from my revert, I'd appreciate another set of eyes. I really can't tell if it was vandalism or if there was something useful in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notifications

The first five articles listed haven't had notifications posted to original authors, involved editors, and WikiProjects listed on the article talk page. I'm literally swamped; can someone please do the notifications with {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}} ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just did four of them. I don't know if that helped. LuciferMorgan 19:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The most recent FAR has had a name change so that's thrown me off doing the notifications for that one. LuciferMorgan 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Lucifer; it's going to be a while before I can catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem - I'm busy myself really with off Wiki stuff, but I'll do the rest of the FAR notifications later. I'm leaving Columbine alone though as its name has been changed during the FAR. LuciferMorgan 11:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
They all seem to be up to date now, so that's cool. LuciferMorgan 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Everything shouldn't have to fall on your shoulders all the time anyway. LuciferMorgan 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Hope folks here are tuned in the issues occurring here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military brat (U.S. subculture) is on the main page, and has been twice removed from FAR. removed four times from FAR, with disputing editors edit warring over the FAR now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be at FAR right now for the reasons you've stated. What's more, this isn't the place to try and extend a content dispute war. I support your removal. If this behavior persists, I think a temporary block would be appropriate. -- mattb 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
What's the time period that is required to wait until you put something up for FAR? Tayquan hollaMy work 18:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think its a month. Aaron Bowen 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of Contents

The TOC problem is not just on FAR; I just saw it in on the UK tax article, so it's apparently Wiki-wide. United Kingdom corporation tax SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

From Gimmetrow: See WP:VPT#Incorrect_TOC_formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Still no response. Well, based on the discussion at the Village Pump, I removed the level 4 headings from the Ian Thorpe review, and our TOC is sort of back, but now with another weird error. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The remaining error is likely from the level 4 headings in the sections above it. I wouldn't mind leaving those, though; your edit has made the TOC usable. Pagrashtak 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
hmmm, I removed the level 5 heading from Quantum computer, and now our TOC is back. I don't understand why this isn't being fixed; it's hard to read some of the articles under review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
ah, fixed at last. I'll put the sub-headings back into the articles I removed them from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC and FAR/C urgents boxes

FACs needing feedback
edit
Brian Horrocks Review it now
Strapping Young Lad Review it now
SummerSlam (1988) Review it now
SummerSlam (2007) Review it now
American Airlines Flight 11 Review it now
Rongorongo Review it now
Germany Schulz Review it now
1926 World Series Review it now
LSWR N15 class Review it now
Halo (series) Review it now
Urgent FAR/FARCs
edit
Free will Review it now
League of Nations Review it now

Will reviewers kindly note that these boxes are regularly updated for problematic nominations and for those that are hanging around for too long with too few comments. Transcluding them on your user page and/or at the top of your talk page would be a great way to generate more interest in these processes, especially by reviewers who manage to visit only occasionally.

All you do is to key in {{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} and {{User:Tony1/FAR urgents}}. Tony 02:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New version of Featured Sound Criteria

I've proposed a new version of the existing criteria after a week or so to form consensus. Comments from reviewers from this room would be welcomed. Tony 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Gender Mentor

This article looks like an advertorial, a majority of the references points to unreliable, primary sources. If this is one of the best articles of wikipedia, we have failed. Erik Warmelink 01:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; however, a Featured Article Review cannot be brought until several days after the article is on the main page. There are numerous comments on the article's talk page re-iterating your concerns; if the issues can't be worked out over the next four or five days via talk page consensus and article edits, then a Featured Article Review could be initiated. There are statements referenced to blogs and Pregnancystore.com, in addition to heavy reliance on primary, commercial sources. Main page exposure may help address the issues in this article and encourage better examination of sourcing by FA reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the above, but I think that the article is an almost great article that doesn't belong anwhere near the main page, yet. The introduction is the problem - it can easily be seen as an advertorial. But the body of the article sets out the facts pretty well - and must have taken some digging to get them, i.e. the article is about a scientific/commercial scandal. So the article is schizophrenic: Intro - this is a great product that does something that people have wanted to do forever; body - this is a product that very likely doesn't do what it claims to do. It's notable either way, but shouldn't a feature article reflect the main body of the article in the intro? BTW there have been about 150 edits on it today and maybe it was different at the start of the day. Smallbones 17:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The lead has changed a lot. At some point the lead was about the controversies surrounding this product. As for the sourcing, the blogs really shouldn't have gotten through FAC, but since this article is basically a critique of a product's marketing, it seems natural to have a fair amount sourced to the marketing. Perhaps someone needs to do reviews of upcoming main page articles. Gimmetrow 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the information in the lead concerning why someone might buy this product, that informaiton was added because an early reviewer basically asked "why would anyone buy this"? As for it being an "advertorial", did you read the article? There is plenty of informaiton about controversies relating to this product. As for links to primary sources, I assume you mean the company website and their related patents. Surely this is appropriate informaiton to tell the company's side of the story. Johntex\talk 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did read it. The article itself is unbiased. However if unbiased articles about commercial products can become featured articles (and, as far as I can tell, there is nothing to stop them), the Main Page can be abused to draw attention to unknown products. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ErikWarmelink (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
As for the "blogs", they are appropriate because they are used only a source for what people say about the product and they are directly attributed as coming from the blog. These are not some random anonymous posts on a random blog - it is from the creator of a prominent web-source on pregancy issues that just happens to use blog-style formatting to post items. The references we are making are to say things like "...and In-Gender.com reported that the test has been completely pulled from the market." Just because a source happens to be formatted as a blog does not mean it is unusable. The fact is it is usale informaiton if it is used correctly. I believe it is used correctly here. Johntex\talk 20:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps someone needs to do reviews of upcoming main page articles. I started doing that about a week ago. Cleaning up refs, cleaning up MOS stuff, tagging things that aren't well cited in time for them to be cleaned up before the main page. I haven't gotten to Japan which, IMO is in VERY bad shape, not ready for the main page, and due up tomorrow or the day after. I'm traveling, on a very slow dialup - I hope someone can run through it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Japan was just promoted. What happened? Gimmetrow 01:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
When I checked yesterday, the ref formatting needed work — I can't remember what else. But, from a dialup, I can't work on big articles. Not that we need to do anything about the size of our articles, for the half of the world that uses dialup :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes, non-standard ref formatting is a handy way to locate more serious issues :) Gimmetrow 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Duran Duran?

Why was Duran Duran removed from Featured status yesterday without any further comment or warning? I have been working on this steadily over the last week to improve the references (now that my real life finally allowed for it). It looks like no one even looked at it since the last comment on April 29th. — Catherine\talk 15:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You entered a comment on May 1st that you were working on the article, but you entered it in the wrong place (in the review section, after the article had moved to FARC), so 1) possibly Marskell didn't see it, and 2) you didn't provide an update on progress for over two weeks while the article was at FARC and had received Remove declarations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I apologize for entering it in the wrong place. And I should have left a comment after my work yesterday. But shouldn't a human being be reviewing these, not a bot? (Yes, I understand the work load.) I'm sorry that I don't know all the ins and outs of your system here.
Can I please have it re-reviewed now? I was planning to submit it for copyediting today, but I think all of the referencing issues have been addressed. — Catherine\talk 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Catherine, Marskell is in a radical time zone and might be asleep now; leave him a talk page note to review this discussion, and then sit tight until tonight, maybe ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you -- I appreciate your help. I know we are all trying to improve content here. — Catherine\talk 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Catherine. My check on Duran Duran was as usual. I did in fact see your note, but saw nothing after it (two weeks) and looking at the history didn't see any real activity. Now, this edit does show continued work, but I didn't actually look at that specific dif. I check the history for repeated, on-going edits and the page for obvious flags (e.g. one sentence paragraphs—the poor pace and flow of prose sticks out on this article).
Anyhow, sorry. If in the FARC commentary you'd said "hey, ho, wait a minute," then I would have left it open. Because we process one-a-day here, that can't always be assumed. Marskell 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm feeling a little bad, so I'll try to make some edits myself to eliminate the choppiness. If the refs are acceptable to people, let's just ship it back to FAC. Then we'll know it's had a good look over. I'm loath to reopen a FAR. Marskell 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Why? We're just a bunch of volunteers trying to develop decent articles while also doing jobs, bringing up families, etc. not an inflexible bureaucracy or legal body. Raul sometimes restarts an FAC; don't see why we can't repost this one to FAR, given the circumstances. Ignore All Rules, in this case, I'd say. qp10qp 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Re-opening a FAR could get tricky in terms of setting precedent for future cases (when Raul restarts a FAC, the articles status hasn't changed); how about if several of us pitch in, and put it back through FAC? I'll see if I can contribute anything — I don't think I'd really looked at this one, since it seemed stalled in Remove territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Working on the refs, and there's still a lot of CE needs, but Catherine, we need to know what makes you a reliable source as opposed to a personal fan site? [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the book sources are lacking page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, CatherineMunro (talk · contribs), if durandurantimeline.com is a personal and commercial site, we really need to remove all references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I have requested copyediting help from the League of Copyeditors, though it looks like they're rather backlogged.
The Timeline has been a long-term personal project with a goodly amount of scholarship gone into it; not enough for Wikipdia as I now know, but I have been gradually working on removing all the Timeline refs from the article and replacing them with the source material I used to build the Timeline in the first place. By the end of the week they should all be gone, now that I've got my ref materials out of storage. (The store was an experiment from last year that didn't work -- I think I've made about 4.00 off of it! -- in fact I think I'll go ahead and take it and the Google Ads down as I'm in the process of transferring the Timeline to duranduran.wikia.com so that I don't have to maintain it all by myself anymore.)
I understand about the precedent of re-opening, and I appreciate your help with this -- it's so hard to keep up with the everchanging standards and citation styles and such. I welcome any editing you do, or suggestions you have; I hope it will be ready to regain its star soon! — Catherine\talk 18:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I've done what I can for now; the first task will be to get it cited to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
One question -- some of the articles I use are quite old, but various fans have transcribed them online. If there is no online version from the publisher, is it better to use the URL for the unofficial fan transcription, or to use no URL at all? Either way, all of the information to find the original print version is there, so it's not the ref itself that's in question; it's a question of copyright, and the tradeoff between not being able to read it online at all, and the possible (if somewhat unlikely) chance that the fan has distorted the original text. So far I have leaned toward providing the link and letting readers judge the source, but what do you think? — Catherine\talk 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
See WP:EL and WP:COPYRIGHT; somewhere in one of them it says we should never knowingly link to copyright violations. I think a safer way to do this is to 1) always base your citations on the original source rather than someone else's upload of it, and 2) if an online version isn't available, you can include a quote of the pertinent text in the footnote ref tags, or by using the quote parameter of the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The longest thread on User:Emsworth you've ever read

Some thoughts on our most prolific FA nominator.

I'm not sure how many successful FACs he actually has. The list shows 57 at the moment, but when I did my own count to track a couple of months ago, partly based on old info on his user page, I came up with 62. In any case, it's some number that would take a decade to accumulate under current standards. (And he did it before going to college.) The current FAR process has gone over about half of them: 10 kept, 17 removed, 4 outstanding right now (about 9% of the total that have gone through here in the last year). This is in-keeping with the overall ratio, and really isn't bad considering he's not editing himself.

My first thought is that we ought stop leaving notifications on his user talk. It's not especially important, but I think the fellow might feel a little depressed to log back in and see two dozen FAR/C notices. And it seems unlikely he's going to suddenly decide, "yes, because of that notice, I'm going to save that FA."

My second thought is in the opposite direction: we ought to accelerate the review of Emsworth FAs, particularly relatively vital articles. I read Canadian House of Commons over tonight, for instance, and it has no business being an FA as it stands. It's decent, but not FA—small but important inaccuracies (according to this Canadian); coverage that's both underweight and repetitive; basically nothing in the References section.

Anyhow, the same could probably be said of all of them. British Commons and Monarchy, U.S. Senate and Congress, Canadian Commons and Senate—all of these should be reviewed sooner rather than later. These are important articles that look increasingly stale compared to recent FAs. (Not that their current status is solely the product of Emsworth.)

Two suggestions:

  • If you want to nominate an Emsworth article, start with the more important, currently relevant ones. And we should be nominating them, at regular intervals.

BUT, I'm not saying all this so we can have twenty of his articles removed tomorrow, so:

  • Rather than contacting him, contact users that have already saved some of his articles. The venerable User:Dr pda, User:Ceoil (our pinch hitter), and the most excellent User:Yomangani, for instance. (Not to put pressure on those folks, but just as an example.) Better yet, see if you can pre-emptively save (or start to save) one.

On that last point: his British articles are often adopted, while not one of his American articles has been saved. Does Wikipedia have a monarchical bias? Marskell 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good initiative Marskell. As concerns royalty FAs that Emsworth has, could we also see if User:DrKiernan may be able to help? He's had about 5 recent royalty FAs - it's just an idea. LuciferMorgan 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

gosh darn edit conflict; was trying to put a complete list.

User:Dr pda, User:Ceoil, User:Yomangani, User:DrKiernan, User:Qp10qp, and User:Carcharoth.

