Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est

Moved

• Oppose - I am going to repeat my previous comment and I will expand a bit: "I think it is a lowering of standards here to feature a book report, especially one so blandly written. We can do better." While Cirt seems to think I have it in for him and my comment on the prior nom was akin to "wikistalking and insulting me" (see this thread) that is not actually the fact and Cirt might want to note that I have not opposed his previous FAC nominations. Frankly, when it comes to featured status I do not think a bland and formulaic book report (same unimaginative template as previous work) cuts it. I have no problem with this being a Good Article and well done to Cirt on that. I do object to it being considered on a level approaching featured content. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To satisfy my curiosity, if nothing else, can you explain which FA criteria apply your comment? I suppose "blandly written" could be a 1a objection, but you haven't supplied any actionable examples. Your opposition almost reads "I don't like the topic" which is not a valid objection. --Laser brain (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi. Do I have to know all the criteria by number to voice my opinion here? I think I described my objection well enough. But if you would like an example, the second paragraph is a good one for the sort of stilted prose I find not up to featured quality. I also mention the entirely dull and formulaic format of the article. Sorry, but I don't think that a "lack of errors" is sufficient criteria for featured status, that would be a GA requirement, IMO. Anyway, that is my $0.02. I would not be commenting on this at all except that the restart nullified my previous comment and I wanted it on record. That and Cirt's attempt at censoring me which I found highly objectionable. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, you don't have to know all the criteria by number. You do, however, have to provide "a specific rationale that can be addressed" per the instructions on this page. I'm not sure how someone who might be inclined to address your concerns can address "dull and formulaic". --Laser brain (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

        < Moved from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

        • Comment: this thread may be relevant reading. Durova^Charge! 00:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Only if anyone is interested in your repetitious and meddlesome attempts at character assassination, Durova. I thought this was about an article. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Please comment on the content, not the contributor, Justallofthem. Less heat, more light, please. SirFozzie (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
              • OK, then we can leave it as the article is a far cry from criteria 1(a) standards. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Durova, please keep off-topic disputes off of the FAC page; we evaluate content here, not editors. I think we've covered this before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Justallofthem, Laser is right: Opposes must be actionable. A valid oppose will contain specific examples of prose that you think needs attention so the nominator can do something about it, so I/we can evaluate the strength of your argument, and so other reviewers can comment. Opposes must be something the nominator can fix. That doesn't mean you need to know the numbers; you do need to present a problem that others can see, discuss, and address. You can't oppose a FAC just because YouDon'tLikeIt: FAC is not a vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you all continue your dispute on the FAC page, I'll move the comments to here on talk. Please do not disrupt the FAC with off-FAC disputes again. Comments here are evaluated based on one thing: WP:WIAFA. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandy. I tried to keep that as brief and neutral as possible, and followed up in user talk space. Due to some developments in user talk I am taking this to a noticeboard; the problem is only tangentially related to FAC and under the present circumstances AE appears to be the path of least drama. Durova^Charge! 03:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Justallof them, this sentence:

• While Cirt seems to think I have it in for him and my comment on the prior nom was akin to "wikistalking and insulting me" (see this thread) that is not actually the fact and Cirt might want to note that I have not opposed his previous FAC nominations.

is not appropriate on the FAC, but I haven't refactored it because it is part of your original Oppose declaration. Please strike or, preferably, remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No prob, Sandy. Sorry to be a bit contentious but the action taken related to my oppose on the previous nom raised my hackles. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Sandy. Justa, I have offered to withdraw the AE thread. Durova^Charge! 04:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean the AE thread that you did not bother telling me about? The one where you try to "persuade" me to drop my complaint against you? It has already been closed. I am asking you again to agree to mediation. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not continue this conversation here: it is unrelated to the FAC. User talk pages are more appropriate. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)