Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive24

New sections in the Manual of Style: dates, numbers, etc

Dear colleagues

WP's Manual of Style has been expanded to include a summary of the recently overhauled MOSNUM submanual. Featured Article candidates are explicitly required to follow these guidelines, as are all WP articles.

At issue are the new Sections 9–14:

• Non-breaking spaces
• Chronological items (Precise language, Times, Dates, Longer periods)
• Numbers
• Decimal points
• Percentages
• Units of measurement
• Currencies, and
• Common mathematical symbols

More detailed information on these and other topics is at WP:MOSNUM. Tony 06:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The MOS is not a policy and so saying that all articles must "explicitly ... follow these guidelines" isn't exactly true. Of course we'd expect them to when they come here, but that's a little different. violet/riga (t) 09:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the lead to Criterion 2: "It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects." The top of the MOS proclaims "These guidelines ... should be followed in Wikipedia articles." Tony 09:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I was commenting on your "as are all WP articles". Secondly it is important to be aware that "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". I agree that FAs should conform to our MOS in most situations. violet/riga (t) 10:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the rules explicitly say that FAs must comply with the MOS. If you want to change that wording, you're welcome to lobby here for it. I can only advise of what is clearly set out in the FA Criteria. Tony 10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some cases where there are exceptions to the MOS as that guideline itself says. violet/riga (t) 12:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If exceptions are noted in the MoS, then aren't they part of the MoS? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Intention to add anti-chaos requirements to the instructions

As suggested above, there's an urgent need to lay down a few simple rules to minimise visual and structural chaos. Unless good counterarguments are put here, on Friday I intend to add the following to what we already have in the instructions ("Do not split a FAC page into subsections").

Participants are asked not (i) split a FAC page into subsections, (ii) add symbols (such as ticks and crosses) or boxes, (iii) use bold text, or (iv) strike through text. There are two exceptions: reviewers should bold their initial word (Support, Oppose or Comment), and may later strike through it. Nominators may write a word such as "Done" or a substantive comment after a reviewer's comment rather than striking through it.

see below.

These guidelines are designed to prevent messes like this. Tony 09:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am not objecting, but some of this information is repeated in the "Supporting and Objecting" section. DrKiernan 09:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point: I think, therefore that the existing sentence on not splitting a FAC page should be brought down into "Supporting and objecting". How's the following? It's all in the two green bullets:

Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

• To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page).
• If you support a nomination, write *'''Support''' ~~~~, followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this.
• If you oppose a nomination, write *'''Oppose''' ~~~~, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, consider accepting it.
• Sign your name immediately to the right of this initial word (after one space), as well as after your comments; this makes it easier to keep track of who is declaring what on the page.
• Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves.
• To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' ~~~~ followed by your advice.
• Contributors are asked not to (i) split a FAC page into subsections, (ii) add symbols (such as ticks and crosses) or boxes, or (iii) bold text or strike through it (except for each reviewer's initial word). Rather than striking through a reviewer's comments, nominators should write a plain word such as “Done” or a substantive rejoinder after them.

This allows one sentence to be removed from the lead above; I even trimmed the rest of the "Supporting and opposing" text to pay for the addition (no substantive change in meaning in the rest). And while we're at it, can we get rid of "Object" and make it just "Oppose" (I don't care which, but why clutter the instructions with two terms)? Tony 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is primarily a nominator, not a commenter, the admittedly messy look that some nominations can acquire does not bother me. I won't mind if we leave things as they are; but I'd also be fine with these changes. Having said that, I do have a comment about enforcement: is someone going to update comments to change "object" to "oppose", or to delete ticks and crosses? If not, is it worth making the change? If so, it seems likely to irritate people. I haven't heard Raul express a strong opinion on this, nor have I heard a consensus on the need for a change, so if there is going to be enforcement it might be good to try to build more widespread and vocal consensus on the issue first, perhaps by posting notes to some of the more active FAC commenters asking them to give an opinion. If there's no plan to edit away non-compliant comments then the new rules are essentially advisory and that would obviously cause less controversy. Mike Christie (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Saturn FAC page doesn't bother you? It becomes very hard to make sense of, and I'm sure that everyone will appreciate the difference once it's implemented. On who will enforce it? This will be up to reviewers and nominators, just as all "enforcements" in WP are up to the users. I've certainly pointed out where the instructions have been breached—non-disclosure by supporters of their role in an article under review; segmentation of the page. It works surprisingly well. I don't see a problem. Tony 12:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this request to "minimise visual and structural chaos". Some comments:

• The first green bullet has the new instruction for signing your name, which is implicit in the amended instructions for support/object. Using ~~~~ gives the name and date/time where as ~~~ only gives the name. Is the latter a better choice for this circumstance? If so, do we need to point out the use of three rather than four tildes.

Good point, so I've reduced it to three in the examples above, but not cluttered the text by explicating it. I wanted to keep the wording as short as possible. Tony 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• The text appears to use the word "contributor" to mean "nominator" rather than "reviewer" or both. It may be clearer to use the word "nominator". In the second green bullet, the clause "(except for each reviewer's initial word)" is confusing. If this is a guideline for nominators, they must never strike through a reviewer's text, including the initial word. If it is a guideline for both parties, then the request not to strike through contradicts bullet five which asks the reviewer to strike any withdrawn objections.

"Contributor" means both groups—nominators and reviewers. I took it from the occurrence of that very word in the existing text. Isn't this clear enough? (If not, suggestions for changed wording—all users, perhaps? Participants?) Tony 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should the sixth bullet (comments) be moved up to just after the support/oppose ones?

I put it at the end because it concerns a different point: keeping it in order.

• The Neutral opinion appears occasionally here and on FL. It may be viewed as more of a snub than just a Comment if interpreted as saying, "I don't think this is good enough to be an FA, but don't have a strong-enough case to oppose it." I can see situations where a reviewer doesn't feel qualified to support (for example, through lack of subject knowledge) but wishes to change his previous oppose to something else. Thoughts?
• I think it would cause conflict if folk "edit away non-compliant comments" as mentioned by Mike Christie. Advisory should be enough.

BTW: I'm mainly an FL reviewer, for those who haven't seen me on FAC. Colin°^Talk 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I agree that Neutral might be specified: I've used it myself. But I think we're free to go "neutral" even if it's not specified; Raul will still read the substance of the comment. Tony 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I dislike coloured ticks and interrupted threads as much as anyone, I do not agree with that last one on the list. One reason is that it's trivia with no more significant origins than the accumulated irritation of those who work on reviews a lot. The main reason is that I don't see how this is going to help break down the impression that the FA/FAC process is becoming increasingly bossy and nitpicky (I don't believe that it is, but the perception needs addressing, and this will reinforce it). I don't like the idea that people may come to this page in good faith and find themselves being told off and referred to petty little rules. The best way to reduce the ticks and coloured stuff, in my opinion, is to mention it mildly while interacting with nominators or reviewers (along the lines of "I must say, I find these big ticks of yours distracting; any chance of just saying "done"?" or "I'm starting a new section here because I'm losing the track of all these interruptions". Start a friendly dialogue with people and they might willingly desist; but lets not start bossing people about on the basis of trivia, with the danger of putting them off the FA process.qp10qp 13:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We've been trying that for a while. The green check marks started with one or two nominators, and then other new nominators come along, see them, think they're the norm here. A couple of cluttered FACs lead new nominators to think "that's how it's done here". I suspect that's why the FACs are becoming messier and messier. What if we put Tony's suggested text on the backburner for a few weeks, try some gentle dialogue, and see how it goes? I just checked the Saturn review again; some of the visual mess could be addressed by asking Universe=Atom not to oversize his signature with a 120% font size. And, TonyTheTiger's sig is all about a disclaimer to a title he once claimed; is that necessary? In other words, can we address this at the individual level for a bit, see how it goes, and implement Tony's text only if we continue to see these very messy FACs? I'm going to start adding a sentence at the bottom, asking nominators not to chop up my review, as that will make it hard for me to strike later, and to please respond below. My concern is when it becomes difficult for me to determine what has been addressed on my review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I do not think it will work. And having to negotiate with lots of nominators about these simple matters—well, you can try, but I want to concentrate on reviewing the language. Might even be successful case-by-case, but once the messiness starts at the top of a page, the slippery slope has begun already, as you chime in and ask nicely for this or that not to be done. All too much, I think. Why not establish simple ground-rules beforehand, and just point people to them politely if necessary?' Tony 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say I agree with qp on this. Sandy, I hear you when you say that some of the gentle nudging has been tried, but I share qp's concern about perceptions of bossiness. Mike Christie (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for a tidy, easy-to-read page seem to have become tangled up with bossiness? I don't mind dealing separately with complaints that reviewers—particularly me—can come across as bossy or curt, but let's not allow that issue to be a script for freezing the process/rules. The gentleness in the proposal is the use of the phrase "Contributors are asked ..." Tony 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if some "gentle" editors made the suggestions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I *do* want resolved objections stricken (by the objector). It's how I can tell the ones that have been addressed to the objector's satisfaction (versus ones that have been addressed - e.g, having lots of subtext underneath them - but not necessarily to the objector's satisfaction). Raul654 13:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it enough to just strike the "oppose"? Epbr123 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still frustrated at a couple of messy FACs, and reviewers' comments being struck by nominators in spite of polite reminders, so summarizing, there are (at least) two goals: 1) Reviewers should be able to easily find and strike their objections, and 2) Raul should be able to tell what has been dealt with when he has to read through 70–80 FACs when promoting/archiving. I support Raul's restarts when FACs become so messy that he can't sort through what has been addressed. Polite attempts to keep some FACs on track don't always work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul, Epbr123 has a point, doesn't he? It's much more straighforward for a strike-through of one single word by an opposer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always assumed that almost all strikings of reviewers' individual comments were by nominators (like the green ticks), and that reviewers are less inclined to keep tabs and explicitly record if and when each of their points is addressed. I'd be keen to encourage nominators to say simply "All addressed" than plaster ticks or "Done" at the end of *each* issue, unless they want to take issue with a point.

Striking text looks ugly and fractures everything; I'd have thought it made your job harder. That's why I proposed that nominators simply write "Done" or similar after each point, if they wish (many already do this). Do you think this is not clear enough when you go to assess? Tony 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I offer the Chicago Board of Trade Building FAC an example. I've made a list at the top; they are being sorted through one by one. Isn't it easier for everyone if I strike the individual items that have been addressed, so people coming to the review for the first time don't have to sort through each point? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Query for Raul: I installed one of those headers at the Peru FAC. Are those helpful to you or not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I did the same for a complicated discussion at B. ericifolia, but I think that's where you got the idea. I personally think it is a good idea to make less obtrusive such large, sometimes confusing discussions that are no longer of obvious use to newcomers in the discussion. Circeus 02:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Casliber pointed at your example, and I'm *very* cautiously trying it out. Not so sure it's a good thing in the long run, so I'm using it tentatively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • Bullet five says, "To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.", while bullet seven discourages that behaviour, "Contributors are asked not to ... (iii) bold text or strike through it (except for each reviewer's initial word)". Isn't that a contradiction ?
  • The word "Contributor" in bullet seven may cause confusion; I initially interpreted it as "Contributors to the article under review" (as in bullets two and three). Perhaps can be explicit and say, "Reviewers and responders ..." or some other better terminology.

Abecedare 01:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Polite requests, reminders, and restarts aren't working; is there consensus to remove the summary tables? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Not from me. I can't see the harm. --Joopercoopers 15:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Same here. It is a summary, not specifics and does not harm the reviewing process. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This thread seems to be becoming a place for people to bitch about Wikipedia policies and things that they do not think look very neat. Clearly, there is not a consensus and repeated requests for Raul to mandate change when one or two people have a problem with something is not what wikipedia is all about. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this (this is something I just slapped together; I don't give a damn about ownership and others can certainly alter it. I just want to come up with something a little more organized)?

Type of Comment	Reviewer Agreement?	Problem Addressed?	Problem/Discussion
Comment	Done	Done	Make the picture bigger!
Oppose	Not done	Done	The picture is copyrighted and should be removed or a fair use stated. This is a serious problem with the entire page. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. :The picture is free under GNU license ::It is not. It is a copyrighted image.
Support			Excellent work!!!

— BQZip01 — ^talk 01:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why the coloured symbols at all? Isn't writing "Done" in plain roman good enough? The page will look and read in a much more orderly fashion, then. Tony 12:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have no specific problem with the colors being or not being there, but it would be much easier to glance through a list and note the colors available than reading every single one. "...Let's see...green, green, green, green,...ah a red one. Let's see what the problem is there..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 17:57, August 5, 2007

August 5 main page

Mauna Loa is on the main page on 5 August, and its main editor (Worldtraveller (talk · contribs)) is no longer on Wiki, in case anyone wants to help watch over the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in recent FAC

An anon editor found (and partly fixed) a substantive error in Ceawlin of Wessex, which is a featured article. I nominated it a month or so ago, and it passed. I had accidentally deleted the account of one of Ceawlin's battles in a rewrite of one section, and never noticed.

I don't like to generalize from one instance, but it does make me think that the technical/subject matter validation of featured articles is an area where we don't have all the answers yet. The omission of Ceawlin's battle in 556 isn't a huge gap, but the article should not have been featured with that hole in it. (I'm not blaming anyone -- if anyone's at fault, it's me -- just commenting.) Mike Christie (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but I'm not sure there are any answers, other than a Titanic-turning change in Wikipedia's approach to "expert editors". It is more than a little significant that a web site/project with the visibility and traffic of en.wikipedia still considers a contributing specialist a novelty. (By which I mean, I do. :) Wikipedia is about as mainstream as it's going to get, and it is fair to imagine that no new herd of quality editors is going to appear and change the status quo, as might have been hoped for during the high-growth stages. Barring "high-level policy change", what we have is what we will have.

I remember first seeing FAC and thinking, "well, I'm not a specialist in anything here, so probably best I don't participate". Then I realized that the specialty reviewer was the exception, and in that context figured my contribution would be at least of average usefulness. What I'm trying to get at is that the concern you mention seems to result from cultural and systemic factors, not procedural ones. –Outriggr § 02:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing about Wikipedia is that our reliability goes up with accessibility and with exoticism, both. There is a sort of parabola (he uses geometry terms!). With subjects that everyone knows about, everyone double checks everything, and so it tends to be reliable. With subjects that almost no one knows about, the few who dare to edit are pretty righteous folks, and so we tend to be very reliable (because very few people are motivated or confident enough to double check). Where we're least reliable is in moderately obscure areas and moderately obscure people. The infamous John Siegenthaller episode occurred because he is a figure just obscure enough to miss out on the Hey Everybody Check level and just known enough for a malicious turkey to have some vandal fun. In other words, with a matter as esoteric as an Anglo-Saxon king, you can count on a very, very few hands to double check you. Unless you say that Ceawlin invented the ice cream sundae, it can be a long, long time before an omission is noted. (People like me who know Anglo-Saxon literature well know just that. Our eyes glaze over with the kingdoms and tribes, but we'd have been on you like white on rice if you had written about Battle of Brunanberg). Geogre 02:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image sizes

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images states "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended". Apart from the stated exceptions, does this need to be enforced in FACs? Epbr123 18:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting however, that this is a guideline and there may well be other reasonable exceptions aside from those presented in the MOS. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a very subjective argument against an article in FAC. IPs don't get preferences, they get whatever Wikipedia has defaulted. Maybe 180px is rather small to them, and they want to go in an set the image size personally so that it isn't small anyone more. Setting the image size has nothing to do with the quality of the article either. It would be like saying "Oppose - Because the plot section comes after the production section, and if you look at the examples the plot comes first". It's a subjective call. Also, has anyone considered this is a somewhat out-of-date concept? I mean, WP:LEAD was referencing aspects of WP:SIZE that no longer existed up until just recently when I corrected it. This seems like a very trivial, and subjective requirement for any article. Unless someone is trying to blow the image way up, whatever size those editors decide should be fine with everyone else. If someone has issue with it, they can hold a talk page discussion about it. Since it has no bearing on the quality of the article, so long as it isn't blown up out of proportion, then it shouldn't be an issue when supporting an article for anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotta say I disagree. By hard coding the pictures to a specified size, it overrides the preferences of the registered users and alters the default. I have used Wikipedia on a 600x800 screen and a 300px or 350px picture is REALLY big and takes up too much space. Conversely, on a high res screen 300px may be too small. This is why we have user preferences and thumbnails should be set to the default unless it is one of the exceptions provided for in WP:MoS#Images. This issue has already been thoroughly discussed. In addition, the bicycle shed should be a light shade of purple (I'm just saying this issue has been discussed and resolved and should be followed as a component of the MoS). :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

On a highres screen 300px may be too small? Yes, but that isn't a reason against hardcoding the size, BQZip01, it's more of a reason for hardcoding it, since 300px is the largest size that is possible to set via user preferences. However. Surely the main reason for hardcoding image sizes is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: it's for readers first and editors second. What reader, who finds an article of our through Google or whatever, is going to create an account, log in, set specific preferences, and then start reading...? All articles, but especially FAs, should be optimized for readers, not for the convenience of our own name accounts. It would be nice if they could be optimized for all readers regardless of their screen resolution, but while we await that possibility, wouldn't it be reasonable to optimize them for somewhere around the resolution most people will view them at? I don't know what that resolution would be, but probably there are some estimates out there (and I can't believe it's 600x800). Btw, Sandy, what kind of an argument is "Yes"? Do you take this to be a vote, or was that simply the law being laid down ? Bishonen | talk 11:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

The MediaWiki software resizes images for anonymous users based on their screen resolution. This may have changed since the last time you looked. --Ideogram 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Yes" is all <sigh> that one <sigh> might have <forehead wipe, with sigh and downward glance> time for. Just...too...busy...to...communicate with... lessers. Not too busy to rule, of course.

As for resolutions, this is our friend Eternal Equinox's delightful issue. He went about in his school library with old CGA monitors and complained of all the pictures being too big. He went and changed them to make his state of the art Windows 3.0 machines handle them properly. Theorizing of the person with dual boots, quadruple image, Windows Vista Media deLuxe Edition for iPhone is ridiculous. It's the reader and browser that handles images that are improperly sized, and we should set our sizes at a golden mean. I know that I put in pixel coordinates, and I know why: I'm attempting to balance the layout of the illustration with text. Taking that out makes everything jump to a preference set. Sometimes the preference set isn't the optimal set, and taking out definitions is the best way to reduce FA's from carefully composed to standardized forms.

