Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject FAR Notifications
edit
Biographies notify here
Medicine notify here
Military history notify here
Novels notify here
Regional notice boards list
Main directory
Urgent FAR/FARCs
edit
Free will Review it now
League of Nations Review it now
Archive
Archives
Archives for former FARC process

Archives for current FAR process
About archives • Edit this box
Shortcut:
WT:FAR

See also: Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems.

Contents

[edit] Long-term updating of articles

Is the long-term updating of featured articles something that WP:FAR concerns itself with? This is sort of related to the "stability" criterion of the featured article criteria, but probably a better way to think of this is whether articles can go "stale". I'm thinking in particular of contemporary articles, written at the time of an event (eg. disasters or other news stories), and whether or not a failure to keep the articles up-to-date is a problem. News articles that go stale look bad, because it looks like they were intensively worked on at the time (for obvious reasons) and then have been neglected since, which isn't really what "featured articles" should be about. Sometimes much of the long-term aftermath material can go in a separate article, with only a summary needed in the main article, but the articles need to be kept up-to-date, otherwise they end the story just after the event and then fall silent, and the reader is left wondering what happened next - again, not something that featured articles should do.

The specific example here is Hurricane Katrina and (presumably) Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. I've raised this issue three times before, and some updates have been done. I've now raised it a fourth time, and started this discussion here. PLease see the following talk page threads:

So my questions are what should be done in the general and specific cases? Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really grokking the question. Featured articles should be accurate (1c) and comprehensive (1b). If they're not, we can review them. The best way to handle this, though, is to leave messages on the talk pages and the relevant WikiProjects asking that the articles be updated, identifying specific areas that need attention, are inaccurate or are not comprehensive, give it some time, and then come to FAR if they're not updated. Have you invited the original author and WikiProjects tagged on the article pages to this discussion or shared your concern with them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"Up-to-datedness" has been a concern on a couple of reviews. I note it as a comprehensiveness concern when I move an article from FAR to FARC, although 1b doesn't actually mention it. My advice would be the same: hit user talk and active WikiProject, if there is one. If that doesn't work, well then, bring it here. Don't do that until you've exhausted article talk though, lest people think you're jumping the gun with the nomination.
(Grokking the question?! That's a new one :). Marskell (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I'm a bit puzzled that you are both saying I should take this to the talk page, as I thought my comment above made it clear (if you follow the links) that I have raised this on the talk page several times over the last few years since Hurricane Katrina. If there is a general lack of response over the course of two years, is that not a concern? My more general point is that 1c and 1b don't work well for articles about current or ongoing events. It was predictable that the Hurricane Katrina article, and others like it (eg. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake) would accrue more information over the succeeding years - more so than, say, an article about the Great Lisbon Earthquake (which is not to say that historical subjects don't change as new research is published, it is just that the change needed for current affairs articles is more predictable). In other words, an article may satisfy 1c and 1b when it passes FAC, but it will more likely than not start to go out of date immediately. That seems to be to be a type of instability. Just something that might be worth flagging up - maybe make a list of the featured articles that may need this kind of attention, and try and raise the profile of the updating work needed. It is depressingly common for people to actually avoid editing featured articles because they are featured. There is an {{update}} template, but putting that on featured articles might not go down too well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you posted to Titoxd (talk · contribs) about this thread? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now, but the Hurricane Katrina article is only an example. It is the general case I'm asking about here. I could go through all the featured articles and list those ones about events or products that are still regularly making news, and then see how up-to-date those are. Would that help? Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing the distinction; any article can become outdated or inaccurate over time, so I can't see the benefit in singling out specific articles. In any case, it seems the general answer would be the same: if you identify a WP:WIAFA deficiency in a featured article, you raise it on the talk page or the relevant Project or with the principle editor (if still active), and if that isn't successful, then a review would be the next logical step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, looking at some of the examples you raise here, some of that could have been avoided (today) if the article writing (then) had accounted for Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Precise language—but some FA reviewers rail against WP:MOS, so getting other reviewers to uphold it is sometimes like swimming upstream. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Precise dates - that's sounds like what I was saying before on that thread you've linked to... sorry, this thread. :-) Anyway, I happen to think that some articles are more likely to become outdated, and I'm about to spend some time trying to prove it by looking through all (well, nearly all) the featured articles! Wish me luck! Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that, by identifying articles that deal with current events and that might be outdated, you don't prove that all the other FAs are any more current and accurate than those you identify are, so it doesn't seem a good use of time. Better would be to work on enforcing precise language at FAC to begin with. As far as tagging FAs, I stuck some udpate tags on 7 World Trade Center just last week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
PS And they're still there, but editors have lives. Also, when I put the tags at 7 World Trade Center, I realized we have some really snazzy features for articles that may need updating. As of March 2007,{{update after|2008|03|01}} causes the update tag to remain invisible until after March 2008, and then show up as As of March 2007,[update needed] so you can flag things that need updating by a certain time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I won't get through all 1906 featured articles! But it should be interesting. Like you, I came to 7 World Trade Center because it is the first on the list, but I did have the thought: is it possible to get a list of all the featured articles about living people? Even better, is it possible to have a list of all the featured articles that are biographies of people (living or dead)? That should be easy (cross-reference with the WPBiography tag or the "year of birth" categories and the "Living people" category), and those two lists would be useful. It appears that Category:FA-Class biography articles (458 members) includes a list or two as well, but that is a pretty good approximation. Now I just need to cross-check that with Category:Biography articles of living people. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see what that will accomplish: what about, for example, medical articles that regularly become outdated by new advances? Films, with stats about box office data. Or sports articles that regularly become outdated on stats? They all can become outdated; I just don't see the benefit in singling out any individual category or group of articles. (This thread has made me feel stupid from the beginning :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if I approach it from the other end? Would you agree that some articles are more stable than others? For example, Georg Forster is something that would only need small improvements over time. Unless new biographical material emerges, there is unlikely to much to challenge the "comprehensiveness" criterion. I hope you will agree that Katie Holmes is more likely (indeed, certain) to need updating? The dead people versus living people (with the exception of recently dead people, and here recent can mean years - the definitive biography of Elvis Presley could not have been written immediately after he died), is a good example, but the divide is still more between those that have become part of history (Forster) and those who are (or were) part of contemporary culture. Articles have a greater inertia the older the topic is, if you know what I mean? Anyway, think of this more as being about dividing up the featured articles by more categories than just those found at WP:FA, and ignore the "updating" bit if you like. Have a look at User:Carcharoth/Featured articles needing regular updates for a modest start at getting a handle on the featured articles about "people" (heavily based on Category:FA-Class biography articles). I'm sorting out the 413 bit at the moment, just need to twiddle things in a spreadsheet. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I just don't get it. Almost all articles need regular updating, and I don't see why focus on bios or hurricanes, when sports, videos, films, medical articles and so on are no less in need of regular updating. A shorter list would be which articles don't need updating, and I'd question a lot of what might end up on that list. Sorry, but I'd rather see people go review some articles currently at FAC and FAR and pick out the issues with precise language that our reviews are letting through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. I'll either wave from this side of the room if I decide to go back to finding the featured articles on living people, or wade into FAC with a "PRECISE LANGUAGE" banner... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Go for it ! (The latter, that is :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now notified the WikiProject as well. My question over there was whether they, as a WikiProject, devoted time to keep FAs up-to-date. Obviously most hurricanes don't need so much post-event attention, but I would have hope that Hurricane Katrina would have could a bit more attention from someone (I may try and do something myself later). My general question about FAs hasn't been answered though: do people think that the little bronze star can sometimes discourage people from updating an article, or lull them into a false sense of security "it's featured so it must be OK"? Sandy has used the "update" tag - is it accecptable to use that tag more widely, or should the talk page be tried first? Carcharoth (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between how FAs and other articles are edited, and I don't see adding that little inline tag[update needed] as disruptive or bothersome at all (big driveby tags bother me on well-written articles, but that's true whether FA or not), so I'm indifferent to whether it's raised on talk or by adding the little inline (but I did/usually do both). The nice thing about adding the little inline is that any new editor might see it and update the data, even if they haven't read the talk page. Another thing you can do is to add the update needed inlines with a date that triggers a month from now, and then leave a talk page note, so the editors are warned in adavance and have a month to work on them before the invisible tags show up. On the general issue of keeping FAs up to date, as we've learned here on FAR, almost none do. If the original editor doesn't do it, usually no one does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
One of my points has been confirmed by Titoxd's response here. My concern is that people are actually avoiding updating the article because they fear (probably rightly) that partial attempts at updates would imbalance the article. I also suspect that people are more wary of doing this updating because it is a featured article, and they are waiting for an "expert" or someone with enough time, to come along and do the updating. In other words, rather than updates taking place the normal way for Wikipedia, the achievement of featured article status has contributed to impeding further updates. But this is common to all featured articles. Carcharoth (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate the concern, you need more than one example to prove a systemic problem. I have no idea if this common to all featured articles. Marskell (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA London congestion charge doesn't make sense

