Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 A bit of concern 2 A brief note to the FA community 3 New sections in the Manual of Style: dates, numbers, etc 4 Has the process changed? 5 Instructions 6 Volunteers to close nominations at Featured Sound Candidates 7 Witold Lutoslawski FAR 8 Keep and remove being declared in reviews 9 Pink Floyd 10 Stability 11 Asperger syndrome 12 Notifications 13 Renaming 14 Which brings me to a slightly related but more important issue 15 RIP? 16 Paracetamol 17 Should I put an article up for review if I'm not going to help fix it? 18 Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon 19 Lutoslawski FAR 20 Mariah Carey 21 2005 US Grand Prix 22 Time? 23 Cillian Murphy 24 GameFAQs? 25 Winter service vehicle 26 when articles are downgraded from FA-status 27 Warsaw Uprising 28 Move to close FAR 29 Notifications 30 New guidelines for date formatting where not autoformatted 31 Palace of Westminster FAR 32 Introducing User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured article review candidates 33 repeated removal of Islam 34 Three noms 35 Quick note 36 The four words and how to deal with them 37 Effort expended

[edit] A bit of concern

Pericles is a featured article. The problem is that is relies very heavily on primary sources contrary to standards. Pericles is a topic with a very large number of secondary reliable sources. How is this issue normally handled, if at all, in featured articles (and candidates)? Would this be an appropriate issue to ask review over? I have not been very involved in the featured article process, so I am posing my questions and concerns. I just don't understand how with such a reliance on primary sources this at all represents our "best practices". Vassyana 00:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Tony 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A number of the "primary sources" upon which this article relies are secondary sources in the way meant by WP:PSTS, for instance the Thucydides, the Herodotus, and the Plutarch. These are synthetic historical accounts. Thucydides is certainly the most important historical account of the period so you would certainly expect to see it strongly represented. I would be careful about nominating this for review unless you have specific concerns about points of view that might be underrepresented, areas in which the sources used are contradicted by more recent scholarship, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical sources, particularly of ancient age, are not reliable secondary sources in mainstream publishing, nor in the context of Wikipedia. Such records are primary sources. Even if your broad definition is accepted, they are not reliable sources as they lack the required editorial oversight. Either way, the sourcing of the article is deeply flawed, in my perception. Vassyana 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If the point is that the ancient sources are not reliable, I don't see how the modern sources which are dependent on them are likely to be more reliable simply because of their editorial oversight. Given that the original source is available, I don't see how not citing it is likely to be helpful. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how long ago this policy was made but WP has changed alot in the last two years. Many many FAs have a high proportion of primary sources. Alot of editors who are doctors or other professionals/experts in a field are doing this. Many articles are more detailed than any formulation on a particular topic elsewhere. Note that in the section on sources the words should, and predominantly appear....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern sources are based on more than those texts alone. There are a number of historical and archaeological discoveries and theories that affect interpretation of those texts, for example. Peer-reviewed works and references reliant on peer-reviewed works are generally considered among the most reliable. We're supposed to report the claims available in reliable sources, ensuring that views are presented in proportion to those sources. Primary sources are avoided because it is very difficult to use them without quote farming or providing our own interpretation. Beyond all that, relying on the current and best available research is just generally good practice. Vassyana 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If experts are building articles with large numbers of primary sources, they should be directed to WP:NOR and encouraged to seek a reputable publisher for the topic. This is not the place to build a thesis. We should be reporting what reliable sources have already said, not building our own analysis. Vassyana 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have reason to believe that this article cites ancient sources in a way that is inappropriate in light of modern scholarship then that would be a serious concern. From reading the article, it seems that in a number of places where the ancients and moderns disagree in their analysis this is made clear. But in general I think this is an area where good writing and scholarship conflicts with the language of a Wikipedia policy. Unless there is a concrete issue with the neutrality of the article, or you believe it contains original research, etc. then I don't think you are making a very strong case that there is a problem with the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Your initial statement is flawed. It is not a matter of accuracy. Good original research and bad original research are equally prohibited. Even if the conclusions agree with modern scholarship, it is not permitted. If an analysis is presented contrasting modern scholarship and ancient sources, and this comparison is not cited to a reliable secondary source, that is also original research. Some forms of good scholarships are indeed prohibited, and well should be. Wikipedia is supposed to report on existing scholarship, not produce its own. There are other wiki projects far more suited to such research and sources, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. However, nothing about the wiki policy prohibits good writing or impedes an excellent article from being crafted. This is particularly true in this instance, where secondary sources abound for the subject. There is no reason at all that primary sources are necessary for this article, given the sheer number of references available. Beyond that here are but a few examples of the original research within the article.Ref 13Refs 16&17Ref 19 These involve interpreting and analyzing the claims of primary sources, which is clearly prohibited. Again, given the profuse references available, there is not even an excuse for such wide use of primary sources, let alone such blatant abuse. Vassyana 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Many scientific articles in journals -especially reviews, make their own conclusions, as well, the nature of the material means that facts as such are easier to report rather than observations occur de novo in a wiki article. I'm not familiar with philosophy or other areas so can't comment but it is easy in botany or zoology.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I concede that all as far as I know use secondary sources as well :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I realise this discsussion is about the humanties but the subject of science came up so I thought I'd throw in my two pence. I don't claim to know much about ancient texts, but the use of scientific journal articles as sources (something I do) is somewhat different IMHO. Firstly primary sources in science, journal articles, are also secondary sources as they do a great deal of synthesising and summarsing of other work (in the introduction and discussion) and are regularly used as such. Secondly they may be used to cite specific facts used as examples (for example that Palm Cockatoos use sticks to bang on trees). Citations from original sources to back up specifc facts (as opposed to interpretations) would not constitute OR. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that the appearance of relying on primary sources can be given by the inline citations. If we refer to something from what is being called a primary source here, it is only natural that we give a citation to that source. If, for example, Pliny was the historical source for a statement in an article we would refer to the correct passage in Natural History. That doesn't mean that the statement hasn't been picked over, dissected and theorized about by the secondary sources presented in the article (it would be very surprising if it hadn't), but we don't reference every statement with a citation from every author that has commented on it. (You could always start a review asking for some of the inline citations to be removed, that would really put the cat amongst the pigeons). Yomangani^talk 12:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A brief note to the FA community