My own suspicion is that Sandy doesn't like the form judgments or discern arguments and therefore likes uniform rules and commandments. "X has been specified, object!" is in the near future. Well, tough: sometimes we have to look at individual things and make individual determinations and argue against or for them with particular reasoning. Geogre 14:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this issue is that there are many bad solutions and no good ones. The ideal size for an image is affected by a number of variables, with issues such as browser configuration, font size, font type, and reader preferences being impossible for an article's author to predict. Due to the capabilities of the current software there are two available options to address this concern. The first is to utilize a default size that will be incorrect much of the time but that can be overridden by a motivated user. The second option is to hard code a size that will be wrong as often as the first option yet does not allow for motivated users to override. Given these two options, it would seem the option allowing greater control by the reader should be preferred. Any party that is not able to live with the available options should submit a request for appropriate enhancements to the Mediawiki software developers. --Allen3 ^talk 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Customization for readers would break caching. It isn't going to happen. A userpref to allow scaling of all image sizes would be much more realistic. --Gmaxwell 17:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Some images need to be bigger than the default size in order to be effective. It would be daft to try and enforce such a rule. violet/riga (t) 17:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We can all live with such exceptions. But having a scalable thumbnail size is a good recommendation. It breeds consistency, which is what FAs should be. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1. This issue has been discussed and resolved already between multiple users (you aren't the only ones who have come up with this issue; please see the links that are provided in my previous post).
2. There are exceptions already granted for images (such as an awkward shape or panoramic shot).
3. There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule, but "I want it to look as good as possible in the browser window" isn't one of them. I use Firefox. Others use IE. Other people use other browsers. Each one has its own settings (font size, spacing, additional tool bars, etc). In Windows, you can adjust the Start bar into several sizes. Then in Wikipedia you can adjust your preferences as well (My default pict size is 200px). On top of that there are different screen sizes and different resolutions. Do you possibly think you can take into account and come up with "what is best"? There are about 20 variables! This is why we have one standard size: default (with the noted exceptions)
4. If ANY FAC violates WP:MoS without reasonable justification as to why and a reasonable number of people agree, then it should not be promoted. This is one of the requirements of an FA.
5. This is the wrong page on which to have this discussion. Please note additional problems on the Images discussion page. Complaining here about the MoS will simply not get anything changed.

— BQZip01 — ^talk

1. I'm sure we're aware of that
2. Who decides what is an acceptable exception? That's the problem.
3. Nobody should argue that, I agree.
4. But if a reasonable number of people disagree it isn't that much of a problem. Obviously if lots of people think it's wrong we should look at finding a solution as with any problem raised here.
5. Less forceful words can be used, you know.

violet/riga (t) 18:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Not everyone is aware of this and making that assumption doesn't help the discussion move forward. I know I didn't know that when I brought it up originally.
2. According to WP:MoS, there are specific exceptions (though there certainly can be other reasonable ones if everyone agrees, such as use in a chart):
   On images with extreme aspect ratios
   When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
   When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region
   On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.
3. N/A
4. The people in FA are a small subsection of the Wikipedia community. Since the MoS is one of the pillars of Wikipedia and FAs are supposed to be the example (not the exception) to Wikipedia, I think we should use the given guidelines unless there is a specific need. I haven't seen a reasonable argument yet as to why we shouldn't use the MoS other than "I want it to look "better" (which only applies in their browser window.
5. Sorry if you felt they were forceful. I simply wanted to emphasize my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 05:07, August 6, 2007

Until/unless WP:MOS or WP:WIAFA changes, you've nothing to apologize for. If a 400px image comes through FAC, an objection would not be unreasonable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The MOS is a pillar of Wikipedia? I'd disagree; it's something that a handful of people pour heart and soul into and the rest of the community begrudgingly accepts only because it is so easily ignored. [The statement is doubly troubling given that Wikipedia does have traditional pillars among which the MOS is not one, but it certainly provides an interesting glimpse into your view of the world.] Christopher Parham (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You've indented your "pillar" response below my reply, when the pillar comment was made by BQZip01. BQZ, please sign your entries so it's clear who said what. I've not referred to MOS as a "pillar of Wikipedia". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, although the response stands to whoever made the comment. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here, here. The distinction between policy and guideline is something with which some at FAC appear to struggle. I'm fine with checking references as reliable sources (ie. policy), but when we get "OBJECT! Hyphens are not in accordance with the edits I made to MOS last week" we are in trouble. Is MOS really "developed through the consensus of many editors" as it claims - or really just a self selected bunch encamped there who attempt to impose these instruction-creep guidelines as a defacto policy at FAC? I'm all for climbing the Reichstag and nominating it for deletion. It would probably be kept, but at least it could then claim a consensus, and in the process, it's content may be examined, de-loonified, and its applicability determined. --Joopercoopers 11:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"If everyone agrees"? No, that's not how it works. violet/riga (t) 11:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad terminology on my part. Please read here for what a guideline is and isn't. As for everyone agreeing, I was meaning this as an example of when something was ok. If everyone agrees, then there shouldn't be a problem at all.

As for being a "pillar", I could have been MUCH more specific. I meant that in a general sense, not one of the formal Five Pillars of Wikipedia. It is an established guideline and "...should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs).

Consistency isn't really an applicable goal. There is no consistent FA, and it is a fool's errand. Authors, and I mean authors of all sorts, with good skill have concerned themselves with layout as well as wording. George Bernard Shaw, for example, used to demand Caslon typeface, used to inspect every page to make sure that the white spaces between words didn't form "rivers" running down the printed page, etc. With the electronic age, the format has come under the hand of the author much more directly. We cannot ultimately control what some person somewhere will use to display an electronic work, but we can control for a common mean. I can't prevent rivers of white space, and I can't get you to display Caslon (in fact, can't find Caslon at all and prefer Garamond anyway), but I can control the proportions of images. I can make one bigger, one smaller, based on its significance to the text.

The image serves the text in an FA, just as the text serves the image in a featured picture. I cannot imagine the horrible results we would see if photos displayed at their native resolutions. Therefore, we go with a set of universal preferences, but those are going to make every picture the same size. That takes away an element of authorial control, eliminates one avenue of content, and forces us to be plugging pictures as if they were all alike. If the photos you use are all alike in importance and significance and illustrative power, then you're not doing much of a job as an author.

No, the numbers specified won't mean "big" and "little" to the same degree on all resolutions. Sandy's 15,000 x 12,000 monitor might have trouble, but I doubt it would be the first time that it would have trouble with Wikipedia or images on the web in general. What will be apparent, though, is that the authors and editors of the FA were assessing each image carefully and assigning their sizes with judgment -- individual judgment. That is what FA's should represent. Geogre 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Geogre. If someone is skilled enough to write a featured article we should assume that they can also pick a good image size. If, during the FA process, someone sees a material problem with the image size then they should raise it. "MOS advises that we should avoid explicitly sizing images" is not a valid reason on its own... and in any case, it's a rule which is widely ignored, and which even if followed provides few gains. --Gmaxwell 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have one parameter (upright) that makes a smaller default image size. It seems it would be relatively simple to change things so that thumbs could be specified as larger, as well (a "large" parameter?). Then user preferences would still modify the image size (as they do for "upright"), but things could also be better optimized for default readers.--ragesoss 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For the first time ever, I agree 100% with Gmaxwell. Giano 21:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. When I looked, some time ago, I found it quite difficult to find a featured article that did comply with this requirement. I'm afraid I've taken the path on my FACs of submitting them with the pixels specified; I'd change them if anyone ever complained, but nobody has. I did get one reviewer requesting that change at GAC, and I complied with that request. I haven't raised the issue at the Images discussion page because I'm not that bothered by the rule, and in any case I doubt it would change. Mike Christie (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm feeling a bit dizzy. I can't believe the concord. Quick, someone mention Gdansk. Geogre 02:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a blind eye policy going on; most I suspect try and slip them through (I certainly do). Image size, though you can't control exactly how the pic will be rendered, is a vital element when working out the visual presentation of a page. Anyway, now that I think of it, all this reminds me of my time in Gdansk, when we use to specify... Ceoil 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

All, I would like to respond to each all of your assertions, but I want to be brief and to the point, so I will use some quotes to illustrate and give you my response.

"There is no consistent FA, and it is a fool's errand."

You couldn't be more wrong. All FAs must follow the given guidelines (one of which is to follow the MoS)

"Therefore, we go with a set of universal preferences, but those are going to make every picture the same size. That takes away an element of authorial control, eliminates one avenue of content, and forces us to be plugging pictures as if they were all alike. If the photos you use are all alike in importance and significance and illustrative power, then you're not doing much of a job as an author."

AH! The crux of the matter! As an author, I concede that you should have control over what makes your work look the best you believe it can be...BUT...this is wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia where we are all contributors, not authors. This is not a place for unbridled creativity, but a place to present information for the world. As an encyclopedia, there are standards for your work, not merely a place to put creative ideas.

"Image size...is a vital element when working out the visual presentation of a page."

The visual presentation of a page is set by the WP:MoS, not your creative abilities.

"What will be apparent, though, is that the authors and editors of the FA were assessing each image carefully and assigning their sizes with judgment -- individual judgment. That is what FA's should represent." FAs should not represent the best judgment of the author, they should "exemplif[y] Wikipedia's very best work and [meet] the featured article criteria.," which includes the MoS.

I hope that emphasizes my point. Anyone else? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit naive, really. This is Wikipedia, where the sole rule is consensus. Looks like consensus here is clear: image sizes will be set by authors (golly, but chasing the bouncing ball down Semantic Court looks fun). No one follows rules: everyone in aggregate creates the set of expectations (not rules), and -- behold! -- here we are, agreeing on something. That's consensus, and that is the only ruling at Wikipedia. (MoS is supposed, itself, to be consensus, although my experience is that it has never had quorum, never gotten consensus, and tends to drive people from its discussion at high velocity.) Geogre 12:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've been reading this discussion and thinking about all the arguments presented. I think there are some good arguments on both sides. What is most compelling to me, however, is the thought that FA articles should embody our best standards as enumerated in our Manual of Style.

If you think the MoS should be changed, then please go take it up on the appropriate MoS talk page.

The FA selection process should consider how well the MoS is followed.

The MoS is a guideline. If you have a specific reason to deviate from it, then you can try to convince people of the need for the deviation when you bring the article for FA consideration.

If you want to ignore the MoS, or if you don't feel like justifying your choices, then don't expect the article to pass FA. Johntex\^talk 03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My, my. "Don't expect the article to pass" is wonderfully frank. It sounds almost like Johntex is in control and the humble suitors must obey...or else! See, this is the thing about these discussions, they are invariable, "You may not discuss it. Go elsewhere and argue there, and they will tell you to go elsewhere again, and there you must argue with this other page." A pox on that. A polite pox on it, of course, but, as I have said above (and in the past, and before that, and before that), the MoS is supposed to be a suggestion and not a rule, and the discussions there are hideous when they're best and unspeakable the rest of the time. Those of us who believe that individual writing should reflect individual judgment about the best way to present a particular piece of information, those of us who believe that communication cannot be reduced to a form, and those of us who recognize the startlingly obvious fact that discourse communities and rhetorics exist and cannot be extended to the horizon are probably not going to go to the MoS discussion pages to argue that the very assumptions of the people there are ludicrous.

Nevertheless, let's stick to the obvious and indisputable: First, MoS is a suggestion, not a rule. Second, consensus determines all the "rule" there is at Wikipedia. Third, the more participation and concurrence, the more powerful consensus is. Fourth, there is consensus here, but not at the MoS, and the MoS people should, after all, have to come here to argue to extend to this place. Fifth, that specifying image sizes is already the common practice (i.e. the actual style manual) for FA's, and these have been promoted and will continue to be, and therefore any argument that a document that has never seen an FAC should have precedence and power is absurd.

Perhaps I should say, "If you object on the basis of specified image sizes, don't expect that objection to be actionable?" That would be fair? Geogre 16:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Image sizing is an EASILY actionable item, just delete the sizing from the thumbnail; it's that simple.

Why would you expect an FA to pass that has any violation of the WP:MoS when requirement 2 is "It complies with the manual of style"? Ignore the pixel sizing issue for a moment and please explain to me why one of the attributes of a Featured Article should be ignored? "I don't like the rule" and "I think it looks better a different way" don't seem to hold any water when this is one of the requirements. We are not authors here. We are editors and contributors. As such we all need to have a basic framework for our contributions.

I agree that image sizing is way too small, but the MoS needs to be changed, not lowering the standards of an FA in order to bypass the consensus of other wikipedia editors. Please read the link on consensus and note: "If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over." Your point is a reasonable one (that we should be allowed to change pixel sizing), but the expectation of FAs is that they comply with all MoS criteria. By bypassing everyone else in wikipedia and not giving them a chance to weigh in, you are bypassing an actual consensus. On top of that, I am not saying you don't have a point, but that there is a wider consensus on this that you might currently realize and it is not merely this page or FAs, but ALL pages on Wikipedia that will need to comply with this change.

Johntex is an admin with years of experience. As an admin, he made no such threat, only a contribution to the discussion. Assume good faith, even if people disagree with you.

As for each of your comments:

1. "MoS is a suggestion, not a rule." The MoS is a guideline and following it is a requirement of a featured article (see FAC requirement #2).
2. "Second, consensus determines all the "rule" there is at Wikipedia." A guideline, by definition, is a consensus (see the second paragraph).
3. "Third, the more participation and concurrence, the more powerful consensus is." See #2
4. "Fourth, there is consensus here, but not at the MoS, and the MoS people should, after all, have to come here to argue to extend to this place." So, how are any of the people who are really involved in the MoS supposed to know this discussion is even taking place? They don't necessarily have it bookmarked, but they do have the guideline page marked and will quickly note any discussions there. Hierarchically, FAs fall under the MoS (see #2) and discussions about changing a guideline for Wikipedia need to be discussed where everyone who is interested can give their opinions. I would be happy to move this entire discussion there, if you would. Fair enough?
5. "Fifth, that specifying image sizes is already the common practice (i.e. the actual style manual) for FA's, and these have been promoted and will continue to be, and therefore any argument that a document that has never seen an FAC should have precedence and power is absurd." See #1.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image sizing is an EASILY actionable item. The point, though, is that there are an infinity of possible "actionable" suggestions that anyone can write up. Is a FAC nominator required to implement all of them without regard to his own judgment? No... in this case, specifying a mandated (default) width ignores the fact that images have two dimensions, and the appropriate placement of an image depends on the overall size of the image; the size of the subject within the image; whether the image is decorative or the subject of the article, and so on. –Outriggr § 08:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I am interested in how you think you have a consensus (not counting the MoS as a consensus already, on this page alone):

Allow Image Sizing in FAs	Do not allow image sizing IAW MoS	I try to slip them through	Comment/question/ambiguous
8	5	2	1

Support changing FA Criteria BIGNOLE Bishonen Geogre Gmaxwell violetriga Joopercoopers Giano Christopher Parham maclean25 Against changing FA Criteria SandyGeorgia Please do not characterize myresponse. I've stated what the current criteria are, "until/unless they change". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC) BQZip01 Allen3 Nichalp Johntex - Admin I try to slip them through Mike Christie Ceoil Comment/Ambiguous Epbr123

15 people have given some sort of input on the subject and you have the support of just over half. In addition, you have five, including an admin, against you. I have also pointed out other pages that have this same discussion which if overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the MoS the way it is. How exactly do you have a consensus? — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is a "Johntex" admin? - is it some sort of special mutation of the species? Anyhow if admin opinion is more important than the opinions of others - then I would like to point out there are more admins in the column wanting to change the MOS. Giano 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin have +1 credibility power. The only other people with more power are Nichalp's +2 bureaucratic morphing power and the One Raul who rules them all. --maclean 07:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgre, you seem to have taken offense at my statement for some reason. You said, It sounds almost like Johntex is in control and the humble suitors must obey...or else! . I don't know how you could have gotten that impression. No where above do I say any such thing. I am simply stating that a condition of FA is to comply with the MoS. If you don't want to conform to the MoS, you should either explain why an exception is warranted, or you should expect the nomination to fail.

Discussion about changing a guideline should be done at the guideline's "Talk" page. If you think the MoS is flawed, the place to discuss it as at the appropriate MoS talk page. Is there something unclear about why that makes sense? Johntex\^talk 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Giano, no additional weight should specifically be given to an admin's opinion over any others. I simply put the information there to lend credibility to the opinion. While person A with 2 edits on Wikipedia may have a valid opinion, Johntex has experience and authority that should not simply be discounted. Please assume good faith. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Johntex he has no more experience nor authority than several other people commenting here. Highlighting that he is an admin is not really worthwhile, but then not doing the same for the other admins is a misrepresentation and is bound to look bad.

Anyway, anyone that objects to a FAC based solely on image size should really consider if they are benefiting the discussions. violet/riga (t) 07:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

People object to FACs over far smaller things: non-breaking spaces and en dashes do not have as big an impact on the reader as hard-coded images sizes do. The MOS specifically addresses this issue. Failure to follow the MOS is perfectly reasonable grounds for opposition to an FAC. Johntex\^talk 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>
I am somewhat confused by the above discussion and especially by the above "polling" of opinion. WP:MOS#Images, states:

Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended : without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article.

(emphasis added) I understand the above as, "Specifying image size has some cons so don't do it unless you have a good reason that justifies the trade-off", which sounds common-sensical. As far as FA candidates go, I think it is prudent to point this guideline to editors of articles which use set image sizes, to make sure they are doing so intentionally and it is not just a historical relic of cut-n-paste wikicode.
However, in contrast to my understanding, the above polling seems to polarize opinions into categories of editors who want to "Allow Image Sizing in FAs", "Support changing FA Criteria" and "Against changing FA Criteria". I don't see what FAC criterion needs to be changed, and why image sizing needs to be be suddenly "allowed" in FAs, since it is not disallowed in the first place ? Perhaps I'm puzzled simply because I am no admin and have not read the secret codebook that is apparently handed out at the end of a successful RFA :-) Cheers. Abecedare 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got it spot on. This is a recommendation in a guideline and is not something that is essential in an article, including FAs. violet/riga (t) 08:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, I think you may have cherrypicked the parts that support your side of the discussion. The entire quote reads:

Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:

• On images with extreme aspect ratios
• When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
• When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region
• On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.

Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.