Emsworth articles needing review:

  1. Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu
  2. Article One of the United States Constitution
  3. British House of Commons
  4. British monarchy
  5. Canadian House of Commons
  6. Canadian Senate
  7. Charles II of England
  8. Coronation of the British monarch
  9. Elizabeth I of England
  10. George I of Great Britain
  11. George III of the United Kingdom
  12. Governor-General of India
  13. History of the Peerage
  14. Irish Houses of Parliament
  15. James K. Polk
  16. Palace of Westminster
  17. Parliament of Canada
  18. Parliament of the United Kingdom
  19. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
  20. Privilege of Peerage
  21. Privy Council of the United Kingdom
  22. Separation of powers under the United States Constitution
  23. Speaker of the British House of Commons
  24. Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
  25. United States Senate
  26. War of the Spanish Succession
  27. William III of England
  28. William IV of the United Kingdom

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest Charles II of England as first project. Ceoil 22:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm on board. Does someone else want to ping all the folks above ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Without wishing to sound like a wimp, Elizabeth I of England is about the only one of them I have the books on, and I am also an appallingly slow editor and can only really manage one thing at a time. I will say for Emsworth that he was of his time: he was knocking out very encyclopedic articles not unlike those in regular light encyclopedias and as such was doing an appropriate and highly useful job for Wikipedia at that time in its development: standards are now shooting up, which is a good thing, but each article takes more and more commitment. qp10qp 01:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
To add to that comment, which I'm feeling guilty about, I would just say that a reason why I'm not really the man for quick-fixing is that, for some anal, perfectionist reason, I can't just add refs to existing text: I feel obliged to dig about in book after book to find the right formulation...which means that I tend to over-invest and take ages on what some people can do quickly. When Elizabeth comes up, however, I promise I'll be there, though she's not on my to-do list at the moment. qp10qp 14:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I volunteer to adopt George III of the United Kingdom, but don't expect immediate results! DrKiernan 19:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries. Adopt what you can. Qp and Dr K., I've got you on record for one each, and we never forget these things at WT:FAR! I'd like to lead by example, but most of these require omnibus books I don't have access to. I'll try to pick at some of the Canadian parliament info. Marskell 20:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple noms from new account

Eptypes (talk · contribs) is a brand new user account, and has entered three FARs at once for Emsworth articles; what do we want to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Improve all three of the articles? Which ones are they? What we could do is allow them an extended stay at FAR (in general they stay there as long as efforts are being made on them, right?), or create a subpage of FAR to ensure constant low-level activity on Emsworth articles. I'm afraid I don't have any books on English royalty or Canadian stuff, but I would be happy to carry on watching from the sidelines and polishing up articles that others are working on (I tend to do light copyediting, improve internal linking, and ask annoying-but-sometimes-astute questions, as Qp10qp will tell you! Carcharoth 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
In other words, do an umbrella FAR nomination of the remaining un-FARed Emsworth articles, hope the talk page tagging attracts more editors to those articles, but delay FARC unless they are really bad or no-one shows any initial interest. Carcharoth 11:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yet another possibility is to do stop-gap improvements that wouldn't pass FAC, and note that they still need further improvement. So it comes down to choosing between doing a little improvement to all of them, or a complete rehaul for a few. Carcharoth 11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(After four edit conflicts). The issue is that we usually remove excess nominations, because nominators are expected to follow their noms, and it's not clear that a new account is going to follow three noms. We usually allow only one nom at a time for most nominators, although a few of us have demonstrated that we can/will follow more than one nom at a time, and work to improve them. Do we remove the last two as we usually do, or let them run ?

I'm not in favor of a separate page/process for Emsworth articles; we're processing through them just fine, and there are many articles in worse shape than his that we should not drain attention from. I'm also not in favor of an umbrella nomination, because every now and then, someone has time to work on one of his articles. If you try to run them through all at once, there's not much chance any of them will be improved. I don't believe it's good to have six Emsworth noms on the page at a time; there are plenty of older, uncited FAs that are in *really* bad shape that warrant our focus. No stop-gap process either, allowing sub-par FAs to pass; the process is working fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the limit on nominations. That is a good rule. I agree, remove the last two the new account nominated, and explain things to them. You've also persuaded me to recant my other suggestions, so there is not a lot left to say! :-) Carcharoth 11:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Normally, I go ahead and remove repeat noms and notify the nominator. In this case, I'll wait to hear from Marskell and others, as I'm not sure if this thread meeans we want to let more of them run. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For reference, our instructions say:

Please consider posting only one FAR request at a time. We have limited resources!

I'm also going to begin to ask people to respect the nomination instructions about notifying Projects and authors, because I'm really tired of doing that tedious and boring work myself. There are currently six noms that haven't been notified; three from Eptypes (no need to notify if two of them are going to be removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want to avoid Emsworth seeing multiple nom notifications, I see no problems with removing them to a subpage of his user pages, and refactoring his talk page to include a single notice and a link to the subpage. Though his contribs show he returned for a while in December 2006, so I guess he is already aware of this, so I'd suggest not worrying about it too much. Who knows, maybe at some future point, he will write articles of an even higher standard and disown his earlier attempts?! :-) Carcharoth 12:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I just did the notifications for the two oldest ones. Isn't much, but I hope it helps a little Sandy. LuciferMorgan 13:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You and I have to stop doing them, and start reminding the nominators to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but will they listen? There's a certain FAR culture of nominating an article and then disappearing. An unfortunate problem this is. LuciferMorgan 14:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yoda? Is that you? Carcharoth 14:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The use was blocked as a sockpuppet. No idea the details. I removed the latest two but left the first up. Marskell 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the limit that can be nominated at once? I mean normally I see 10-15 articles on each section (FAR and FARC I mean). Aaron Bowen 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There probably isn't a set number. Howard Cleeves 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Raptors

Toronto Raptors was recently promoted, but has been nominated by someone saying it was promoted over objections. Consensus to keep or remove the listing from FAR?

  • Remove listing, there are not extenuating circumstances, one reviewer is merely disgruntled that the article was promoted. FAR doesn't review recent promotions unless there are extenuating circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove listing, I agree with Sandy. Some of his objections are idiosyncratic. For instance, the idea that there is too much detail stands in flagrant contrast to WP:NOTPAPER, but that's not even an issue here given that the procedure for listing an article soon after it has passed requires extenuating circumstances. Quadzilla99 10:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree and removed it. Marskell 12:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, there is plagiarism in the article as we speak. You don't think that's an extenuating circumstance? If no one in the nomination picked it up—let alone pick up any of the numerous other FA criteria failures—then the nomination is a bust. Two of us did catch a whiff of this article's deficiency, but they were ignored by the Featured Article Director and the article was promoted with no explanation. The Director was, however, kind enough to tell us why he would be discarding the least significant objection of all. You don't think this failure of process is an extenuating circumstance? Marskell said "it's not our business to redo a just done FAC," but the FAC was never done to begin with.
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, an "organization in which action is obstructed by insistence on unnecessary procedures and red tape." Does that not apply here? Are there good reasons plagiarism and uncited claims must sit in the article for the arbitrary three month period before they can be challenged, again? I can't think of any. I wonder what NBA.com or a newspaper looking for a story would think of the mandatory three month period.
Quadzilla99, before calling my objections idiosyncratic—or "voting" on FAs for that matter—you may want to actually read the FA criteria. The idea that there is too much detail stands in flagrant contrast to WP:WIAFA: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." Punctured Bicycle 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyright violation takes priority, obviously. However, I don't see anything claiming copyright violation on the article talk page. Can you provide a link to the web page that was copied? Gimmetrow 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There's an illustration at Talk:Toronto Raptors/Flaws; I've now provided the NBA.com link. Punctured Bicycle 17:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh. If the issue were all or most of an entire section being copied, there would be a problem. But if this only involves a few sentences, I would suggest you work with the article and rephrase them. The other substantial complaint seems to be the article isn't comprehensive, but that was brought up at FAC. FAR would like to avoid rehashing issues from recent FACs. Gimmetrow 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There are substantial complaints about the entire article listed at Talk:Toronto Raptors/Flaws. The plagiarism issue is a symbol of the nomination's failure to do its job; fixing it won't fix the numerous other problems the nomination failed to address. Punctured Bicycle 18:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think its fine. Tayquan hollaMy work 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. Punctured Bicycle 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If people are willing to address the concerns I don't think it matters if its here or on the talk page. Howard Cleeves 18:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
One thing is though while some of those wordings are definitely similar and should be re-worded, all we're really allowed to do here is say what our sources say right? I mean we're just re-iterating information for the most part. The article does need some work overall though, particularly on wording and flow. Trevor GH5 18:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Is that wording still in there? Howard Cleeves 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Punctured Bicycle 11:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. Consensus is based on a system of good reasons. If the consensus is that "extenuating circumstances" has a rigid definition that excludes this case, then reasons should be given why. I'm going to restore the nomination unless some good reasons are given. Punctured Bicycle 11:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1)I don't see the issues you raise, including the alleged plagiarism. 2) Apparently, Raul didn't give your other objections much weight either. 3) We have *never* reviewed an article here right after Raul promoted it — we're not in the business of second-guessing Raul. The only time we reviewed an article before the three months had elapsed was B movie, because the article completely changed after it received support, and even then, we waited a month to allow time for the issues to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
1) Are you following the discussion? I've linked to Talk:Toronto Raptors/Flaws repeatedly. It illustrates the plagiarism and all the other problems with the article. 2) I know he didn't. That's partly why I'm here. The article wasn't promoted based on consensus, it was promoted based on Raul's secret judgment. When I asked him why he promoted an article with active objections in its nomination, he demonstrated in his weak reply that he hadn't even looked at all the objections. 3) We're free to second-guess Raul. He's not a deity. FARC is the most logical place to appeal FA promotions, whether they were made yesterday or over three months ago. (And yes, I already brought this up at the WP:FAC talk page.) Punctured Bicycle 12:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've been to your "flaws" page, and I've followed all of your previous complaints about the article, including those at Raul's talk page. "Raul's secret judment" includes FAC consensus. Yes, we're free to second guess Raul, but we typically do that in marginal or exceptional cases, which is why that is part of our instructions. This case looks neither marginal nor exceptional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, there is plagiarism in the article as we speak. You don't think that makes this an exceptional case? If no one in the nomination picked it up—let alone pick up any of the numerous other FA criteria failures—then the nomination is a bust. Two of us did catch a whiff of this article's deficiency, but we were ignored by the Featured Article Director and the article was promoted with no explanation. (The Director was, however, kind enough to tell us why he would be discarding the least significant objection of all.) You don't think this failure of process makes this an exceptional case? Marskell said "it's not our business to redo a just done FAC," but the FAC was never done to begin with. Punctured Bicycle 13:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
1) I don't think rephrasing is the same as plagiarism, and 2) if you think there's plagiarism, that's solved by further rephrasing. Work it out on the article talk page. The article was not promoted with "no explanation"; it was promoted with overwhelming support. I've seen many "failures of process", and each one of them has bugged me A LOT; this isn't one of them. This FAC was done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
1) You don't know what plagiarism is. 2) Once again, the plagiarism is just a symbol of the nomination's failure to do its job; fixing it won't fix the numerous other problems the nomination failed to address. It's obvious that an article that was able to pass with plagiarism in it wasn't examined closely enough. 3) Articles should be promoted based on consensus, not votes. Dozens of empty support votes, many of which were supplied by members of the NBA WikiProject, don't outweigh dissent grounded in the FA criteria. Punctured Bicycle 13:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop telling people what they do and don't know, it's not helping your case. Trevor GH5 11:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Why should I stop telling people what they don't know? How do you expect us to have a meaningful discussion when some of the participants are uninformed? If you think that rephrasing a passage to the weak degree that Toronto Raptors does escapes plagiarism, you don't know what plagiarism is. No wonder the academic world thinks Wikipedia is a joke. Punctured Bicycle 23:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

So this page is for entering FAs that are no longer up to standard to see if they should be removed? I don't want to nominate anything or get involved yet, I'm just curious. Marcus Taylor 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it is, I think you should probably comment on the article's talk page first though and tell people what you think is wrong. Trevor GH5 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I don't want to nominate anything, just wanted to be clear what this page is for. Marcus Taylor 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah a lot of of it is just updating also from what I understand because a lot of the old FAs aren't as good as the new ones. Tayquan hollaMy work 19:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The old ones usually don't have inline citations. All the new FAs do. Trevor GH5 19:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks both of you. Marcus Taylor 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, FAR used to require that issues be brought up on the talk page first, and only if they were unresolved could the article be brought here. (This may have relaxed when FAR went to two stages.) Gimmetrow 19:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Still probably a good idea though. Tayquan hollaMy work 19:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You bring it up on the talk page by putting the FAR template on the talk page, which directs people here for comment. Punctured Bicycle 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think he means bring it up there and then wait and see if the concerns are being addressed before putting it up for FAR. Howard Cleeves 21:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
So I see people vote on whether the article is still an FA and then they tally the votes. Is that how it works? Marcus Taylor 21:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
To address Gimme's point first, there was debate over how to notify people a year and more ago and the present FAR exists partly for that reason. It used to be that you could nominate to FARC and that was it; the actual review page, meanwhile, was dead. It's a merged two-step process now so that there is sufficient notification, and so that we actually review the article before removing it.
On last, the "vote count" is not by itself determinative. "Consensus within criteria", like AfD and whatnot. Marskell 22:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
How is the result ultimately determined then? Marcus Taylor 22:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The principal determinant (in some ways, the only determinant) is whether there are people ready to work on an article and meet concerns. If there is, it will almost always be kept; if not, it will almost always be removed. See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria for specific FA demands. Marskell 22:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
But who determines whether there's consensus. Marcus Taylor 02:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Mu. (Sorry, you'll have to wait for someone who can and will really answer you :-) –Outriggr § 06:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Marskell does after looking it over. Trevor GH5 11:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notifications (2)