I agree with Dave Souza in the just-now-archived subsection called "instruction creep?" that the recent changes in the text of the FAR page are a very substantial, quite arguably excellent, improvement in the explanation to participants in the process and other readers of the page. Good regards to all here in this part of WP. ... Kenosis 02:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New sections in the Manual of Style: dates, numbers, etc

Dear colleagues

WP's Manual of Style has been expanded to include a summary of the recently overhauled MOSNUM submanual. Featured Article candidates are explicitly required to follow these guidelines, as are all WP articles.

At issue are the new Sections 9–14:

• Non-breaking spaces
• Chronological items (Precise language, Times, Dates, Longer periods)
• Numbers
• Decimal points
• Percentages
• Units of measurement
• Currencies, and
• Common mathematical symbols

More detailed information on these and other topics is at WP:MOSNUM. Tony 06:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has the process changed?

Sorry if this is reopening a can of worms, but I was on vacation for the past two weeks and missed the discussion regarding the FAR/FARC process and who may or may not close reviews. I've tried reading the archived discussion, but it's tedious and taking longer than I hoped it would to get through. Can someone summarize what conclusions, if any, were reached and what changes, if any, were made to the process? Thanks, — Brian (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The instructions on the project page have been rewritten. They (should!?) summarize the process as it is currently agreed practiced. See Template:FAR-instructions. DrKiernan 07:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC) DrKiernan 09:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed by others. Not me. As far as I'm concerned, the rewrite is a bunch of rubbish instigated by "people" with ulterior motives. LuciferMorgan 21:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing new in the rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the rewrite: the wording is better. The process has changed only in that those who close nominations are specified. It was the existing, unwritten practice anyway. Tony 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions

I agree with Kenosis above that the newer instructions are good - mainly in that they're quite clear about the practicalities of the process. I do however find them a little clunky now, and would like to try some re-formatting / re-factoring.... I'll place my thoughts on the template talk page because that seems clearer to me - this is really a FYI for folk who may not have the template watchlisted.... cheers - Purples 09:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volunteers to close nominations at Featured Sound Candidates

FSC now has well-developed criteria and a backlog of nominations. It would be most appreciated if one or more people volunteeered to act, informally, as the closer(s) of nominations on the promotions and demotions page on a regular basis.

Thus far, it has been a small workload. Volunteers would need to be very circumspect in their reviews, or to avoid reviewing (to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest). The task, from time to time, is to arrrive at a balanced assessment of the reviews and the nominations in relation to the criteria, and to perform the mechanical task of closing. The ability to interpret the criteria is necessary.

Interested editors are asked to declare their willingness on the talk page. Tony 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Witold Lutoslawski FAR

Hi guys, just wondering if you can weigh in with opinion at this specific FAR I nominated? The original writer of the FA doesn't seem to hold much faith in my opinion judging by his statements, so can some other people give their own personal opinions as to whether this article does or does not meet the criteria (and why of course)? I'd be very grateful, and thanks for your time everyone. LuciferMorgan 10:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep and remove being declared in reviews

Sandy, would it be possible to insert your red statement at the top of each review for a while? It's becoming a scourge, and degrades the structure of the process. Tony 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I could do that. Problem is I'm going to be traveling soon, and I haven't been following FAR as closely as usual because of the boatloads of work consuming my every moment at Asperger syndrome, so others may need to do it as well. You just need to add the comments to the template, {{color|red|Comments}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd

Pink Floyd was nominated at FAR, and the IP who nominated stated clearly in edit summary that s/he couldn't create the subpage because s/he was blocked. Another editor removed the nomination two hours later because the page hadn't been created. I just looked at the article, and it needs review. I can't start another review right now (see above) and there are already several music reviews tying people up. Is anyone interested in shepharding that FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stability

How unstable does an FA have to get to merit a FAR? I am referring to Fightin' Texas Aggie Band, which seems to have a bit of a violent edit war going on (that I am not involved in). I feel that the article meets the other criteria, so I'd like to get feedback on this before I put it up for review (or don't put it up for review, either way). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

FAR takes at least a month, and isn't part of dispute resolution. If everything else (vis-a-vis WP:WIAFA) is in good order on the article, and if you think the issues can be settled via dispute resolution, FAR isn't the best vehicle for addressing NPOV issues. How long has the dispute going on (since mainpage, I imagine)? I recommend you try to work through dispute resolution, and if that fails or if the situation prevails, then you come to FAR—unless there are additional problems with other parts of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger syndrome

Will an admin please have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome? Two editors might benefit from a reminder to stay on track. One removed the other's comments; I restored it. I've reminded them to please use the associated talk page for further commentary. If the page needs to be refactored to the associated talk page, and independent party might do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I routinely remove all sub-headings inserted in FACs and FARs, but because I'm involved in the AS issue, I shouldn't be the one to removed the prejudicial sub-heading. Can someone else look at it? (Zeraeph (talk · contribs) has announced her retirement from Wikipedia on her userpage.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notifications

I was just reviewing and saw that Ebionites, Architecture of Windows NT, Canadian House of Commons and Coronation of the British Monarch weren't notified (or if they were, it wasn't noted). I don't know if I'll have time to get to them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep an eye out and to catch them. I might get to them a little late, but I will try to cover them today. However, it is getting to the point that the nominators expect that someone else will do the work for them (see the Separation of powers FAR). --RelHistBuff 06:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, Sinebot has put the unsigned template on my recent notification notices. Do we really need to have the notices signed? For example, I didn't do the notifications for Ebionites; the original nominator did them; I just put up the notice. Is there anyway to stop the bot? --RelHistBuff 07:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can opt out (as I did) by adding [[Category:Users who have opted out of automatic signing]] to your user page and allow up to 5 minutes for it to take effect. DrKiernan 07:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I think I will clean up the notices. --RelHistBuff 08:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