(Emphasis added by — BQZip01 — ^talk)

The MoS gives exceptions to the rule and explains why you shouldn't do it (people reading with different fonts may have a hard time reading it).

COMPROMISE FOR ALL!!! Why don't we

1. Agree to disagree
2. Agree to follow the MoS in general in accordance with the criteria for a featured article, but realize that there are noted exceptions in the MoS.
3. Agree that there are other exceptions that may not be in the MoS and acceptability is determined by Consensus, as defined by Wikipedia.

Can we all agree to that? IMHO other discussions can wait until specific instances come up. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

On a further note, Raul, your two cents here would be awfully useful here and could probably shortcut this discussion to a quick and reasonable end (I'll acquiesce to whatever Raul says). — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my previous quote seemed like cherry-picking - that certainly was not my intention and I did link to the page. Also note that the exceptions listed in the MOS (that you listed above) are examples of situations where specifying a size would be appropriate, and not an exhaustive list.

Anyway, I am not even sure what my "side of the discussion" is, because my simple interpretation of the MOS is, "think carefully before specifying image sizes, since there is a tradeoff involved", and I don't know who is on the 'other side' of that ? Abecedare 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The other side is Don't think carefully and do it because you want to do it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I come late to this discussion but I have had extensive discussions about this with other users. I think forcing images to a uniform very small size of 180px width would greatly diminish the quality of featured articles and all other articles. I use a lowish resolution of 800x600 and I have no problem with big images. I suggest it actually be possible to choose to make your own images a small size if you want that but don't force that on everybody else. One major major problem with the idea of forcing all images to a uniform size is that landscape images clearly need to be wider than portrait images and some images actually need to be big to be able to make out what you are actually looking at. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"I suggest it actually be possible to choose to make your own images a small size if you want that but don't force that on everybody else." Gustav, [[|Montgomery Burns|EXACTLY!]] I couldn't agree more. That is why we have preferences and people can select the size that works best for them. If you don't like the default, you should increase the size in your preferences. By hardcoding, you take away the option of scalability. The other situations you noted are already the exceptions mentioned in the MoS and the given solutions should be used. Once again, excellent analysis and comment! — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But the problem is more people like larger images and images of different sizes rather than the few vocal minority who like tiny little uniform thumbnail images so I don't see why the majority should have to make a change in their preferences- it should be the minority who should change their preferences to see only small uniform images not the other way round. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No one has mentioned images that don't form a perfect square. Default size can be good and all, but what about images that are rectangular in shape, where they are longer in height than they are in width? The point being, it may not be in the best interest of the image to "crop" is to be a square, and if you resize it too much you'll loose visibility of the image. Would one call this the type of moment when specific image sizes would be appropriate, seeing as even if the image was a little less "visible" in the article mainspace, when you clicked it, you would be able to see it clearly on the image page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a ridiculous policy to enforce default image widths-I say widths because that is what it is not size as people keep saying. In fact if a portrait image and a landscape image are both forced to be the same WIDTH the landscape image actually turns out a lot smaller than the portrait one. So a 180px width for a portrait image may mean that image is 400px high, yet people are saying that a 400px x 180px landscape image is too LARGE- so they are contradicting themselves with their own silly guideline. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images includes the upright parameter on vertically oriented images to address just such concerns. --Allen3 ^talk 13:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oooo, I didn't even see that. Good stuff, it looks better where I implimented it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you can specify different preferences for portrait and landscape images? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

IAW with the MoS, yes! :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just looked on my preferences and there is no option for portrait and landscape? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood what you meant. No, you cannot change your preferences for those kinds of images (though that would be something that wikipedia could easily address and add IMHO). I thought you meant you could change the images to whatever is appropriate for the image IAW the MOS. Sorry for the confusion. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

300 (film) featured?

May I ask why this was featured, by a bot of all things, when the discussion was not clearly in favour?--Nydas^(Talk) 07:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Slightly curious myself, since the FAC has only been underway for about a week and there was clear opposition and lots of discussion still taking place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty good article, and the opposes are generally over minor issues; however, I believe it should have remained open for a couple more days to iron out the comments. — Deckiller 12:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A bot does not "feature" articles; Raul654 (talk · contribs) (the FA director) does. A bot updates the talk page when Raul moves an article to WP:FA,[1] the definitive list of featured articles. This is stated in red at {{fac}}; does anyone think it needs to be more clear? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Red text on an orange background is not very clear. It'd be nice if there was a short blurb at the top explaining why objections about the comprehensiveness did not matter. --Nydas^(Talk) 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The red text is clear on all of my computers; can anyone suggest a color that shows better? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Black. The current contrast is bad for colour blind people.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, editors weren't heeding it when it was black, and we had even more of these kinds of queries. Is there a better way to make it stand out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrap the bot and have some feedback on the debate closure itself, like on contentious AfDs. I'm still curious as to why the objections over the comprehensiveness of the article were struck down.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, the bot doesn't close FACs; Raul promotes/archives FACs based on consensus during the FAC. The bot only updates the archives and the articlehistory after Raul makes the decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'm just curious as to why certain objections were struck down. The bot doesn't give any feedback.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, the green check marks on that FAC make it look like things are done when they may not be. Those "done" graphics are a bad practice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the article earlier in the week, saw the ANI posting, and still I was impressed. Its a good overview imo, I am happy that it is FA. Ceoil 14:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, this seems to be a way for you to complain that your oppose on the FAC wasn't taken into action. If the Big R thinks it featured, it is. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it how there wasn't any feedback. On the basis of this judgement, anyone who objects to a film article because it has no worldwide box office information is wasting their time.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want feedback, talk to Raul, i guess. David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For everyone's information, it isn't the Big R, it's Raul. Raul, the FAC director. I wish people would speak English here - not everyone will know what is meant by a comment like "the Big R". Such things make FAC inaccessible to lesser experienced editors. LuciferMorgan 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am thoroughly chastised. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert reviewing before an article can pass FAC?

In an effort to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible, I suggest that articles must be formally reviewed by a full-time or part-time reviewer (someone with suitably high real-life qualifications). I welcome all commentary, although I might not be available on Wikipedia to comment for a little while. — Thomas H. Larsen 06:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Any reason they cannot express their concerns during the regular FAC discussion? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This will never happen. Wikipedia is anti-elitist. --Kaypoh 08:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A nice but unworkable idea. It doesn't hurt to send an e-mail to a subject matter expert when you're working on FA. The worst you'll get is no response. But we're not in a position to make it a requirement. Marskell 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Having an EPR for your article is a great thing but is often difficult to arrange. If you can get an expert to review your article then including their comments on the talk page (and noting so on the FAC) would certainly help the nomination. violet/riga (t) 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but again practicalities prevent this from happening reliably. The dynamic nature of the system allows for FAR etc. so at some future stage if concerns are raised they can be addressed. I'd give it a couple more years before there's a critical mass of experts - but more are creeping in all the time (which is great) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert peer review is a good long-term goal. Probably not quite there yet as the whole FA system seems pretty taxed as it is, especially with the large number of FARs that are happening from when FA standards were a bit more relaxed. But certainly anyone who wants to start arranging peer reviews on the current round of FAs should be encouraged to do so! --JayHenry 05:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Every expert I have attempted to contact has failed to return email. I believe my count is 8 now. Experts write papers, we regurgitate them. I'm not sure expert review can ever be a requirement, not to mention I'm not sure there are many experts on 3D Monster Maze. -Ravedave 06:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This and Peer Review

I don't understand what the dynamic is here. There are too many editors lurking around here to automatically condemn a ref-less article, or pile on unnecessary support in an obviously liked article - wait - and too few at Peer review. A fellow editor waited eight days at Peer Review, and upon getting nothing, was supposed to just give up? No, it was moved to FAC where people tell you your work is substandard if they can't "find anything wrong with it." ALTON .ıl 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It often takes a month to get good feedback at peer review; if you are getting no feedback, you can pester relevant WikiProjects and editors in the topic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Peer Review suffers from a lack of eyes. Don't be offended, really. If the article does not pass FAC the first time, look at the failed FAC as simply a peer review, and use the recommendations as a launching point to improve the article. Many, if not indeed MOST articles take two or more trips through FAC to get it right.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review is mostly useless, unless you are working on a popular topic or the topic is being covered by a giant wikiproject. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the same problem we had during the recent expert review discussion. Not enought people willing to review, be they experts or not. Ceoil 03:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

An increasing number of articles are getting reasonably good and thorough reviews through the GA process. Though the system still isn't quite perfect, if you're not having any luck with peer review and you still can't quite get to FA status, it can't hurt to give GA a try,... Dr. Cash 00:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, would collapsing peer review into GA be a good idea? -Ravedave 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's actually quite a good idea. PR hasn't worked well for a long time, and GA is having some success in this field (though I don't have anything to do with GA so I'm not sure how well it is working). violet/riga (t) 01:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GA seems to be doing pretty good, but I think that combining the two would only hurt both. GA has only recently been able to reduce the backlogs on its page. I'd hate to set them back when things are looking so good. Wrad 01:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

PR has much wider purposes than GA; it can be used for preparing an article for FAC and for anything short of GAC. Why would it be combined with GA when it serves many more purposes, and many editors bypass GA altogether? Some articles at PR aren't close to GA, some are beyond it, and some don't intend to process through GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GA's intentionally unbeurocratic nature makes it quite controversial. I am a frequent reviewer of Good Article Candidates, and I personally would wholly endorse the process as an excellent means to get someone to quickly review an article (after the recent backlog elimination drive, the mean-time spent on the Candidates page is less than a week, making it one of the fastest ways to get quality feedback). However, the fact that GA does not rely on concensus and instead relies of good-faith trust in a single editor to make reviews, many Wikipedians adamantly dislike and distrust the GA project. I would definately recommend bringing any article there for review, but given its controversial status, collapsing Peer Review into GA would be a bad idea. What Peer Review really needs is an active WikiProject to help keep it going, which is what has made GA so successful. As soon as 2-3 months ago, GA had as long of a backlog as Peer Review had, and many article languished for over a month before receiving comment. Thanks to the work of some dedicated editors who have fired up the troops, the process now works quite quickly and smoothly... Anyone looking to "fix" Peer Review should look at the changes at GA that have made it work so well in recent weeks. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is something I was discussing with an editor on the PR talk page not to long ago. WikiProjects can work wonders. Wrad 02:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FLC/FAC

Can an article be both a WP:FL and a WP:FA. In the near future Chicago Marathon will likely be nominated at WP:FLC. From my experience and the recent promotion of List of winners of the Boston Marathon, I think it has a good shot at promotion. Its text however is borderline for WP:GA. However, in the future the text may catch up. If this occurs can an article be both a WP:FA and a WP:FL.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll get a harsh rebuke at FLC, but then, I couldn't get Administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea de-featured, so you'll never know... Circeus 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I get your point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's list content, but the article's purpose (Chicago Marathon) is not by any definition that of a list, so I doubt it'll get any luck, but then, stranger things have happened. Circeus 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If it meets the criteria of an FA, then why not (not sure it does, but you are more than welcome to try. BE BOLD!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I must say that an article titled "Chicago Marathon" implies that this will be an article and not a list. The word list is not required in the title to make it a list, however an article named after an event should be an article about that event, and written in prose. FLC is a place to bring great list articles, not a place to bring an inadequate article that happens to contain a great list, when it should be something else. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I also agree, that's an article that contains a list, not a list. If I were you, and wanted to go to FL, I would move the list portion to List of Chicago Marathon winners. IvoShandor 03:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

How long?

Out of curiosity, how long does the FAC process usually take? I'm asking because Fun Home has been up for about two weeks, and at this point all the editors who have commented on the article are supporting its promotion. (Some had concerns, which were addressed to their satisfaction.) However, that still totals only four editors supporting (besides the nominator, me). Is there a critical mass needed before an article is promoted? If so, how long does it usually take to get enough attention? I see FACs listed from July — does the process usually take that long? I guess I'm just wondering what the timeline I should expect is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It can take less than a week or over a month. Obvious failures and easy promotions can go through in a week or less; rarely less, because Raul usually leaves a week between promoting/archiving. I believe Raul is busy right now from some notes I've seen him leave, and it's been a while since he's done a big chunk of promoting/archiving. He'll be around to catch up sooner or later. Mike Christie (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

100 FACs

We are close to having 100 FACs. I'm aware of the reasons why, but I'm inclined to see it from a glass half full POV. Ceoil 12:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:REVIEW

Wouldn't it make more sense for the redirect to point to Wikipedia:Peer review or Wikipedia:Featured article review? --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

wow, uh, yeah. it should, IMHO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected. DrKiernan 08:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Brihanmumbai_Electric_Supply_and_Transport

Is an FA allowed to be sourced mostly from the company website? Isn't this propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplepickle (talk • contribs) 04:05, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Breaking up this page

This page is huge (Google lists it as 977k). Is there any way we could break it up somehow? Or what if we had a bot periodically run through the FAC page and dump just the links to each FAC nomination to a subpage (say Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/nominations). It seems like that would be pretty straightforward seeing as how the main FAC page wikicode consists of just templates of the nominations. That'd be helpful to people like me who right now use the table of contents to figure out which articles might be interesting for me to read and give feedback. 69.202.63.165 19:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking something like:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Cooley
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Taurus
• ...

69.202.63.165 19:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would be all for this as I have pretty much given up on the FAC page because of its length and confusion. Maybe it is my browser or something, but I cannot deal with it. Mattisse 19:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, this is a very good idea. It's ironic how extra long FA candidates are criticized for being difficult to load on dial up connections yet the FAC page itself is quite difficult to load on this type of connections. This change could also apply to other pages such as Peer review. What does everybody else think? --Victor12 20:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the FAC as is. However, if someone wants to create and maintain (either by bot or by hand) a second template-only page, I have no objection. Alternatively, it would be possible to incorporate a category into the default FAC nom wikitext, and you could use the category to access the nomination pages. Gimmebot, at archive time, would remove the FAC tag. However, I am reluctant to drop any more work on Gimmetrow without his consent. Raul654 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to do it by hand once in a while when I remember. Since I'm unable to create actual pages, the current list can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/nominations. 69.202.63.165 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The idea of improving the page is fine, but the page is just over 8500 bytes long. The problem is that these are links and, with how wikipedia is set up, it has to pull the code from each page in order to post it here. Perhaps we could split up the page into different sections? Something like those submitted in the last day. Those submitted in the past 2 days? etc. I think the links do not provide enough information, but if we broke the page down a little, this wouldn't be much of an issue. As for dial up connections being problematic, LOTS of pages on the internet are well over 1 MB. Complaining to wikipedia about speed is like complaining that your Geo Metro can't haul much stuff: it's a personal issue that you need to address. I feel your pain, but you need to get a faster connection if that is your issue. This page is the exception, not the rule. If people want to browse a specific nomination, all they need to do is click on the link in the article's associated talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's quite rude, not everybody in the world lives in first-world countries or has the money to upgrade their connections to the latest standard. I though Wikipedia's purpose was to create a global encyclopedia not a "developed world/rich people encyclopedia". --Victor12 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is administrative, not part of the articles of an encyclopedia. As an open page where people put their opinions, I assume you don't want censorship (since wikiepdia isn't censored). No one is saying you shouldn't be able to access the page, but if the comments are going to total up to 1MB, then you will need to accept this as a limitation of your system. This page is not, per se, part of the encyclopedia, but is part of the discussion pages (IMHO). Nothing here should ever be published as part of an encyclopedia (like our user and talk pages). As such, a little leeway needs to be given so that everyone's opinions are heard. Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you want a faster download speed for large pages (wikipedia or otherwise), either get a higher speed connection or link directly to the specific page you want and not the page that includes everything. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to any change to the structure of FAC because it will only make the problem worse; the problem is graphics chunking up the page and a level of commentary that could be handled on article talk pages. A few articles started this trend of every minute detail being explored at FAC and checked off with a green mark, and now it's taken over, chunking up the page size. If anyone wonders what split pages look like, have a glance at WP:GAC. Unworkable. Articles should be in fairly decent shape when they come to FAC; if they need extensive work, that can be taken up on the article talk page or <gasp> nominators might consider withdrawal and re-approaching FAC when the article is closer to ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to interject that I have a fast broadband connection. My problems with the page are not caused by dial up. My comments above are not ascribed to connection speed. Mattisse 21:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Indeed, I too have broadband, and it still takes a good 10-20 seconds to load the entire page. Opening this page also slows down my browser quite a bit. 69.202.63.165 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, my specific suggesting above wouldn't involve changing the FAC page. It's an additional page just consisting of the links for those of us who don't want to load the entire FAC page. There's room for both. 69.202.63.165 21:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I have no problem for BOTH pages existing. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change anything about FAC, but the loadtime on a good connection is an issue, and when I'm forced to dialup (when I'm travel) it's unbearable. This is a *real* consideration, and it's because (IMO) the FAC process is being misused. Line by line prose analysis, complemented by useless checkmarks and graphics, are chunking up the page size something awful. Some examples of issues can be given on the FAC, using the article talk page when lengthy line-by-line analysis is provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• It would be a lot easier to apply the suggestion made by the IP above than trying to restrain comments by reviewers. --Victor12 21:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I may be speaking out of turn, but my point is that line by line analysis of article issues not only slows down this page, but probably also makes it very tedious for Raul to get through the FACs. I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone. There really is an excess of detail on a number of FACs lately. You can point out that there are prose or MOS or citation problems without listing every one of them on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• You are not a mindreader, so don't presume to know what Raul thinks. If he want, he can weigh in on it. Personally I find it easier and YOU seem to be the sole person who has a problem with an in-depth review (you even opposed a nomination on these grounds despite the fact that this is NOT a criteria for an FA). You certainly can point out problems without being specific, until someone comes back and says, "I'm done!" and they aren't. Then you have to go back and show all of the problems. I find it easier to point out all of the problems and make it obvious which ones have been fixed. I realize my reviews (which you seem to despise since I make it easier on the nominators) are in-depth, but all of my items are actionable (unlike others who will remain nameless). — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• In addition, it seems that after this discussion, Sandy went to pages where I edited/commented and opposed them because I did a thorough review. IMHO, this is out of line and is vindictive in nature. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Take care, BQZip, with spurious accusations, particularly in a room where my reviews and reviewing pattern are quite well known. I won't bother to remind you of AGF because you're way beyond that and over the line. I finished for now the article at FAR that has occupied me for two weeks and I went through most of the FACs, as well as the batch that was recently promoted with numerous MOS breaches, so please watch yourself. And PLEASE do show me where I have EVER opposed a nomination based on the size of the FAC; that's simply false. Mentioning it while I'm there is not the same as opposing based on the size of the FAC, tsk, tsk. You're right that I don't like sloggish pages slowed down and filled up by cute graphics and tallies, and I'm not so thrilled that no one seems to have reviewed the recent batch of FAs for MOS compliance, so I decided to catch up here. Several have already addressed my concerns; rather than ranting about me on talk, just fix the issues so I can strike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be true only if my accusations are spurious in any way. Everyone please note what I actually said and what SandyG actually said:

• — BQZip01 — ^talk: "::*"...and YOU seem to be the sole person who has a problem with an in-depth review...I realize my reviews (which you seem to despise..." I said "seem" for a reason. It is my perspective and I stated as such.
• SandyGeorgia: "Oppose, here's an example of a 131KB FAC that is chunking up the FAC page size..." You LED with this. As if this is the primary reason you object to it. You then go into a litany of other problems you have with the FAC process and rant about graphics and "tally" counters.
• SandyGeorgia: "Oppose...77KB FAC with lots of checkmarks and a tally box"

As for the rest of your comments:

• "I'm not so thrilled that no one seems to have reviewed the recent batch of FAs for MOS compliance..." I have. Others have. They may not have caught the same things, but they were reviewed. I am sorry you aren't thrilled, but I'm not sure wikipedia is the best place to get thrills. On top of that, I believe it is the height of arrogance to insinuate that we cannot do an FA review without you personally.
• "Several have already addressed my concerns; rather than ranting about me on talk, just fix the issues so I can strike." Hell, I've already responded to both your replies to FA articles (I did that BEFORE talking here) which I am interested/working on and am awaiting your responses so we can finish them.