This doesn't make any sense to me -

"In 2007, the Fifth Annual Monitoring Report by TfL stated that between 2003 and 2006, N2O emissions fell by 17%, PM10 by 24% and CO2 by 3%, with some being attributed to the effects of reduced levels of traffic flowing better, with the majority being as a result of improved vehicle technology.[25][122] These accounted for a falls of N2O by 17%, PM10 by 24 percent and CO2 by 3 percent.[25] In total the rate of fall in CO2 has been 20%.[123]"

I'm bemused by the fact that the article is a featured article.

I'd like to edit it but gave up because the inline referencing format and text make it too time consuming to read and edit. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That bit was incorporated here quite late in the FAC cycle. Gimmetrow 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That's as may be - it still doesn't make sense though. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

I want to list Book of Kells for review because it lacks inline citations, but it looks like a long and confusing process. Could someone help me through it? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article review/Constitution of Belarus

Can I have some more eyes at this FAR; I personally need folks to tell me exactly what to fix. All I have here is just general ranting about Belarusian politics and asking for expansion of other articles not related to this. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I can look at it either tonight or tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] when articles are downgraded from FA-status (redux)

Original Discussion → Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 7#when articles are downgraded from FA-status

I agree with the cited thread that nomination for a down-graded FAR to GA-candidate would be a poor choice of outcomes. In the case of Korean name, the outcome was a transition from FAR→B-class. The FARC input did not suggest what outcome class the article should be placed at and I am wondering if the current best-practice is, in fact, to do a FAR→B transition so that the article is placed at the threshold of the class-review process to begin working up once more to GA then A and eventually FAR? Thanks for additional input on this topic. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