It looks like reminding nominators to do the notifications isn't working. All we have now is a mess on the FARs, with commentary asking them to notify and explaining to them how to do it, but no indication that it's been done. Niagara Falls, RMS Titanic, Pioneer Zephyr and Speaker of the British House of Commons all need to be checked, notified, and listed at the top of the FAR so we know it's been done. I guess Lucifer and I will be stuck with this chore "for life". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Could my best friend do it? The coding would no doubt be complicated, and Gimme does so much already, but without a bot... Marskell 18:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
... without a bot ... Lucifer and I are bots :-) I don't usually mind, but I'll be too busy this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
How would you propose identifying which projects to notify in an automatic fashion? The projects who have tagged the talk page are probably relevant, but not all relevant projects will have every article tagged.
I have some time this month to work on some program. I was thinking of automating the WP:GA page, since it's tedious to pass a GA correctly. Or I could implement the idea from WT:FAC, and generate a list of editors who have commented on facs, and on how many fac pages each has commented (page count seems more relevant than edit count). Or, I have some ideas to streamline the FAC promotion/archiving process some more, maybe writing a tool for Raul. But realistically I can only do one of these, so which is more important? Gimmetrow 19:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
My two cents (considering what it takes to keep track of all of this): 1) Streamline FAC, 2) fix GA (that thing stinks, and I spend more time cleaning up GA messes on talk pages than anything else!), 3) FAR notification bot, 4) FAC comment tracking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
PS, the FAR notification would be stupendous if I could just plug a list into a bot/script/whatever somewhere, and it would do the work and post the list back to the top of the FAR. Let us input a manual list somehow/somewhere (since I have a spreadsheet for almost 300 of them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"Not all relevant projects will have every article tagged." Yes, and unless you can program a bot with higher reasoning, related projects who have not tagged an article talk will have to be left out. But realistically, notifying the projects who have tagged (tagging itself indicates the project's activity) and talk pages of original nominators is as much as can be expected of us. If the bot can check article history and, say, hit the user talks of three persons who have edited most often, it would be totally awesome. (Really—totally awesome!)
As for priority, I will defer to Sandy's list insofar as FAC takes precedence over FAR. But I'd bump 2 down, because GA does not take precedence over FA. (My thoughts on that have been extensively stated :). Marskell 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I share your views on GA, but d#@&, I spend a ton of time cleaning up messes they make on talk pages, so we can build articlehistory correctly for FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't participate if it's not worthwhile. Marskell 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
They screw up our articlehistory (I guess I could start deleting them if they aren't done right evil grin SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, why is GA even linked to the article history? Blaahh. Marskell 21:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Independent of the other discussion about GA, what do you think would be a good process? The WP:GA page is routinely in a bad state, with promoted FAs and delistedGAs remaining listed, the total and many section counts off, and a number of GAs not listed at all. I was thinking a bot could work off the categories. If reviewers just put a GA tag, a bot would catch that and add it to a list for the core GA group to categorize on WP:GA. A reviewer could put a delistedGA tag, and a bot would remove the article from the WP:GA page, updating counts and alphabetizing in the process. If these events are logged, another bot might be able to update ArticleHistory. Gimmetrow 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notification: I go fuck myself

Having been requested on FAR to either source The Country Wife (which a couple of editors consider unsourced) or go fuck myself, I've renounced all connection, such as it was, with FAR/FARC. Here is the link to the review. I've moved The Country Wife down to FARC, in the hope of shortening the time it spends on this page altogether. Personally I'd rather have removed the FA template from the page and the page from WP:FA, but I realize I would have been reverted in seconds. This action I hope may stand. I urge the people defending the article's FA status to desist. How important is the FA thing, seriously? Let's not cling to it, but put a stop to these unseemly spectacles. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC).

I have speedy kept the page. It would have gone keep almost certainly anyway. I will check in further on Jay later. I have no idea where he comes sailing in from. Marskell 13:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
How important is the FA thing? It's very important. It's important because the star points readers to some of our best articles, of which The Country Wife is very much one. And because it means the article will be read much more often than it would without its glister. And also because of the love and care that have gone into most FAs, which to me is a very beautiful thing, something from Lothlórien. qp10qp 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
A quick note to thank Marskell for his one-day block of Jay. I don't like to see it get to that point, but I can't blame Bishonen for giving up on the article when that happened. I hope the block has a moderating effect. Mike Christie (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Jay continually shows up on reviews with "do it or shove it" comments. Don't get it. Marskell 17:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I will continue to do so. Cite your sources or do not contribute new material. Marskell has been the worst offender by encouraging the habit by not removing FA status from articles that aren't fully cited. Jay32183 01:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, he is interprating 1.c in the spirit in which it was drafted. "Challenged or likely to be challenged" is probably weakly stated, maybe it should be qualified by the disclaimer "by people who are reasonably familiar with the topic". A dogged adherence to the letter of the law would slow down the rate of creation of FA's, and make them almost unreadable, what with all that blue text. In my view, such pandering is simplistic and would undermine the credibility of the project. Ceoil 01:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that familiarity with the topic is not needed; what is needed is an actual challenge, or demonstration that a statement is likely to be challenged. A challenge consists in an explanation of why a statement might be doubtful. Slapping a cite tag on a statement, or simply asking "who says", is not a challenge. You can certainly develop reasonable challenges without great familiarity with a topic, however. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well maybe "familiarity" is too explicit, but the current phrasing is open to wide and wild card interpretation. "Demonstration" sound like a good challenge, but raises subjectivity; and who is going to police that. Ceoil 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A challenge is absolutely not needed. People unfamiliar with the topic need citations more than people familiar with the topic. To write a good encyclopedia you must always assume you are writing for a non-expert. Slowing down the rate of FA's would be great; people are way to eager to hand out awards rather than trying to achieve quality. Without citing sources for everything Wikipedia is completely worthless. also, you can't ignore WP:NPOV and WP:NOR while reading WP:V. Any opinion, analysis, or measurement will require a citation without question. Jay32183 02:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
And so the wall. Nobody disputes that "opinion, analysis, or measurement" needs to be inline cited, but the recent disputes are over trivial facts, while the argument is incresingly circular. Basic facts are slapped with tags, and when we get to the dept of the matter, actually is only "opinion, analysis, or measurement" ye require to be footnoted. Out of curiosity, what do you consider a good encyclopedia; considering the standards on this website are unusually strict. Ceoil 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Everything needs to be cited. The fact that it doesn't fall into one of the categories that can't be questioned is not a sound argument. Arguing against adding citations is always a bad idea. Wikipedia may claim to have strict standards, but it really doesn't. If Wikipedia really had strict standards ALoan would have been blocked for getting offended when I recommended a fact check. My first recommendation was polite. After the responce I got there was no reason to be nice to anyone against running a fact check. Recommending a general fact check is no different from recommending a general copy edit, which happens all the time without offending anyone. You don't need to know what good is to know what bad is. The current state of Wikipedia, including the FA's, is bad. Jay32183 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh great - I have been having a really shitty day and now I find this. :( -- ALoan (Talk) 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On what do you base this observation that the FAs are bad? I thought there'd been some really good stuff coming through. Its tricky as you either have a very restrictive editing policy or an inclusive/expansive one, and the current success of wikipedia is testament to that.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Your assertion that "everything needs to be cited" is radical and has no basis in Wikipedia policy. You may want to re-read WP:V. Punctured Bicycle 14:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:V does not encourage not citing. You are making a severe logical fallacy to assume that something not specifically stated is excluded. The spirit of the policy is to make sure that false information is not included, accidentally or intentionally. If it is uncited and plausible it isn't likely to be checked, unless people are in the habit of checking any uncited information rather than only checking contraversial information. Citing everything is the only way to prevent false information from appearing in a publication that anyone can contribute to. The new FA's haven't necessarily been bad, but the remainder from the "brilliant prose" days have not all been fixed. Performing a full fact check on an article is just as reasonable as performing a full copy edit. The quality of the article cannot decrease by performing either, and unless the article was perfect then it should improve. Jay32183 18:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I'm sorry, but you are completely misunderstanding V. It is not based on any concept of "false information" and purposely avoids discussion of truth. Read the first sentence.
But this is tangential anyway. The issue here is your lack of civility in expressing opinions—whatever those opinions—on review pages. Marskell 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have read WP:V. Being sourced is more improtant than being true. Any addition to an article that does not include a source can be removed without discussion. People who add information without citing their sources are worse than vandals because they think they are helping when in fact they are hurting. Please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why sources should be cited. It states:
"In detail, the purpose of citation is:
  • To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
  • To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
  • To show that your edit is not original research.
  • To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
  • To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
  • To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
  • To ensure that material about living persons is reliably sourced and complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons."
That leaves no room not to cite anything. I will continue to treat people who don't understand that worse than I would treat a vandal, because they are worse than vandals. In this case maintaining civility was a bad idea because people were insisting on reducing the standards of Wikipedia. Marskell, blocking me was the stupidest thing you could have done. For one, it endorses that things one Wikipedia should not be cited if they are reasonably believable. Second, it was essentially a cool down block which, according to the blocking guidelines, should be avoided. Many people would have simply told me to go for a walk and come back when I calmed down. It should have been obvious that I was angry. People trying to focus the discussion on what I was saying rather than on anything related to the article or to citations in general were being unbelieveably disruptive. Trying to point out to people that they have to cite their sources is not disruptive. Sure I could have been more pleasant, but then no one would have noticed that there is a problem in the way Wikipedians are handling uncited material. I'm willing to take a stand here. It is far more important that Wikipedia actually meets the standards it sets for itself than for me, personally, to continue contributing. In fact, if my fellow Wikipedians will not follow this standard and actually insist on reducing the standard, then I do not want to be a part of Wikipedia. This isn't a pet project so we all have something to do, we're trying to build a reliable and autoritative encyclopedia. Jay32183 19:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The block was not given for cooling down but because you were clearly disrupting the review.
"I have read WP:V. Being sourced is more improtant than being true." Yes, but a post or two ago you were against "false information" (i.e., for truth). Is it possible that you're actually working your way through our core policies for the first time as you're having this argument? Well, don't answer that. We all have to familiarize ourselves with the wording of policy and the practice of policy for the first time.
While you're still doing that, I'd suggest you cease to lecture about how long-term, good-faith editors don't get it and should fuck off. "Everything needs to be cited." Policy does not say that, practice does not follow that, and editors do not advocate that. "Sure I could have been more pleasant, but then no one would have noticed that there is a problem in the way Wikipedians are handling uncited material." At a guess, everyone is ignoring you anyway. Marskell 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You really don't get it. The reason I get this intense is because no one ever sees that they have no choice in citing everything. You clearly have not understood policy, and I've told you that the practice is wrong. Cite everything or Wikipedia is worthless. I was not being disruptive in the least. I don't tell new users to fuck off becuase they couldn't have known. You should know better than to let anything go unsourced. It is just stupid not to cite all your sources all the time. There is no way you can present an intelligent reason not to cite a source after reading "why we cite sources". So either you ignored me or you are stupid. Since you responded I have to assume you are stupid. I am not going through the policy for the first time, I'm just pointing out to you in everyway why you are a fucktard. Arguing against citing sources is a sign of stupidity, regardless of Wikipedia's current practices. Jay32183 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(pulling indent back) Jay is now blocked for a week. I suggest that people allow this discussion to die off; I doubt anything useful will come of it. Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree Kirill. This discussion has demonstrated what really didn't need demonstration: consensus is clear. This is important in this case because "Jay32183" is editing against the consensus, sure that consensus is wrong and he or she is right, and willing to fight over it. This is anti-social behavior. Now, I have a suspicion that Jay is too familiar with FAR and too interested in being rude to people along a specific polemic to not be an alternate account (a stunt man account -- one designed to take the hit for another). Even if it's not that, even if this is a parody, there is outstanding clarity that this account's aims are, at least at present, contrary to consensus and devoted to rudeness in the process.
As for citation, the debate is a natural outgrowth of this formalist obsession that has taken over at the FA- related pages. People have come to believe that they are experts, when Wikipedia is not about that, but experts not on any subject except "what is a featured article." You can only be an expert on "what is a featured article" if "featured article" is some particular look or form or set, and therefore those who anoint themselves in this way are going to be about looks and forms and formats. They will not only say that X is a universal requirement, but that Y citations must be had for N statements, without understanding anything about what the words say. It's form, not content. It's absurd. Geogre 10:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
"Experts not on any subject except 'what is a featured article.'" The precedent for that is years old: User:Raul654. As for the rest of your second paragraph: let a thousand reviewers bloom. It's not that there's anything wrong with commenting on form—we agreed on "professional" at WIAFA and professional publications are consistent in their formatting—but ideally this is complimented by people commenting on comprehensiveness with some subject matter knowledge. It's form and content.
As for Jay, again I have no idea what gives rise to it. A full week block caught me off-guard as I wasn't particulary offended—fucktard is so grade six—but he does seem to be on some sort of crusade. Marskell 11:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, give me a break. Raul's appointment as FA Czar had nothing to do with being an expert on the form, and there is a giant difference between "they should have a lead, body paragraphs, and references" and "object! criterion 3ciiB9 says that an outside professional copy editor must examine the text and provide five inline citations in my favorite format." I was here when Raul got the appointment, and it was a beaurocratic function he had been appointed to. It was no more glamorous nor contentious than "someone needs to be shuffling the Did You Know hints from the template page to the archive page and notifying the contributors." It was not being an expert on "what is an FA," although Raul no doubt knows one when he sees one better than the current reviewers, but rather "Who is going to pick the article for the front page and manage the housekeeping." I'm not even sure that FAC existed.
You can wish for those reviewers, but they will never appear if the conversation is, "You may not pass until I have been given my herring! You must please me. If you do not, then I and my friends will mutter darkly about how we ought to be in charge, immediately FAR your article, and then hound it eternally." What, after all, are these recently nominated FAR's about? Are they about footnotes? Footnotes?! Or are they a way of trying to own the FAC process, to get revenge on those who do not agree?
No, the present reviewers are so toxic, so petty, so obsessed with themselves, that no one will review for long unless he or she is also having a paroxysm of egoism. Geogre 11:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, Geogre. There's no use arguing with exaggerations. If you have some specific problem with the requirements as they stand (citing quotations, say) WT:WIAFA is probably the better place for it. Marskell 12:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jay 100%, and to be fair I find Marskell's, but especially Kirill Lokshin's block wrong. "This is fucking rubbish", or the plain "horseshit", as you used on my page awhile back Marskell wasn't exactly civil, but that went unnoticed and you didn't recieve a 24hr block. Then again though, a 24hr block isn't overly harsh as such. As for Kirill Lokshin's whole week block, that is so authoritative and definitely sends out the wrong signal - it'll have the opposite effect, and basically sends out the message "agree with me and conform to rank and order or I will block you". Kirill should've left Jay discuss the matter with Marskell privately, instead of actually getting involved (much in the same way Doc Glasgow should've left me and Marskell discuss things awhile back). Giving him a week long block will only convince him you're trying to censor his opinion - I'd reconsider the length of that block. LuciferMorgan 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I was actually about to block for 48 (even left the message) when Kirill beat me to the button -- but I would support a week as well. Jay was well aware the statement was inappropriate and basically said flat out he didn't care about civility, and he needed a block sufficient (A) to prevent further misbehavior, (B) to demonstrate that he needs a change of attitude or will quickly find himself out altogether. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well fuck, I hope we never start blocking just for swearing. Emphasis, interjection, and insult. The first two are fine. (I love the title of this thread, incidentally.) Marskell 16:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope not also, but I've been blocked in the past for saying things less bad than swearing. The rules need to be applied across the board - it should be irrelevant whether the person acting incivil is an admin or not.
I don't support a week in any way, shape or form. A change of attitude? The "find himself out altogether" I find particularly disturbing - it almost suggests you actually want him out altogether. Admins behaviour here isn't exactly that of angels, so I feel admins shouldn't attempt to cast the first stone. Besides anyway, I notice people here are acting as if Jay is the 100% villain of the piece - I remember awhile back this debate where a few admins even here decided to carry my name through the mud and run me down. Nobody even questioned any of this, so I suggest admins please apply the rules across the board and not conveniently discard them to suit their own agenda. This behaviour of "I'm an admin, bow down to me, or I will block you" which certain admins apply is increasingly prevalent and isn't exactly the kind which commands respect. LuciferMorgan 16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has direct quotes that aren't cited. I recommend a complete fact check since something so obvious was missed. Jay32183 22:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how much support this had in its FAC in March 2005, given that something "so obvious" was missed. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Right from the bat, you have an admin trying to goad Jay in "The Country Wife" FAR. What justification for that comment can ALoan give? None whatsoever, yet nobody pointed this out to ALoan. Admins are getting as good as they give it seems to me by the dialogue between each, but unfortunately for us non admins we don't have the block button at our whim. This discussion is so inaccurate since it tries painting the issue in black and white - it isn't black and white, and admins are the same as everyone else. LuciferMorgan 16:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse block. Jay has gone extremist. Hopefully, Jay will realize this after a week away from the site. — Deckiller 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
He's gone extremist because you have all these admins tripping over each other to give warnings, not to mention goading on numerous occasions. ALoan was wrong in goading him, and frankly it seems no admin whatsoever even cares. Isn't anyone going to even comment on it, or are they going to conveniently ignore what I'm saying as per usual? Admins always justify admins; it's a fact of Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That isn't goading and it isn't incivility. At most it is a blunt reply to a blunt comment. The fact that Jay32183 later tried to use it as a justification for his/her rant doesn't make it a valid justification. ALoan doesn't need to justify a comment that pointed out that perhaps the obviously missed points in the article weren't missed (the quotes had citations, they just didn't have footnotes formatted using cite.php). To boil it down the discussion went like this:
  • Jay32183: Everything needs citing, and what's more it needs citing using footnotes and cite.php
  • Everybody: No it doesn't, and we came to a consensus sometime ago on what does.
  • Jay32183: It does and anybody who disagrees with me is a fucktard/can go fuck themselves/fuckitty-fuck-fuck-fuck (delete as appropriate).
I've got nothing against a strong exchange of views, but this wasn't an exchange. I doubt a block will achieve anything though. Yomanganitalk 17:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That isn't incivility? Yes it is, and yes it's goading. There's no getting away from it - don't even try coming here and telling me otherwise, as I'm not a stupid person and I don't appreciate being treated as one. ALoan didn't even need to refer to Jay in his comments - all he had to do was express his opinions on the article without referring to Jay's.
I'd like to know Yomangani how you actually even differentiate between "being blunt" and being "incivil", because to me your argument is flimsy at best, or worse yet, deliberately misrepresents the situation. The fact you're even defending other admins to goad and be incivil is rather disturbing - this is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to when saying admins cover admins. It's alright for admins to be incivil then is it Yomangani? Is it? Because you saying "ALoan doesn't need to justify his comment" is, to be perfectly blunt, way far from the truth. No more double standards (a message to all the admins), thanks. LuciferMorgan 00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd respond exactly the same way if Jay had made the comments ALoan made. I notice you are "perfectly blunt" above, should I take this as incivility and tell you to go fuck yourself? Should I take it as goading that you misrepresented what I wrote as "defending other admins to goad and be incivil" and give you a warning? Perhaps a block for implying I have double standards? Or maybe these are all just examples of strongly representing your argument in a discussion. Jay wasn't warned and blocked for replying bluntly to ALoan in that exchange, he/she was blocked for calling people bad editors, stupid and fucktards, saying civility was a bad idea, telling them to go fuck themselves unless they complied with his/her personal citation demands and trying to shout down consensus. Yomanganitalk 12:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"I'd respond exactly the same way if Jay had made the comments ALoan made." - Please don't insult my intelligence and make false comments here. LuciferMorgan 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There you go, that's an example of goading and incivility. Yomanganitalk 15:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I also endorse the block. I understand Jay's frustration about citations, and Lucifer's concerns about double standards being applied on blocks, but Jay's approach and tone was extremist. It is necessary for an uninvolved admin to step in and do something about the rampant lack of civility that appears on certain FARs, so that Marskell can maintain impartiality. I do hope this standard will be applied equally, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I still think a week's going overboard. Also, I want to see admins being reminded of incivility when they're incivil too - if that happened, I wouldn't have so much of an issue with the way things are going. LuciferMorgan 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked, I saw more admins being warned for incivility than non-admins. — Deckiller 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I'd love to know where you checked, because that's the exact opposite of what I've seen I can assure you. I even have two blocks to my name to prove it. LuciferMorgan 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess we're just pretty mellow in the video game/anime/film departments :) On the other hand, I do agree that there is a difference between swearing as an interjection and as an insult. And there are a few admins who act a little too elitist for my taste. — Deckiller 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