To quote someone who recently commented on YOUR comments on my page: " I too find your constant reminders to us of how busy Raul is and how things must be made easier for him quite annoying. Raul is a grown adult, I'm sure he is quite able to say these things for himself if this is the case." and your comments thereafter (when did my talk page become your discussion board?), "I'm aware of your point of view...and I will continue to review for 2—MOS." Do you bother to review anything else?

— BQZip01 — ^talk 07:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• If one does not like graphics, one could turn imgages off in their browser. Johntex\^talk 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC instructions

"Do not split a FAC page into subsections." No explanation given. I'm sure there is a rationale, so it would be nice for explanation to be added. Lengthy / contentious FACs are edit conflict minefields and one way of avoiding the problem is subsections, but I for one won't mind not doing that if I can see the logic. --Dweller 20:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Subsections make it difficult for me when promoting articles. Specifically, I copy the table of contents from the promotion archive to paste into the goings-on, and merge (by hand) into the featured article list. Subjections have to be deleted by hand. I don't care if you do subjections that don't end up in the TOC (using a semicolon). Raul654 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul, then why not limit the table of contents to the first level? I for one would like to see subsections allowed so reviewers can easily edit comments within their own subsections. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

<ironic edit conflict> Makes sense. How about replacing the bald instruction on the FAC page with "Splitting FAC pages into subsections causes problems when articles are promoted. To avoid edit conflicts, please use semicolon subsections. (For an example, see this diff ([a diff])" --Dweller 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Because besides the practical problems, editors have been known to make POV, sensational section headings to draw attention to their FACs and create impressions. A reasonable alternative to long FACs is to put lengthy detailed commentary on word-by-word line-by-line analysis on the talk page of the article instead of on the FAC page; I've never understood line by line prose analysis on a FAC, rather than a few examples, and then detail on the article talk page. Lengthy FACs are a burden to the page load time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that despite your reasonable misgivings, people continue to keep the debate in one place at FAC, I'm not sure why we can't follow Raul's workable suggestion. --Dweller 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I change them to semicolons, as suggested by Raul. But notice the section above this one; the page becomes difficult to load. The other day it was over 200KB; it would really be considerate if some of the prolific line-by-line commentators would consider putting examples on the FAC, and detail on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (And that's without mentioning what the checkmarks and graphics do when I'm traveling and forced to a dialup.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have broadband. My problems with the page are not caused by connection speed. Mattisse 21:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't your idea mean that Raul needs to extensively review each article talk page before promoting / dropping a FAC, as well as the FAC page? I'm not sure that's a good idea. Perhaps this is the wrong solution to a genuine problem. --Dweller 21:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. If the prose has problems, you give examples (as Tony and I do) rather than list *every* *single* *suggestion* for prose change on the FAC. YOu hammer out the details on talk, and strike when done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Besides load time, it is hard to follow what article you are even reading the comments for after a while when you have scrolled and scrolled. Mattisse 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There's another issue when FAC gets overburdened by 100KB of "please change this word to that word" followed by green and red checkmarks; people may stop reading or lose track of what needs to be addressed. As I was notifying the last batch of promotions to wait for GimmeBot, I kept noticing MOS breaches, so I went back and checked them all. I've been up to my eyeballs trying to salvage an article at FAR for two weeks, and I haven't been reviewing. At least eight of the last bunch of 12 promotions had numerous MOS breaches or missing and incomplete citations. Is anyone checking ? IMO, we should give examples of issues that need to be addressed at FAC rather than provide laborious detail that overwhelms the page. I hope someone is reviewing for MOS in between all those green "Done" checkmarks, and I hope these eight get fixed before they go on mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to trudge through FAC, and it's really out of hand. Two FACs alone are 200KB. The green checkmarks and tally boxes started on a few FACs, and now they're spreading, some FACs are taking up over a hundred KB, and are often into territory of issues that should be worked out on the talk page. The section above this one and this section are related; the FAC page is too chunky to get through. How long have we been politely raising this issue, and no change—more tallyboxes, more graphics? I'm in favor now of doing something to stop the graphics, and encouraging lengthy discussion be moved to article talk pages. We shouldn't need to separate pages or worry about sub-sections; both are indiations that talk pages aren't being used, and graphics are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not policy or a guideline of any kind. Good night. Those little checkmarks take up almost NONE of the space you stated, only a few bytes. You equate the two. "The green checkmarks...the tally boxes..."

You know what? I DON'T CARE!!! Perhaps you've never been in the real world where things like this are done all of the time (perhaps you've heard of an executive summary. I have personally prepared a briefing where 6 slides were shown, but there were over 100 slides in reserve, in case of a question (which DID come up). There are not limits on the size of a nomination for a reason. There may be lots of things that need to be done, but the article is excellent as a whole. You aren't the only one who can do these. If you feel your self-appointed job as gatekeeper is too strenuous, then take a break! If you feel us minions are incompetent and you can do a better job than Raul, then try replacing him. I doubt you will find much support.

Your personal views do not even have a majority, much less a consensus. All I seem to hear from you is "Blah blah blah stupid checkboxes...blah blah dumb tally boxes blah blah...blah blah too big and too much blah blah..." Why not try and improve an article to FA status instead of whining about how "nobody gets things right when I'm gone and I don't like how you do things", try being constructive. Your air of superiority is WAY out of line and a lot of people here are sick of it. I'll bet there's a few things I could find that YOU missed too. We're human. Why not fix it yourself instead of pointing out the faults of others?

— BQZip01 — ^talk 07:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, BQZ. You're beginning to sound like someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please. I would like to advocate for User:SandyGeorgia's suggestion. I am a fairly capable editor and would increase my skills by being involved in FAC. Perhaps it is a personal fault of mine, but I find it too exhausting to try to follow the almost laughably long arguments that occur in some articles (while others get ignored, by the way) and, as I stated above, even keep tract of what article is being discussed. To make a comment, it is far easier to go to the article's talk page and click on the article's FAC comments section than to try to deal with the FAC page. Mattisse 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The Apprentice (UK) FAC is hard to follow; why so many green ticks? I've managed to get through many long peer reviews and FACs without ever using a tick or cross; they are distracting and not helpful. (DaleJenkin's rather long signature doesn't help). If the commentor (not the nominator of course) hides or deletes (and provides a link to a previous version) their comments, that would help make FACs easier to read. I advocate the use of talk pages to hammer out prose issues or major objections by the way; I think that's a good idea. I remember one FAC reviewer using a subpage. CloudNine 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which reminds me; I experimented on a few FACs with hiding my text once my concerns were resolved, and that worked out well in several cases. That's another reason I don't like my text chopped and spewed throughout the FAC. I prefer to keep it compact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hidden might be useful in those cases. 69.202.63.165 16:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I used one I borrowed from Circeus at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. Care must be exercised in case other people's concerns were mixed up with your own text, or there's something in there Raul may need to see, so I tend to use it only for long discussions of basic MOS stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe another option would be to use subpages for really lengthy lists of relatively minor fixes. You know, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgetown University/BQZip. This would encourage lengthy discussion (which is a net positive) while still keeping the FAC readable for everyone else. Another idea to reduce clutter: I notice a lot of times people post minor fixes in the FAC, when it would be faster for everyone if they went ahead and made the fixes. Particularly, comments like, "The boat full of hippos sail to Sri Lanka" should be "The boat full of hippos sails to Sri Lanka." Unambiguous fixes should just be made, not copied to an FAC. --JayHenry 19:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about just fixing them when it comes to minor and obvious prose fixes, or isolated MOS errors, but when there are systemic MOS breaches, I prefer to highlight it on the FAC so that not only will the current nominator learn MOS guidelines, but future readers of the FAC will also learn why the changes were made and how to maintain the article correctly. An example is that we hopefully only have to point out endashes on sports scores on one NBA or NFL FAC, and other editors of those articles will then pick it up. It's hard for anyone to keep up with all of MOS, so the more that can be highlighted on a page future editors will read, the better chance the article will be maintained correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that some of these are lengthy, they are also thorough (Raul or Arbitration REALLY should make a rule on this). If the entire text is not available, then duplicates of the same problem are likely to be on the same page. Unless the editors make sure to catch both of them, then they may only respond to one.

"I agree with you about just fixing them when it comes to minor and obvious prose fixes, or isolated MOS errors," I disagree. I have already been hammered twice for not putting that I was a "significant editor" to an article when all I did was fix minor stuff like that.

"...we hopefully only have to point out endashes on sports scores on one NBA or NFL FAC, and other editors of those articles will then pick it up." Why would anyone from one article read another article's FAC unless they were interested? You assume that everyone reads these (at least yours) from top to bottom before they ever submit their page. I see little reason to believe that is the case. Most articles are from individual editors with no major affiliation with a Wikiproject of any kind.

"It's hard for anyone to keep up with all of MOS, so the more that can be highlighted on a page future editors will read, the better chance the article will be maintained correctly." So reviews can be longer, but only if they are yours? I'm confused. I offer more and you say "no, no, no. That's all wrong" but when you do it, it's ok? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, I try to keep my comments to a few sentences, pointing out the relevant WP:MOS page—they grow when someone else breaks them up and adds graphics :-) If extended work takes over, I prefer to move to talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) It is painful to read through the FAC page. Who would often do it voluntarily to pick up MoS tips about writing sports articles? I can't even make myself do it and I really want to know more about MoS applications. To pick out useful tips necessitates scrolling through endlessly long comments/suggestions that often end in confusion with no clear outcome. If the interest is in helping individuals learn from the FAC process, then the page needs to be made legible. --Mattisse 20:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I support the summary tables and graphics symbols 100%. They make the page easier to read, not harder. Johntex\^talk 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks

I often have to correct FAs that do not meet our MOS guideline on quotation mark punctuation (WP:PUNC). Not a moan, just a reminder that we should be checking FACs for correct usage (because there isn't enough to check them for!) especially when the wrong form appears on the Main Page. violet/riga (t) 10:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this something a Bot could be set to do, in part or in whole? --Dweller 11:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I often correct people who add dots and commas inside quotation marks not realising that it is a quotation and should reflect the original words of the speaker not the grammatical wish of the editor. Bots would not appreciate this finer distinction. DrKiernan 12:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style and GAC

I'm just letting you know I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?#Manual of Style about whether to include the whole of the MOS guidelines in the Good Article Criteria. I'm not sure if it's a good idea myself, but I'd like to hear other people's opinions. Epbr123 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Know what would be a really good idea? Getting rid of GAC altogether and transferring the wasted effort over there to here. Let's face it, GAC has been steadily improving their criteria to match FAC for years now - the only difference is the articles pass on the strength of one person rather than many. Which is meaningless. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that FA articles also pass on the strength of one person don't they?. The FA director? I think that the FAC are perhaps a case where, to paraphrase Voltaire, the best can be the enemy of the good. I think it would even be possible to make a case that there are articles where an overzealous application of the criteria has resulted in a lessening of the quality of the article, not an improvement. Perhaps good enough is good enough; anything beyond that tends to become unduly subjective? If an article is good enough – which is surely what GA is all about trying to assess – does it really need to be any better than that? Why? --Malleus Fatuarum 22:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just not true. Ceoil 22:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• What's not true? --Malleus Fatuarum 22:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"one person", "the best can be the enemy of the good", "there are articles where an overzealous application of the criteria has resulted in a lessening of the quality of the article, not an improvement". And overall. These are prejudices. Ceoil 23:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to stop this argument before it starts. You're not going to change each other's opinions on a matter like this. Epbr123 23:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see a cool head every so often. Good advice. Ceoil 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion can be neither true nor false. You may, if you like, consider my opinion to be prejudiced, I agree, just as I may consider yours to be. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Without GA, you can expect FAC to get an extra 10-15 nominations a day. M3tal H3ad 11:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, because more FAs would be so dreadful... ;) And if GAC died, you'd get considerably more reviewers over here, so it's a moot point. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be dreadful. You would get articles that wouldn't even meet GA standards at FA daily (already do but times that by 15), just because you get more FAC's doesn't mean they will be good. Plus editors wouldn't bother improving smaller articles that can't get FA if GA wasn't around. M3tal H3ad 13:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for belittling the time that we GAC reviewers put into that space, Dev. :) Seriously, if you got rid of GAC not only would there be a lot more crap floating into FAC, but you would also discourage improvement on some articles which, as the GA page states, have little chance of becoming FA-class. David Fuchs ^(talk) 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Every article that exists, or rather, should exist, on Wikipedia has an equal chance of reaching FA. The passing of such articles as Hurricane Erika (1997) proves articles that are short and sparsely referenced due to a lack of separate sources are no longer barred from FA, and so GA's original purpose is now defunct. And if we've reached the point where even GA's supporters admit it's being mainly used as a dumping ground for crap, I rather think the argument is won. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not a dumping ground, its a stage in the process. Ceoil 15:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

^Indeed. I am not saying GAC is a dumping ground for crap; I am saying if we cut it out of the process, articles that are poorly sourced, badly written and whatnot would not be improved by the time they reach FAC. I've looked through article history templates and found a large number of articles that failed FAC two, even three times without ever going to GA. Like peer review, GAC has an important stage in article improvement. David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But it was never meant as a stage in the process, it was meant as an alternative process that has had its original purpose swept away. If someone has a choice between spending twenty hours on a GA and then ten hours pushing that GA up to FA, when they could have just spent 22 hours taking it to FA, then its far more efficient just to take it to FA, both in time and effort. If articles reach FAC that are poorly sourced and badly written, it's not going to make a lot of difference whether a person says that on an FAC or a GAC. Whereas good articles that are nominated for GAC purely because the nominator is going through the "process" and and settled there, or then can't be bothered to do FA never make it here, and we're losing potentially brilliant FAs because it never made through our process, but instead was reviewed by one bloke. Frankly, if GAC is a filtering system, it's trapping our diamonds as well as our shit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments: first, my own experience was that GA was an excellent way for me to learn the ropes. I no longer take my articles to GAC before I go to FAC, because I think I know what it takes to get through FAC now and I see no reason to tie up another editor to achieve a status I hope will be temporary. But without that process, which absorbed only one other editor's time on each article, I would have made a lot more mistakes at FAC. There are still a couple of my GAs I suspect I will never take to FA, too, so for me at least it was a useful halfway house -- those articles are better than they were, but someone else can take them the rest of the way to FA.

Second, I'd suggest that Dev920 moves this discussion to one of the GA subpage talk pages. It can't have any effect here; if you really want to build consensus I think the folks at GA need to be included, and this isn't the best page for that discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I used to have the same feelings about GA as Dev, but I've completely changed my thinking recently on GA, and agree with Mike. There are many editors who aren't ready to take on FAC yet, and really treasure their good article status, and it does help editors who don't feel ready to approach FAC. I also agree this discussion should be moved to a GA page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't the time to make a serious proposal about the destruction of GA, although I have some ideas rattling around in my head I may one day get round to. But Epbr123 asked for opinions here, and that's what I gave. Why bother constantly upgrading the criteria when it'll end up "WIAGA? = read WIAFA". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There are differences; the two sets of criteria are not the same. CloudNine 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And I think the difference between "comprehensive" and "broad" is sufficently close to not be worth bothering with. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I used to share your feelings, but I would no longer support the dismantling of GA, and although I think it can be quite a pain in the neck, I think it serves a useful purpose as Wiki grows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I find WIAGA easier to understand/better laid out than WIAFA. Also some articles like Cullacabardee, Western Australia (one of my GAs) would never make FA and could not be improved to the level where it would meet FA standards - there's just not enough source material on the topic. I do have one FA to my name though and have helped with a couple of others. Orderinchaos 13:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) Regarding the recommendation for Dev to move this discussion to a GA talk page, save it. GA doesn't care to hear the ignorant proposal for destruction from a pretentious FA participant. (Have a fantastic day!) LARA♥LOVE 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lotta love there, LaraLove. How deliciously ironic. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, she does have a point. Everyone at WP:GAC will pretty much oppose this anyway, so there's no point in even bringing it up there. While there's still room for improvement in the process, the contributors to the project are simply not interested in disposing with it. Dr. Cash 21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice me not taking it over there, I'm not plotting any kind of campaign against GA. You must be horribly insecure over there if my idle suggestion has generated so many "well-go-away-we-hate-you-anyway-and-you-have-stupid-hair" responses. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Don't really care one way or the other but I would note that if you did get rid of GA the only thing I think it would accomplish would be to drive a lot of really valuable contributors away from Wikipedia. I really don't think GA and FA need to be in a pissing contest, it won't help anything. Can we just close this discussion which really has the potential to be very disruptive. IvoShandor 05:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given the current four page long discussion on WT:GA is on how to get the GA symbol on pages proposal past us bastards at FA as well as the general community (do read it everyone, it says much about how people who choose to work at GA think), complete with attacks on how elitist and aristocratic and exclusionary and dismissive and mean WP:FA is, if the people with such bad inferiority complexes quit Wikipedia in disgust I imagine the system would be better off without them. Contrary to some of the more hysterical posts over there, it is not much more difficult to pass an FA than a GA, it just takes a bit more dedication, dedication I have the optimism to believe every editor has within them. As always, the answer is simply to give people the confidence to believe in themselves.