All de-featured articles are switched to B-class; GA is a separate process from FA, and articles can re-apply there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
So to clarify, does this mean that when an article is promoted from GA to FA, it is no longer considered a GA? Or do those specific types of articles still retain the GA rating and when they lose the star, they revert to GA? BuddingJournalist 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles promoted to FA are removed from the GA listing (by GimmeBot), but the articlehistory shows that they were once GA. Defeatured FAs don't revert to GA; they need to re-apply. Most articles that are de-featured would not quality for GA, as they are typically defeatured for reasons that would also preclude a GA rating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Then a summary depiction of the overall promotion-demotion process would look something like the graphic at right? This assumes that an article needs to be GA-Class before it can be considered for FA-class ... which might be incorrect. Pardon my lack of experience but what is the process for reaching A-Class? There are some embedded questions in there like 'Is A-Class relevant any longer?' and 'Is article promotion from B-Class to A-Class a third, parallel pathway?' Oh, and there is that final question ... is this the right forum to pose this question to? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


No: neither B-class, A-class or GA ratings have anything to do with the FA process. See Talk:Ima Hogg. ALL of the other processes you mention vary in consistency across Projects and depending on editors who evaluate them. FA is the only community process. The rest are unrelated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the image to reflect your input; the original version is located here. The absence of a class-designation on the original article indicates that an article could be nominated for FA-status regardless of its current class ... even if it has not been otherwise classed. Is this closer to the current situation? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't make any sense of the new diagram, but: 1) yes, an article can go from zero to FA (and most articles of experienced FA writers do that, bypassing other processes), and 2) all de-featured articles are rated B-class by GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I had some problems with adding the 'demotion' label ... does it make more sense now? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No; it doesn't show that some articles do go through B, GA, and A-classes to get to FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That is shown by the "no class label" document - that originating document could be B-class, A-class or GA-class ... doesn't matter. If I were to draw all possible paths, the image would be more path than document and label ... I'll do another minor tweak to try and make it clearer in a few minutes. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
gee - took tooo long ... a good image with explanatory text --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I might be missing something but would it be wrong to list "She Shoulda Said 'No'!" for FA review? IMO doesn't seem FA material, I could be wrong though. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You would need to supply reasons relative to WP:WIAFA, and it's courtesy to first raise the issues on the article talk page, and allow the editors there time to correct any deficiencies you mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monthly update of substantive styleguide and policy changes

Sandy and others have requested regular updates of substantive changes to MOS (not just copy-editing). I hope I haven't left anything out that's substantive. Here's the whole-month diff.

3 March – 3 April 2008

Manual of style, main page

  • Multiplication symbols. Added: Do not use an asterisk to represent multiplication between numbers in non-technical articles. The multiplication sign in exponential notation (2.1 × 108) may now be unspaced, depending on circumstances (2.1×108); previously, spacing was always required in exponential notation.
  • Images. There were minor changes to the advice concerning the direction of the face or eyes in images, and concerning the size of images.
  • Punctuation in quotations. "Punctuation" was added to the requirement that "Wherever reasonable, preserve the original style, spelling and punctuation".
  • Em dashes. "Em dashes are normally unspaced" was strengthened to "should not be spaced".
  • Instructional and presumptuous language. "Clearly" and "actually" were added to the list of words that are usually avoided in an encyclopedic register.
  • '"Pull" and block quotes. Removed: Pull quotes are generally not appropriate in Wikipedia articles. Added: Block quotes can be enclosed using {{quotation}} or {{quote}} (as well as the existing specification, i.e., between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags).

Layout styleguide

  • "See also" sections. Clarification that links should be presented in a bulleted list, and that rather than grouping them by subject area, it is helpful to alphabetize them.

Non-free content policy

  • Criterion 8. The second clause was removed: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Licensing policy


TONY (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • A page has been established for users to notify substantive changes to styleguides and policy pages here. Monthly update summaries will be stored on a dedicated page here in chronological sequence, as a service to the community. The summaries will not rely on the notifications alone, but will involve a survey of the whole-month diffs for each of the major pages. TONY (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP Signpost on FAC and FAR/C reviewing

This week, it's all about the aspects of reviewing that are critical to maintaining WP's high standards, and the other advantages of being a reviewer. Here's the link:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches

Happy for the word to be spread, since we need more reviewers; if you have a mind to alert others at WikiProjects and the like, please do. TONY (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama FAR

I have closed the Obama FAR neither as a keep nor as a remove. My reasons are many and I will discuss them if deemed necessary.