I should point out that I am very much of an elitist. I have no apologies for this, either. However, what is remarkable is that, despite entertaining an extremely low opinion of "video game music composers" as appropriate for any encyclopedia, I challenge anyone to find any time that I have ever gone to an FAC and tried to kill it for such, or listed one on FAR, or even used magic admin power to delete "low" content. Being an elitist is not bad at all. Being, on the other hand, self-aggrandizing -- whether that is "I'm in charge here" or "I'm the decider" or "We at project X have clearly defined that all articles must look precisely like this, and we will not do any work to help this one -- only veto it as not up to our standards" (and "project X" tends to be moderately low culture, generally) -- is quite another matter. I find any person's attempt to be an authority on what is and is not an FA to be loathsome. Yes, it is especially insulting when someone with no knowledge of a subject at all attempts to question someone with decades of training, but that is beside the point that people have decided to camp out and own FAC/FAR, without, incidentally, the good faith of having written any FA's of their own or offering any normative work at all. Geogre 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Really, Geogre. There are a lot of histrionics in this and your last. What are you saying beyond the fact that you find present reviewers loathsome (which isn't new news—you've stated it repeatedly over the last year)? Who are you specifically displeased with? What aspect would you change and how would you change it? This isn't glib. You always manage a good turn of phrase in your anti-FA rants, but it does become tiresome listening to the same general rant repeated. So perhaps you could point to specific aspects and specific people and tell us how things might work better. Marskell 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you unaware of the specific individuals? I don't think you are. If you are asking for help in reigning them in, I have no desire to reign them, for I do not believe in power on Wikipedia. I do not see you as having authority, for example, over them, except that they have lent it to you. Therefore, polite discussion would have been (and has been) the first course. When that fails, the next step would be to establish consensus. That, too, has been done. When editors continue, past that, to try to own the FAC pages, the FAR pages, and to go to war over their peculiar vision, the proper response is not back to sweet talk.
I cannot believe that you do not know the specifics, nor that you are being entirely genuine.
If I were to offer guidelines for reviewers, I suppose my first one would be this... Well, let me unindent so as to use the number format (format is the only important thing, after all):