To be honest, I'm rather shocked at the vitriol on WT:GA, which seems to be propounding the schitzophrenic view that FAs are completely out of reach of the common editor but GA is better because FACs focus solely on MOS violations (easily fixable) instead of content (not so fixable). GAians (to modify their amusing denigrations of FA-ians) really ought to decide whether they're an inferior step in the process to FA, in which case they should stop complaining about how they're treated as inferior, or whether they want to be a system in their own right, and if so they should stop claiming they're a necessary part of the article writing process. They can't have it both ways. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to say, that view of FA is certainly not one isolated to GA. In my experience FA isn't that hard to attain, I think that impression comes from the hordes of non-FA status articles that are nominated at FAC. Honestly, though, shocked? You are really shocked that people feel this way about FA? I find that hard to believe. I disagree that the discussion represents an inferiority complex. Though you are free to characterize others however you want. As for FA being out of reach of the common editor, a definite yes, many, many Wikipedians lack the skill in writing and research to be able to attain FA, or GA for that matter. It is clear, however, that the camps have already been divided, they even have cute names and all. IvoShandor 09:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, shocked, Ivo, because however I feel about GA I don't make rude personal attacks on the people who work there by labelling them all morons who aren't good enough for FA, as they have attacked FAns (better name) for being elitist intellectuals who look down on GA. The idea that one can dislike someone for nothing more than the process they favour on Wikipedia is a peculiar phenomenon I have encountered nowhere beyond WP:GA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought GA was a good jumping/testing ground - sometimes an article just doesn't gell the right way or just gets plain boring to edit, so is nice to have a way-point where there is some recognition and reference point for work done. I hadn't thought there was much of a problem with either FA or GA, having contributed to both...is there much support for nixing GA and/or otherwise combining the two? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My only problem with GA is the accountability issue, I've even seen banned editors passing or failing GAs to make a point. If that could be resolved somehow I really wouldn't have a problem with it. Orderinchaos 13:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Dev: I can assure you, that not all users share your opinion, and I have come across just as vile (though I really don't think the majority of the discussion in question is really all that bad) characterizations of GA too. Anytime people involve themselves in a process that has a role in selecting things (in this case articles) as "the best" or "good" others are going to consider the people involved in that process to be elitest. Maybe you don't think so, but I have witnessed this countless times in the real life world, Wikipedia is just an extension of that. But I think when you characterized the process of GA as a waste a time, you probably lost some support for your assertion that FA isn't elitest, at least in my mind anyway.

Casliber: I doubt there is much support for either, as both are pretty well established on their own.

IvoShandor 10:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Given I have little to do with the process itself unless I or one of my friends is running an FAC, to lower your opinion of FA based on my views says more about your desire to denigrate FA than it does about FA itself. FA on Wikipedia is like British education - the appropriate response to falling standards is better teaching and guidance, not dumbing down. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with FA (in fact I find it to be among one of the projects very bright spots), its guidelines, or you. However, since you were asserting there was no elitest overtones here, who else should I have responded to, this is why I was careful to note your assertion. As for me wanting to denigrate FA, I don't think so, you are free to assume you know what I think anytime though, I don't particularly care. Honestly, it seems there is some major problem with GA existing here, I don't see the problem. And I agree with the comments above that many users are not ready to undertake an FAC, it is the reason I stayed away from it for so long. I always saw that as a place where I would end up when I had more experience, better understanding of policy, better grasp of style guidelines, etc. Learning the ropes of those items can take months of practical experience. GA is nice, especially for new editors. But whatever your reasons, I am done with this coversation. And, seriosuly, have a nice day? Gimme a break. IvoShandor 10:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, why not? I am not interested in wishing people dreadful days - it's not good for their day or my soul. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Don't really care one way or the other but I would note that if you did get rid of GA the only thing I think it would accomplish would be to drive a lot of really valuable contributors away from Wikipedia. I really don't think GA and FA need to be in a pissing contest, it won't help anything." Amen to that. It's my perception that a lot of invaluable contributors already consider the FA process—which can sometimes seem to be rather arbitrary—a step too far to be bothered with. Perhaps in time, with lots of better examples to follow, there might be no need of the distinction between GA and FA. One of the current problems, I think, is that because the standards keep changing, editors are confused about what's expected of them. I know that I was, and occasionally still am. I wonder how many of the current crop of FA articles would manage to get through the process again? --Malleus Fatuarum 23:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, because I was under the general impression that it's the GAC that has been constantly shifting the goalposts further and further. As far as I'm aware, the only major change to FAC requirements was the citation requirement from more than a year ago, and all prior FAs were slowly sifted through review and given ample time to add appropriate citations. Otherwise, I believe the FAC standards have been remarkably consistent.

I think that the question isn't what's the difference between GAC and FAC, but really what's the difference between GA-class, A-class, and FA-class. I simply don't see enough differentiation to warrant all three classes, when in theory it shouldn't take much difference of effort to traverse these three. The better question is - between GA and A, can we either ditch one or merge both together? Girolamo Savonarola 23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The actual criteria haven't changed significantly, but in practice the enforcement of trivial aspects of the manual of style, and the number of inline citations required, have continued to increase. The standards in these areas are much tighter than two years ago (which isn't to say that the articles are any better). Christopher Parham (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the FA criteria probably have changed somewhat, perhaps as a result of trying to differentiate from the GA criteria. The infamous Oppose 1a) for instance; "... the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." What's that supposed to mean? Engaging to who, brilliant by what standard? If that sentence had been written in an article for review, I believe that it would have been questioned, and what does "professional standard" mean anyway? --Malleus Fatuarum 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I support Girolamo's suggestion that A-class and GA-class should be merged. DrKiernan 07:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not, it just occurred to me that if we get rid of A class, GA's insertion of itself into the hierarchy is complete and we'll never be able to get rid of it. Also, I imagine MILHIST would be rather annoyed given they have an A class Review process. Dev920 09:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the problems with A-class. GA and FA classes are applied encyclopedia-wide to the same standards, but different projects rate their A-class articles differently. Milhist works in one way, but other projects allow individual editors to make a decision, while Biography does both (compare for example: an individual assessment here and an A class review here). DrKiernan 08:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But one could make the same argument about all the other grades - they're only there as an internal marker for editors, so it doesn't really matter if, say, WP:BIO has slightly stricter grading guidelines than WP:LGBT (which they do). As long as the system is meaningful to the people who work on those articles varying standards across Wikipedia, unless they really vary wildly, aren't a matter for our concern. It's only GA that is also graded by a single editor but makes pretentious claims for itself about quality. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of merging GA and A class articles - I feel GA is a good place to look for and find potential GAs...which is conducive to good 'pedia buildingcheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times by WP:1.0, and to make a long story short, the result every time has been "no." Both FA and GA serve as excellent pegging points for the rest of the WikiProject assessment scale.

As for why many editors prefer GA to FA: FAC is becoming increasingly caustic, which causes several editors, who do have the ability to author a featured article, to simply not bother with the process. Those authors don't need the star, they just write the article and send it to GA for a quick quality check. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is of course an ongoing problem which people at FAC have for the most part recognised (see my previous thread on it. And that's the first step to recovery. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Some editors choose to go through GA because, with all things considered, it is less bureaucratic and easier/quicker to reach. Not everybody has the time to bring an article to FA status. CloudNine 09:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What a boring discussion - gets brought up every so often this one does, and it never gets any livelier each time. Some like GA, some don't. Some like FA, some don't. That's life, so let's get on with it. Both FAC and GAC have their flaws as far as I am concerned. LuciferMorgan 10:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree...posting here on this thread instead of doing something constructive or useful..(goddammit there i go again!!! Git off the thread!!...(forcibly removes hands off keyboard)...). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

John Millington Synge

How is it possible that this article is an FA [the current FA, btw] without having a single citation? Let alone that fails to meet several other criteria, but I distinctly remember a lot of hubbab on this page about how this was not going to happen anymore. Not to mention the hubbab surrounding articles that were/are actually sourced... Can someone please explain? Dahn 11:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the nom was three years ago, almost, maybe an FAR is in order? IvoShandor 12:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit history of the actual nomination page is quite suspect as well. I am unsure of what, exactly, went on there. IvoShandor 12:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please review the instructions at WP:FAR regarding main page articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(Replying to Ivo) There's nothing suspect about it - it's to be expected. Mav created that page from the FAC page history when we move to the system we have now, where each nomination has its own subpage. Raul654 16:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor, that's how many of the older FAC files are built; I added the old diffs to make it more clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Middlesbrough F.C.

May I ask why the discussion for this article was closed and the result being "not promoted" when there was still discussion going on about the article and the objections that had been raised by those commenting on (and the single objection about) the article had all been resolved? --Simmo676 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• For some reason, the FA director thought there were too many unresolved objections. Just renominate it again. Epbr123 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Fail idea

You sometimes get nominations which are clearly ill-advised such as Real Madrid right now where the article is nowhere near FA standered yet and is a waste of space on the FAC page. I proposes that with such situations a user can nominate it for "Speedy Fail". An asigned admin user would then check the article and if they agree that the article is nowhere near FA standered they can fail the nomination without Raul having to anything. Buc 16:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If an article is not ready it takes Raul a mere second to fail it when the time comes. I don't see a real need for this additional process at the moment. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No. As I said on this talk page previously, I don't want others closing FAC noms besides me. Raul654 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Having one person taking care of such things makes it easier in general. LuciferMorgan 10:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails FAC

Somebody please tell Drewcifer3000 in no uncertain terms that he is not to conveniently hide my oppose in some fancy box, and all my comments that he has allegedly addressed (he hasn't addressed them all). These fancy boxes mask the truth as regards FACs, and I 110% am against them. Reviewers' opinions should be there for all to plainly see, and for others to assess the FAC. Is this fancy box a new thing at FAC I'm unaware of, or am I another person who dislikes these boxes masking FAC comments? LuciferMorgan 00:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See this and this Raul654 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have cautiously used boxes to cap my comments *only* in cases where the conversation was entirely between the nominator and me, issues were all resolved, and there weren't comments from other editors interpersed. I don't think anyone should ever cap off someone else's comments. When another editor suggested these caps, and I cautiously tried them out, my concern was that this would happen (capping off someone else's comments). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see my edit to LuciferMorgan's talk page (diff), posted before LuciferMorgan posted here and immediately after I hid the comments. Despite the issues on the FAC, I explained myself with as much transparency and tact as possible. I clearly mentioned the fact that it hid his original vote, and politely asked him to vote again. I also addressed the fact that I may not have addressed every comment. I did so because the page was/is becoming difficult to read, edit, and wade through. I tried earlier to divy it up into editable sections (diff), but that was reverted as well by SandyGeorgia who apparently does that often. I thought that was a much more elegant solution to the problem then the hide box, but apparently that's a no-no too. I am still fairly new to the whole FAC process, so please excuse me if I step on any toes. Assume good faith, and good lord, don't scream ANI at the first sight of disagreement. Drewcifer 02:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pages should not be divided into sections because they screw up Raul's promotions/archiving somehow (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC instructions above). The general rule of thumb is that we shouldn't refactor or edit other people's comments. DrKiernan 07:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Like I said, I'm fairly new here: no need to have a heart attack over one edit that's easily reverted. Speaking of which, at what point does Raul reboot the discussion? It's been open for two weeks now and it's getting gargantuan and might continue to grow. The vast majority of the discussion are old comments that have been addressed already anyways. Drewcifer 07:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that my oppose was summarized as comments in this box, so I feel these boxes have the danger of being abused. I'd personally rather a nomination being restarted instead of these boxes, and voters asked to recast their votes (after they've read the article again of course). LuciferMorgan 08:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I support summary tables. They are very helpful if used with care. The simple guideline should be to never speak for anyone else. For instance: Ted is the nominator. Betty objects. Ted attempts to address Betty's concern. If Ted puts this into a table, Ted should say "Betty Opposed - Ted made changes in response". Simple, factual, helpful. Johntex\^talk 17:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• I oppose summary tables because 1) FAC is not a vote, 2) I've already been misrepresented in them (see Raul's diff above), and 3) they impose an unnecessary additional editing burden without adding clarity. Ten fan supports can't outweigh one solid oppose on serious, actionable grounds, so the summaries aren't useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• 1) Summary tables have nothing to do with voting. They are simply a summary of what has transpired. 2) My proposal makes clear that it is wrong to misrepresent people. 3) They do make the conversation more clear because they summarize what has happened. Your last sentence needs no reply since I never claimed any such thing. Johntex\^talk 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thou might find this interesting

Today's FA is thou. It's nomination page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thou seems to have only one edit. There do not seem to be any deleted edits either. Did this article really get promoted with no discussion or is there something I've missed? Johntex\^talk 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps it was perfect and didn't need a discussion. Epbr123 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This has come up before, and is a common misunderstanding with the older FAs. The old process did not use FAC pages; articles went straight from FAC to FA without an intermediate FAC page. In order to build articlehistory, various editors (including Mav, Gimmetrow and me) have recreated the FAC files from the old FAC page; they are correct, that's the way it was done then, there is no problem. When I rebuild them, I try to use the diff from the old FAC page so editors aren't confused, but locating those diffs involves a LOT of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See also the entry on Synge a few sections up on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, good. Thanks for the explanation. I did not know that so I have learned something today. I can certainly see how hunting down the diffs would be a lot of work. Perhaps we should go through all these and place a notice at the top to explain what you just said. That way no one is confused in the future. Johntex\^talk 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to identify all of those done by Mav; I add the diffs as they surface. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've update Thou now; see the corrected FAC file. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Very helpful. Johntex\^talk 17:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Name change proposal

I think this page should be renamed to "Feature article candidates". Also, the "Feature article" sounds better and more upbeat than "Featured article". It is more concise and reflects the fact that the articles continue to be "featured".Kmarinas86 21:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Feature article" has a different meaning, though. I'm not sure whether we want to say that these articles are the main items of Wikipedia, instead of them being prominently displayed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current system works just fine. The constantly-changing nature of Wikipedia makes it prudent to emphasize the fact that the article was featured as of a certain revision. – Scartol · Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Three questions

1. Is there some way to allow subdividing of these discussions? They become pretty big pretty quickly, and it would be nice to be able to get down into one block of comments more efficiently. I see above that it interferes with archiving, but some sort of end-run would be greatly appreciated.
2. Am I the only one who thinks an article ought to be judged as a GA before it's nominated as an FAC? The path on WP:FA? doesn't include GA status, but I think it's a good intermediary.
3. What's the most painless way to withdraw an FAC nom? More than once I've seen an FAC that is best served with an extensive peer review, rather than a drawn-out discussion here. Seems to me that this space is best used for a (relatively) quick decision one way or another, not the kind of intricate back and forth required to bring something up to FA standards.

Thanks in advance. – Scartol · Talk 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul can answer question 1, but I doubt he'd object to subdividing if a way can be found for it to not cause additional work for him. I don't know the details of the problem it causes. Re GA: I don't think you have to go to GA first, and these days generally I don't. I'd be against making it mandatory in any sense, but it's certainly advisable for one's first FAC (and perhaps the first four or five). I think I did it for at least three or four, maybe more. To withdraw a nom, you can just leave a note on Raul's talk page, and he'll do it. I don't know whether things like ArticleHistory get messed up if you just delete the FAC transclusion template from the FAC page. Mike Christie (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead sections

I notice lead sections are very problematic in Wikipedia, and recently I've seen quite a few GA, A and even FA articles with very brief leads, even when they are 100kb long or more. The two main problems are that people a) Don't summarize the article very well in the lead. It isn't just an introduction, it's basically a miniaturized version of the full article that people can take home with them if they don't want anymore. And b) Many are far too short, especially in lengthy articles. Something 30kb and more should have a decent chunk of lead to start with. I've recently noted my dissatisfaction with the lead of the FA Military of Australia, which is a whopping 90kb, yet its lead is only 3 paragraphs, two of which are very tiny. Perhaps reviewers need to pay a bit more attention to WP:LEAD? Richard001 02:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that the terms "summary" and "miniaturised version" are synonymous. Personally I think that the lead in the article you quote summarises the article reasonably well. I don't see any prima facie reason why long articles inevitably and automatically must have correspondingly long leads. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD correlates article size with lead size and to the lead should be "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". I agree that is a meager lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD may well correlate article size with lead size, but that's not the same as a proof that it necessarily makes sense to do that. --Malleus Fatuarum 15:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose (at least originally) of having the lead summarize the article is to make it easier for me to write up the main page blurb. It has also been suggested that it could be used to automatically generate a consise version of the article (this is a requested mediawiki feature which is may be implimented eventually). The lead section for Military of Australia is suffecient for either of these purposes. Raul654 16:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

With how Raul654 used the word blurb, I think it's also appropriate to compare the lead to a blurb. When you look at a reference book on a specific topic, the blurb gives you an idea of what's in the book. The book might be a tome of 400 pages of text and pictures, but the blurb does a good job of summarising the key points. In the ADF example, the lead wouldn't be out of place on the back cover of an ADF reference. Ong elvin 02:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another big article at FAC...

Dear all, I've nominated lion at FAC and it's pretty hefty, though looks smaller than Jerusalem and schizophrenia which have recently been successful at gaining or keeping FA status. I fel I've tried to write as succinctly as possible but would be interested if any others can give a quick look at whether (a) the article is manageable despite the size or (b) needs reducing. Both Circeus and I have a couple of bits which could be reduced or summarised but I was keen to see what others thought as well. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Automatic dead link checking

Candidates will be check for dead external links every day the results are stored on the tool server. Please check this page regularly to determine if any of the links (typically references) on the candidates' need replacing or review. —Dispenser 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neat! Raul654 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Strike Comments of KIA reviewers? (or, time limits on FAC?)

I've been having a lot of issues at my FACs where editors would pop up 'comment' or 'opposes', then vanish off the face of the earth (or at least never bother responding to my repeated requests for them to reevaluate.) If we're confident we've addressed their concerns, can we simply strike their comments? It's annoying, especially when only three or four editors bother reviewing the page to begin with.