An administrative question: How do we handle FARs that are not kept nor removed? For example, Barack Obama was not successfully reviewed but its status was not removed either. Do we create an additional category? What do we call it? Joelito (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can archive it the same way I archive withdrawn FACs, that bypasses GimmeBotification into articlehistory, but preserves the file. Let me know. Great call, btw; I hope the editors will settle down and consider dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as you don't move it to archive, GimmeBot isn't triggered, so let me know if I should handle it like I do withdrawn FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you edit the article's talk page manually Sandy? Editing the article history template? Joelito (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, on withdrawn FACs (where there was no "decision" per se), I move the FAC file to the next open archive, and don't add it to articlehistory, but do leave a note on the talk page. If I did the same here, it wouldn't be in articlehistory (since AH has to be Keep or Remove), but it would be linked on the talk page and linked in any subsequent FAR. If none of those work for your purposes, then we're asking Gimmetrow to redesign the options in articlehistory and with GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I left Gimmetrow a note, so he'll probably be on soon, but it may be possible for him to simply add a "no decision" option, and then let us archive it normally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, do you want me to put the top and bottom closed tags on the FAR while we wait for Gimmetrow and others to weigh in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be difficult to add a third result without a third archive page. If an article still has the star, then isn't that a "keep"? Gimmetrow 05:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
So, if Joelr31 wants to instead, we can just move it to archive3, clear the redirect indicating "previous FAR closed" (rather than withdrawn), and not enter in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds best. Gimmetrow 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, they can move it to archive3, don't tag Kept or Removed, clear the redirect indicating "previous FAR closed" (rather than withdrawn as I do on FACs), remove the FAR tag from the talk page but leave a new talk page section with the link, and not enter in articlehistory. That's basically what I do on withdrawn FACs. It's 2 am here; I've been waiting up to see if I needed to help out with this, since the regular editors probably don't yet know the FAR is closed, but I'm off to bed. Manual sample steps are at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#GimmeBot steps if Marskell or Joelr31 need them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I ran it through the bot this time without updating the AH template. Gimmetrow 06:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Joel, I seconded Andyvphil's appeal here. This is not a withdrawn article and I believe declaration of consensus or no consensus is necessary. I am interested in your reasons and you may wish to enumerate them on this talk instead of that. JJB 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice for Andy to talk to Joel about his decision if he wanted clarification. I'm sure there were a variety of sound reasons why it was closed this way. FAR is not a substitute for dispute resolution, and in this particular case, it seemed as if the FAR process was being entirely subverted. Note the numerous out of place keep/remove votes despite the many pleas by Sandy for editors to read the instructions, all to no avail. BuddingJournalist 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed a third category, occasionally, in closings: basically it's "considered invalid or unworkable for review, for the timebeing." That's imperfect, but it's sometimes true and I understand Joel's action. FAR is not dispute resolution and it is wrong to expect the people here to mediate content disputes. I archive reviews of this sort as keep, but somewhat uncomfortably, as they have not actually been "kept." I support AH not actually recogonizing reviews of this sort. Marskell (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind excluding this from article history. I find that odd, since for an active article like this article history is a place to get a quick summary of what has been going on with the page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