Since Good article review was recently changed to Good article reassessment, I thought we should change the Featured article review page to be consistent. As such, I am proposing renaming Featured article review to Featured article reassessment It would be much less confusing for all editors and would make the article system much more consistent. -- Noetic Sage 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

At least until the next time GA changes its naming. Changing the name now would be confusing. Keeping up with GA terminology is confusing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

...and GA candidates was also changed to GA nominations, going back to the roots of Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations and away from parallelism with FAC. Gimmetrow 00:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that I think it's not worth changing. I'm happy with the current terminology. And the idea of following a system that has little accountability and verification seems odd. Tony (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Until a good reason is presented to change the name I would prefer the status quo. Joelito (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not incredibly passionate about this, but the basic argument is this:

The word review implies that you are reviewing the article rather than its featured status. Reassessment better conveys what you are actually doing. In addition, for consistency's sake, FA and GA processes should use similar terminology. -- Noetic Sage 05:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That last bit is certainly a good argument for having the GA process stop changing its terminology every fortnight. Process names should really be quite stable, to avoid unduly confusing editors; the FA ones have traditionally been so, while their "counterparts" have failed in this regard. Kirill 05:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I too think the name (Featured Article Review) is fine the way it is.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh-uh. "The word review implies that you are reviewing the article rather than its featured status." How odd. We are reviewing the article. The star is actually incidental to the content improvement. And what GA does is irrelevant to what FA does. Marskell 09:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would bring up the counter-argument that the GAR and FAR should have different names. The two serve different purposes. GAR is meant for a place of discussion on whether a delisting or failed nomination is merited. It is more like dispute resolution. FAR assumes that there is no dispute that the article was FA and it is meant to fix a degraded article. Maybe it is best that the names are different. --RelHistBuff 15:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no particular reason to change the names here to match GA. However, I would like to clear up a couple of er... misconceptions that the suggestion seems to have brought out of the woodwork. First, both GAR and GAN have only changed names twice. Second, the recent name change was partly in response to comments here and elsewhere that the GA terminology was inconsistent and confusing, leading, for example, to editors regularly making errors when filling out the {{ArticleHistory}} template on talk pages. In a nutshell: (i) the word "review" was used both for the review of a good article nomination and also for the GAR process; (ii) the words "nomination" and "candidate", and the acronyms GAN and GAC, were both used in different places. The terminology has now been made internally consistent. This won't stop errors being made immediately, but in the long run it may help. Thank you for your attention :-) Geometry guy 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the confusing part if why you all change names without consulting the more stable FA process, and then ask FA to follow the less formal GA process. A bit backwards there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA is not a monolith. One editor saw the efforts to make GA terminology more internally consistent, presumably thought that this was a good thing, and brought the suggestion here. As far as I am aware, no one else has suggested FAR should change its name. Geometry guy 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am just getting a kick out of all the little snipes at GA. Just had to say it (for the record I opposed, rather vehemently, the name change at GA but was unable to stop it). IvoShandor 08:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what GA calls itself; it has no authority and no enforceable standards. Tony (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha. IvoShandor 09:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Aw, give the GA guys and gals a break. There's no doubt they help first-time editors get articles out of B-class. And they often give better feedback than peer review (at least that's been my experience). --RelHistBuff 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another little snipe at GA, then. A worst-case scenario for how articles can be got out of B-class? You be the judge. I think the Good Article status has now been removed from the two articles in question. But would that have happened without my sniping? Bishonen | talk 17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC).

Interesting. I don't doubt the good faith of most people at GA, but surely there must be other cases of this sort. (May I unashamedly say that it underscores one point brought up here before: that closings by a single user or limited group are actually a better guarantor of fairness than throwing it open.)

There are just too many flaws in GA to call it consistent. I went blue in the face a year ago with various ideas (beginning with dropping "Good") but even then it was too established to be seriously refocussed. If nothing else it seems an awful waste of energy to have two parallel (in the bad sense) top content processes. Marskell 18:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't change the name. And to all those making fun of GA here. I could say a lot of bad things about GA myself. I could say a lot of bad things about FA, too (inconsistencies in article quality, etc.), or about wikipedia as a whole, but I don't think making fun of it will do anything. Wrad 18:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it's making fun. There are legitimate concerns raised above. Marskell 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course there were, mostly brought up by you, but calling them "little snipes" is pretty juvenile. Consensus is: Don't change the name. If you want to change GA, bring it up in a civil fashion somewhere where it will actually do some good. Wrad 01:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble parsing that comment, Wrad. What is brought up in an uncivil fashion—is it my link? And who is being juvenile: is it IvoShandor for using the phrase "little snipes", or me for quoting it? Bishonen | talk 09:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC).