  1. No person can review more than one third of the active FAC's on the page. Anything more than that suggests too great an interest in the choke point of promotion instead of editing the encyclopedia.
  2. No objection on "grammar" or "copy" can be considered actionable unless the reviewer has also made at least five edits to the article trying to repair the "problems."
  3. No objection on "brilliant prose" can be actionable unless the reviewer offers to help go through drafts of the article and improve it.
  4. No objection may even be made on cite.php grounds.
  5. No objection on "references" can be made without a demonstration of how the facts are likely to be challenged and/or are inherently insupportable.
  6. No objection on "references" can be actionable without a demonstration that the facts are in play in the professional field.
  7. No objections may be made on "not enough pictures" or "pictures not aligned the way I want them."
  8. No objections on any procedural grounds, such as, "All articles must have a peer review" or "All articles must have a third party proofreader" unless those procedures are explicit and consensual at the FAC guidelines.
  9. No article may be nominated for FAR until it has been an FA for at least six months.
  10. NO GRANDFATHERED LAWS; no "post facto" prosecutions. No making a change to FAC today and then demoting all prior FA's.
  11. A person's credibility as an FAC reviewer should be inversely proportional to the number of edits made at FAR and FARC.
  12. No person may proclaim him/herself an expert on "what is a featured article" unless she or he has written at least three of them.
  13. No person may criticize a general approach of an article without also offering up a norm for the article to aim toward.
That's off the top of my head. I'm sure I can think of more, but, by these alone, all of the toxic reviewers and nominators who slander and impugn would be shown the door. Geogre 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am going to tackle your upper case re Grandfathering first. The article reviews that you have participated in, typically for your own or Bishonen's articles, have been for very good articles. The Country Wife is complete, well referenced, and hasn't become bloated or stubbified over time; with the exception of a few direct quotes, which would take minutes to address if the books are still at hand, nothing needs to be done to it. But this is not the norm for pre-2005 articles. An average nom would be an Emsworth page (see thread a few up): a few weblinks in references and nothing else; a lead too long or too short; lacking comprehensiveness, etc. So we can't have a blanket amnesty for the older FAs. There has to be some mechanism to have them reviewed because some of them look increasingly poor relative to newer ones. And we aren't "demoting all prior FA's". We're keeping about one-third, a percentage which hasn't changed with the new process. mav has FA's stretching back three and three-and-a-half years and his reviews are models of collaboration (cf..); not one of his has been demoted (not one of yours has been, for that matter). Why do these reviews keep coming up? Because random sixteen year-olds are doing book reports, maybe? I don't know. There's certainly no master-plan. What I'd actually suggest is that you preemptively bring a few that you are sure are up to snuff here and then we can quickly work them through the process.
Re limits on charges of factual accuracy, here's what V says and WIAFA mimics: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." It's one of SlimVirgin's nuggets. I liked it at first for its simplicity, but increasingly I think it unworkable because it can become a tautology: "It's likely to be challenged because I'm challenging it right now." When you get to that point, it's useless as a rule. The problem, I think, is not appropriately addressed on this talk page. If you'd like to unpack "likely to be challenged" as "a demonstration that the facts are in play in the professional field" (which isn’t a bad idea) then a discussion at WT:V is in order.
Re commenting on prose without having edited the article, is that an attempt to specifically bar Tony? Oh, a few get disgruntled and throw out the "why don't you just fix it" comments, but he wouldn't get copyedit requests every other day if people didn't appreciate his work, and his policy is to point to examples but usually not to edit directly. And the request for an "outside copyeditor" is not form-filling. "It may seem counter-intuitive, but the very closeness to a text that comes with working on it intensively can inhibit your ability to appraise it. This is why other people may immediately see problems and errors in your text that eluded you," as he says. I can think of no truer words regarding prose, and I think it would be wrong to bar people commenting on prose when they have not edited.
Re no more than a third at once, is that an attempt to specifically bar Sandy? Geogre, there's a critical difference that needs to be kept clear: making fact requests, which Sandy rarely does, and requesting proper source information and reliability, which she does on almost every review. These are two distinct issues. I have heard you complain about fan writing and video game sites used as references, etc. Well who do you think checks for them? No one regularly, except her. We need more, not less of it, or FACs will consist of "Support! --User:PokemonFan," when the article is riddled with bad sourcing. You don't try to kill an FAC just because it's about pop music or a video game?—well, you shouldn't. But you should try to kill an FAC when its material is based on "Sam's Video Game Blog." This shit is practically never systematically checked for and any rule that would reduce its getting checked is a bad one.
"No person may proclaim him/herself an expert on "what is a featured article" unless she or he has written at least three of them." I don't know anyone who's proclaiming that at present. Though I agree about pointing to a norm—we should encourage people to refer to another FA when discussing supposed deficiencies in a current candidate. On the little things, I agree on pictures; make a good faith effort to find them, but if you can’t, you can’t. And, of course, I agree on cite.php. No one is arguing that it must be used and WIAFA doesn’t say it must be.
One general point on all of it: I don’t know how we could possibly police most of the suggestions. Remove comments from people who only have two FACs and not three? Strike them through? Leave user talk notes telling people to go away? How can we do any of that? I don’t have the capability or desire to reign anybody in. I close FARs because I’ve been the one’s closing FARs, along with Joel, (it just happened, as these things often do) and because the relative merits of having one or two known closers has been agreed upon. But you or I or whoever, can’t dictate to people what they say when they show up. We can try to create norms to counteract bad practice (I was thinking as much with this, which has yet to take off) but a series of bright lines re who and who cannot comment will almost certainly fail.
Finally, (good Christ this a long post) of the fourteen people who commented above, twelve have, in fact, had the "good faith of having written FA's of their own." I finished an FAC two days ago. It wasn’t toxic, petty, or self-obsessed. The people who comment do, generally, edit the encyclopedia. Marskell 13:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like, however, to propose a special case. I am very tired of the "delist, only has (so-and-so many) footnotes." comment, with nothing else, which requires only the ability to count (and doesn't always get it). This frequently is about articles which are largely written out of a single, obvious, source (like Isaac Asimov, which was clearly written out of his autobiography), and which would not have a word of text changed if they were collated with that source. If every sentence were footnoted, the chief difficulty for the reader would still be laying hands on the printed source.
There are two cases here. Either WP makes claims which are unlikely or probably corrupt: in which case no-one's watching the article, or the original writing was bad. In that case the opposer should specify them, so they can be checked.
Or it doesn't. It was done right; other readers knowledgable on the subject have left it alone; it is being watched. In which case, what's the problem?
Footnotes do not preserve a page from corruption. They will stabilize a good page, because a good editor will hesitate to change a statement with a note without checking the source; they will also, for the same reason, stabilize a bad page. But any editor should know that footnotes get moved from statements they support to statements they don't support; that footnotes are used by POV editors in support of statements which the source cited does not defend; that statements will have their meaning changed or reversed, despite a footnote, and often in good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I should like to answer Marksell, but let me address one thing here, first. Footnotes do not mean anything, by themselves. Would an unscrupulous person who is intent on lying by using no sources suddenly scruple at fabricating sources? The point to a citation is that it allows others to check, and yet, if our experts-at-FA do not know anything about the field, they not only will not check the sources, but cannot check them (unless they're to Joe's Video Blog). Errors, fabrications, and distortions of sources are normal for anyone who grades undergraduate research papers. Plagiarism, misunderstanding, and misapplication are the constant companions of the naive researcher. Oh, there are notes, but they're not accurate or meaningful.
If our desire is reliability, then we need to make the cited sources as easily found as possible. A parenthetical reference integrates the cited source into the sentence itself. If I say that our first job in reading poetry is to make out the plain sense of the line (Pound 4), then you read the name of the citation as part of the reading experience. It isn't a blind bluff with a number that may or may not refer to something. On the other hand, checking citations when superscripts are used means constantly having to cease reading the native context to flip to the bottom and then flip back to the top. This alienates the citation from the prose, segregates the cited material into a ghetto little different from a "bibliography," and makes the bits cited ambiguous. It's much easier for me, anyway, to read along and say, "I've read The ABC of Reading, and that stuff isn't in there. It's in the ABZ of Reading, which is about Pound and not by Pound" than to say, "Ok, that's a book. So's that. Yes, they're both about Pound. Hmm. Is that supposed to be from there?"
If we want reliability, then we need to avoid anything that makes the citation obscure, and we need to make sure that references are checked. Otherwise, holding up such an absurdity as "footnotes make it reliable" is nothing but a dodge. Geogre 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
My experience is that sheer fabrication is not often a problem; and with internet databases it is often exposed. ("No, Prof. Ohno didn't write such an article for the Journal of Irreproducible Results in 2003; here's their table of contents.") Our problem is the researcher that Knows the Truth and uses scholar.google.com to find the phrase he wants without reading the source itself. (Since he Knows the Truth, he knows what it says without reading it.) He will then cite the article as a support for his POV; and usually it doesn't - but it takes a university library to see that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, total fabrication of a source can occur with any citation format used, and is really very rare (tho I suppose we should watch our WP:BEANS). What does happen a lot is edit warriors selectively reverting or adding quotes from a source out of context, and then slapping down the ref tag in the hopes people won't notice. Not a problem limited to FAs, obviously, and hard to consistently guard against. Marskell 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both of you that fabrication is rare. That's partly my point. Contrary to what Lucifer Morgan says, above and below, this is not about people who don't care about references. It is not about people talking out of their hats. This is about when and how. I would never dream of saying, "Object! You have footnotes!" I wish that Sandy and Lucifer Morgan would pause before saying, "Object! Does not have footnotes." I would not say, "Object! Puts far too many references, makes the prose choppy, seems to have nothing to say." On the other hand, "Do you have a citation to show that this happened in Canada" is "guarding" against bad work. If people aren't going to fabricate footnotes, then they're not going to fabricate their accounts, and if they are going to fabricate their accounts, then they won't have a problem fabbing the cites, too. Unless we go to serious, actual peer review, the masquerade of footnotes is a travesty. Geogre 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you show me where Sandy has said "Object! Does not have footnotes"? You can find fastidious stuff re dashes, dates and numbers, and publisher info (being fastidious is not a crime) but "Object! Does not have footnotes"? No, I don't think so. It's obviously a shibboleth of yours but it's becoming odd, because no one is disagreeing with you. Do you want to go to WP:WIAFA and add "not required" after the sentence about meta.cite? I don't mind. Maybe it would solve one argument.
And you ought to note "Object! Puts far too many references, makes the prose choppy, seems to have nothing to say" if you honestly believe that the prose is choppy and it has nothing to say... Marskell 07:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't say "Object! Does not have footnotes" also, for the record - tell the truth for a change Geogre, or is it too hard? LuciferMorgan 19:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility and the zeitgeist

Many editors have probably noticed all four of these, but for those who don't have all the pages on their watchlist, there have been conversations with a similar background at WT:GA/R, WT:GA, WT:FAC and WT:FAR in the last few days. I'm posting this note at all four places, to make the point that incivility (of various levels) and needlessly aggravating language is noticed and has a real impact. Here are some section links:

I don't have a prescription for this, but it doesn't seem coincidental to me that these threads are all going on at once. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the FA discussions and the GA discussions are independent; but the judgmental tone invoked by review may be a common cause in both. If Bishonen, one of our quietest editors, is complaining, we have a real problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's all related to citations; one group is for them, another is against them. A simple story really. LuciferMorgan 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you fail to understand, or are you intentionally misrepresenting? I hope I am the most extreme in my position on references, and I'm all for them. They should be used where appropriate and should be parenthetical citations. Superscripts may never, ever be used as an excuse for voting against an article, and "where appropriate" means not common knowledge. Some people, on the other hand, do not inform themselves of what's in an article, lack or pretend to lack even a college education, and count numbers rather than read articles. That they then will go through and try to "review" every single article on FAC and even think to try to suggest that they know whether each and every one is a Featured Article is so absurd as to be self-negating. Geogre 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't fail to understand at all, and I am not deliberately misrepresenting - are you failing to understand, or are intentionally misrepresenting? Various individuals try dressing up their reasons, but it comes down to one thing; they're either for citations, or against them. Anyone can try any which way to dispute that, but I don't feel they can dispute it at all given what's happened at FAR in the past. I even heard someone suggest reinstating brilliant prose, which I found to be a rather absurd and even ill conceived comment. With parenthetical citations, that's one of many options open to FAs on how to meet verifiability though it isn't exclusive. LuciferMorgan 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Geogre and Lucifer, remeber to keep civil. This is my only warning to both fo you. Thank you. Joelito (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure. N.b. the distinction between asking, as I did, and then being told what my real motives are, my real desires are, etc. This is why I rarely bother trying to be polite with that editor. It's going to be nasty one edit later anyway. Geogre 10:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no "dressing up"; the arguments in the two threads above seem both considered and explicit. The positions are not about being either for or against cite.php; more as to when it is explicitly required. A moderate view would be to utilize the template to support stats, quotes etc. A more severe view wants to shout, at every opportunity: this is what I paraphrased. And maybe we should aim towards more than paraphrasing, ie synthesis. Ceoil 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't think it's a "for or against" citations issue for most people. A few may be boxed into those positions, but most will judge an article fairly, I believe. qp10qp 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I really don't like cite.php. I won't use it. I have very nice explanations for it, but we're not really at the point where I even need to offer them, as footnotes are not required of FA's. That's just the truth. I adhere to academic standards when I write, and that seems sufficient. More footnotes does not mean more researched or more right or more reliable. (Cite.php isn't the first of these footnote formats. I hope folks know that there were "cited" articles that became uncited with the change. Parenthetical references don't get outmoded, don't disappear in a cloud of formatting, do not vanish in machine code, and do not suddenly require FAR. Not only are they easier for the reader, clearer for a person checking the work, but they are also more permanent and therefore "reliable.") Geogre 10:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
They are fine; and I hope no one has objected to them, because they would be entirely wrong to do so. Sometimes I feel that people who object to lack of inline citing are just objecting to lack of cite.php—usually a giveaway that they haven't read the article properly. They need to grasp that when the text is saying something like "John Smith in his History of Beer says that that Tolly Cobbold..." that that is as good a form of attribution as any extra- or supra-textual system. Formal parenthetical references of the Harvard type are also in order, of course, but I don't see them very often in history books, and so I use the "notes and references" system. which I actually enjoy using (though not "refname =" multirefs, which in my opinion make the edit page intractable in places). qp10qp 16:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA Review process problems

I'm a longstanding WP participant, a sysop, and all that good stuff.

But I see a problem. I've been an active and longstanding contributro to the Attack on Pearl harbor article, have it one my watchlist, and regularly review edits to it (at least twice a week and sometimes daily).

At the risk of displaying my lamentable lack of mastery of all things WP for all to see, I note that the very first time I knew its FA status was even underconsideration was when I noted today on the Talk page that it has been removed from the FA list. After chasing around some, I located the now archived discussion page and was appalled. I counted two people who objected (on various grounds) to continuing FA status, one who opposed, and nothing else.

I have two main observations on this. First, and most importantly, it should not be possible for such a process to begin, continue and reach a conclusion in so stealthy a way. This article (and the underlying topic) is one of considerable controversy (see the archive of discussions, the history of edits, and the parallel Alternative theory page). Had the reclassification been less stealthy, I am certain that there would have been more than three or four contributors to the discussion. In particular, the observation that the article includes more than is necessary misses the very large point that this event is the resultant of long series of trends and pressures on both sides with roots reaching back for some time. It is otherwise inexplicable in a fundamental sense.

Second, an issue of considerable import for WP itself. Such an article as this is perhaps an extreme case, but being so presents the issue in stark clarity. Feelings and interpretations about the underlying events are strongly held, and the existing article reflects the result of considerable strenuous and sustained effort from editors of all views. That this history does not have any apparent weight in a reconsideration of featured status is a defect in WP processes. It is not, in principle, possible to decide (without knowledge of the underlying events, as self-stated by the main objector to continuing FA status) that an article is of FA quality from merely structural and textual considerations.

There are echoes here of the longstanding controversy between post-modern deconstructional concerns and an older concern for content. However that may be, WP must not if it is to live up to its ideal of quality, be reduced to merely formal criteira for deterimining its best work.


In this case, the process established for that determination has failed. Whether or not this article is well-written is not something that I will contest (I have problems with it in that respect), but its content is exemplary of the best work WP can do. That should be recognized, and perhaps even by FA status.

Evidence of at least one serious issue that should be addressed.