From my POV, like a premature, withdrawn FAC, the reasoning is that it shouldn't have been at FAR to begin with. The editors involved never engaged dispute resolution, and never understood or followed the FAR process. So, what we have is a page labeled as a FAR page, filled with ranting that belongs in dispute resolution but never engaged the process of reviewing an article. It never should have been at FAR, it doesn't belong in articlehistory any more than any other dispute resolution does, and I repeatedly implored editors to read and understand the FAR process. I endorse the way it was handled. Also, it may help to contrast it with other FARs; Che Guevara came to FAR with at least a year-long POV dispute, poor writing, poor sourcing, MoS errors throughout, in need of review for many reasons. This article has good writing, good sourcing, a few MoS issues that were easily cleaned up, and a recent dispute related to current events: very different situation. Another FAR was closed as a Keep last summer in spite of not receiving a thorough review because of some handwaving and hollering that went on; that Keep probably shouldn't have gone in articlehistory as a Keep, because the purpose of FAR wasn't really engaged. Those are examples of why I agree with the conclusion of not recording the event in articlehistory as a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Assume, just for the purpose of argument that I am right that the article fails FAR criteria 1(d) but currently has FAR status. Are you saying that it should keep its FAR status until such a time as there are no disputes on the POV of its content? No existing DR process will produce this result, and such attempts at DR as have been attempted have had little if any result. So that assertion amounts to saying that once FAR is awarded to an article that becomes lastingly controversial it can never be withdrawn. Surely not. Andyvphil (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
My initial intention was to re-start the review, much like a restarted nomination in FAC. After some thinking I concluded that a proper review was impossible to achieve at the moment. Since the article was not successfully reviewed I could not archive it as keep. As was mentioned earlier FAR is not dispute resolution. Whenever an article requiring DR comes to FAR, achieving consensus for either keeping or removing its FA status would be nearly impossible. How can it be decided if there is no consensus for keeping its status or no consensus for losing its status? Joelito (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Easy. If there isn't affirmative consensus that the article should have FA status it shouldn't have it. The default is "not FA". Andyvphil (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Restarting the review with more controls on off-process posts could be OK, but not adding the current version to the article history was a good call, I think. FARs 1 and 2 followed procedure and promoted teamwork, concluding normally with versions that can now stand as earlier high water marks for article quality. But FAR 3 closed with a less than optimal version that still needs attention due to persistent reworking by two (or three, or four) editors that seem more concerned with pushing text and maximizing airtime minutes than maintaining article quality. Warnings against edit warring have been heeded by the more quality-oriented editors, leading to the result that parts of the article have been appearing rather tattered. That has to be a disappointment for our readers, and doesn't put Wikipedia in the most favorable light. Fortunately, there are also other sections that have remained quite stable and readable. My hope is that we can gradually move the "battle ground" sections into truce or peace status, but obviously that takes a lot of negotiating and won't happen overnight. Another reason why a hastily executed FAR can't work for this article. Reopening the FAR while resetting the clock to zero might be the best way to win more equal time for further discussion of quality-related issues. --HailFire (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with Hailfire more. The article is better now than it ever has been, in terms of its content, because so much more is known about its subject and because it is starting to receive the attention of editors who are not part of the fan club and recognize some of the the gaps and misrepresentations in that content. For example, the article contained the sentence, "As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.", for something like forever. Actually, working for Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, his workload wasn't always so high-minded. For example he represented Davis' Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp. when WPIC was sued by the city of Chicago for not providing heat to tenants, shortly before WPIC went into business with Rezmar. This kind of content problem just can't be caught by FA reviewers looking for pleasing style, proper choice of hyphens and citation style. But that kind of content omission meant it did not then deserve FA status, despite getting it. And it does not deserve it now. And there's no point in repeating FAR, because that's not going to fix it. As you say, you don't do content disputes, and this is a content dispute. Time to follow procedure, move to FARC, lift the FA if/when the problems aren't fixed, and let the editors behind the article apply again when the article arguably deserves FA status. Even HailFire admits it doesn't deserve it now. How else can you read his assertion that parts of it are "tattered"? What is the argument for letting it keep the little star while waiting for it to deserve it? Andyvphil (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Content disputes fall under the purview of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. FAR does not have the resources to mediate disputes of this nature, and trying to force an active content dispute through the FAR process will achieve little and is not the right use of FAR resources. Please visit Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for help in dealing with content disputes. BuddingJournalist 13:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I opened the FAR and I am completely independent of the page. It was and is not my intention to use FAR as dispute resolution. But because the page is clearly and manifestly unstable it fails one of the featured article criteria and should be downgraded. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Stifle! Everyone, to me the obvious compromise is reopen stage-1 FAR as "on hold" and redirect all to discuss only whether or not there is consensus to close (I think there isn't). All other discussion should go elsewhere and invoke DR. After we see what happens in DR for a couple weeks it will be clear whether this should move to FARC due to instability, or move to closed due to good faith in pending truces. This is not a simple case of "should never have been brought": warring and instability, besides invoking DR, are also signals for FARC. JJB 15:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The point that Stifle may be leaving out is that we can't allow an otherwise fine article to be de-feautured only because of (hopefully transitory) disruptive and tendentious editing; if we did that, everyone who had a beef with an article could destabilize the article, and then ask that it be defeatured. As far as re-starting the FAR, I don't see that will be a productive option until some form of dispute resolution is pursued (I suggest a mediator), the handwaving and hollering stops, and some editors understand that removing a star won't remove partisan differences, which need to be solved elsewhere. Productive and non-tendentious editing is possible and there are good and patient editors involved in this article. I do a simple test to determine how stable/unstable an article is: I list the MoS, referencing, and prose issues to see if they're cleaned up. On a really unstable article, editors usually can't keep up and can't even do basic MoS cleanup or keep the citations and prose clean. I don't see that happening on Obama: with the exception of a limited content dispute, it's a clean article. I immediately noticed, though, which editors quickly re-introduced undiscussed text and new MoS and citation errors. When issues are coming from a small group of editors on an otherwise fine article, it's best to work that through dispute resolution, and then come to FAR if/when there is much more going on. Just a few posts above show that if the FAR is re-opened, it's likely to head the same directions (long political diatribes and discussions). And we don't discuss only whether there is consensus to close in the review phase; we identify and discuss how to improve the article. A few editors here are instead focusing on how to defeature the article. (Disclaimer: as stated on both previous FARs, I am decidedly not an Obama supporter, but I don't want us to head down the slippery slope of using to FAR to de-feature articles because of current events and headlines.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd guess I'm the one committing "long political diatribes and discussions", but I didn't decide the FA criteria. If you decide to drop "comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral" then I won't have to deal with POV tags being reverted on the grounds that that they are vandalism on an article that has FA status. The fact I tried to get across is that it is a spin suitable only for Obama's campaign site that in the period between when he returned to Chicago after law school and when he ran for office he was employed doing good works a as a civil rights attorney. We list several of his supposedly good-government projects. Defending the nonprofit front for his boss (who like his friend and business associate Tony Rezko found it very profitable to set up projects that failed, without the necessity of owning them) against its slum tenants who wanted heat in winter doesn't fit the campaign line and was omitted. Nobody is asking you to solve this content dispute. Just apply your own criteria and junk the star. What part of ""comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral" am I missing? Andyvphil (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Stifle, please don't do this; the issue of how to reflect this FAR in {{articlehistory}} is well discussed above with consensus at least from Marskell, Joelr31, Gimmetrow and myself, and probably others. When you add it to articlehistory, it triggers the articlehistory error category, which I sweep daily, causing extra work. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the link. The FAR should be linked (somehow) from the talkpage. I don't mind how, but removing all trace of it isn't on. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Allrighty then. OK, you've misrepresented me on Joelr31's talk page, altered Raul's talk page (I've never seen someone go to those lengths on his talk page :-), and now altered the articlehistory against consensus so that an error is triggered. You initially stated you were a neutral admin in this FAR, but you're going against consensus here and starting fires. I hope you'll reconsider. Article milestones is specifically intended to track an article's progress through specific steps; it is not designed to track dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Right then. I'll get my fire extinguisher.
  • I've clarified on Joelr31's talk page that you did not have an opinion on the article being in need of cleanup, only that you've pointed out some fixes (which you did) and I'm incorporating them by reference.
  • I've apologised to Raul for moving around his talkpage.
  • And this should fix the talkpage so that it doesn't cause errors while still linking the FAR. Feel free to tweak the wording.
I hope this will convince you that I'm not trying to go against consensus, trigger errors, or start fires, merely to make sure that the featured article review is considered properly and either closed or escalated to FARC as appropriate. :) Stifle (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Better (and thanks for all of that); now we won't have everyone who tracks the articlehistory error category running about trying to fix it. Perhaps you can add a small parameter on your new template, to minimize talk page clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    I tried that but it looked messy. Feel free to do it yourself if you can. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't really know how, and with that huge FAQ there, cleaning up the talk page isn't a priority :-) Thanks again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we get a final result on this? Stifle (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that what everyone following the Democratic nomination battle is asking? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
So we've got an out of process close and the responsible admin's are refusing to respond. Next question: what's the procedure to impeach them? Andyvphil (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free content

The folks at this central and highly contentious policy page are, I think, coming around to the conclusion that it has serious problems. This concerns the policing of NFC and the ways in which the wording of the criteria—especially the interrelated Criteria 8, 3a and 1—are interpreted. Such policing has the potential to erupt into vicious disputes, and the use of NFC has external legal implications.