Marksell actually brought up logical points, but Ivo's blurb was a bit off. Wrad 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that the position needs more support, but I also agree with keeping the current name. As Noeticsage unintentionally pointed out, it is a better description of this process. Pagrashtak 20:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to get rid of GA, period. I see WP as a binary system: FAs and non-FAs. It's simple, and there's just one motivational gateway that has some "muscle". Having GA dilutes our reviewing resources. Tony (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• GA could be retooled to address short articles—we have no process that rewards excellent content in just-past-stubs; that's how Worldtraveller imagined GA when he initiated it. But when I've raised this there have been few takers (I was actually a bit of dick wrt GA going back a year, which might have had something to do with it). Option 2, marry it to Peer review. PR has a very spotty record in actually generating feedback. Taking all the person hours involved in GA (much of it spent on the overhead people claim doesn't exist) and having it devoted to the PR page would be excellent, IMO. Simply wishing it away won't work. People are too attached to it. (I know FA has a lot of overhead but it drives a much greater amount of content improvement, IMO.) Marskell 12:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's my view of the matter. First, I told the guy who proposed this that it was a bad idea. I wasn't going to read the discussion, and I wish I hadn't. Sucks to lose respect for editors you looked up to. Second, I oppose this. I don't see why GA has to match FA. I've said this from the beginning of GA proposals and I hold that opinion still. Third, Bishonen's little rundown of those IRC logs is totally blown out. Two editors did arrange for tandem reviews and both sub-standard articles passed. But the logs did not read like there was an agreement for pass without review. One editor has a history of reviews of questionable quality, the other is new (and may have felt pressure to pass the article since his passed). Both articles are being dealt with, and one reviewer appears to have left. We can't control this sort of thing, which is why I started sweeps. So all the bad seeds will eventually be delisted. Last thing, you don't know the changes being made, the improvements being suggested and implemented, so it might do some people some good to stop being dicks every time someone mentions GA. We're not going anywhere so suck it up and play nice, children. Lara❤Love 15:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To Tony, I've just gotta say that it's pretty obvious that not all non-FAs are created equal. The fact is, some are better than others. GA encourages the better ones. I think that's a good thing, therefore GA should and will continue to exist. Wrad 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The pile-on here is not needed. Until recently both GAC/GAR names matched FAC/FAR, and both were changed (for various reasons), so it's not like many editors (from either project) felt any great urge to keep the names parallel. Gimmetrow 15:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly no one has to lose respect for anyone else. Marskell 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which brings me to a slightly related but more important issue

We desperately need more reviewers at FAC and FAR/C. Getting rid of GA, or paring it back to a low-traffic short-article system would help. But we need more motivation. There are lots of highly skilled users who don't review regularly at FAC and FAR/C. And the regulars, including me, need a rest from time to time, or have real-world demands that make their input patchy.

What to do?

I'm all for encouraging reviewers to specialise and to make comments without necessarily reading whole articles with a microscope and reflecting carefully on their content. Rationing my scope is the only way I can comment on, and encourage the improvement of, more than just a tiny proportion of the cascade. Fact is, I do a lot of "process" reviewing and, only where it catches my eye, "content" reviewing. I don't care if users come along and specialise in reviewing one or more of units and measurements, or dashes, or leads, or copyright (3), or captions, or citations, or stubby paragraphs/sections, or scope (1b), or POV (1d). Perform a relatively narrow role and you're still a member of the club, and gain some prestige from being so; over time, you become increasingly good and fast at doing it.

I'd like to suggest three strategies.

1. Write a succinct Guide to reviewing nominations at FAC and FAR/C.
2. Promote the idea of reviewing three articles a week to a wide audience, possibly at WikiProjects and selected article and policy talk pages, and point out that you don't have to do full reviews to have valuable input.
3. Think about ways of motivating people to review: perhaps by establishing a reviewers' group/page, with an attractive membership template that members can put on their user page. ("This user is a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates.")

What do people think? I'm willing to prepare a draft of No. 1 for consideration here and at FAC talk. It would, among other things, list the specialisations people could select from. Tony (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the idea of a guide. Also, I would love to see more content review at FAR/FAC. Joelito (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just posted at the VP:

"Is there anyway to rejig PR to make it work? A list of users willing to help with particular topics and then sub-PR pages? "Most of us know that the way to get peer reviews is to ask someone we know." Agreed—I skip PR and GA both and simply notify people who edit in the topic area when I go to FAC. Perhaps lists of "these are the people to ask" would serve far better."

I think this is how to do it. Get sublists where people sign up. So, for instance, I sent Tau Ceti to FAC a few days ago. All of the astronomy editors I expected have offered comments, either there or on user talk. But do they even know FAR exists? If one of Worldtraveller's astro FAs came up would they stop by? I don't think they'd mind stopping by if they knew a review was on. Marskell 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Encouraging reviewers is a good idea; kudos of some kind would certainly help. After a WT:FAC discussion a couple of months ago, I made this suggestion at the bot request page for crediting FAC contributors. I still think this would be a good idea, but it's not a trivial bot to write. The goal was to create a parallel to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, which I think does provide some motivation and/or recognition. Certainly Emsworth is known partly because of that page. Mike Christie (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps pipe the "Featured Article Reviewer" link to the page of members (who've agreed to do at least three reviews a week and who've listed there their chosen specialties. Tony (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if projects were more explicitally orientated towards FA there would be an increase in content reviewers. You can see the results of this approach from members of the alt.music and military history projects, and there is now unrest within the classical music project; which has two open FACs at the moment. Ceoil 17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the little picture to the side, here! I've come to find out that there is actually a Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles that's pretty quiet right now. Why not use that project as a forum for creating a "guide" to all different aspects of FA, as well as to create a bit of camaraderie among FA reviewers? Wrad 22:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

At the moment we have Featured Article Removal, and FAC itself, which use the same criteria, and are much the same process, but use two different pages and two pools of editors. Would be it be an improvement to cut out FARC as it now stands?

Under this proposal, FAR would decide whether to let an article stay FA, or send it back to FAC as a candidate; this would probably result in more eyes on the final decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd still have two pages, but would be dumping admittedly non-FA-worthy articles onto an already-overloaded FAC. How would this help? Pagrashtak 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Because all we'd need here is an initial screening. After an initial complaint, unless it resulted in an immediate fix or was laughed out of court (and how many FARs have not become FARCs, lately?) the reviewing admin would simply file a FAC, which would be treated like any other, except perhaps for the burden of proof. Also, I don't see that FARs are necessarily of articles unworthy of FA; they are all were held to be worthy once. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That FAC and FAR should have similar closing criteria is true, but Pagra is right: FAC into the triple digits? I just can't see it. That page is barely scaling as it is. Further, it would break the continuity between review and FARC. The successful reviews have a kind of arc of content improvement that extends through both periods. Marskell 19:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RIP?