Comments, please? ww 11:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It was an old Emsworth nom so no talk page messages were left. Messages were left at the Shipwrecks, Hawaii, MilHist and United States WikiProjects. And the FAR message would have sat on its talk for a month. Notifying people is the main reason the reviews are so long, so it's really unfortunate that you missed it. Going back to FAC won't hurt. Marskell 12:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You raise a very valid concern, ww... while WP sometimes seems overloaded with procedure and process, i.e. bureaucracy and red-tape, these structures still often manage to fail when they are needed most. As Marskell points out, in this particular case, messages were left at a number of projects, including WP:Japan and the Japanese task force within WPMilHist, in addition to the ones he named. Frequently, this is the case, and notices are posted in a great many places; as he points out, the process is left for a long time so that editors will have a chance to contribute to the discussion. Nevertheless, for one reason or another, all too often, in FAR, AfD, etc it seems that things slip through the cracks and editors (i.e. myself) fail to become aware (or to be made aware) of discussions, votes, or debates going on.
I think some of the crucial elements of the problem are (a) as WP is based on the idea that no one "owns" their contributions, there is no formal way for an editor like yourself, who has contributed extensively to the article, to be known and recognized, and therefore to be contacted. (b) WikiProjects and noticeboards are not sufficiently incorporated into the notification processes of FAR and other things. Those people who work extensively in the realms of FAR, AfD, etc follow their own processes and procedures, as people who focus on content and on Portals, WikiProjects, and noticeboards are, but the two do not communicate sufficiently well.
I would love to see great changes made in both these areas, but I really don't know if they can be without it being a very gradual and organic process. Either that, or a great number of the most active and well-known and respected admins would have to get together and make it happen. On the first point, there is a template for "this article's chief contributor is so-and-so" or something like that; I need to find it and make efforts to include it on more of my articles. Not for "ownership" per se, in the sense of any right to have it not changed, but just in order to foster better etiquette, communication, and cooperation in acknowledgment and respect for others' contributions. On the second point, there are editors out there (I run into a handful quite frequently) who do make extensive efforts to effect communications between projects, etc. But many of these processes (AfD, FAR, etc) request that a notice be placed on the article's talk page, and do not require (or request) notices on the pages for related WikiProjects, noticeboards, or heavily involved editors. Perhaps the distribution of notices could even be automated somehow?
Anyway, thanks again for bringing this up. While I myself lack the ability to effect any great changes, I certainly hope that people will notice this conversation, and some changes might be spurred. LordAmeth 12:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
What would be ideal is if the FA bot could generate a notice for people in the article history. We talked about that recently, but I'm a bot dummy so I don't know if it's possible. Marskell 12:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a cgi somewhere offsite that lists the contributors to the article ranked by number of edits. I think Raul pointed out a few months ago, but I can't find it now. That might help. Yomanganitalk 13:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I also know nothing about coding. I think the best thing would be if we could somehow spur more widespread use of that template that says "so-and-so is heavily involved in working on this article. S/he would be happy to answer any questions relating to the topic and/or his/her contributions, and would appreciate being consulted or at least notified before major changes are made" or whatever it is that it says. Once articles can be self-identified by the primary contributors to them, it might be easier for a bot or a human to know who to notify. Admittedly, this invites the chaos and vandalism of people attaching their names to articles they're not actually responsible for or interested in, but... LordAmeth 12:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
In addition, shouldn't there be some sort of minimum vote count to validate a decision? 2-1 with me being the 1 sounds like a bit too small a sample size to base a decision on. The result should have been "no action taken" instead. I do not know much about how featured articles work (do they get bonus points, are they in a FA wiki, or is it a status symbol), but the changes that have been made since 2004 have been positive ones. Does this mean that FA status has a time limit? I guess we will need to bring it back to FAC status, and address the issues found at that time. It can't do much harm, right? The idea that we did not cover the reasons for the attack enough and yet covered it too much at the same time was so unclear to me that I just left it alone. In addition, next time one of these things happens, I will be sure to BE BOLD and make sure the talk page has more than one comment on it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CodeCarpenter (talk • contribs)
Comment above is unsigned, so I don't know who's asking the question, but when every major WikiProject involved with the article is notified, with explicit instructions about how the process works, then sufficient input/feedback was provided for consensus. The use of the word "stealthy" could not be less applicable to a process, considering the extensive effort that goes into notifications about FARs, and the length of time an article is at FAR, with a notice at the top of the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I doublechecked one last thing, and the FAR was correctly notified on the talk page and in the edit summary, so any regular editor following the article should have caught the notification via watchlist. I should also note that I run through every single FAR and make sure the talk page notification wasn't missed; once, it was, so we extended the FAR an additional period after the talk page was notified. (I think that was at War Elephant.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yomangani, I'm in a hurry, but it's in the userbox on my user page (I think it's called article stats). I don't think there is another process on Wiki as well notified as FAR, since we go to great pains to notify Projects and original editors, and I don't think the criticism is valid because of that. The original poster says s/he had the article watchlisted, in which case the FAR template placed on the article would have shown up on watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's it [5]. If you do get a bot to do it, using that might save a bit of work. Yomanganitalk 14:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finding it (I was dashing out to the dentist); yes, if we had an automated means of notification, using that script to idetify and notify the top five editors would be good (which again, means, unless Ww was a top five editor, he would need to have the page watchlisted). The current problem is that only a few of us are doing the notifications (manually), and it's tedious, boring work. Any help would be appreciated, but we go above and beyond (I think) any other process to put out the word as widely as possible, and for an entire month, which is fairly liberal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just checked, Ww is in the top five, so that script would pick him up. But ... it should still be pointed out that these notifications are an additional, courtesy, volunteer effort, and the talk page FAR template is the official notification. Regular editors should have the talk page watchlisted, in which case, they should know when the article is at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just had a look at the talk page for that article, and it's very busy. Usually an article with such a busy talk page would have been saved, but none of the posters there appear to have noticed that the article was up for FAR. I strongly suspect the reason is something to do with the way people read talk pages: if they are like me, they look to the bottom of the page for the latest information, not to the top. I often miss new labels and tags that way. I also doubt people read their watchlists carefully: what I do is scan down it quickly for substantial edits and probably don't take in tagging edits, on the whole, of which there are many all day long. Another thing is that not all the edits appear on my watchlist, for some reason. So my suggestion is that a notification of FAR should go on the bottom of the talk page as well and that an eyecatching edit summary be devised to indicate that the FAR tag has been added; this could be repeated for a move to FARC. I must say, though, that the thoughtful Sandy does a wonderful job (without any obligation to do so) of notifying extra pages, and that this doesn't happen too often. qp10qp 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A section break

Adding the FAR template at the bottom of the page creates some problems, as they then get archived and/or don't get GimmeBotified, and have to be removed as they populate the FAR category even after closing, but a mention of the FAR in a talk page section (without the template) might be good. I read busy talk pages on important articles I watchlist differently than you do; I go back to the last version I reviewed, and do a compare to be sure I get everything new. Thanks for the kind words; I don't mean to sound defensive, but I don't know how much more we can do unless someone automates it, and I do think the word "stealthy" is misapplied here.And now, dashing out again to the eye doctor! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
First I would like to apologize for not signing my comment. I do forget the tilde's and HagermanBot has gotten a Barnstar from me for the many, many times I forget it. (I am surprised it didn't sign this one for me). My suggestions and questions about a minimum threshold are still valid though. Second, I did not use the word stealthy, but I do not disagree with it. It figuratively "went under the radar" (not intentionally, we know) of the people that most would have commented. From what I know of ww, he was using it not in a derogatory sense, but in a military sense. When three people vote and it causes a change in an article's status, that is surprising. I did notice the review and commented on it, but felt the lack of other response was proof enough that the article was fine and that my comment covered it. Had there been three or four "me too's" out there, I guess it would not have been an issue. It was a bad assumption on my part, but it was based upon a previous RfC that I had done, where response was scant and agreeable and therefore nothing was done. CodeCarpenter 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Look, I remembered the tildes this time. :) )
No need to apologize, CodeCarpenter; I only mentioned it because I was in a hurry between doc app'ts, didn't have time to check and add the unsigned template myself, and didn't know who wrote what. Anyway, I strongly disagree that there isn't consensus on these cases, considering the wide notifications we do. If other editors felt strongly one way or another, they would — and often do — weigh in. Certainly, automation (using the articlestats) would be an additional improvement (or at least remove a boring, manual, tedious chore), but FAR experience suggests additional notifications probably won't make a big difference. Most articles that are defeatured lose their star because no one is watching them and they have deteriorated to a point that repair is difficult, while most that retain their stars have active, involved editors — notification is a additional courtesy that we do to cast a wider net and hopefully find more editors interested in improving the article, but it rarely changes the outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The issue you bring up is one that has deviled Wikipedia from its earliest days: quorum. The various WikiProjects have announced steamroller-like "consensus" for changing "all" articles to a particular form. The projects can then go to an article with fifteen to twenty heavy editors and then try to cow them. FAR and FAC are even more frightening, if they go without quorum. I do not believe that any two people are sufficiently wise or careful to decide for all others that an article is not FA, nor really that it is FA. I would love a quorum to be established particularly for the destructive process of FARC, but also for FAC. In fact, an FAR with fewer "demote" voices than there were "promote" voices on the FAC is contra-consensual in the strictest sense. Either way, there simply has to be some safeguard against some one or two "regulars" getting to impose their own prejudices or desires on the entirety of the FA population. Geogre 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain with an analogy. On AfD, an article that gets only two "votes" won't usually get closed, unless it's a blindingly obvious case of deletion. Instead, it will get re-listed. How, then, can we take admittedly good, or every good articles, or even excellent articles, and remove their FA status simply with fewer than that voices weighing in? At the minimum, there really needs to be a quorum as well as consensus. Geogre 19:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent articles don't usually get removed, be it with two or twenty comments. Do you have examples? Marskell 20:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor/archive1, which started this section. The citation needed tags are for statements like "The Vichy French acquiesced to the Japanese takeover." or "The impact of Pearl Harbor has been compared to...9/11." Both are true; I'm not sure the second needs to be in the article. There's also a PoV complaint; a solution was suggested in the discussion, but not implemented; and there seems to have been three voices heard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Totally overwhelming TOC, weblinks thrown in unformatted, different quote styles, over-quotation, "listishness," one sentence paragraphs, and POV concerns brought up by reviewers. Plus, it's absolutely massive (hence the overwhelming TOC). I wouldn't call it excellent. I think it's a good example of one type of old FA: a well known historical topic, randomly edited by a lot of people and still good, but sloppy. (In some ways the opposite of The Country Wife, which has preserved its consistency and only looks "off" to cite counters). Marskell 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If Marskell's criticism had been in the FAR, I would not have cited it, even as a weak example. (I still don't agree with the POV criticisms, but I have less tolerance for nationalist self-pity than most.) But in fact it was delisted by two or three voices, mostly with bogus or non-actionable criticisms. This could have happened to an excellent article as easily as this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Examples? This section is an example, Marksell. That you can make an argument against the article is not really surprising. "If it's not an F, you haven't graded it hard enough" was one boss of mine's philosophy, and he was right: you can do it, if you want. The point is not whether the article's inmost essence was superior or inferior, but rather whether there was adequate review and quorum. If there are two "regulars" offering to demote an article, that simply isn't a sufficient set of opinions for the review to be meaningful. More to the point, it is such that the article never had a chance for improvement because a massive talk page had a line at the top and then, whoosh, off it goes. Geogre 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Quorum is important in any demotive motion. If we delete an article, the worst thing that will happen is that a person who is not very well aware of Wikipedia's content will go away. If we demote and insult and badger and snort at an FA, the worst thing that will happen is that a person very well aware of our needs, with great experience, with high writing skill and intimate knowledge of a specialized area will "go fuck themselves" and decide never to have anything more to do with the process. Geogre 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Quorum is hard to achieve without letting reviews go for months and it is even harder to define. If there are 1,000,000 Wikipedia users what can be defined as quorum?