We should expect ongoing evolution of the policy; this will have ramifications for nominators and reviewers at FAC and FAR/C.

Just two of the issues are HERE and HERE. TONY (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issue of biographies

One of the important aspects of a FA is its stability. However, many living people can do some things that would radically alter the bio page. A death, for instance, can radically change a page. Should this be taken into consideration for such reviews? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See the definition of stability at WP:WIAFA; it is often misunderstood and misapplied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And when someone, like Obama, has a political change, edit wars happen. I know what stability means. I just mean that we should remember that such pages will become unstable very fast. If, say, the President of Wakawholostan decided to say "People with blue eyes should be killed", that page would probably end up in an edit war. Does this make sense? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the key point is that if an edit war starts on an FA, the issue should be taken to dispute resolution rather than FAR. DR is better equipped than we are to deal with the conflict. DR, given that it is a multi-step process which moves through several levels (negotiation->mediation->arbitration), will resolve the problem without the need to begin a tangential or alternative process at FAR. Only at the end of DR, once a stable version of the article is agreed or imposed, should the article be brought here if it still has issues. But these issues will not be stability: they will be comprehensiveness, or prose, or image use, or whatever. DrKiernan (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand your idea and I agree, but I am talking about preemptively. How do we address concerns during an FAR about potential controversial issues or complete changes that may happen with such an important event? Should we point out such areas and warn editors? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearing nomination

Whosy-whatsy-where? Did I see something Tub the other day, mature part of the list? Where is it? TONY (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tale of a Tub? See Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub Raul654 (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly Marskell made the correct decision in closing this, as rightly or wrongly, consensus was to remove. Feck. But given this, should we go for "Tale of the Tub 3: The Return of Geogre"? Will the o/s issues be resolved? I hope so, a model article like this deserves work to be saved. There are issues, but I don't think the article will suffer by their removal. Ceoil (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Geogre was aware that the FAR restarted User:Geogre/Talk archive 27#Notification of FAR on A Tale of a Tub. He chose not to participate. I don't think he wishes to participate further. DrKiernan (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine, but that's beside the point, and there were plenty gathered to voice their openion. Broadly, FAR as a process is criticised in a wide number of venues. Yet it continues, but the people taking the brunt of the heat are "proxys", left open with no support. Marskell has written 12 FAs, and I think the way he is being taken for granted, we could loose him. If I was him I'd leave, given this mess. Ceoil (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
For my part, my openion is that the article is so nunanced that only a specialist or the origional author can confidently tie back the statements to the correct sources. And I have a pretty lousy local liabary. Ceoil (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Marskell was left hung out to dry here; on maybe the most entrenched and bitter FAR to date. Raul, you promised to step in as a final voice but did not. I would expect a more hands on approach, and am dissapointed that so much weight was displaced. Ceoil (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In reply to your comments of the 19th, I had access to Ehrenpreis and Elias, and many other sources on Swift, but I'm not inclined to involve myself heavily in contentious subjects unless I feel very strongly about something. Editors who start a FAR war risk shooting themselves in the foot. If they frighten off people who might help the article and block attempts at improvement, their actions work towards removal. DrKiernan (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; I'm not talking to you Doctor Kiernan. Your participation on FAR I would never critise. Its a more general point I'm making. Ceoil (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh for sure, me likewise. DrKiernan (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 21

Monarchy of the United Kingdom is on the mainpage on April 21 for Queen Elizabeth's birthday; it's an old Emsworth FA, in case anyone has time to do some cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Choosing that to feature on the mainpage wasn't exactly a great idea, given it's current state. LuciferMorgan (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps ping Raul about this? He delayed John Day's appearance on the mainpage for a bit until it received a facelift. BuddingJournalist 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Raul gets enough pings about the mainpage, and he just juggled them all because someone requested this article be put on the mainpage for the Queen's birthday (yep :-); maybe someone will fix it while it's there. If not, it will come to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Epbr123 (talk · contribs) and Ceoil (talk · contribs) have already done some work, and I pinged DrKiernan (talk · contribs) last night; hopefully, with the patchup, it can get by. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
And now, PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) has been in there for a couple hours, and it's looking much better. If anyone else can help, it may be able to avoid FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Very nice tuneup, Peter;[1] will this need to come to FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! As for FAR, it still needs a lot of work (mainly referencing), but I'll work on it this week. I'll wait until it's off the main page and go from there. PeterSymonds | talk 07:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criterion 2b

I raised an issue I first saw on Action potential in a thread at FAC. When I first revisited Action potential, I initially thought it had been dramatically reduced and reorganized with the External links addressed; when I realized it had a TOClimit on, and removed the limit, the sections that could be better rationalized (lots of short sections, text that might benefit from summary style) and the External links issues were again apparent. Reviewers should be aware when a limit is artificially set, hiding part of the TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a fundamental change in the Featured List process

Consensus is being tested concerning a proposal to establish a directorate (possibly two of the regular reviewers) as part of a program to improve the FLC process. Input is welcome. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Should_we_have_a_FL_director.3F TONY (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The state of FAR and the citations problems list

For a few months I’ve wanted to initiate some discussion on the direction of the page. I’ll try to be brief.