OK, let me try a simpler proposal: get rid of this page and don't replace it. The advantage of GA and FA, to the encyclopedia, is that they do, sometimes, and with much collateral damage, improve articles. This doesn't, because no one has an incentive to improve anything. The nominator doesn't (unlike FA and GA) and neither does anyone else, except perhaps the original author. And how are we doing at getting original authors?

Of the current crop, three reviews have involved the original author. On Dmitri Shostakovich, he has said he doesnt' care about FA anymore, and isn't going to do anything. On Witold Lutosławski, he may, sometime, get around to sourcing the article. On Indo-Greek Kingdom, several editors are more interested in the edit war than the article; it's protected and isn't going to be improved. That's one partial success, maybe.

Getting rid of this page would free up some energy to improve the encyclopedia.

But if we don't have WP:FARC, degenerate articles will keep their stars forever. So b****y what? If we really feel this is a problem, we can set a five year limit, after which stars will decay. But it isn't. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not to give out stars, any more than it was, as Esperanza thought, to give out barnstars. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This project routinely results in articles improving, both the keeps, and even a good percentage of the not keeps. Gimmetrow 02:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Examples, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent example of keep – Treaty of Devol, older example nearly removed but saved – Titanium. I am sure the regulars here can give many examples. The star is an incentive programme to improve, a small recognition of work well done. FAR is here to maintain the quality so that the incentive remains. I vote Keep for this page. --RelHistBuff 06:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

George IV of the United Kingdom, George I of Great Britain, Anne of Great Britain, Mary II of England and Charles II of England were all improved at FAR or FARC. None of them were improved or saved by the original author. The purpose of this page is to alert editors to FAs that require improvement and then assist them in improving them. Its function is exactly what you want it to be: a place for improvement of the encyclopedia. The stars are incidental. DrKiernan 07:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If this page isn't to be used anymore, as you propose, FA should no longer claim to represent the best work of Wikipedia. If there is no way to review work (which by its nature is constantly changing) then there is no way to ensure that it is the "best work" for whatever that's worth. I think the real purpose of FA is to guide readers to quality material that is mostly reliable, it was never and has never been about handing out stars (though some editors think it is). Personally, I don't need any stars or green pluses to tell me that an article I work on is well researched and reasonably well written, but it does tell the reader that. IvoShandor 04:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic PMA - the purpose of FARC is to maintain and improve articles - either those which have been degraded or eroded by addition or removal of material or those which qualified at a time when standards were different (Humpback Whale, Blue Whale, Schizophrenia and Kakapo were some I've worked on which had varying degrees of both happening and all are vastly improved) . To put it simply, the page ensures that FAs continue to represent WP's best work. The shiny stars act as a reward to encourage thoroughness, excellent writing and rigour, all of which have improved in my case. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paracetamol

I just wanted to drop a line over here and let you know that Paracetamol has been selected as the next Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week. It achieved its FA status back in 2004, so is quite old, and I've heard rumblings about it going to WP:FAR several times. But before you guys get "antsy" and decide to list it, it should be noted that it's going to get worked on now, so hopefully you won't have to do anything,... ;-) If anyone wants to help, please join in! Dr. Cash 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should I put an article up for review if I'm not going to help fix it?

I noticed that San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is a FA, but it has entire sections without references. I think it was featured in 2005, when that was probably OK. I'm not a bridge guy, so I'm not going to help fix it. Should I wait for someone interested in fixing it to put it up for review, or should I do it myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could leave a note on the article's talk page with your concerns first and see if anyone responds to them? DrKiernan 07:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching it for a long time, and it's done nothing but deteriorate. A couple of guys (Dave somebody?) recently got San Francisco featured; maybe you can first ask them if they're interested in salvaging it? Look in the ArticleHistory on the talk page of SF, for the people who nominated it at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon

I'm sorry but I've never been involved in any kind of review process, and I don't know what the criteria is, but I wanted to point out an article to those that do. I don't know if it should be listed for review, so I came here. I can't understand why Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon is a FA. I know articles can deteriorate after they get their little star, but I've check the version it was promoted on, and it's not much better. The promotion was less than a year ago. I guess my question is - is this what is normally considered FA material? I mean sometimes I check out the front page article, and those are much better than this. Rocket000 06:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Rocket, you can famaliarize yourself with the criteria at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria; if you list a review, specify how you think it fails. But have you tried article talk or just boldly made some improvement edits? Try that before a review. Marskell 06:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Marskell. I looked at the criteria, but they're kinda obvious and vague. I'm also familiar with most of our numerous policies and guidelines, so I know what things to look for. Most articles I run across that have problems, I either make some improvement edits or tag it for someone else. However in this case, I just think the article in general needs a lot of work and shouldn't be considered a FA. I'm fine with reviewing articles, but grading them isn't really my thing. I just know a good (not Good) article when I see one. I would like to pass this off to someone more involved in the FA process; they (usually) do a good job, but if no one's interested, I'm guess I could list it for failing 1(a)and possibly 4. It's just not that well written. Rocket000 07:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lutoslawski FAR

Any news on when this is being moved into the FARC section? It should have been moved weeks ago, and I personally feel that FAR has been more than accomodating towards RobertG. It's now time to move it down, and if it isn't improved then it should be defeatured. LuciferMorgan 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a talk note for Robert. Marskell 11:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I do hope the book containing the source material for the references isn't out on loan already from the library. I want this one to be retained, but it really must have proper referencing. Tony (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mariah Carey

Someone needs to look at the history of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mariah Carey; the FAR has been overwritten several times, and notifications lost. Not sure what to restore or how, or if admin tools are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone turned out to be you! Thanks for your repairs! DrKiernan 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 US Grand Prix

