User:HJ Mitchell/Don't be scared of FAC

I'm very lucky, in that I've had the opportunity to travel many thousands of miles for Wikipedia and meet probably many hundreds of Wikipedians of all levels of experience. I chat to these Wikipedians, and many of them like to talk about some of the articles they've written. Some have one they're particularly proud of and they think might be close to featured quality. They often ask my opinion on the article (though I'm far from the best or even the most prolific reviewer or writer at FAC), and I usually ask why they haven't nominated it. The answer I hear time and again is "I'm scared of FAC" (or words to that effect). So the purpose of this little essay is to (hopefully!) demonstrate that FAC is not quite as scary as people think it is and to give some tips for first-time nominators.

FAC is not that scary

OK, so it is a little scary—you've got a group of people who are most likely complete strangers going over your pride and joy with a fine-toothed comb looking for mistakes. That would test anybody's nerves. But the best way to approach it is to have confidence in your writing—read the criteria and really scrutinise your article against each criterion and read some of the advice linked from that page (everyone has a slightly different way of doing things, so don't worry too much if they don't all match up). Those essays have been written by some of the best writers and reviewers in the business, so they should help you assess whether your article is ready.

The standard is high—these are the articles we showcase as the best we have to offer, so the standard has to be high—but it's not unattainable. If your article is of high-enough quality, it will do well. Criticism, however, is to be expected—remember that the aim of the process is to ensure that the article is the very best it can be, and if it's not, to get it there or at least point you in the right direction.

Before you nominate your article at FAC...

...You might want to do one, several, or all of the following, especially if it's your first FAC:

Find an FA on a similar subject

The best place to look for these is in the applicable section of WP:FA, but most WikiProjects (especially those with larger scopes) will have somewhere where they highlight their featured articles, and there's also a Toolserver tool that will give you a list of FAs within the scope of a particular WikiProject (the link uses WikiProject Military history for example purposes).

If somebody has already written an FA on a similar subject, have a look at the article and compare it to yours. How is it laid out? How long is it? How does it use images? How is it written? What sort of sources does it cite? How do all those things compare to your article? It's certainly not mandatory, but it might be a god idea to use a similar style and layout because you know it has stood up to scrutiny.

Assuming you have found an FA on a similar subject, have a look at the talk page. There should be a box at the top (or somewhere near the top) with a bronze star in it and some text which tells you the article is featured. Below the text but in the same box, the words "Article milestones". Click "[<font: color="blue">show]" on the right-hand side of the box, and you should see a list of the review processes the article has been through. The successful FAC will be in the list, and many FAs will have been "good articles" or have had a peer review before their FAC (more on those processes below). Those reviews are often worth a look—you can see the stages the article has been through on its journey to FA, and you can see the kinds of things reviewers have picked up on (and look for similar issues with your article). It will also give you a feel for the process, so you'll be more prepared when you nominate your article.

Before you move on from this similar FA you've found, it might be a good idea to talk to the editor who nominated it—if they're still active, they might be able to help you with your article or at least give you useful advice.

A word of warning: FAC was less rigorous before about 2008, and some articles promoted a long time ago may not (or may no longer) be of the quality required at FAC today. If the similar FA you've found was promoted several years ago check the history to see if it is still being actively maintained, and try to compare it to more-recently promoted FAs.

Phone a friend

Well, not literally. Well, I suppose literally if you really want. Anyway, you might want to get in touch with another Wikipedian you know who has written an FA or is a regular FAC reviewer. If you don't know anybody offhand, try somebody from WP:WBFAN or ask somebody who has given a thorough review of a current FAC. If that doesn't work, you could try asking on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Or lots of WikiProjects if your article is within the scope of several. You could also ask one of the FAC delegates, ask at WT:FAC, or ask somebody who was foolish enough to write a guide like this.

Whoever or wherever you ask, ask for an opinion on the article's suitability for FAC, and ask for comments that will help improve the article. The article's talk page is a good place for them to leave comments (the article should be on your watchlist, which automatically adds is talk page to your watchlist, but double check).

Take the article to a less stringent review process

You might want to nominate your article for "good article" (GA) status. This is an excellent process that's less formal than FAC. You'll have one reviewer, who will assess the article against a set of less stringent criteria and hopefully give you some useful feedback. It can take a while for a reviewer to come along and start the review, so don't expect anything to happen overnight, but if this is your first FAC, the feedback might be worth waiting for.

You might also try the peer review process (as well as or instead of GA). This isn't an academic peer review, it's just an opportunity to seek feedback from other Wikipedians. If you state that you want to take your article to FAC, you might get some comments that will be useful in preparing it to the required standard.

Some WikiProjects have an A-class review process, at which your article will be assessed against criteria that are more stringent than those for GA status but less so than those for FA. If you're confident your article is ready (and if a relevant WikiProject has an A-class review process), this can be a good place to put it to the test with slightly lower stakes.

If you find a review at one of theses processes particularly useful, you might want to talk to the reviewer and ask them what they think your article's chances are at FA.