As a side note: is there any specific time limit on FACs? Raul seems to close them arbitrarily, consensus or no... David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if reviewers always returned to their comments, and the instructions certainly encourage them to do so, but I don't think we can assume that an objection has been dealt with if they don't return. I don't think there's any harm in leaving a note on a reviewer's talk page to let them know you've responded, but that's all one can do. I'm sure Raul tries to take things like that into account in his assessments. As for closing FACs, from comments I've seen I believe Raul used to leave them up for no more than one or two weeks, but will now leave them longer in order to generate consensus. Hence one FAC may be promoted in six days, while another takes thirty. Mike Christie (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) No, do not strike out other peoples' objections. This is a recipe for trouble. If you want an editor to revist his comments/objections, drop a note his talk page (2) As I have said numerous times, both on this page and elsewhere, I give 5 days to all FAC noms (4 if the FAC is particularly overloaded). After that, they may be closed at any time. Raul654 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As above, no, but keep it really simple and state that 1) you feel you have addressed the concern and 2) that the editor has not responded to requests to re-evaluate. With that information, including diffs ideally, it makes it really easy for Mark to evaluate what is going on. Thus why there is no need at all to strike. - Taxman ^Talk 04:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A request for reviews on Rob-B-Hood

I've nominated the film Rob-B-Hood for 2 weeks, and there are still only 2 comments. I've asked members of the relevant WikiProjects to comment on it, all to no avail. So, I'd appreciate it if someone could just drop by and identify the problems with the article, since it's currently underreviewed.--Alasdair 07:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried asking for comments on the WikiProject talk pages? That might be a good place to start. ISD 07:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't add nomination.

The Spam protection filter is preventing me from adding Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Mythology to the nomination page. It says "http<colon>//www<dot>clickitaliansoftware<dot>net" triggered the spam filter, but I can't find that link anywhere (I've looked through all ~70 links). Anyone know what's causing this? · AndonicO ^Talk 14:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it was on the "Audioslave" nom. Is it sorted now? DrKiernan 14:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's okay now. Thanks! · AndonicO ^Talk 14:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Prose question - is this a deal-breaker for anyone else?

Hi all Peterborough is at FAC - there's been alot of to-ing and fro-ing and the article is improving steadily and will probably pass but I have a real problem with this bit which is at the end of the modern history section:

Between 2006 and 2012 a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas will take place. The master plan outlines a new vision for the city centre, identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15–20 years. Proposals are already progessing for the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter, where Network Rail is preparing a major mixed use development

To me it sounds like advertorial and I feel strongly that it doesn't say much at all and should be reworded or replaced with a mere statement the city centre is being extensively redeveloped. I'd love some input as to whether others agree with me or think I'm being too harsh and let it slide/or are not fussed about the bit. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say rewrite a tad, but I wouldn't remove it if it has citations... Just edit out the advertising elements... Spawn Man 11:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also say it's a bit on the press-release side of things. Rather than "a new vision" the article could tell us what the vision is. Rather than "guidelines on shaping the physical form", it could tell us...etc. Also, I'd enquire if this proposal is/was being opposed in any way. I've yet to see a large city-centre proposal that didn't, at minimum, have grumbling in the local press; often it can be more. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 12:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The future tense is also problematic. What if there are snags and development stalls or even ceases completely? Better to recast it in the past tense: "On [insert date], the Peterborough So-and-So Office announced a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas, scheduled to take place between 2006 and 2012." — Brian (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable basis for an objection to FA status; I also think it's fairly easy to fix with a little toning down. It would certainly be good to get information about any opposition, but that shouldn't prevent support for FA status. Mike Christie (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Mike: this is a perfectly valid concern. If the prose is weak and fails to tstae want it wants to state, the article obviously fail Criterion 1(a) (with extra concerns for 1(c) and 1(d) here). Circeus 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Brian, Circeus and Mike. It reads like a prospectus at the moment. I'd damp it down and remove some of buzz words (master plan, new vision, investment priorities). --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The material itself is not objectionable, but it could use some rewriting. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• On the other hand, I would be more concerned about that paragraph being a copy-paste of the included reference. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that's worth opposing over since it's a copy vio... I'm with Brian as well in regards to setting it in the past tense... The copy vio needs to be eliminated though... Spawn Man 06:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks guys. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious shortage of reviewers

Where are they all? I notice under-reviewed nominations right through the list. Any ideas on how to drum up more? Posts at WikiProjects? Tony (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Perhaps ask for a commitment from a wider group of users to review three a week? Tony (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one of the active reviewers could write an article for the Signpost about recent trends at FAC (i.e., higher volume of noms and promotions than ever, but a dearth of reviewers, especially for topics that don't have a broad interest base) and what the strengths and weaknesses of the process are. The Signpost is always looking for more stories, especially ones that will draw in editors to areas they don't normally see much of.--ragesoss 01:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some real gems went through this week. Anyway, that would be a short article; just link here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's my impression that a significant number of editors are disengaging from the review process because it's perceived to be arbitrary and discouraging; not just FA, but GA as well. Maybe that's the place to start? --Malleus Fatuarum 02:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll tell you one thing, there's no glory in the job. People just get mad at you, mostly, or they ignore you. You don't see anyone flashing "This user is a FA reviewer" userboxes on their userspace. All you see is userboxes for writing, not reviewing. At least not anywhere near as much. Wrad 02:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should give out more barnstars to people for doing good reviews. I know I'm grateful for the detailed critiques that came from FAC. In fact, as soon as Rachel Carson gets promoted, I'll send out barnstars for Awadewit and JayHenry, and maybe belated ones for the previous FACs I've been involved with. When an FAC is languishing, though, I think a lot of the onus is on the editors of an article to seek out others who are interested and knowledgeable about that area and recruit reviewers. The regulars give great style advice and are good at pointing out problems in consistency, but the most substantive feedback on content usually comes from people who come to the table with plenty of background knowledge.--ragesoss 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. I doubt that many editors signed up with the intention of reviewing articles, as opposed to writing them. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Pretty much agree with Wrad. Certain issues have made reviewing undesirable, and doing a good job on "three a week" is a lot of work. However, there are "GA reviewer" userboxes; while that project is understaffed, it has run a couple "backlog removal" drives and awarded some reviewer barnstars, and this drew in some new reviewers. Perhaps, maybe, there might be some ideas to gather from that project. [Runs and hides.] Gimmetrow 02:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No wait! Come back!! :) I like some of those ideas. I don't care much about barnstars, but there is something to be said for organization and community... Wrad 02:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to get into what appears to be an old FA/GA debate, but I've reviewed on both, and both have obvious strengths and weaknesses. It's certainly easier for GA to encourage a drive, because of the less formal and more personal process involved, but a fundamental problem with both review processes must be that those most qualified to carry out the review have quite likely been involved in the writing of the article, or have some other vested interest in its progress, and so have to disqualify themselves from the review. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Project members are not disqualified from commenting on a FAC. Also, A-reviews (when they occur) often take much of the work off FAC. Few articles passing a MilHist A-review end up failing here. Nevertheless, an article should make sense to an non-specialist. Gimmetrow 03:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps project members ought to be disqualified from commenting on a FAC. But this is a digression from Tony1's theme of how to encourage more FA reviewers. Wrad made a very telling point; there's very little in it for the reviewers, so why should anyone bother? --Malleus Fatuarum 04:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. I've no idea how practical it would be to implement, I'm just brainstorming, so please don't jump down my throat. What about some kind of token scheme, where nominators have to "buy" the right to nominate FACs by doing reviews? --Malleus Fatuarum 04:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would rather have it the other way around. A reviewer carries more weight in my view if he has a lot of FAs under his belt. Seems like that would discourage that sort of thing, although it would be nice if people who nominated also reviewed, every time. Wrad 04:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It used to be that an article would have 6-7 supports before getting promoted, now it's 3-4 (Rachel Carson just got promoted with only 3 supports). Also notice that there used to be 40 or so articles on the FAC list, now it's often 70-80, so the reviewers who are available are getting diluted. Are there more FACs because wiki has grown or what? I think all these issues are tied together.Rlevse 17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Demands for promotion has gone up, requiring much more time and expertise to be invested in a review then some time ago. This is good for the quality, but it This may scare off many (to be honest, me among the many). Arnoutf 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you write fulsome praise, it is utterly thankless. Nobody likes their work publicly criticized, even when done gently and in good faith. Asking for compliance with MOS is greeted either with frosty compliance or argument. Commenting on some's idiolect provokes an even chillier response. I generalize but you get my drift. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

in my view, the "rating" system has been inflated too much over the past year or so. Now we have a full bureaucracy attached to "Good Article", and there are editors that do nothing but cruise around, "assessing" articles as "start" or "stub". Clearly, this has spread out our workforce of people willing to do reviews more than is healthy. My proposal would be to tear down the entire "good article" bureaucracy and merge it back into the "FA" process, leaving "GA" as the matter of unbureaucratic consensus it was originally intended as. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this "full bureaucracy" you mention? I'm not aware of it. FWIW, I think that FA could learn something from GA's ongoing review process. There are far too many FA articles that were nodded through in the past that wouldn't even get through a GA review today. --Malleus Fatuarum 11:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd happily see "GA" go altogether. Far too often, I've read comments to the effect of "I know nothing about this subject but here are my observations". "GA" is pretty much superseded by A-class anyway. A-class assessments are probably best done within projects wherever possible, simply to get expertise involved. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the same charge could be levelled against FA reviewers. --Malleus Fatuarum 11:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it could, though there the load is spread across various shoulders, with different editors commenting on different aspects and Raul providing oversight. I've seem some very informed comment in "FA" and think it broadly works well. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 11:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that GA also "broadly works well". But presumably this GA/FA pissing match has started up again because of an assumption that GA reviewers would transfer their efforts to FA reviews if the GA project was "torn down". Perhaps they would, perhaps they wouldn't. Personally I somewhat doubt that many would, but that's immaterial. A problem with the FA review process – in this case a lack of willing reviewers – ought to be addressed within the FA project itself, not by "tearing down" what some may perceive to be a competing project. I would suggest, as I did earlier, that there are signs that an increasing number of editors are turning their backs on both the GA and FA processes, with FA in particular being seen as a dispiriting experience for both nominators and reviewers. I would suggest that's the problem that ought to be addressed. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. I was unaware of a pissing match. I agree that the disheartening factor needs to be resolved. Perhaps by making the process less adversarial/gladiatorial (though I can't think how)? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A little bit more transparency might help for starters. There's no satisfactory closure for an FA nomination; the decision to list or not is made by one person after what appears to be some arbitrary passage of time, without any explanation being given as to why the decision went one way or the other. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Some sort of checklist might help: comply WP:A y/n, comply [[WP:V] y/n, comply WP:MOS y/n, for instance. While, on one hand, this is merely adding another level of subjectivity, at least it identifies in broad terms where those areas are. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On the original post, perhaps nominators seeking reviews could make use of User:Deckiller/FAC urgents and transclude it to more pages? DrKiernan 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Or even make transclusion mandatory to all the projects that have tagged the article? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just the thread. See this: Wikipedia:Content review/workshop after much discussion on the village pump. I had presented this as a very raw version of a streamlined GA. Two points:

• The noms have gone up at least 50%; I don't think the reviewers here have significantly declined.
• More processes have diverted the overall cohort. "Cruising around" to assess B articles is pointless. It adds nothing to the mainspace.
• The GA/FA split has clearly increased procedural overhead. People are spending less time than they ought to be actually editing articles. Marskell 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

GA and FA have actually motivated me to write more. There's nothing quite like having a goal to aim for... Wrad 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Hence nominations have gone up. Marskell 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What if something should happen to Raul?

Seriously, if Raul654 were to be incapacitated, what would happen to the FACs? Are there instructions in place for someone else (who?) to take over if Raul stops editing for X days? NYC, Baybie 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Jimbo? Has he made provisions for us all in his will? We don't need instructions of this sort; when a person central to a process leaves, Wikipedia inevitably fills in the gap. Marskell 14:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the point being made was that perhaps there ought not to be one person central to the process. --Malleus Fatuarum 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If Raul has a long-term absence for any reason, we'd handle it the same way as everything else on Wikipedia - we'd choose a new (or acting) features director based on consensus. There's no need to create any additional process. Girolamo Savonarola 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Achieving concensus on anything seems to take an inordinate amount of time though; what would happen in the meantime? Why have a process that depends on only one person anyway? --Malleus Fatuarum 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why have a process that depends on only one person anyway - you said it yourself - because achieving consensus on anything seems to take an inordinate amount of time. Having one person to decide things gives the process a high degree of order and consistency with a minimum of overhead, all qualities which are lacking at AFD, RFA, or other processes on Wikipedia. Raul654 17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why aren't FL, FT and FP promoted in the same way? Buc 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We would all just be so distraught with grief if something should happen to Raul that none of us would ever be able to write a word again. So no worries. Giano 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific FA you have in mind? I have this mental image of a group of large men in suits chewing toothpicks walking into a shop, commenting "Nice shop you have here. Shame if something were to happen to it. Like it burning down in the middle of night, all sudden-like. Wanna buy some insurance?" :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Giano, I'd hustle and take that pic down. One of the review sites will use it to out you. Marskell 17:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Girolamo would then burn all the articles in a bonfire.

No worries, it is so flattering no one will recognise me. Giano 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Having one person to decide things gives the process a high degree of order and consistency with a minimum of overhead, all qualities which are lacking at AFD, RFA, or other processes on Wikipedia. At the price of opacity though, as that one person's decisions are never explained. Although I do agree with the general point about other processes on wikipedia, which seem to drag on interminably and often come to no satisfactory conclusion. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

At some point in the future, we should probably switch to an election process for FA director and/or break the responsibility into several tracks (sciences, history and geography, culture). We all appreciate what Raul has done, but it's getting to the point where the process would probably benefit more from having enough people to give more detailed feedback on decisions than the corresponding negatives in the area of "degree of order and consistency", especially since as it is there is enough inconsistency in the quality and depth of reviewer comments that the level of quality it takes to pass FAC is rather inconsistent, overall.--ragesoss 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia elections and consensus gaining polls never please everyone - no matter how many people seem to approve one standpoint. Committees just slow things down and provide yet another forum for squabbling (and domination for someone like my illustrious compatriot picture above) I'm sure when the day comes that Raul goes to interview St. Peter for his own page, Jimbo in his infinite wisdom will find a suitable successor. Let's keep FA promotions simple and easy - the path to them is complicated and stressful enough. Giano 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But the curent process is completely opaque, and dispiriting for too many editors and reviewers. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid if such a committee to approve FACs were to be formed it would only consist of the usual "mouths" , "little admins" and "style freaks" who have never written ten consecutive words in their lives and know nothing about the subject whatsoever. As it is people such as these do their best to ensure no-one ever wishes to repeat the experience of writing a FA, so far better to leave things as they are. Giano 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're tilting at a straw man. The suggestion (above) was to "break the responsibility into several tracks". Nobody but you mentioned a committee to "approve FACs". --Malleus Fatuarum 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

but that is what it would and will amount to. Giano 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, it isn't. There would just be more than one Raul, with each of them hopefully then having the time to explain what currently appear to be arbitrary decisions. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, it is all hypothetical because Raul is going nowhere. Giano 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the discussion above, about the lack of FA reviewers, it is most certainly not hypothetical. It is a suggestion to make the process less dispiriting for both editors and reviewers, whatever may or may not happen to Raul in the future. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Giano, why are you so opposed to having more than one person on the FAC docket? David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is scaling 50% higher than a year ago. If it increases another 50 to 100% a single person closing would be increasingly untenable. But the principle is sound—it isn't (usually) a madhouse because there's oversight vested in a known user. Raul has various descriptions of criteria decisions floating in his user space. Perhaps they could be consolidated into a Wikipedia page debatable by all to make it less opaque. Marskell 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reducing the opacity of the current process could only be a help in encouraging participation, both of reviewers and editors. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

While a full blown committee would not really be advisable, for reasons already mentioned, it might be a good idea to have one or two deputy or assistant FA directors, which would be familiar with everything that Raul does, and might even be able to handle some minor tasks as well. But mostly, the reason for this is to have someone essentially be trained to be able to take over for Raul if, for example, he decides (a) take a short vacation, (b) leaves wikipedia voluntarily, or (c) leaves wikipedia involuntarily (killed, eaten, or otherwise rendered incapable of fulfilling the duties of FA director). Dr. Cash 20:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is essentially akin to what WikiProject Coordinators exist for, no? Overall consistency of execution, with redundancy for counsel and backup. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to have two assistants for this capacity. Raul would of course retain the lead role. Girolamo Savonarola 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Review workshop

All reviewers taking part in WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:PR, are encouraged to take a look at Wikipedia:Content review/workshop. While there's no specific proposals on changing anything currently, we're trying to initiate a friendly discussion regarding the review processes on wikipedia as a whole, and how to improve all of them. Dr. Cash 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Long ref lists

They often look longer than the text of an article. May scroll bars be required in some way? E.g.: <div class="reflist4" style="height: 220px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px" > {{reflist}} </div> Cmapm 18:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling boxes for refs have been regularly discouraged. They affect the article's printable version. See WP:CITE#Scrolling_reference_lists. Gimmetrow 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Scroll boxes are awful, don't play on numerous Wiki mirrors, and aren't printable. A long ref list is not a bad thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see problems with scroll boxes now. Then maybe "hide/show" link could be implemented like in some templates? Cmapm 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you see as the problem with a long list of references? --Malleus Fatuarum 18:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For example, I cannot visually estimate the size of an article, it looks long, but more than a half of it is a list of references. And what if I want to print only the text of an article? Cmapm 18:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I still not sure I see the problem; suppose you wanted to print only one section of an article? Should there be separate "hide/show" links for every section? --Malleus Fatuarum 18:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you want to estimate size you can easily use Dr pda prose size script. --Victor12 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, then I should use some good script and compare some numbers...Cmapm 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To get an idea of the size of the article, click on the References link in the Table of Contents. Look at the scroll bar on the right hand side to see how far into the article the References section began. The size of the bar in the scroll field might also give you a hint as to how much of the article you can view at a time. All this depends upon your browser behavior. (SEWilco 19:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Well, can you, using this method, with no "counting script", at once say, which is longer: New York City or Los Angeles? And if I could hide references, then it would be enough to look at the size of the bar in the scroll field. Cmapm 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to why that is even a problem. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with long ref lists. It's at the bottom anyway so it doesn't stop me looking at hte article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I only mind when there are so many refs it makes the article hard to read, like in Hillary Rodham Clinton, which has almost 300 refs.Rlevse 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured article welcome

“ Hello Example! You have already been welcomed to Wikipedia and now I would like to introduce you to the encyclopedia's top content: featured articles. Editors have agreed that these represent our best articles and it is from the featured article list that today's featured article is chosen. You are probably still finding your way around the site—participating in the featured article process is an excellent way to get to know Wikipedia better.