I'm a little confused by this. Two minor points were raised in the initial FAR, and fixed within 2 days. No further points were raised (unless you count my request for comments, which is surely not the same thing), yet the article passed to FARC after another three weeks, and then a new issue was raised by Marskell after another two weeks on FARC. I thought if issues were fixed at FAR the article should not pass to FARC? Grateful for clarification. Cheers. 4u1e 12:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Marskell might have moved it down because Davnel did not return to say that he was satisfied with your changes. Maybe drop Davnel a line and see if he still thinks it needs work? DrKiernan 13:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, I'll check with Davnel when I've finished fixing the new points Marskell raised. That wouldn't strictly be the correct process, though, would it? It leaves articles rather vulnerable to drive-by nominations (which is more or less what this was - Davnel is a regular contributer to WPF1, but appears not to have looked at the article or the FAR/C since he nominated it). Thanks for the response. 4u1e 13:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Marskell's decision was fair. His job is to "determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so". With only two editors contributing to the discussion at FAR stage, with opposing opinions, he couldn't assess consensus then. It's clearer now. DrKiernan 13:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't understood that the process defaults to FARC - but it is written fairly clearly at the top of the project page, so that's my error! We should note that there were not two opposing opinions. Two concerns were raised, two concerns were accepted and fixed. There was no opposition of views (i.e. of the form: Editor A - I think the referencing is insufficient. Editor B - Well, I think it's OK), so I suppose I feel it would have been a pretty safe decision to pass at FAR, rather than assuming the worst. However, as it happens, Marskell's later comments have opened a useful can of worms, since references have been used somewhat carelessly in the article (not a point made by Davnel), so I'm not exactly complaining as I have the chance (O Joy!) to fix them. Cheers. 4u1e 13:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time?

How come the progress nowadays gets stretched out to a total of almost seven weeks. In some of the articles there is no effort to make the article better, so I think those ones should be moved on quickly like at FAC, rather than have a stricter choronological time frame. In some cases the article sits still for seven weeks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any real harm? I've not thought so. I try to stagger the move from FAR to FARC so things may hang about in the former an extra week. In FARC, the primary concern is always giving things a fair chance and it's come to the point where hard time limits aren't relevant. At the bottom we have George Moore; Ceoil says an extra two weeks are needed, so an extra two weeks are granted. If FAR ever became consistently over-loaded, above 35 or 40, we might need stricter enforcement. Marskell 14:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cillian Murphy

User:SandyGeorgia won't let me put a featured article review up for the Cillian Murphy article so I've listed it at WP:FUR and am following Sandy's comments to bring the matter here. There are fair use images being used in the Cillian Murphy article with claims that there is "critical commentary" about the images in the article and therefore they meet fair use. That's bogus. The commentary basically consists of saying "he was in these movies". If this is critical commentary, then there's no point in preventing any fair use image to be inserted into any article. Witgh an edit war going on over the images, and User:Melty girl's ownership issues over the article, it should be removed from featured article status, but I am not allowed to list it on the main page, so here we are. Corvus cornix_talk 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy was promoted November 4, 2007. I've referred you to the instructions at WP:FAR several times. FAR is not dispute resolution and FAR does not second guess WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You told me to come here. Corvus cornix_talk 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I told you that if you think there are extenuating circumstances that warrant a FAR, that can be resolved here on the talk page, not by edit warring. There has been one and only one case (that I can recall) of a FAC coming to FAR less than three months after it was promoted, and that was because the article completely changed after FAC and it was decided by consensus here on talk that we should waive the usual waiting period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You said "If you consider there are extenuating circumstances, the process for handling that is to discuss it at the talk page of FAR". Copyright violation is extenuating circumstances. But don't tell me to go to the talk page and then say that by going to the talk page I'm being disruptive. Oh, and by the way, you you refrred me to the instructions after I had done what I thought was a good faith effort to list the article for review, please quit accusing me of being disruptive. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not said that coming to the talk page is disruptive; in fact, I encouraged you to discuss it here. I did ask you not to disrupt FAR after you added the FAR twice. You added the second time after I referred you to the instructions and without discussing it here. At any rate, I hope you now understand the situation. FAR is not dispute resolution, and if the copyright issues are serious, there are other means of addressing that. FAR is a deliberative process that takes time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GameFAQs?

Wait a minute, why didn't this go to WP:FARC? GimmeBot just closed it. Nobody clarified SELFPUB for me and I would have voted to remove it. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

FARC is not a vote. Joelito (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to write "vote discuss." Thanks for the explanation. I did not actually know that it may not have to go through FARC. I came up wtih this impression after the staggering idiocy (on my part, not theirs) when I nominated Operation Downfall, and thought it would surely be closed early, but it went through FARC. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Usually articles go through FARC when actionabel concerns have not been addressed. In this case I felt that it was not necessary. Joelito (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

GimmeBot does not close FACs and FARs; it merely updates the talk page entries after the featured article director or his proxies close a FAC or FAR. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/archiving. Joelr31 closed the FAR; please see the instructions at WP:FAR for how the process works. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I will explain my decision to close the FAR by enumerating WP:SELFPUB and the reasons I believe it does not apply in this case.

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
  • Obviously relevant.
• it is not contentious;
  • No one was debating the information backed by the self-published source as false.
• it is not unduly self-serving;
  • No one made a claim to this.
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • This criteria is met.
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • Again, met
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • Again, met since the majority of sources were written by the creator, Veasey.
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.
  • This criteria is indeed not met as the majority of the article is written based on GameFAQs. However, this criteria was placed to counteract bias that a source may have when writing about itself. I do not believe that any of the information on the self-published source tries to push an agenda or dispels false or misleading information. Most of the sources merely state facts and are official statements made by the company.