Top tip: Be sure to thank your reviewers for their help—reviewers are volunteers too, and they're in short supply across Wikipedia.

Read other guides to meeting the criteria

At the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is a section called "Advice from Wikipedians". This contains some truly excellent guides to writing an FA. Read, or at least skim, all of them and check the advice against your article—it might take you a little while, but you'll be much better-prepared for the FAC when we get there. Wikipedia:Featured article advice is also excellent—it explains the criteria in much more detail. And finally, Tony has written some fantastic guides to improving your articles and satisfying criterion 1a—see User:Tony1/Writing exercise box.

Look at other FACs

Have a look down WP:FAC. Look at the sorts of things reviewers are pointing out, look at how the nominator deals with these, look at what happens to the article while it's at FAC. If you feel up to it, contribute a review yourself—FAC is always in nee of more reviewers.

At FAC

If you've read the above, you're either here after quite some time spent reading, researching, tweaking, and responding to reviews or you're yelling at the screen for me to talk about FAC itself. Either way, I'll try to explain in this section how FAC works, what to expect, how to conduct yourself, and why you shouldn't be (too) scared.

Nominating

Before you nominate your article, read it again. Read the criteria again. Go back over the previous reviews to see if you've missed anything. Only make the nomination when you're absolutely sure the article is as ready as it can be.

A good nomination statement can help attract reviewers, so try to explain (concisely) why you think the article is interesting. It might not hurt to mention that it's your first nomination—reviewers might go a little easier on you. And if there are any acknowledgements you'd like to make (eg "I'd just like to thank my grandmother for supporting me in this journey", or "Harry's Don't be scared of FAC is the greatest thing since sliced bread"), now is your chance, but be concise.

Top tip: You might like to leave a neutrally worded message for previous reviewers and for relevant WikiProjects, just to alert them to the FAC. But whatever you do, don't canvass for support.

Dealing with reviews promptly

Top tip: make sure the FAC is on your watchlist, and check your watchlist regularly.

It may take a little while to get your first review, but it will come. It's important to respond to reviewers promptly. If somebody posts a review and you know you're not going to be able to deal with it within a day or two, that's fine—even reviewers have real lives, so they'll understand—but make sure you say so on the FAC. It's only good manners. On the topic of good manners, make sure you thank them for taking the time to review the article.

A review will most likely come in the form of a bulleted list of things that need to be fixed, and will probably start with a bolded word like "Support" or "Comments". It may start with "Oppose". If that's the case, try no to worry too much. If the article needs a lot of work, some reviewers will oppose. If the article is obviously under-prepared, the FAC may be summarily closed, but this is rare, and if you've followed my advice above, it won't happen to you.

Addressing reviewers' concerns

Try to correct the issues the reviewer has pointed out—in most cases, many of the concerns on a seemingly very long list are minor and can be fixed easily. The aim of the process is to bring the article out the other side in the best possible shape it can be, so don't be afraid to ask reviewers for clarification if you don't understand some of their comments (if the conversation becomes lengthy, it might be a good idea to move it to the AC talk page or a user talk page). Equally, the reviewer's opinion is not gospel, so don't be afraid to disagree with them if you honestly think one of their suggestions would cause more problems than it would solve. Whatever you do, though, don't argue with reviewers. Getting into a row with a reviewer won't help anybody, and will put off other potential reviewers. If you have a good-faith difference of opinion that can't be resolved by discussion, ask a delegate or at WT:FAC for a third opinion.

When you have addressed a particular concern (assuming the reviewer gives you a bulleted list), make a note (like "Done") indented below the bullet point. It's not absolutely necessary to sign these (especially if you have a long signature), but if it becomes ambiguous whose post is whose, sign yours with four tildes, three tildes, or something else that makes it obvious that it's your comment (for example, I sometimes sign mine as "--HJ"). Graphics and templates, like  Done, are discouraged because they increase the page-load time.

Reviewers are people too

Most reviewers will be more than happy to explain anything you don't understand or to give you good advice. But remember they don't get the tangible recognition of having written an FA—they have to be content with having made the encyclopaedia better, and their time is precious. Be nice to them, say thank you, and make sure your article is at least close to meeting the criteria before you nominate it.

If you address all of a reviewer's concerns but they don't come back within a few days, they might have forgotten, so leave a polite note (with a link, because links are helpful!) on their talk page asking hem to revisit the FAC when they have time.

Conclusion

It usually takes around a month for an article to get through FAC, but it varies depending on the size of the backlog and the availability of delegates and reviewers, so be patient.

If you've followed all my advice, hopefully your article will be promoted, and you'll be able to smile as you visit it and see the little bronze star in the top right-hand corner. And just in case nobody else has said it, congratulations, and thank you for your contribution to the encyclopaedia.

Hopefully (with the help of this essay), you've seen that FAC is not that scary, and your next nomination will be a breeze. But spare a thought for other writers and the long-suffering reviewers—if you can, please try to offer reviews of your own.