One day you may bring an article you have worked on to the featured article candidates page. In the meantime, reviewing others' articles on the FAC page will allow you to participate and understand how editors build good content. Read over the featured article criteria and look at some of the outstanding reviews to see how editors comment. And then look at FAC for something interesting and feel free to post review yourself. In general, you should attempt to identify gaps in coverage, look for surprising material that requires a source, and identify unprofessional prose and grammar. Any feedback is welcome. Happy editing!

”

Well, we've been talking over and over about increasing reviewers, so… I think this is suitably "aw shucks". Only problem I foresee is that GA will create one if FA does, so perhaps we should mention it and PR. (I post here because this is more active than WT:FA.) Marskell 21:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

or, even better, we just create one 'content' welcome where we mention getting an article to GA and/or FA, the various methods on improving (collabs, PR, etc), and all the rest? David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one is best. My biased opinion is to lead with FA—it's canonical, it's considered the best. Thus focus on it, and add a sentence mentioning the other processes. Dammit, it just reinforces the fact that there should never have been a divergence in the first place. Marskell 22:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wanna strike out the above bit I drew a line through? Sounds weasly and a bit lame if it has to be prefaced with "Editors have agreed.." cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'd also replace the "identify unprofessional prose and grammar" with something about improving but can't figure out how I'd word it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I say, I was trying to be "ah shucks", but brevity is always good. Marskell 22:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate nominations

What do we do when someone nominates an article which is clearly no where near FA quality? The case in point is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Auckland, which was nominated for FA at the same time as being nominated for GA by an editor with no edits to the article. Regular editors of the article realise that the article is not of FA quality, and it failed GAC. I've removed the listing from FAC since there is no point in asking for further comments. Should the nom be deleted rather than archived?-gadfium 05:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It was added back in because some feel only Raul can remove items. But, when I see articles listed for low quality, they just get "opposed" very quickly and usually removed within a week or so. But, if you are asking if we can have a quickfail, then I think we should explore the idea. GAC has them, so could we. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is not very good, but to be honest, it is better than some 2005 era FAs like The Ashes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really fussed. They generally just sit there, collect a few opposes and then are not promoted after a week or two. In this case I generally try to commnet constructively on what the article may need before a further attempt. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. I just tried to catch up on the archiving of the withdrawn FACs, and things seem a bit, um, informal lately. So I screwed up. Auckland was withdrawn, so I archived it, but then it was added back, and I can't un-archive it, since I'm not an admin. So, can someone undo my archiving? In the recent past, only Raul or the original nominator removed a nom from the FAC page; now it seems that anyone is doing it, and they aren't being archived correctly. If a nom had significant opposes, it went to archived FACs, where if it didn't, it just got moved to the next FAC file to prep for GimmeBot. I don't know what's going on with people now removing and re-adding FACs and not archiving them (turn your back for 2 weeks and who knows), and I'm sorry for my messup of Auckland, but people really shouldn't be removing nominations like this. Can an admin please straighten out Auckland? It needs to be unmoved from archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Nishkid64 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishkid; I left you a note about deleting the archive so GimmeBot can do it correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Also done. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a suspicion as to why some articles are not receiving as many reviews

Some of the articles that appear to meet the FA criteria are not attracting thorough reviews—perhaps because they are not so impressive. Should the FA criteria should be expanded in order to raise the standard for FA? If the standards do not increase, then someday we'll reach the point when a majority of featured articles do not make it to the front page. Something must be done, IMO.Kmarinas86 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so impressive? What do you mean exactly? I had a similar belief, but I thought people weren't participating in some FACs because no one has heard of the subject, or there is no big WikiProject monitoring the FAC. For example, you were the first participant for my FAC for Thomas C. Hindman. 5 days had passed, and I naturally assumed people did not want to review the article because they didn't know who he was (I only knew who he was after I found his name on a list of assassinated US politicians). Nishkid64 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So Kmarinas what you're proposing is tougher standards to reduce the flow? If FACs don't get enough input they seem to just sit until they do. It may take a bit longer. From what I've seen standards are getting more stringent as time goes on, thouhg folk are rising to the occasion for themost part very well. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It also depends on the topic. Some will comment regardless of the topic and others might offer help on one subject but not others. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And some people just won't review some topics because they find them boring. There really isn't a fix to that... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On a related point, many articles are inaccessible because they use over-specialized vocabulary. They should, of course, contain specialist information but it should be expressed in a way that a literate general reader will understand. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - the trick is to be able to describe and elaborate on topics in plain english. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of you have very good points. I wonder which theory explains why none of you have reviewed the article I nominated for FA, Cillian Murphy, since it doesn't have many reviewers! JK... well, mostly. I've been waiting for more reviewers for some time now, and meanwhile I've seen articles about more well-known performers attract many more reviewers. In one case, oodles of probable fans seemed to support an article I found to be significantly less comprehensive and well-written than the one I've nominated, and to do so without offering much scrutiny. I guess that's a corollary to some of the theories above. --Melty girl 02:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing is a voluntary process, nobody gets paid to do it and there's certainly no kudos in it. I guess that most reviewers choose to review articles they find in some way interesting. Apart from the oppose 1a) group of course. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed. Just had to joke... and theorize. --Melty girl 05:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

'Cause I'm working on preparing mine? ;) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice! --Melty girl 05:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Plain English is different from the avoidance (or glossing) or specialised terminology. Tony (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. My take is that introductions should actually introduce the reader to the topic (in plain English wherever possible) rather than merely summarise what follows in perhaps unfamiliar terminology. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about reuse of text

Ine of Wessex is an FA, and I am now working on Wihtred of Kent, who at one point appears to have collaborated with Ine on issuing a lawcode. The text in the Ine article can be seen here; I have just pasted this into Wihtred's article here. I have occasionally reused a sentence or two from other articles where the same material is being covered; usually in sections describing historical background, which obviously can be quite repetitive. Is there any problem with this reuse? It's all WP material, so that's not an issue. Could it be claimed that this much overlap should not exist between articles, and that the text should live in one place only? I don't see a problem, myself, but it feels a little like cheating to get a section written so easily, and so I thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone has additional thoughts. Mike Christie (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to save paper, and each article needs enough information to cover its subject. The GFDL encourages reuse. And the duplicated text may be further edited in both articles so might end up different as both get adjusted to the specific topic. Discomfort over copying is natural when you're familiar with plagiarism (sometimes there's too much fuss when even PD text gets added to Wikipedia). (SEWilco 16:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

If you didn't write the original text, though, you should mention who did in the edit summary when you add it to another article.--ragesoss 02:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point; in this case I wrote the original text, so there's no problem, but I'll remember that for another time. Thanks to both for the feedback. Mike Christie (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to the instructions

Just a couple of notes on what appear to be recent changes to the nomination template method. Now when you add the {{fac}} template to an article talk page, it says something like "Initiate nomination" instead of "Leave comments"; this is fine but the instructions on the FAC page need to be updated to refer to this. Second, if I recall correctly the instructions used to be really clear about "click 'Edit this page' on the page you're reading now" which was sensible because prior instructions related to the FAC nom page. This has now disappeared. It might be good to bring it back; I didn't get confused because I've done it a few times now, but I recall thinking it was helpful on my first couple of FACs. Mike Christie (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, I guess Gimmetrow forgot to tell us about the preload. I made a few updates, not sure that's everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

further hmmm, that's only half the story. If it's a first nom, you get "initiate the nomination" and a preload. If it's a subsequent nom, you still get "Leave comments", so the instructions now need to be two-fold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this too complicated? I didn't like seeing blue links for non-existent pages. Gimmetrow 02:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there! :-) No, it's not too complicated, but my writing at the instructions page probably makes it seem complicated, and on the first pass, I wasn't clear what you'd done. I think it's much better, because now there's always a pre-load. SandyGeorgia (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seemed fine to me; I just wanted to be sure the instructions were changed to suit, and I think Sandy's done that now. Actually I think it's an improvement. I would like to see the "edit this page (the page you're currently on)" instruction return, though; that was the most confusing part of a FAC nom. Mike Christie (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember that from somewhere, but I don't know how to do that part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

This article is up for a pre-FAC peer review. We're trying to prep it so the FAC process goes smooth, since the article is a bit difficult to cull together. It's pretty close. Any frequent reviewers who want to chip in are welcome to it. Wrad 02:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing red link hate as a FAC requirement

Some of the shrubberies required by FAC have a damaging follow-through effect on the general tone of other Wikipedia articles - particularly ones that require removing the impression that Wikipedia is the work in progress that it is.

One of the problematic ones in the current examples is "no red links" as a FA requirement. Who thought this was a good idea, and why? The problem in practice is when FAs set the tone for other articles - and red links become deprecated in general. This is damaging to the future relevant growth of Wikipedia.

One of the goals of having featured articles is to entice new editors. Wikipedia is not finished - it's damaging to the encyclopedia for FAC to set a tone that it is. What can be done about this? - David Gerard 18:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there is nothing in WP:WIAFA about removing redlinks, nor is asking for their removal a valid objection, I'm unclear what you are referring to; can you provide an example? On a couple of instances, I have asked if one red link (in the first sentence) can be stubbified for aesthetics, but I have always clearly stated that this is not an objection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I retract; after doing a search on the page, I see many requests for removal of all redlinks. These are wrong and should be responded to individually when they crop up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not part of the criteria, but I have seen editors bring up red links during a FAC, phrased as though it is an objection. I think the situation is best handled by reminding such commenters that red links are a benefit and have no impact on FA, unless the links are to something that obviously should not have an article. Pagrashtak 18:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I ran into red link hate in GA, but later when I tried to find the guideline for this, I instead found a guideline saying that red links need not be removed, and indeed, I think they can be quite useful. What are all the relevant policies regarding red links? Did there used to be a policy against red links that was rescinded? --Melty girl 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Never. There are some people who really hate red links because they want Wikipedia to look finished, even though it manifestly isn't. (One of the most notorious of these was dealt with by an admin quietly adding a line to their monobook.js that made red links look like blue links ... the user didn't notice for a couple of years.) Evidently, some have found their way to FAC, and others have imitated them and now think it's a good thing when actually it's a bad thing - David Gerard 18:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So could more than a few regulars please go through the page and deal with such spurious and damaging objections? It's clear it's just some FAC readers imitating a non-requirement voiced by other FAC readers, and a bit of thought and explanation will hopefully set things right - David Gerard 18:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, some of the red-links are relatives of the people, and other cases that fail WP:BIO, WP:N etc. Jbeach ^sup 18:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, certainly - removing bad red links is an editorial matter. It's the notion that a red link is a bug rather than a feature that's a bit of a problem - David Gerard 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

David, I'm working on them now. I am broadly concerned right now about a number of faulty opposes and supports on FAC, specifically because a record of those issues remains in articlehistory and may mislead future editors. I'm searching the entire page and hitting each red link comment, but it's taking time. Thanks for highlighting this; I hadn't realized how bad it had gotten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, if anyone wants to second, you can follow my contribs as I hit them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe WP:WIAFA should have a section on what isn't a FA requirement. Publicola 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be instruction creep and enormous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Other things are not requirements and should not be treated as requirements"? But I do see what you mean - David Gerard 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"A request for a shrubbery is not a valid FA oppose." Pagrashtak 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to remember: if a term isn't adequately defined in an article then it is OK to ask that the article either be stubbified or a definition provided, so some requests phrased as redlink elimination could be valid, but incorrectly positioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

oh, my, there are so many of them. How/when did this happen <rhetorical>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is so pervasive, I thought it was a policy and was surprised to find exactly the opposite idea in WP:Red links. You might want to cite that in your comments. --Melty girl 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the general idea of avoiding ridiculous wikilinks like this one has been stretched to an extreme. Featured articles delve into areas not explored in other parts of wikipedia and can provide very valuable red links. Wrad 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I found eleven FACs mentioning redlinks, out of 79 FACs listed right now. One of those was mine, where I specifically noted it was not an objection, just a request because there were 3 redlinks in the first sentence, so 10 out of 79. My response might not have been the best, and I didn't link to WP:Red links, so if anyone wants to second or add more info, you can follow my contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I find them distracting and would rather they were in a less intrusive color. If there are loads of them, I find my eyes are drawn to the redlinks instead of the copy. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is more or less by design. They are distracting to make you start articles just to get rid of them. If you really cannot stand them,} don't change the articles to suit your own preferences, but edit your personal stylesheet: put "a.new {color:cyan;}" in User:<Your username>/monobook.css. (Or choose your own colour from Web colors.) Eugène van der Pijll 23:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides on this, I'm just telling you how I see it.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes. That's a feature, not a bug. You're supposed to see them and write something. FAs are there to serve Wikipedia - David Gerard 00:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes, I know. I often write something. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(somewhat) Related issue

If red links are good because they encourage expansion and don't hide the fact that we're a developing encyclopedia, what about other things? For example MoS states (sticking my neck out a little here) that we should only link years (like 1789) if the link provides context. Shouldn't all year articles provide context? In the ideal world, wouldn't all year articles provide a nice, summarial context of that year? If so, wouldn't linking single years encourage building that sort of context? Why do we "hide" the year articles and not the red links? Both need help and expansion. I'm about to take on a project where I will try to get a year article to GA status, just to see if it can be done, and how it might work. I think the year articles suffer because of FA/MoS requirements to only link to them if they provide context, because they are cut off from editors who could provide that context. Anyway, thoughts? Wrad 18:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Year articles wouldn't typically provide any more context than ordinary dictionary terms, which we don't link for the same reason. Pagrashtak 19:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The context of a year just isn't often relevant to every incidence of that year in other articles. Where it is relevant, it can be linked. --Melty girl 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand better now. It just seems to me that many year articles are awful, and provide absolutely no context for anything at all. Perhaps the line between "context" and "dictionary term" would shift a bit if these articles were better. Wrad 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone ought to turn a "year" article into a featured article. There is no need for bullet points; with the right touch, they could be very interesting indeed as prose, although they would require a level of generality in coverage that we don't often see at FAC any more. :( –Outriggr § 00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Right now I'm trying to get 1345 to GA status. It'll take awhile. Then we can think about FA. I'm also working on the article for the color Green. General articles are so neglected around here! Wrad 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Many FACs are ridiculously specialised. Hmmm ... - David Gerard 15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

General articles are incredibly difficult. I've been thinking of taking a shot at History of France, because I've only got a couple of gaps left in my knowledge of that topic now (after years of reading). One could of course cheat by simply making the article from a few general histories. But to really do it properly, you'd need to embark on a colossal amount of reading. And then there's the chance that the article would end up so in thrall to summary style that it would be an unsatisfactory read.

Red links are often a sign of a thoughtful article. They should be particularly in evidence at FAC, I think, because the editors will be in a very strong position to know what articles are still needed in the field they have written a featured candidate on. But myths have a peculiar way of taking hold on Wikipedia. Another one that bugs me is the notion that the lead should not have citations. It's very difficult to quash that one (I've had opposes on that ground before), illogical and unpolicied though it is. (Of course, for stylistic reasons one may choose not to have citations in the lead—but that's a different matter.)qp10qp 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's true. Green is difficult because it covers the sciences and the humanities. Luckily I've found a science guy to help out. Wrad 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly logical that leads ought not to need citations. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, so in most cases anything claimed in the lead will be referenced in the appropriate place later in the article. There will always be exceptions to that, of course, as with quotations and biographies of living persons. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be logical and that might be your opinion. But, like the red links objection, it is not backed by Wikipedia policy. Opposition on that basis may be disregarded.qp10qp 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that you are correct in what you say. There has been some extended discussion on this very point at WP:LEAD. Which, by the way, is not a policy, but a guideline. Big difference. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. So it doesn't matter what it says there, because Wikipedia policy says that anything that might be challenged should be cited. There's no exception for the lead; but there's a myth that there is, which is why I mentioned it in this context.qp10qp 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• As I say, I believe that you have misunderstood. The policy is that anything that might be challenged has to be cited somewhere in the article, except in the exceptional cases of quotations and BLP. There is otherwise absolutely no policy requirement to repeat citations in the lead if they are given in the body of the article. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead has nothing to do with anything, as far as citation is concerned. The policy applies to the whole article. You may choose not to cite something (in any part of the article) that is cited in some other part of the article. I take the same approach myself. But if someone asks me for a source I must give it, whether the source is required for a point in the lead or for a point elsewhere. I could try saying to someone who requests a source, "it's sourced elsewhere in the article", and that might work; but if they insist, then I must source the information with a cite, duplicatory or not. A good article does not trot out exactly the same sentence in the lead as in the body of the article. And any slight difference in wording might need a slightly different source. I don't need to tell you that precise wording becomes a real issue on the most controversial points. People challenge such points, in my experience, far more often in the lead than anywhere else, presumably because that's where they encounter the first iteration.