My rule is very simple. If after a month no work is being done on an article that has outstanding concerns then I will demote it. Joelito (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then let me know, so I can re-promote it, as you'll be acting without any consensus or legitimacy. If there is not a sufficient number of reviewers, then leave it be. It's that simple. If there is nothing -- just two people voicing "concerns," then that means that no demotion can take place. What is the potential harm of leaving a "with concerns" article as an FA? Now, what are the harms of acting like a bully and demoting articles that have not had review? One is that some FA's don't look like the others. The other is that a group of serious, dedicated, hard working Wikipedians turn hostile or leave the project. You're not that important, not that central, not that big: you do not get to decide for other people, and neither do I. I do not trust you or anyone, and that is why I trust everyone. No community consensus: no action. Geogre 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so FA should become like adminship then: “here’s your pass, we’ll never ask for it back.” If we put your two ideas above and here together:
1. Put restrictions on FAC so that anything can pass, since your proposals encourage "fan support" by restricting input to only those who have edited the article and have a vested interest; and
2. Put restrictions on FAR so that nothing can fail.
Voila. We’ll get our 100k FAs in no time. No, there’s no real harm leaving an FA that has concerns. But there’s no harm in removing either, where legitimate concerns have been raised and no one is editing—all that happens is the little star is removed. If a non-trivial cleanup tag were on an FA, should we keep it because only three people came to the review? The comparison to AfD is not apt, because a negative AfD vote means the article disappears.
As for people leaving, you can hang that albatross around the neck of this process but it can't really be answered. People are always leaving (which is often sad) or threatening to leave (which is often stupid) but it’s not unique to FA—AfD, RfA, gigabyte-sized Arb cases, and just ordinary content disputes are enough for that. If someone really wants to go, they’ll always find an excuse, and if someone wants to tell you to fuck off they can do it here, there, or anywhere.
But really, you’re not being entirely genuine either. What you want to say in all this is "Marskell, you’re a pencil pushing FAR egomaniac." Hmm? Well, at least do it on my talk page so I can respond in a single thread. All I can tell you is that the pay sucks and the interpersonal rewards have consisted of long-winded tell offs from you (I suppose I shouldn’t speak about long-windedness) and juvenile tell offs from the cite counters. I won’t speak for Joel, but if closing FARs is meant to flatter my on-line ego I’m doing a piss poor job of it. Ha! Marskell 08:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No, and your reductio ad absurdum isn't appreciated. An FA has already gotten review, and hopefully by quite a few people (perhaps they should not be promoted without quorum as well), and saying that it should be demoted without multiple reviews is insane. I am not trying to say that anyone is a pencil pushing anything. I find Tony1 and SandyGeorgia to be bad reviewers, and Lucifer Morgan is so bad a reviewer in my opinion as to be beneath comment, and yet they have managed to bottleneck FA and hurtle FAR's. The way to handle the concerns I voiced far up the page is that an irrational or inappropriate "object" is merely that it is inactionable and that Raul will not pay attention to it upon promotion. This is how we have always handled such things, including fan support. In fact, the Lord Emsworth FA's that you find troublesome I found troublesome at the time, and yet he was a regular. He had a trail of ducklings following behind him who voted to support. Any time any persons become "regulars" at FAC or FAR, you've got a bad system, because you've got people creating a wake. I have seen one or two people who are "regulars" at FAC object, have their objections ignored (as inactionable), and then immediately FAR the article that got promoted (and mutter dark thoughts about Raul all the while).
However, inaction costs us nothing -- absolutely nothing -- while hasty, personalized, narrow minded, uneducated action costs us contributors and contributions.
FA's need multiple points of view, and they need people who read the things. FAR's need to be slowed down drastically. I think some of the low culture FA's have been promoted precisely because the "regulars" at FAC don't read the articles. One made it onto the main page with "it was released to near unanimous reviews." "Near unanimous?" "Reviews?" The only way that the need for the adverb is missed is by simply not reading. I'm sure it had thousands of footnotes.
FAC should be a duty for any serious content contributor. It should not be the demesne of people interested in making FA's instantly recognizable. FAR should be horrifically slow. If we have "no consensus, keep" for deletion, then we absolutely should have it for FA's.
As for people leaving, that was no albatross on a painted ocean. "I go fuck myself" from Bishonen combines with Giano saying he would never have a thing to do with FAR and my deciding that it was impossible to go to FAC or work toward FA status on any article ever again and with similar vows of others (including Filiocht, whose work is now a favored target): these are people leaving anything to do with the high contributions. They leave FAC and leave it to fans and nasty regulars. They decide that they don't want to work months on an article only to have someone incapable of reading the thing say, "Sentences are too long" or "These footnotes are not what I like" or "Can you prove that the English Restoration occurred in 1660?" The FAC reviews are mean spirited, and the FAR's are automatic. Any person with any nomination for any reason, and "there are serious concerns" and from there it's automatic.
These concerns deserve a change in practice, not personalization. Geogre 11:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear about one thing, User:Jay32183 did the cussing that started this. Criticism is fine, and of course you're free to find Tony and Sandy bad reviewers, but Tony and Sandy do not walk around telling people to fuck off. Agreed? I just want to avoid guilt-by-association and conflating users. One general pattern: Lucifer's worst habits and propensity for stupid comments have been conflated with other people, which I honestly think is at the root of a lot these arguments. It's not as if I enjoy logging in and being told to fuck off because I've kept an article. What to do about general incivlity? Drive-by shouting? I don't know, but it certainly isn't a problem you can pin solely on FA.
Out of curiosity, I did a diff comparison when W.B. Yeats came up. This is at the time of featuring, and this is it when it came to FAR. Significantly different, and in many ways deteriorated. It would simply be inaccurate to say that the second has already gotten review, that it doesn't need a FAR, or that we need to have an equal number of removals to balance the supports from three years ago—we're talking about different pages. I assume the articles you've taken to FAC are largely static, because you log in most days. As often as not, the opposite is true—the page has worsened or wasn't in particularly good shape to begin with, a la Emsworth's—in which case deferring to a three old review doesn't make sense. Attack on Pearl Harbor never even had a review, AFAICS—it was simply acclaimed FA by Emsworth and mav.[6] There's not even an argument in this case.
But, happily, the Yeats page has seen a lot of work in the last three weeks and will almost certainly be kept, which leads to point two. It's not automatic Geogre, not all. I often really agonize over closures (no, no that's not a Mr. Big comment). If it were automatic then Restoration Literature, Global Warming, or, a small recent example, United Kingdom Corporation Tax might have been removed. The most basic idea followed here is that if people are working, if people are saying "I'm maintaining this," then it's not removed. I don't mind criticism of this process—I don't even mind radically re-working it, as suggested below, if there are better ideas—but please, there are no blind removals here. If you have examples of "hasty, personalized, narrow minded, uneducated action" in closing them, point it out so it can be corrected it.
And it's already a slow process—FARs stay up as much as ten weeks. Perhaps, it should be horrifically slow and not just slow, although there is a bit of a push-pull problem. We don't need to wait three more years to get through some of them. But more on that at the bottom of the thread in a minute. Marskell 15:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"My rule is very simple. If after a month no work is being done on an article that has outstanding concerns then I will demote it. Joelito (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)" sounds pretty automatic. What are "outstanding concerns?" Post-facto, it's easy to come up with concerns. Imperfection is an argument for working, and putting people on a schedule (you must begin working on this NOW! I said NOW!) on an FAR is pretty inconsistent. Where are all those people who argue that stubs should stick around forever because someone some day might some time add to them? The damage done to the world of having an FA that has "outstanding concerns" is what? Utgard Loki 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
NOW! and one month are not synonyms. And who the hell posts "you must begin working on this NOW!"? Certainly not Joel. If you'd rather not edit, don't. Regardless, this will be moot if the idea below is instituted. Marskell 18:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no NOW at FAR; a month is a long time, and it is always extended when editors are actively working on an article. "Outstanding concerns" typically means that a list or discussion of issues to be addressed was covered in the review phase, yet no one has responded, attempted to address them—or ask for more time—in the month the article was at review. Not at all unreasonable. If there is no problem in having articles around that don't meet standards after a long review period, then there is no point in having certain articles designated as featured, as standards become irrelevant. ----
Interjecting something related. Not long ago, a point-of-view pusher brought an article here with various claims it was "unencyclopedic" and "incomplete", but provided nothing concrete to work on. Then came back two weeks later to vote remove, citing previous claims. At that point, nominator added a couple fact tags and asserted that any article with a fact tag can be no better than start class. Even if the article has issues, if the editor initiating the review cannot formulate specific, concrete issues to address, the article should not go to the FARC stage, let alone be removed, in my opinion. Such gaming the system should not be allowed. Gimmetrow 03:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
But that article wasn't tracking to be defeatured for POV, precisely because the nominator never established the POV. The article had substantial other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but those issues were only identified four weeks into the process. You know the system was gamed in that case. Gimmetrow 04:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second

Folks,

I'm surprised and impressed that so much thoughtful comment got flushed out of the woods by my post. Evidence of the better side of WP to counterbalance the too common unfortunate edit wars and other buffonery.

Let's see if I can tease out some of the most significant points, at least as I see them.

  • First, I intended no prejorative sense in my use of stealthy. I meant, merely, invisible. And I think the point made by Qp1oqp (that name would make a reasonable, if too short, password though not now, it having been noted as such -- mysterious how some usernames get chosen) that not all editors / watchlisters actually see a post (in this case a tag) is correct. It has long been a flaw in my view that page histories do not note how many edits are hidden behind a visible edit summary. I can't account for my missing it (them) in this case and I try to examine every edit on those pages I patrol. Such an editor (Ah, hmmm. Virtuous, responsible, pure of heart, strength of ten, ...) should not be blindsideable in this way. I'm not sure just what would have caught my eye in this instance. Perhaps it's just failing eyesight, but many others would also seem to have missed the relevant notices, so the eyesight cause isn't really all that plausible.

As for notice being posted on various project pages, this is plainly and without doubt insufficeint. I belong to only one such project (my time is not infinite nor infinitely available to WP), and so no such notice would have reached me. A better solution would be to post a bot comment noting such actions on editors' talk pages who have watchlisted an article. I would certainly not have missed such, even with bifocal affliction.

That I'm one of the top five editors for this article astonishes me. I've done little but pick at copyedits for quite a while, aside from assorted talk page discussions.

  • Second, Geogre makes a point which is also significant, in my view. With which CodeCarpenter agrees. An article of distinction should not, however notice has been made, be de-distinctioned without more participation than a small handful of editors. I'd suggest agreement by, say, a minimum of half a dozen, failing which there should be a Scotch verdict (namely, no action). If nothing else, too low a hurdle raises the possibility of gaming the system for unacceptable reasons, as in the example given above. Few, I trust, think this acceptable. Merely leaving the issue open for a time is insufficient protection against this knavery. Articles once good enough to have merited distinction (in this case, FA) should not be too easily demoted. Most particularly when there is ample evidence of an active and mostly responsible editing community, as there certainly was in this case.
  • Third with regard to formal quality metrics. It is certainly true that WP standards of excellence have become more formal (footnotes, citations, and all that) than when I first began to contribute, and I think this is generally beneficial. it discourages the monomaniacs. But like all good things, this can be taken too far. I think SandyGeorgia and Marskell (relax, not picking on anyone personally), have done so in this case. The article is certainly not perfect and would well benefit from an annealing copyedit of someone with a gift fot the langauge (not me! I can just barely type). But that's an artistic criterion which would be apropriate in a perfect world we (and WP) do not alas inhabit. We cannot insist on brilliant prose, however much we invite and encourage it. A masterfully done, if plodding article is a Good Thing as well, and worthy of note. This article is not perfect, and should be improved in formal respects as well. Sufficiently badly to be delisted? I think not. Though perhaps a case may be made for changing to notable status.

WP articles cannot actually be held to the strict standards suggested here. WP editors are too active, and articles (especially contnetious ones like this, though it seems to be going through a quiter phase of late) changing too quickly to do so. Perhaps recognition of this reality should be included in the various distinction tests, at least more so than the somewhat bland notice in the tags.

Congratulations all on a good example of civil discourse in reapect to an actual problem.

Does anyone think concensus can be reached on the basis of what has been said so far, or should we invite further comment? ww 10:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting this response here, so not to interfere with consensus gathering on proposal below): I think SandyGeorgia and Marskell (relax, not picking on anyone personally), have done so in this case. The article is certainly not perfect and would well benefit from an annealing copyedit of someone with a gift fot the langauge (not me! I can just barely type). Question, ww. In this case? How did I get involved in Attack on Pearl Harbor? If you'll note, I made not one comment on the review; and I'll add that if I had gotten involved in that review, we wouldn't be having this discussion now because 1) I would have taken a look at whether there were other issues in the article, and 2) I would have tried to drum up some regular editors or ask why they hadn't participated. I was busy; I'd appreciate you not making me part of a review I wasn't involved in. Geogre has been doing that for a long time, and I overlook his comments because that's what he does; I can't see why you're doing it, unless you're curiously believing Geogre's statements about me above. As to consensus, no I don't agree with any of these proposals, as they are based on exceptions rather than norms. I'm sorry you missed all the notifications, but they are ample. I'd be thrilled if someone would write a bot to do the tedious work, but in the meantime, any help on notifying the top editors of articles is welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No attempt at dragging you into something you weren't already immersed in. You took a position, a reasoned one, and I noted it was of a type with which I disagreed. No personal imputations at all, save re your opinion. As for anything between you and Geogre, I must abstain. I knew, and even now know, nothing about any such. I'm taking no sides on any such connnection. ww 15:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Re notices, if part of the point of this thread is that people shouldn't play God with FAs (which I don't dispute) than surely the corollary is that no one is under any obligation to provide notices at all, if they'd rather not. Yes, a talk notice would've better alerted you—if you'd like to program a bot to do this, it would no doubt aid in getting feedback in future. As it stands, Gimme volunteers time on his bot and it's up to him as to whether to program such a function; and the people who do notify are simply doing a courtesy. There isn't a single process that I know of that comes close to the amount of notifications people attempt with FAR, as "plainly and without doubt insufficeint" as they may be. With the previous FARC process you could slap the nom tag on and that was it—this process-heavy page exists partly for that reason. Even with an AfD you don't have to notify the article creator.
As regards the metrics in closing, if we'd like to avoid more form-filling we'll have to come up with something better than "half-a-dozen say X and it goes." Admittedly, Pearl Harbor is a borderline case, but what do we do with a deteriorated and clearly not standard FA that gets three remove comments? We keep it? That doesn't make sense. The "no contest" ruling is, of course, integral to most Wiki processes but FAC, for one, does not solely work that way. It balances consensus versus the single outstanding objection idea: is there an oppose on a critical issue that needs to be taken care of and hasn't been. I don't see that it's different with a FAR, and then you ask a related question: would this pass FAC right now? The Attack on Pearl Harbor article would not.
The present system is a year-old tomorrow, incidentally. We don't have to be tied to it. One idle thought <clears throat and grimaces> would be to merge FAC and FAR. It would be a logistical horror at first, and people are already complaining about so much bureaucracy in Raul's hands, but it would solve the issue of parallel review criteria and would increase exposure on a given FAR. Marskell 11:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Support Terrific idea. The standards of FAC and FAR should be the same and what is happening is identical; namely whether a particular article is qualified to be an FA..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Support as well.
  • As a newbie, the FAC process was strange and difficult, and my attempt on Carnivorous plant apparently failed. Then, the FAR process caught the regulars of Attack on Pearl Harbor unawares. (Yes, I spotted it, so maybe they should have spotted it too, but they didn't.) Joining the process will also merge the two groups of "regulars" (if there are groups), giving a wider viewpoint on all of these.
  • Separate from this, please, please, please consider a quorum, a minimum, or some other restriction to keep from having a 2-1 vote decide a status. That will prevent someone with a couple of meatpuppets or sockpuppets from voting out or in articles. Or prevent the few article-haters (you know, the ones that show up, demand an article fit their viewpoint, and start an edit war) from getting in on the vote and having a overriding impact on the final vote.
  • It appears in this case that Pearl Harbor passed under the original rules, fails under current more stringent rules. Are there a list of "Da Rulz" that newbies can see, so that those of us that care about an article can shine it up for the FAC crew?
  • Shouldn't some sort of ex post facto rule be in place for featured articles that were passed by the old rules? I bet that a bunch of other older FA articles can get the old heave-ho under the new standards. Should those also get a quick once-over by the committee to ensure "freshness"? CodeCarpenter 13:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I will look at it, and I guess the APH team will be working to restore the article to glory. CodeCarpenter 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in this case, you've got no benchmark, since the article was never subjected to current FA standards, being promoted during a time when two editors could make an article FA with little review or discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, current process is working fine, and we don't need to change it because someone missed clear notifications and a mistake may have been made (has anyone noticed how many mistakes are made at FAC?) I believe this issue started with Bishonen's thread, but that FAR was apparently resolved without issue; basing changes on two exceptional cases rather than the norm isn't necessary. I am sympathetic to the eyesight issues and busy talk page, but regular editors simply have to watch their articles and talk pages. I haven't really examined Attack on Pearl Harbor, but if the article truly has no problems, it should easily regain status at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
But is there any reason not to merge, other than that this didn't happen to occur to the designers of the process? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Some accuracy on this page would help. The proposal was made by Marskell, who I believe was the designer of the current FAR process (although I wasn't around then). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Support; obvious: the two pages are asking the same question. It may still be that we want to give the reviewed articles a break if they get four supports and one object; unlike new candidates, there may be no-one attending to the article to fix flaws. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If no one is attending to an FA for a full month, that's a problem. Articles need to be tended to maintain standards in an encyclopedia "anyone can edit". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't expecting an immediate strawpoll. I have a feeling Raul will just say "absolutely not", regardless, because the page would be so unweildly. And the structure of it would have to be carefully thought out, as we don't simply turn it back into the old FARC vote, which would worsen, not improve, the problem that brought ww to comment here. There is a lot of rubber-necking involved. People stop by FAR for the wrecks, when a large majority are quiet with good work done. We don't want to lose that. At the same time, there is merit in having the same review for the same question: "should this be an FA?"