If anyone believes, and has proof, that any of the sources from the article present misleading or erroneous "facts" then feel free to discuss it in the article's talk page and if consensus cannot be reached then open another FAR. I did not see any evidence challenging the reliability of the sources (i.e., contradictions, errors, etc) therefore I closed the FAR. I will not allow FARs to be open when no evidence is presented that an FA criteria is not met Joelito (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winter service vehicle

Winter service vehicle, yesterday's FA, has horrible sourcing problems and needs a complete audit. See: Talk:Winter service vehicle#Recommend a source audit. Vassyana (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the instructions at WP:FAR regarding time between main page and review; hopefully the issues can be worked out on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm well-aware of the grace period for front page listed FAs. I didn't actually file a review for a reason. I also hope that issues can be worked out on the talk page, hence my efforts to make an audit and draw attention to the problems without going through needless process. Vassyana (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] when articles are downgraded from FA-status

why aren't they automatically nominated for GA?Nergaal (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

GA is already backlogged. We shouldn't burden the process with an automatic nomination which lacks a nominator who can shephard the article through the process and make appropriate changes. DrKiernan (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Former FA articles are not automatically nominated for GA for several reasons. The most prominent one being that because the article was de-moted there are outstanding criteria concerns that have to be addressed. Therefore, it is unlikely that the article will pass GA. Joelito (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Most FARCs at the moment are olden day FAs with no inline refs, so most would fail GAC anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warsaw Uprising

I took notice of the fact that this article was subject of a FAR in June/July 2007 with the result being Kept. I am curious of the rationale behind this, as there were two Remove comments and one leaning that way, with zero comments stating Support. I just finished reading the entire article and found countless areas where the language was poor, sections appeared written twice (search "Uncle Joe" within the article), and citations are lacking or inappropriate. Marskell stated that "there's been significant work since the removes were noted and I trust Piotrus and others will keep at it." Piotrus has made exactly one edit to the article since that time, and the other 50 or so edits since July 8 have not been entirely constructive. Can someone explain the rationale for this particular article as being a default keep against such opposition and is there a process in place to review an article that was reviewed not that long ago? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You can list it at FARC again.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As Piotrus indicated, you could resubmit it to FAR if you think it still has deficiencies (3 to 6 months is the typical minimum). The Removes were entered a month before the FAR was closed; it is common for articles to improve after initial Removes are entered, and quite a few articles are restored to status after initial "votes" are entered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to close FAR

Chess was seriously reviewed less than a year ago, and I see no compelling need for a new review so soon. I asked Kaypoh not to put up multiple noms; we currently have four Kaypoh noms. I move to close the Chess FAR. FAR is backlogged, and Chess is not in bad shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense; go for it, Sandy, if Tim and Joel are of similar mind. Tony (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am reviewing this case. Joelito (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Joelito (of course I wouldn't close it myself :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notifications

Notifications have slipped again; we're about ten behind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New guidelines for date formatting where not autoformatted

There has been a lively debate at MOSNUM on the further relaxation of what used to be the compulsory linking/autoformatting of all full dates in WP aritlces; see also here. This has resulted, in the interim, in the insertion of a set of guidelines for non-autoformatted dates into MOSNUM by User:Remember the dot. The new guidelines mirror WP's existing practice for varieties of English, as set out at MOS.

This debate has emerged a number of times since the failed attempt to persuade the developers at MediaWiki to decouple the autoformatting and linking functions, as a first step towards fixing what many WPians, including me, regard as a dysfunctional system. In particular, several participants in the debate at MOSNUM talk have pointed out that date autoformatting hides inconsistency in the raw dates for logged-in editors, that there is a surprising amount of inconsistency, and that our articles need to be cleaned up in this respect, especially where autoformatting is retained. There is concern that the vast majority of readers (who do not log in or, if they do, do not select a date format preference) see an ungainly mixture of whatever raw date formats have been entered by various editors over the years, hidden from us, of course, by the system.

For the FAR/C process, there are three relevant points:

1. nominations should not use a mixture of autoformatted and non-autoformatted full dates—one or the other is required;
2. nominations should be checked for consistency of date formatting whether autoformatted or not. For autoformatted articles, this requires scrutiny via the edit window; reviewers may wish to spot check this issue;
3. where an article does not use autoformatting, it needs to follow the guidelines. Tony (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palace of Westminster FAR

I'd just like to state here that I have no intentions of responding to Pmanderson at this specific FAR, and that's since I do not see the point of it. Pmanderson has a long history of being disruptive at FAR, and he is that immature he even pursued a vendetta against me at my FAC for Eyes of the Insane back in May 2007. In his contributions at FAR (or anywhere else for that matter), I have never found him to be constructive at all. He has always expressed a hatred of citations, and this is yet another FAR where he wishes to make a point. Despite the fact he hates citations, he has asked me to name specific statements which need citation. Why? He has no intention of bringing the article to FA standard, but merely wishes to be a nuisance as usual and dispute criterion 1c. If he wishes to go on a diatribe as concerns citations, he can do so at WP:FA?. I suggest he stops using FAR to vent his anger at citations, since I have better things to do with my time than deal with such alleged editors. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your bold stand against clarification of your vague complaint! With your help we can all look forward to the day when specific, actionable criticisms are a thing of the past. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you always act this immature? Grow up, for God's sake. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil your conniption fit. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoil it? I was just responding to your childish comment, when in fact I was making a valid statement as to why I refuse to interact with the disruptive Pmanderson. Given your objection to citations, I am unsurprised by your behaviour. If you don't have anything mature to say, then don't say since it's a waste of others time. On a side note, there isn't any need to use words like "conniption" to assert your "intelligence" in your own mind. Since I made my statement earlier, I have no need to respond here. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much an objection to citations as an objection to those who assign useless busywork to others, while themselves being too lazy to provide more than two characters of commentary along with their "REMOVE." Christopher Parham (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to listen to such utter horseshit from you. I have written four FAs, all appropriately cited. If you got anything to say about me, instead of veiling it under such cowardly comments just say them straight from the hip. I won't put up with people like you calling me lazy, or anyone else. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have missed this calm and reasonable demonstration of good faith. As for Eyes of the Insane, my intervention seems to have done some good: it no longer cites the same footnote five times in succession; there are several cases of two and one of three in a row. LuciferMorgan's promise to find what key a song was in seems to have been forgotten, however. Are there grounds for review? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introducing User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured article review candidates

