User:ComplexRational/Unwritten rules of FAC

Finished FAs rise above the surface, but all the rules and expectations – written and unwritten – lie below.

Featured articles are Wikipedia's best articles, so naturally the bar is set high and featured article candidates are subject to a thorough and rigorous review. At least in theory, the main purpose of the review is to ensure the articles meet the strict set of criteria, though in practice, reviews cover much more than is written out in the criteria. In other words, the criteria are arguably (debatably) just the tip of the iceberg. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as more often than not, they lead to higher-quality featured articles, though the fact that some of these rules and expectations are not written out explicitly can be confusing.

I believe the existence and application of such unwritten rules is partially a consequence of inflation of standards over the years (not unlike RfA inflation), and I regularly encounter featured articles from over 10 years ago that would struggle to pass an FAC today. Even though I've only been around since 2018 (when standards were perhaps already inflated) and only participated in a handful of FACs, I've learned about these rules and expectations both as an author and reviewer. I hope some of my findings can be helpful for less experienced or less regular FAC contributors (even myself at the time of writing).

Miscellaneous unwritten rules of FAC

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of expectations or how-to guide for FAC, only various things I've noticed on both sides of the FAC process and I've discussed with other editors on- and off-wiki. Here they are, in no particular order.

Preparing the article beforehand

Though not a strict requirement, when an article already undergone (and passed) another form of content review, it is likely to be more ready for FAC and less likely to draw comments or opposes for outstanding issues. Good article nominations are a helpful step in article development, as good articles have to meet a basic set of standards, and peer reviews are a low-stress, high-reward environment at any point in the process. Experienced editors have a better understanding of expectations, so can probably skip this step, though a second or third set of eyes prior to submission at FAC is never a bad thing.

English variety (WP:ENGVAR)

Although various Wikipedia articles use different varieties of English, it is expected that one variety be used consistently in any featured article candidate (probably even for good article nominees). This is explained further in the section of the MOS page, MOS:ARTCON. When an article is mostly written by a single author, this problem likely resolves itself because the article likely has a consistent ENGVAR, the preferred one of the author. In other cases when an ENGVAR is not firmly established, follow the MOS page linked in the heading to establish one, preferably before commencing the FAC.

Reference formatting

I've learned that reviewers sometimes can be very picky with this. Some questions on this might arise even when verifiability is not in doubt, but the solution is similar to that for ENGVAR. Choose one citation style (Wikipedia does not have a single preferred style) and stick to it consistently; this might entail updating the format of many pre-existing citations, but do not "force" a style when another is already clearly established. Citation templates are not mandatory, but using them greatly simplifies (consistent) formatting of citations. After doing so, some of the things to check are:

• Authors: use Biv, Roy G; Biv, Roy G.; Biv, R. G.; Biv, R.G.; Biv, RG; Biv RG; or anything else that's stylistically acceptable, but do so consistently. Reviewers will nitpick even the slightest differences within a set of references when conducting a source review.
• Dates: exactly the same principle as with authors – use 25 December 2020; December 25, 2020; 2020-12-25; December 2020; 2020; or anything stylistically acceptable, again keeping consistency across all references. Date formats keeping only a month or year may be preferred when exact publication dates are not provided in the majority of an article's sources—for instance, many websites have exact dates but scientific journals often only have a month or year—so this is also important to consider. If an article has {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}}, follow that.
• Page ranges: follow the guidance at MOS:PAGERANGE. If pages themselves have dashes or numbers, use hyphens within the page numbers and en dashes to separate them (024315-1–024315-8, for example).
• Link rot: run a check for this before an FAC, and add the appropriate archive links if necessary. Reviewers can't fact-check against a source with a dead URL.

Signs of incompleteness

If any part of the article leaves unanswered follow-up questions or at first glance can be further expanded with pertinent information without going into unnecessary detail, it's a good idea to answer them. Sometimes this is better done in a footnote ({{efn}} or similar) if the "answer" digresses from the main flow of the paragraph. Such occurrences feature language such as "usually", "typically", "x%", "all but x", etc. By addressing these questions beforehand, it's less likely that a reader or FAC reviewer will feel something important is missing.

For example: a statement reading "All but two elements up to lead are stable" begs the question, "which two elements are unstable?". In this case, the answer is easily addressed by extending the sentence to include the exception. A more complicated case reading "...are able to attain it in reasonably stable compounds" suggests an exception, i.e. an "unstable" or "unreasonably" stable compound in this case. The article containing this statement nicely explains this detail in a footnote to keep intact the main focus of the section.

See also

• Wikipedia:Article development