"If no one is attending to an FA for a full month, that's a problem." It's too bad, but it's the nature of the beast. If my second FAC were FARed right now, it's about 60-40 I wouldn't bother with it. That it's all volunteer works both ways.

But here's another thought: "You cannot bring an article to Featured Article Review unless you have first raised your concerns with the original nominator and/or main contributors." We could link to the article history tool noted above. So User:Flex would have gone to User:Bishonen and said X, Y, Z and, assuming they'd have both been amicable, we would've heard nothing more about it. Conversely, an untended Emsworth nom with no clear current contributors could still be brought here. ? Marskell 15:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How about a page where FAs can be listed as potential candidates FAR. Anyone could list any FA there, with or without a given reason. To move it from there to FAR would require a short process, perhaps defined as you say; some notification would have to be performed or perhaps some effort made to fix problems. That process doesn't need to be defined now, but if we agree a gating step would help it might reduce the workload at FAR. We could even use it as a buffer, to limit volume at FAR and ensure better reviews, thus helping guarantee a quorum on each review. Mike Christie (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've put a lot of work into ideas that were instantly nixed by Raul, so a straw poll on such a convoluted process does seem premature. If your current idea (requring notification in advance, using script) could be combined with something like is done at (I think, ArbCom, but maybe Mediation, not sure), where the nominator would have to post the diffs showing they had done the notifications, that would help enormously with the manual work I have to do. Even when I try to get nominators to do the notifications themselves, they either don't do it, or don't indicate if they did it, so I have to go back and check anyway, which takes as much work as doing it myself. Your idea (above) would kill two birds with one stone; advance notification on the talk page, and making the nominator responsible for the notifications and proving they had been done. I like it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Re Mike Christie, FAR volume is not a problem, and I wouldn't be in favor of another process on top of a process. With the exception of this notification crap, this process is working fine. People are rubbernecking at one wreck, and ignoring the successes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What's going on? Are we having a poll now to decide whether to merge the two? I'd oppose but this seems pretty off the cuff, and not thought out. Quadzilla99 15:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be so unworkable that Raul would probably nix it right away, but Marskell put forth a second idea, about requiring nominators to notify original editor and main contributors, and I do agree that would be helpful. Read up to Marskell's last post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I had actually read most of the discussion, I'll go through and read all of it. People just started voting out of nowhere, it just seemed so random though. I don't like the idea, but as far as Raul, I'm not sure why Marskell would not be able to stay in charge of closing the FARs that are there if handling both is too much work for Raul. I left a note at the Pump to draw some editors here to get a wider consensus. Quadzilla99 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I respectfully disagree that no changes are needed. As "Da Rulz" (That I just found, thanks to some help from above) "Ignore all rules - Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia." In this case, I feel that the removal rule should have been ignored due to the lack of a sizeable group in favor of removal. Letter of the law says the vote won, but common sense says otherwise. So, as with any set of rules, even when "current process is working fine", tweaks to the system can be done as loopholes are found and eradicated. To use your analogy, investigation of the cause of one wreck can help to prevent another of the same kind from happening. A page I edit got caught in this wreck, but it is not that I am ignoring all the traffic, that got through without wrecking (the successes), just suggesting a small change (speed limit sign, for example) to protect future pages from getting into the same wreck. If the FAC rules and the FAR rules are the same, the contributors are the same, and the result is essentially the same, why have it done in two places? Breast implants and Breast reductions are two opposite processes, but they are done by the same doctor. Why can't Featured Article Status be done in the same way, and with a minimum level of votes for action to be taken? I believe nobody would be made an admin after two votes, shouldn't the products of wikipedia (the pages) here get the same level of threshold? IMO, of course. CodeCarpenter 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not suggesting you have to notify prior to a FAR. You'd try to notify to avoid FAR altogether. Marskell 15:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And then you could move to a FAR if that didn't work, to clarify the clarification. Note that both The Country Wife and Attack on Pearl Harbor would have avoided problems. And CodeC, I did not remove based on 2-1. The rationale is explained above. Marskell 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(NOTE: This comment is latr, but I am placing it here for proximity to the comment.) White flag raised. First, I did not see your specific comments, due to the frequency of response to the topic. I type slow and read slow. Your points were not in the FAR, but might be (and based on your experience level compared to mine) likely are valid. For SandyGeorgia, after reviewing the link given for WIAFA, I had read it and thought the article still fit the criteria. With your permission (of course, Be Bold, I will do it and you can undo it), I am extracting your comments here to the talk page of Pearl Harbor, so that the issues brought up can be discussed in more detail among the regulars. However, my concerns about a consensus of 3 versus a vote of three still hold as valid. It is your area more than mine, but as an outsider, the quorum issue does still seem like a flaw that casued this accident. Thanks for all your comments, and wish us luck on the FAC. CodeCarpenter 17:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So, in this case, user:The_Land, by adding seven characters to the page, at the top, with nothing on the bottom, (for those "bottom feeders" that don't do a diff :) ), should have at least commented on the article with the regulars before making that move. Had that rule been in place, APH would not have lost it's status. How about this, can we get a "do over"? You know, like Pink Floyd says "Noone told you when to run, you've missed the starting gun." Place the Article back under review, and give the regulars time to fix the concerns, now that they are aware of them. I was the only one to respond, and I am not a regular. Just looking for fairness and justice over "letter of the law.". Of course, there is always the long way around with peer review, FAC, etc. but I am hoping that a simple mistake can bve corrected with a simple revert. But then, I am a newbie, so maybe that is outside the scope of what can be done. No harm in asking though, right? :) CodeCarpenter 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
But you're asking for the same process that will take place at FAC, which is where the needed review can be done. (Disagree that there was a mistake; there was no mistake, although it's unfortunate that regular editors didn't follow the talk page notifications.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(Third edit conflict). Yes, that would kill three birds with one stone, hopefully eliminating some of the premature FARs that don't follow the 3-month lag. CodeC, perhaps we disagree as to whether there was a "wreck" (ie, failure of process). In this case, the article never received a full review at FAC, and there were/are defiencies. It's unfortunate that regular editors didn't have the page watchlisted, and yes, we should try to prevent that from occurring again, which is the basis for Marskell's current proposal. The "rules" for promotion and demotion are the same; they are based on consensus, not votes. Comparing to the admin process doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since conferring featured status isn't permanent, and any article demoted can easily be re-promoted if worthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC) PS, CodeC, since you did apparently notice the FAR talk page notification and did participate in the review, I wanted to point out that "Da Rulz" are linked in {{FAR}}. Please speak up if the templates need to be made more clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am intentionally steering as clear as I can of this discussion. I will continue performing the service I have always performed at FAR. If the community decides that I am doing a diservice instead of a serive to FAR then I will discontinue such service.

Above I have pointed out my "rules" for removing/keeping articles in FAR. I avoid bias and vote counting and I do not haste through demoting or keeping articles. Joelito (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Land's comments

I've put my 2p about FAC in some detail at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive23#Thoughts_on_Featured_Article_process. With regards to FARC, it's a shame that there aren't more participants; however, there are plenty of articles which were featured some time ago which don't meet the current standards expected of an FA, or even come close. Having such articles listed as 'examples of our best work' is an embarrasment. Perhaps all the FAs from the old system (roughly as rigorous as GA is now) should be de-listed prior to review or renomination.

If this is a thread about Attack on Pearl Harbor, I made four specific criticisms when starting the FAR, three of which could have stopped it being an FA under the current criteria. On two counts - extreme length and POV - the current article is arguably worse than the version originally featured in 2004. If these can be dealt with then make in an FA again by all means. However, I don't see what else the user closing the FAR could have done. Regards, The Land 22:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I didn't review that article, I didn't realize it was that extreme: 64KB of readable prose (among the largest FAs, well beyond WP:LENGTH guidelines) with 6 KB in references (unusual in an article that size). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] - The most significant problem this room faces is a lack of reviewers, and a lack of people willing to work on nominated articles. Very often the noms are drive by, and accompanied by thin reasoning, no notification to the original authors, and no further comment from the nominator. And so the room is swamped, and artilces such as Attack on Pearl Harbor slip through (though this does not happen very often, to be fair). In some instances the original author is willing to put in the work, but is preoccupied and committed either to another article or to real life at the time. Solution to this include appeals for more editors to help out, a mechanism to slow down the number of noms coming in, or suspending the nom until the main article editor had time to meet the concerns.

To pick up the thread above re merging FAC and FAR, one of the most constructive and beneficial aspects of the FAR process is that it often fuctions closer to peer review that FAC, and very often people working on articles get very helpful guidance, feedback, and suggestions as the work progresses. The attitude in FAC is very often 'Oppose - 'why haven't you done this already'. No so here, in my experience, though of course that does happen. Ceoil 23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

... no notification to the original authors, ... Huh? As far as I know, we always notify the original FA nominator, and have rarely missed. I agree that a lack of reviewers is a problem, and believe it results from some of the toxic, inaccurate, and unfair smears against FAR. People give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I mean that drive by nominators often leave it to the already over worked regulars to perform this task. Ceoil 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a silly discussion. OMG, another subsection? Which one do I place my comment in?

Talk of merging the two processes is idle.

    • Raul's workload is already very heavy.
    • Already, the FAC list is often huge, which is off-putting to reviewers (we need more).
    • It's in the spirit of WP's mission that the process of promoting and reviewing FACs be run on different pages (think US concept of division of powers; think, judge, jury, excecutioner). The project is not served well by too much centralisation, where a divided system already works. And it's hardly as though the people involved in FAR/C don't keep abreast of the FAC page.

The antagonists above seem to be driven by a sense that once a gold star is awarded, it's a permanent right. That would be a recipe for (1) petrifying the system, setting it in cement; and (2) allowing FAs to change (sometimes self-degrade) significantly without check. WP is a fluid process; it needs FAR, simple as that.

My view is that we're lucky to have dedicated and skilled people to run this process, and that the system is an admirable combination of transparency, objective judgement and—inescapably—the application of skill and experience in more subjective areas. Talk of vote-counting and formulas will attract a mechanistic, factionalised crowd here, which will detroy an essential part of retaining (dare I say, improving) our standards.

FAR/C is not perfect, since the personnel—especially myself—aren't perfect; but it's better than we could normally hope for. Instead of griping, the complainants would do better to collaborate on whatever articles they feel miffed about and resubmitting them to FAC. Tony 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notifications (3)

At the danger of starting another huge thread, I think the new system of "nominator notifies" is working. Since the addition of point 6 to the "How to nominate" list one week ago today, the three nominators who have added a FAR have sent out notifications. DrKiernan 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, blast. Only two of them did. DrKiernan 13:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
As one of those two nominators, if you want us to add the list of persons/projects notified to the nomination itself then add it to the list of steps to perform when making the nomination. It's not a big deal - we just need to know about it. --ElKevbo 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Much improved. Alchemy got it right, The Bus Uncle definitely needs to notify WikiProject Bio since it's a BLP issue, and Isaac Asimov missed about five WikiProjects. We do need to clear up the instructions, incorporating Marskell's idea above. (Elkevbo, many nominators don't seem to read instructions anyway, but we can try.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I missed the WikiProjects on The Bus Uncle. Thanks to Hong Qi Gong for getting Hong Kong. I've put a note at Biography now. -- Jonel | Speak 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Jonel. (Remember to add the note to the FAR.) But you've proven my suspicion; the current nominators got the notifications done because they happen to be reading the FAR talk page :-) ... I hope future nominators do it. Are the current instructions clear enough? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually hadn't seen this talk page before nominating, it got added to my watchlist when I made the Bus Uncle nomination. I didn't even realize the notification instructions were new, they're so eminently reasonable. They're pretty clear, though step 6 is a bit long with all those parentheticals. Of course, I don't know how to make it more succinct without losing useful information. -- Jonel | Speak 14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a side effect of long instructions will be to help avoid drive-by nominations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. We should leave them for another week and see what happens. DrKiernan 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have houseguests due shortly; can someone finish notifying Isaac Asimov? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That was so surreal. I thought you were in a time machine in 1980s New York and I had visions of Isaac Asimov as one of your houseguests! :-) Carcharoth 22:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)