User:SandyGeorgia/Withdrawn FAC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've asked User:Roger Davies, User:Elcobbola and User:Karanacs to help with withdrawn FACs. There are two different cases:

FAC withdrawn by nominator with Opposes, to be recorded in articlehistory
  1. Make sure there's a note on the FAC, linking to the request to withdraw from the nominator
  2. Remove transcluded fac page from WP:FAC
  3. Move the transcluded fac page to the top of the correct monthly archive file, with an edit summary saying withdrawn (for my future stats, distinguish from a fail). Moving it to the monthly archive file will trigger GimmeBot to do the rest.
  4. Make sure the {{fac}} template is still on the article talk page, so the bot won't stall.
  5. Remind the nominator not to remove the fac template, with a link to WP:FAC/ar.
Premature FAC withdrawn with no opposes, or no opposes of substance (this is why judgment of fac regulars is required. It's a judgment call as to whether the FAC should be recorded into articlehistory.) Complete sample
  1. Remove transcluded fac page from WP:FAC [1] Do NOT move to archive file, as it doesn't need to be botified.
  2. Open the FAC page and remove the FAC tools.
  3. Move the FAC page to the next open N, /archiveN , lowercase a.[2] GimmeBot looks for the next open N on its next archive, so it doesn't care if a previous number is used but not in history.
  4. Re-open the original FAC file,[3] to (a) remove the redirect, (b) prep it ready for next submission by (i) adding the tools and (ii) page header ===[[Article name]]=== and (c) link to previous FAC withdrawn (no uppercase p all uppercase FAC, this is for some other scripts)
  5. Go to the article talk page. (a) Remove the {{fac}} template from the article talk page, (b) leave a comment on the talk page in a new section noting that the fac was withdrawn, with a link to the archive file.
  6. If necessary, notify the nominator (sample message from Roger Davies below):

[edit] FAC withdrawn

I appreciate you're acting in good faith but it's best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. This way they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar with the sources to make any suggested improvements. Someone who hasn't worked on the article can't provide this input, so the FAC rumbles on until the opposes become so overwhelming that the article is failed, taking a lot of reviewers' time. While the xxxx article is reasonable, it is not FAC quality as is evidenced by the lukewarm reception, so I have archived it. I suggest you first work an article up through peer review and good article to prepare for WP:FAC.