User talk:MSincccc/FAQs about FAC

• "add the article to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FAC urgents". If they do it is liable to be promptly removed. The custom and practise is that only coordinators list nominations at Urgents. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  That is my fault ... I added that sentence. I just corrected it to "Ask an FA coordinator to add the article to the Urgents list". Noleander (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Question 15

"Post a note on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates saying that you want to withdraw the nomination. Or post a note on the Talk page of any FAC coordinator." I thought the status quo was to directly ping the FAC coordinators on the nomination page and request them to archive the nomination? The above do seem like valid methods to withdraw a nomination, though. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 09:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Icepinner - I wrote that answer to question #15. I was not aware of that 3rd option, but I will add it to the answer. Noleander (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

FAQs about reviews

A common piece of advice to newcomers at FAC is that, although there is no quid pro quo, it is still advisable to review other articles at PR and FAC. I was wondering whether this list should also include FAQs related to first-time reviewing, as I found that aspect a bit difficult with a few users. MSincccc (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah ... the issue of quid pro quo does come up a lot, especially in GA (discouraged), but also PR (permitted) and DYK (mandatory). I'll draft a Q/A for that. Noleander (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I added these two Q/As to the page:

1. Can I ask another editor to give my nomination a "support" review?
   • No. While it is acceptable to ask an editor to do a review, it is inappropriate to ask for a "support".
2. Can I offer to swap FA reviews with another editor?
   • Generally, no. Swapping reviews (called quid pro quo) is common in WP:DYK and WP:PR, but discouraged in WP:FAC. However, it is acceptable to perform a FA review, and – within your review – include a brief statement that you have an FA nomination in progress.

Noleander (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that—feel free to ping me if I can help. I’m a bit tied up with exam preps at the moment, so my FAC work and GA reviews are on hold, but I should be back to normal after mid-May. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Two further points for now:

• Do we need a link to WP: Canvassing here?
• Should it be mentioned that reviewers are encouraged to make clear fixes (such as obvious spelling errors and date mismatch) themselves so as to assist nominators?

MSincccc (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I added a link to WP:CANVASSING; and also added two Q/As about other editors changing the article. Noleander (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Further steps to improve the FAQ?

@MSincccc - The "first timer" FAQ appears to be off to a decent start. I suppose the eventual goal is to ask the FA community if a link to the FAQ should be placed somewhere on the FAC page. To get to that point, the FAQ will need to be perfected by improving until no more improvements are possible. That may require asking several FA veterans to review the FAQ and make suggestions.

Before investing more time on the FAQ, it may be worthwhile asking the FA coordinators what they think. Maybe the FA coordinators don't want an FAQ, because it would be duplicative of Template:FAC-instructions. Or maybe they would welcome an FAQ. Or maybe they feel the FAQ should be incorporated into the existing FA mentor page. (@FAC coordinators: ping). I looked through the FA Talk page archives and could not find any historical discussions about FA FAQs. Noleander (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Newsletter article from 2012 on similar questions

@MSincccc - You may want to check out this 2012 newsletter article: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/November_2012/Op-ed. It is by user Nick-D, and gives some tips on the FAC process and how to get an article thru FAC. I have not read it all in detail, but I'm sure some of it is still applicable today ... even tho it is from 14 years ago. You might want to go thru it and see if any material from it could go into these FAQ. Noleander (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander Thanks for the link. I’ll make a point of reading it when I have some free time. Best, MSincccc (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Cmts

Leaving a few comments here per MSincccc's request. I quite like the GA FAQ, so much of it I imagine will be apply what I like there here. I'll note that if you want to improve visibility, you could add a link in Template:FA sidebar:

• The table of contents upfront is overwhelming, and I suspect redundant. I would remove it altogether, or structure the FAQ around subheadings that the table of contents can feature, with the discrete questions accessible via a click through.
• The FAQ at GA serves as a supplement to the instructions, here it serves as a supplement and directory of instructions. As noted, I don't really like that, but it does reflect preferences rather than one being necessarily better. One way it does manifest is as a link compendium, which serves a purpose in structuring the FAC process, but results in bloat to the FAQ and means people are less likely to read it all the way through, and find the question they are actually after.
• Adding to the above, the tone is fairly dry. Reading GA FAQ then FAC FAQ, this feels much more impersonal. Even if the answer has an easy link out, there is value in making the FAQ contained, and making an editor not have to click through to get an answer, e.g. "Who are the FAC coordinators and what is their role?: See FAC instructions page."

Much of the above is on structure rather than the substance of the answers at the FAC, which generally seems fairly standard and fair. I'll give a few exceptions:

• "Ask a volunteer at the Guild of Copy Editors to copy-edit the article." is this good advice? A lot of FAC regulars seem pretty down on GOCE.
• The answer to "Can anyone nominate an article for Featured Article (FA) status?" is fairly vacuous (e.g. make sure you're familiar with the MOS, that 100 thousand + word set of advice split over 50+ pages)
• There isn't much on the more fundamental questions of FA, e.g. "can every article be an FA" that is being litigated at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Forever (Mariah Carey song)/archive1 at the moment.
• The answers sometimes get a bit squirrely. "Can an article with one or more "opposes" still be promoted?" "Yes. FA coordinators rely on a variety of factors to decide whether to promote or archive. See FAC instructions page." This is missing the meat - what are the factors? FAC instructions page is a big wall of text, but only around 33 words are really relevant; that is, the bullet points. There is an opportunity here to elaborate on the softer considerations at play (e.g., coordinators are looking for someone outside of a field to review, they put more weight on the opinion of long-time reviewers if there are a bunch of newbies, so on).

Whonting (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)