Courtesy of User:CBM and his VeblenBot, there is now a nice compact page that lists all of the FARs/FARCs sans text. There isn't any distinction between FARs and FARCs (which would be hard to do), but the dates of the nominations are given. BuddingJournalist 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(It helped me catch an unfinished nomination just now). BuddingJournalist 03:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice job! Quite useful IMHO, specially for those of us with slower connections. Can you do the same for WP:FAC? --Victor12 (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's been implemented for FAC as well: User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured article candidates. User:CBM deserves the credit though. I'm just the messenger :) BuddingJournalist 15:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice! --Victor12 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] repeated removal of Islam

Just noting that I have re-added Islam again because two editors believe that it should be closed simply because the article is protected due to a dispute (the main issue in the FAR is that the article is unstable due to edit wars). As the nominator, I obviously think it should remain open but I would like some input. Preferably I would like Raul654 to make the decision Alexfusco⁵ 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realize the "two editors" you refer to, Marskell and Joel, are the editors delegated by Raul to handle FAR? Gimmetrow 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I do Alexfusco⁵ 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I intentionally waited 16 hours to archive this to see if it would stick, and you re-added it 5 minutes later. What timing :) Gimmetrow 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The two editors you mention, Marskell and Joelr31, are Raul's delegates for FAR (see the instructions) and have traditionally kept/delisted articles on this page. Moreover, it would be a good idea to discuss this decision, rather than constantly reverting ([1], [2], [3]). Please note that while FAR's purpose is to improve FAs that may not meet the criteria, it is not a forum for dispute resolution. If there is an edit war going on, it should be resolved through other channels. BuddingJournalist 23:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three noms

South Africa, Cape Town, and Indonesia are all put up by the same nominator, all three in FAR still, all within two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick note

Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway could probably do with a review (only one reference, no real cites, inadequate lede, short and choppy sections), but I don't really have the time or the expertise to try to address any of the issues myself. If anyone else fancies bringing it up for consideration, go ahead. Otherwise, just ignore me :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The four words and how to deal with them

If we want to move forward with trying to work out the disputes over "likely to be challenged," then we have to achieve consensus, or at least super majority. I'm sure everyone is chary and sure that the results will be "no consensus," but if we even want to try to see where we all stand, we have to avoid the usual ball of threads that result when we bring up questions like these.

I recommend, for whatever it's worth, that we set up "champions" of a sort. By that I do not mean individuals. I mean arguments. There may be two or three, or possibly four, positions. Let us work on our perspectives, and then we can put them up to see if people agree with them most, or "none of the above (status quo)." If we want to do this, then the best way might be to set up positions and then for each of us to work only on the position that we agree with. We can then, when finalized, put these positions up for consideration.

Suppose, then, it goes like this:

1. We come up with two or three or four positions here.
2. One, let's say, is "challenged means by expert opinion."
3. Folks go to a /temp page, where the language of the position gets hammered out. Only people who agree with the position go to the /temp to work on the enunciation of the position.
4. When people are happy with their statement, they move it to a (eek!) polling/deliberation/adjudication space.
5. When the major positions are present, we ask for support/oppose. All who worked on the position are automatically listed as support. (This helps to prevent people bashing and complaining during the building phase.)
6. If there is "no consensus" (and, of course, we know there will be), we send the top positions to conference to work out compromise positions.
7. We come back.
8. If there is no consensus then, we accept a rule of "status quo."

Anyway, that's an idea. I'm not necessarily volunteering myself, but here are some possibilities I can think of (a clever person would make this a table; I'm not clever). "Likely to be challenged means": A) By a reader; B) By an educated reader; C) By other print sources; D) By other expert opinion; E) Status quo.

(Incidentally, there is another debate to be had. How much priority does FAR have over FAC? What amount of time or change means "stale?" I don't want that debate, myself.) Geogre (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Differs by field, TimVickers said it best here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's "challenged by other expert opinion." It's covered, in other words. (By the way, TimVickers's position gives rise to the power of either Sages or Projects, and both are outside of Wikipedia remit, in my opinion.) Geogre (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While the "likely to be challenged" wording has done a reasonable job in a lot of content discussions for me, the one thing I've long disliked about it is that it can become tautological: it's likely to be challenged because I'm challenging it right now. Thus, I'm sympathetic to Geogre's suggestion we workshop it a little more. A question before proceeding though: should this work through WP:V or FAC/R? V has been remarkably stable and its wording is decent; I don't want to screw with it. At the same time, "challenged means by expert opinion" would be novel and it would have to be acknowledged in policy if it's to happen. One test someone mentioned previously is The man on the Clapham omnibus. My opinion falls closer to it than to an expert opinion test. Marskell (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effort expended

I'm curious, if I had extra time to work on this page, would my efforts be better expended reviewing articles that appear here and offering suggestions, or actually working on the articles to try saving them? I'm willing to do either. --Laser brain (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the former if there is already an active editor working extensively on it, or the latter if not? DrKiernan (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions are always welcome Laser brain. If you have something to say, you should say it. Ceoil (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Laser, glad to see you here. Keep in mind that, while FAC moves at a faster pace and benefits from daily input, you can check in to FAR more casually, as it operates at a very deliberative pace. When editors are actively at work salvaging an article, help is always welcome (for example, see Saturn V and Apollo 8) and Marskell and Joelr31 give as much time as needed, so a note that you're willing to work on it helps. When an article appears abandoned, sometimes there's not much we can do, and then a list of the issues may be helpful to future editors who may attempt to re-featured the article. It really depends on how the FAR is going and whether there are attempts to salvage it and whether it is possible for one of us to cite an uncited article. (Don't forget, we still need you at FAC :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be an either/or. Improving content is always prioritized, but a thoughtful keep or remove is what's most needed in the FARC sections. It's becoming harder and harder to close them for lack of definite statements. By all means, join the party on both counts! Marskell (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)