There are four interrelated patterns that have emerged within the process:

  1. Reviews are getting longer. Over time, we (or me and Joel, more precisely) have let reviews reach as much as three months. The average for the FAR section has crept close to four weeks.
  2. Nominations are declining, slightly, from about one per day to two every three days. The longer reviews have masked this: the page remains stubbornly above 30 not because of increased noms, but because of increased review times.
  3. Keeps are increasing. For the first time ever (including the old one-stop FARC) we had more keeps than removes in January and February. This month should be close to 50/50. Basically, the low-hanging fruit is disappearing: the clearly substandard articles from ’04 and ’05 have largely been processed. Which leads to…
  4. The page is finally diverging from the citation problems list. For some time virtually everything on FAR was on the list, and even as those articles became a smaller and smaller proportion of the overall FAs, they continued to be a majority here. Over the last two months articles from the list have finally become a minority, which was inevitable.

On the whole, I’m pleased. The predictions from ’06 have come to pass: two to three years to process the list; no grandfathering but also no rush to remove stars. Two incremental changes I’ll suggest. First, I am going to be more resolute in enforcing timings, moving back to two weeks in review only and looking for more explicit statements that people are working in FARC. Second, as we do still have +100 on the citations problems list, I’d like to deliberately bring things from there to review. If the page is below 30 FAR regulars might consider stopping at the list and nominating something. This will ensure that it continues to move along.

More radical changes could be considered, such as moving back to a single section review. But anything that might reduce our keep ratio I don't want to try. Marskell (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. TONY (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Both suggestions are good ideas. And its very encouraging to hear those stats. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we're not quite ready to move back to a single section review; maybe a few more months until we're further through the citations list, and then we should seriously move back that direction. In spite of the really good news and the really good work done so far, the bad news is that, I suspect, we still have some particularly tricky articles left on the citations list. But one suggestion I do have for others to ponder: I think the two week review phase is no longer being used effectively. Too may FARs are just sitting there, nothing happening, until they move to FARC. What if we try harder to stick to the month-long overall period, but restructure it to a one-week review, three-week FARC period? I suspect some editors don't get cracking until they see the article may be voted off the island, and we don't really need two weeks to determine if there are issues (e.g.; Obama). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I will support you on enforcing the times since, as you know, I have been a believer that two weeks is enough time for assessment and review. One suggestion is to be more strict when articles are nominated for review. Nominators should be required to perform proper review of an article before opening a FAR. Lack of citations is not acceptable to bring to FAR. Explicitly stating where these citations are lacking is more appropriate. Furthermore, I feel that we need to continue recruiting more reviewers at all opportunities. Joelito (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to recruit some over from FAC, but things are really tight there as well. But Joel raises a good point. I don't know about others, but I used to have energy to do the notifications, to keep up with the background work, and I don't have the time anymore. Can we enforce more of the, first notify the talk page, be more specific about deficiencies, and do the notifications side of things ? For example, Obama came to FAR without a valid FAR rationale. Do more to avoid the drop-and-runs and get nominators to do more on article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Dropping to one week for the first period is fine. Most of the comments arrive in the first three days. Part of the reason I've let the first period grow so long has been an attempt to balance the size of the two sections. If we move to one week, the page will become bottom, but I suppose that's not a huge problem.
It would be nice to have more involved nominators but that's hard to enforce. We could remove reviews that have no notifications, for instance, but that will lead to problems and work of its own. Marskell (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wake-up call

We need more eyes here. There are multiple editors who have up mutliple FARs. Wackymacs has three, and I removed a fourth. Collectonian has three, and I removed a fourth. Ultraviolet scissor flame has two or three (at least). Removing them is very time consuming. Someone needs to check these all and be watching this because I can't catch them all: I'm busier now, and traffic is picking up here. There may be more, but the list is growing, and we've got to stop these drop-and-runs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The instructions here need something similar to FAC, which says: "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The instructions state explicitly "Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time". DrKiernan (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
D'oh :-) Maybe we should move that up top, because even I forgot it was there? But if we're not watching ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it (we did have this discussion before and inserted the instruction). But deciding to police it has always seemed more trouble than its worth for me. "You Are Not Allowed To..." pisses people off, and the drudgery of the rest of it is enough. But given that even a big heave recently wasn't enough to get the page below thirty, I'll try to enforce one (or at least one per section). Marskell (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Would be happy to help (if I knew what the heck was required!).--RegentsPark (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
We can use a lot of help here, Regents; like all review processes on Wiki, we're "shortstaffed". If you'd like to get involved, I can spend some time bringing you up to speed on a lot of the ongoing work. For now, perhaps if you read through all the listed FARs to get a sense of the page and the work ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I did take a look at the articles listed in Wikipedia:Featured_Article_Review. My confusion stems from the fact that every article listed there seems to have at least been compared against the criteria in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Consensus on whether to keep (as a FA?) seems to be building up on several articles as well. It also appears that for an article to be included responsible editors exist who will do the actual work (fixing stuff where the article falls short). In what sense is there a backlog and how can I help in reducing it? --RegentsPark (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I will catch up with you in a few hours (after I finish some other things), with a long list :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RegentsPark, thanks for the offer to help. I used to do a lot of this, others still do some of it, but we're all busy; most of this amounts to reminding nominators to Read The Friggin' Manual. Here are some of the ongoing tasks:

1. Per WP:FAR instructions:

Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

Watch for and remove noms that don't comply, notify the nominating editor and explain. Some of us who work very hard on this page do handle more than one nom at a time, and do follow them, so "don't delete the regulars" :-) When pages are segmented, the segment is corrected with a semi-colon. There have been extenuating circumstances when a premature review is allowed, so if unsure, leave the nom up and inquire here on talk.

2. Nominators are expected to:

Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}} to relevant talk pages (insert the article name). Relevant talk pages include the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FAR indicating notifications completed.

They rarely do. First, we remind them. Then we beg them. And then we do it ourselves. Notifications are posted back to the top of the FAR like this.

3. Watch for premature Keep or Remove declarations during the review phase, and remind nominators of the instructions about the review phase, asking them to strike premature declarations:

In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.

4. After an article has been in review about a week, check in to see if things are on track or if any clarifications about WP:WIAFA or purpose of review are needed. As reviews approach the end of the two-week (or more) review period, see if there has been any progress, if declarations to close are warranted (deficiencies corrected), or state that it needs to move to FARC. In most cases, that's clear.

5. After an article has been in the FARC phase for about a week, check in to see if editors are at work (if so, several of us will dig in or round up other editors who might help or do things ourselves; if not, there's not much we can do). See if editors need guidance as to work remaining; add suggestions. As the article nears the end of the FARC phase, enter Keep or Remove declarations, and if the nominator hasn't revisited, prod him/her to do so.

That's all I can think of for now: others pls add on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I ran through tonight and posted reminders to complete step 6 of the instructions on quite a few FARs, along with reminders to several of the nominators. Are you interested in helping with that sort of thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I see that you're posting the reminders on the FAR itself (I posted requests for Gangtok and AK-47 on the nominator user pages). I'm a slow starter (I like to get a sense for what's going on before I plunge in) so bear with me! --RegentsPark (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Here's what I usually do: post a reminder on the FAR, if that doesn't work, post a reminder to the nominator talk page, and if all fails, well, we have to do the notifications ourselves. Basically, it means becoming familiar with Step 6 of our instructions, and reminding nominators to PLEASE do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul of FL criteria

I've re-started the process here. The input of reviewers and nominators from FAR/C would be valued. TONY (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xena FAR

This Wikipedia:Featured article review/Xena: Warrior Princess should probably be deleted, as Xena is not an FA (nor could it pass FAC), so it certainly doesn't need an FAR. Collectonian (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll go look now. Could be related to something else, need to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha, I guessed, I looked, I was right. A sockpuppet. How did I know :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Marskell (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Before I could compare: see User:SandyGeorgia/Glitter. I need to see what the sig looked like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
He's been reported as a possible sock of Tarja for awhile, but nothing has happened to it yet. Collectonian (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian, you were also involved with Glitter, remember, at FAC? Can you watch User:SandyGeorgia/Glitter, and ping user:Blnguyen if needed, he's on it. One of those timesinks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Will do. I also poked the admin who closed Tarja, and he has blocked this new sock as well. Let's see how long it takes them to make a new one...*sigh* most persistent Xenophile in history, I think. Collectonian (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar FAR

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Avatar: The Last Airbender is becoming a train wreck. Some other eyes would be good here. Is it even allowed to put an RfC on a FAR? Collectonian (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved the RFC to the talk page; it wasn't currently listed anywhere, but it appears that the main listing is bot generated, and perhaps the bot hasn't been by yet. Collectonian, you don't have to keep responding on the FAR; if those editors believe those sources are reliable, they can wait and see what the consensus is when it moves to FARC. That isn't one of the worst trainwrecks I've seen at FAR; it's just a few editors who won't listen, so just disengage for a while. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...hopefully some others will chime in. I'm just gonna step back for now and see where it goes. I have enough headaches from real life :P BTW, possibly new Tarja sock already created. Keeping an eye on him to see what he does for now. Collectonian (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, everyone is stretched thin and we don't have enough eyes on things. How about this; I'll watch more FARs if some people here will go review some FACs? I currently have only two FACs I can close, and 15 on the urgents list with not enough feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been meaning to do more FAC commentings. Life is just getting in the way of late (trying to buy my first house, wee). I'll try to take a look at some of the urgents to see if I can offer any thoughts on any. Collectonian (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be calmer now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monthly update of style and policy pages: April 2008

It was a complicated month, so I hope I've captured, as simply as possible, the the substantive changes. Please notify any issues on the talk page. TONY (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duke University

I'm trying to nominate Duke University for review mainly because of concerns about 4 (too long), 3 (too many images), and possibly 1(a) and 1(d), but I haven't been able to create the page. If anonymous users are allowed to participate in FAR could someone create the page? 152.2.128.80 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created the page for you Wikipedia:Featured article review/Duke University/archive1. BuddingJournalist 00:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible FAR candidates

I've started compiling an informal list of FA's that (in my opinion) would benefit from review (see User:Artichoke2020/Possible featured article review candidates). I don't have time to do them all myself so it anyone wants to adopt any of them to improve or take through FAR, then feel free. At present they're all art and/or architecture articles needing inline citation.Artichoke2020 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to make sure you're not duplicating Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't see that list. At least it means we agree on them, though there's one listed as brought to standard that I would disagree with. John Vanbrugh has some Harvard-style citations, but I'm not entirely sure they're sufficient. I'll have to look again more closely. Artichoke2020 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)