It is best therefore to source such points in the lead in advance; although one does not have to. One can of course choose to leave the lead free of references, perhaps for stylistic reasons or because of something one was taught at university: that's fine. But if a citation is called for in the lead, in the lead it must go. That's what the policy requires in every part of an article. By all means argue with this; but please don't assume, because of your own way of coming at it, that I misunderstand. I understand the policy because it is clear. It makes no provision for the lead to follow different standards of citation.qp10qp 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"I've been thinking of taking a shot at History of France, because I've only got a couple of gaps left in my knowledge of that topic now ...". Well, you've just flabbered my gasted. Just a couple of gaps you say? --Malleus Fatuarum 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean speaking big-scale, the sort of knowledge one needs to write say an eight-thousand-word article off the top of one's head. I think I could trot one out, apart from a gap round 1650-1780 and a lack of knowledge post-world-war two. But it would be superficial, of course, and certainly inaccurate. If the comment seemed big-headed, that was not my intention: it was actually meant to imply that whatever I think, the reality would be rather different. The truth is that to write such an article properly would require almost ridiculous amounts of reading. That's perhaps why Wikipedia's general articles aren't so good. And why I will probably never try to rewrite that article. qp10qp 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(delurk) I know exactly what qp10qp means here: in some cases, one needs to be an expert to know when to summarize, when to add details, & when there actually are several sides to an argument when a superficial reading might lead one to think that the matter is resolved & decided; research is only one leg of the table. I'm working at Iyasu V of Ethiopia, a person who ruled for only 6 years, & I'm amazed how much needs to be written about him to provide a decent overview. While (if I find the time this weekend) I think I can get that article to a decent B grade, that challenge pales when set against one of the truly important personages of Ethiopian history like Menelik II or Tewodros II. (Then there's Haile Sellassie, idol of Rastafarians & Africa fan-boys; excuse me if I don't touch that article.) -- llywrch 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I don't think anyone would disagree that if we really want to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, we need good general articles. They should be some of our best articles, since we have so much knowledge collectively as wikiusers. Somehow we need to develop an emphasis on general articles, or some way to coordinate such articles better so they can be written well. I'm seriously thinking about making a wikiproject for General articles, which would help, but it's not the project that changes wikipedia, it's dedicated users. Would anyone here be interested in contributing to such a group, devoted to developing some sort of system which will make general articles easier to create? The fact is, there are some articles out there that are so general that no one editor, no matter how brilliant, could ever hope to bring it up to professional quality. At the same time, the fact is that these articles are necessary to the encyclopedia, even vital. If we want to get them up to par, we need to come up with new ideas, and new ways of doing things. Wrad 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you mean by "general". Do you mean "overview", as I think that qp10qp meant about the History of France article? Or do you mean a new article on an area not presently covered? Do you have any examples in mind? --Malleus Fatuarum 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I provided a (subtle) link to WP:Vital articles. Articles that currently exist but are far beyond one person's ability to write and research. (No all articles on that page apply, but many do.) This project would choose the articles which were "most general" and "most vital", and start from there. Wrad 00:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, it's harder to write general articles, but some of the longer-term editors around here would probably argue that the FAC system, de facto, discourages general articles. (Nice deflection, Outriggr!) Here's one general article I remember being nominated fairly recently: Telecommunication. It failed (three times), but why isn't a featured article? Too short a lead? Easy to fix. Generally though, because FAC works on a system of trying to point out faults. The larger the topic, the more faults you can always point out. Essentially no reviewer takes into account the contextual achievement of a high-quality general-topic article, so if one is going to invest in an article with the hope of putting an FA under their belt, would that person choose a specific subject or a general one? The extrinsic reward is the same, and it is much easier (on average, obviously) to pass the specific article. –Outriggr § 00:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I had thought of that as well. I think we need to change our mindset, but not too much, in order to 1) recognize the monumental achievement a good general article is in contrast to a specific one, and 2)make it clear that General articles are not ever going to absolute please everyone perfectly, more so than a more specific article no one really cares about. I'd be interested to hear what Raul as to say about this sort of thing, or any ideas he may have. Wrad 00:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a wikiproject here please consider joining if you feel you have something to offer. Wrad 01:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Probably I just don't agree that "general" is synonymous with "vital", however subtle you may believe your suggestion to be. Good luck with your project anyway. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was synonymous. I said some of them were vital. Why is this so hard to understand? Nobody would argue that Wonderbra is more vital to the encyclopedia than Color or Civilization. This is just plain obvious. A no-brainer. Wrad 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be what you meant to say, but it's not what you said. I asked for examples of "general" articles and you referred me to WP:VITAL. Why is that so hard to understand? Using terms like most vital or more vital is really a crime against the English language anyway. Like saying most dead, or more dead. But as I said before, good luck with your project. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I made it clear that not all articles at the link would apply. I was hoping a group of editors could help deal with the specifics of the sort of articles the project would focus on. And please play nice. Not everyone has professional writing ability around here. I don't appreciate having my minor grammar faults being pointed out when they don't really matter. It doesn't really serve any purpose other than offending people. And about the project: never mind about the whole thing. Apparently, I'm not good enough to run something like this, it's a stupid idea, I'm an idiot, I can't even communicate what I want to accomplish, and you enjoy pointing that out to everyone. I'll just go to my own little corner of wikipedia and hide. And next time I come up with an idea, I'll keep it to myself to avoid public humiliation. In any case, hopefully someday we'll find out how to make our general articles do something more than absolutely suck. I'm going to work on Green and 1345 on my own time, in any case. Wrad 05:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with core articles, which I've noted before, is that there really needs to be a specialized guide to how to approach them, which could be written by the few editors who've yet found a knack for it. Take poetry, for example, which has gotten to FA-status. There's no reason to believe that we couldn't achieve the same for any other article on a branch of the creative humanities, yet few others are in evidence. We need to take our examples and bootstrap off of them. Girolamo Savonarola 06:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia or Homerpedia?

It is not surprising to me (Homo sum; humani nil a me alienum puto) that the animated sitcom The Simpsons has a large number of articles in Wikipedia. Clearly it is very popular in may countries of the world. Having said that, the question that begs an answer is: do we need each episode of The Simpsons to be a featured article? Currently there are 14 articles on this subject with FA status, representing close to 10% 1% of all FA articles in our project, and a current FA topic drive project in full swing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If the project can actually produce a featured-level article out of the material available for each episode, more power to them. Kirill 15:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... Kudos if they can... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ten percent of which project exactly? Woodym555 16:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There are 1,600+ Wikipedia articles with FA status, of which 14 are Simpsons' related. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a look at the Simpson Project chart will inspire other Projects that never produce FAs or GAs (but are good at tagging articles they don't contribute to or maintain). These two Projects have about the same number of articles tagged, but one is producing quality and the other oversees a mountain of articles that need cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you were confusing me with the 10%. We currently have 1678 FAs on wikipedia. So it is about 0.8%. Does that not just show that there are many committed Simpsons editors who strive to build up our knowledge on that particular subject. I echo Kirill really, if they can produce a featured-level article, good on them. We need projects to be as active as them. Does it not show that the Simpsons project is working well? Woodym555 16:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It shows there are a lot of people willing to write detailed articles on essentially trivial topics. This has been true of Wikipedia for many years. I'm not sure though how exceptional coverage of The Simpsons really helps spread the seed of human knowledge... The Land 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that, The Land. What is trivial to one, is a passion to another. Just that is a pity, IMO, that more important subjects do not get the attention they deserve... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We do have the Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000. Why not try and improve one of those? Woodym555 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question, Woody. See also: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Wikisimpsons_Central. A parallel universe? :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(double ec) Even worse than gettiing no attention is that the Projects don't clean up their garbage (example, Psychology articles). I worked on Le Petit Tourette (to make sure they accurately represented the Tourette syndrome issues), and from what I saw there at least the Simpson Project does attempt to keep their articles decent. Their articles aren't hurting anyone, while we have hundreds of Psychology articles that are so bad and so misleading that they could all be dumped in a wastebasket and Wiki would lose nothing, while the internet would gain a lot. That's what's sad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See the above discussion. Wrad 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a problem for the project: it means that our coverage of the trivial will always be more substantial than our coverage of the profound. I don't think that has any particularly negative consequences at the moment, but you never know wht will happen in a few years time. The Land 18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to step in here and say that we only have SEVEN FAs, the others are FLs. And what is the point of this discussion? Are people actually going to suggest that we not be allowed to edit Simpsons articles just because some think of them as trivial? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just part of a larger fear that wikipedians tend to focus a lot on less-significant, specialized things rather than general things. Sure, it would be nice if people edited general articles, but it's a free world. People are going to do what they want to. I've quickly figured that out here. You can lead a wikipedian to water, but... Wrad 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's only partially accurate. Yes, people criticize Wikipedia for focusing on less-significant, pop culture trivia in lieu of more important topics, but the more important topics are both general and highly specialized. I think the poster's worry, perhaps overstated as per The Simpsons in particular, is that Wikipedia won't be a success as an encyclopedia in the true, broad sense of the word, if everyone works most on pop culture articles. I think it's a valid criticism, and I think there are many reasons for the phenomenon. I'll quickly name but one personal reason I myself fall into this trap: given my areas of learning, I could be working on far more political and historical articles than I do, but pop culture articles are easier, more fun, and less emotionally-draining for me. --Melty girl 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I was initially worried producing FAs on similar material and have been involved with a few on closely related subjects but I really hated doing a heap of work on something and then not finishing it because of this. FA, then, is like the last 'stamp' and provides a good reference point in the future if the article gets degraded - hence there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by producing more. I agree that esoteric highly defined ones are a helluva lot easier and more fun. I work in mental health and medicine but for the most part I do not enjoy working on these articles. The issue with copyright and DSM IV is a big headache. For many FAC is anxiety-inducing enough for a non-controversial topic. Add a bit of controversy and the whole thing can get colossally sidetracked - Ronald Reagan and Asperger Syndrome were two cases in particular where issues aside from article quality generate huge amounts of negotation. Hopefully, as folks get more comfortable some will get more ambitious - those who took on the previous two articles, as well as Evolution among others are to be commended for their tenacity and endurance. Sometimes I wonder about people's definition of 'vital' articles - just look at the top 500 viewed instead :). But seriously, (and I mean this without a shred of defensiveness) why don't you work something up for FAC? Try something important but noncontroversial and ask one or more of us here to look it over or give some tips and...etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As a member of the Wikiproject, I'm sort of proud that you guys are taking notice of this. We're not stopping anytime soon, though. We're having Featured Topic Drives, which basically means we make a season of the show into a Featured Topic (Atleast two episodes will be FA, one Featured List (the season), and the rest would be GA'd). I think it would be an honor for any of our members to inspire others to make featured or good content. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 22:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put, Xihig. You guys/gals are doing good work (my post was more of an open question to generate a debate than criticism of your project's work) ... if you could put your editing skills to help on less fun topics, that would be fantastic. If not, oh well.., there is always hope you will.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty cool. Everyone should be able to do what they want to do. Wrad 23:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer the original post. No, we don't need every episode to be FA. It is impossible since some episodes have so few sources that they can never reach FA status. The project has cleaned up a lot of episodes, which is never going past GA status. I think it is a good thing that the project is so active. It shows that you can produce quality articles about a television series. There are so many bad television articles and this project leads the way for others to follow. I guess it would always be better if the time was spend on core articles, but not everybody wants to work on serious subjects. --Maitch 12:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Is The Simpsons really that less important than T. S. Eliot or James Joyce? At least the average person can understand the Simpsons. :) Zagalejo^^^ 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Good point. Wrad 19:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A very good point indeed. There does seem to be some intellectual snobbery around material created for television, as opposed to material created for printing on dead trees. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Homer certainly gives Homer competition. Alientraveller 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I really resent cultural 'snobs' who seem to assume triviality for anything which postdates the invention of television, with the assumption of some sort of gravity for anything which appeared before. But before I go down that path...a good way to approach trickier jobs is in pairs or groups, which is how schizophrenia got successfully cleaned up.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In fifty years time, The Simpsons will be a curiosity a few old people have nostalgia for. In a hundred year's time, it will be of interest only to social historians. To be honest it's much more productive spending effort updating pornography or anal sex - since people will still be looking for information on them in the future... The Land 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, some people think we should write about the Simpsons, and some people think we should write about porn and anal sex. Perhaps we should just split the different and combine them? (Per this rule)Raul654 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly. ;) The Land 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno TL, I think it's a pretty big assumption you're making about the Simpsons, think Pride and Prejudice....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons article would have the advantage that in 100 years its content will be a lot more useful -- in 2107, given cultural evolution, a hundred-year old article on anal sex will probably be nothing more than a curiosity. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I envy WP:SIMPSONS, whenever they nominate an article for FA, GA or peer review they get almost inmediatly reviewed and commented. Like right here, nothing is being discussed, but because it involves TS people comment! Someday people will become as passionate for the simpsons as for medical genetics and law, all the articles will be perfect and Jimbo Wales will be crowned king of the world.Yamanbaiia 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only person who envies WP:Simpsons, Yaman. Many articles I've worked on get very low turnout on FAC discussions. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick/archive1

Hiya, the above FAC was closed by a bot. There was one support and 3 or 4 comments, the points of which had all been addressed and support had been given by one of those users (though he had not worked support onto his or her comment yet) isn't this a little unfair? Is there any way to reopen it to allow the supports to roll in and get promotion or do we have to renominate it? SGGH ^speak! 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's confusing, I know, but the bot did not close it; Raul654, the FA director, closed it. Raul makes the decisions, and the bot (GimmeBot) then performs some of the rote updates. You can renominate, as you say; that's the normal reaction. I don't know if there are any instructions that address this (perhaps someone else can comment) but I believe it is regarded as poor form to renominate right away, particularly if there are multiple unaddressed issues. If the problem is merely that the nomination was unable to garner supports, and all the problems were fixed to the satisfaction of the commenters, I'd renominate quite soon. It appears from looking at the nom that that's the case as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read {{FAC}}; if the instructions don't clearly enough spell out who closes FACs and the relationship to the bot archiving, please suggest improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Blink! Blink! Raul654 15:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Raul has raised this blinky thing before; can someone who knows how please install that on the FAC template? Even though we've spelled it out as clearly as we can, every time that Raul promotes/archives, on average, he gets one person raising this same question on his talk page, and we get one person who won't wait for GimmeBot to accurately update the articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My "suggestion" for adding a blink tag is *totally* facetious. I'd cut off my hand before I let it add that godforsaken thing to the FAC template ;) Raul654 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Blinking text is annoying—I don't want the FAC template looking like a banner ad. If someone can't read bold red text, why would we expect them to read blinking bold red text? Pagrashtak 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I modified Template:FAC to be more explicit; it did imply that Raul would be modifying the nomination page, not a bot. I don't like an overuse of red text either, but in this case the actual substance was at fault, not the coloring. I would stick something similar that in Template:Fa top, but that asks to tell User:Gimmetrow first, so I notified him. Let's see what he says.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The script uses certain details of "fa top" to determine if the discussion has already been closed, but I don't think the sort of changes you've suggested would interfere. Gimmetrow 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Pagrashtak. And perhaps adding something to the FA top will help. In the last promotion, again, someone updated articlehistory without waiting for the bot, and that results in manual intervention for Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of "please wait for the bot to correctly update the ArticleHistory template", we should be more direct: "do not manually update the ArticleHistory template". Pagrashtak 16:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good! (on FACs, that is; we don't want to imply others can never update ah). (Can you make them read it? :-) Question: should we just link to a page where we explain the whole darn process, so Raul's talk page doesn't have to entertain these questions after every promotion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. An explanation page would be useful, I'm sure. Raul's fond of directing users to an explanation page whenever someone wants to protect TFA or FAs in general. Pagrashtak 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If Gimmetrow agrees, and unless he has a better idea (he often does), we can work up a page that explains the whole thing, and link to it from the header and the template. Hopefully that will avoid lots of bandwidth after every promotion here and on Raul's talk page. (As to chopping off Raul's hand, lesson learned about his sense of humor :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

When an article simply has no more information...

Ok, this is something thats been on my mind for a while, and I'm thinking of testing it soon, simply to see what happens. As far as I know, when an article has reached the WP:FACR criteria, it's ready to be an FA, is it not? However, with the examples of FA's out there, you get the impression that the article must be really long and have 500 references. But, when article has topped the amount of information it can have and meets the FAC criteria, it *should* be ready to be an FAC candidate. The articles I have in mind right now are This Little Wiggy, Girly Edition, Lisa the Simpson, King of the Hill (The Simpsons), and The Trouble with Trillions. You see, as part of a project we're having at the Simpsons Wikiproject, I chose to improve these articles myself first, as I knew getting any sources for them would be hard, as they weren't the most controversial or impacting episode (such as Homer's Phobia or A Streetcar Named Marge). But, when you look at the articles, they meet the FACR stuff (except for perhaps a brilliant prose, which I'm looking to copy edit later). Because of this, would they not be FA-able? I really want to know, because, hey, they meet the requirements, they're just short articles with not that many references, but everything there sourced. If you can't tell me, tell me this: would you oppose or support any of them? If you say oppose, why? ✗iℎi✗(talk) 23:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the background to be able to tell if those articles meet FA criteria in all respects, but I would never oppose an article for being too short. If a short article is genuinely comprehensive, the next question I would ask is if it could be usefully merged with another article. For example Ceol of Wessex is a good candidate for merging with Wessex; what's in that article now is about all that is known about Ceol. In the examples you give I don't see a need for a merge, though maybe the article on the given season of the Simpsons could be a merge target. Mike Christie (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

With Simpsons episodes, they all have their own articles, and can't be merged. The articles I listed all have the most information possible. Trust me, I've spent hours looking for more, but thats simply it. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 00:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the first one you listed, This Little Wiggy, but I'd oppose that one strongly. It's carelessly written:

• "who is in the process of be pushed into a giant ear"
• "She decides launch a small model rocket"
• "Mr. Burns office window."
• "to showcase what Affleck's vision of Chief Wiggum's predicament."

written in in-universe perspective (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction))

uses unnecessary and redundant slang:

• "Show runner Mike Scully had pitched an idea to Dan Greaney on Marge forcing Bart to become Ralph Wiggum's friend. Scully pitched the idea to Greaney due to his handle on Ralph, and his overall likeness of the character." - Ralph has Greaney's handle on him? Greaney is like Ralph?
• "J. Stewart Burns doesn't believe Ralph can carry on his own episode at the moment." - how does a fictional character carry on anything? What is "the moment"?
• "Affleck was also praised for his ability to spew three new elaborate settings"

In general, I don't think just because you can't find anything more about a subject that means it automatically qualifies as a featured article. It also needs to be, not just a good, but an outright excellent, article. If there isn't enough verifiable information in the world to make it one, then there isn't. However in this case, given how the article was written, I'm not even willing to accept that there isn't any more information out there. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I already mentioned that I'd do a huge copy edit before, and I told you to go besides that point. Your opinion doesn't help me much. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"would you oppose or support any of them? If you say oppose, why?" - I think AnonEMouse was focusing on this part of your statement. There are some shortish FAs, such as Fantastic Universe. Epbr123 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking, if you're not asking us to actually look at the articles you have. Can Simpsons episodes become FAs? Clearly yes: Homer's Enemy, Homer's Phobia, and You Only Move Twice have. Are the ones you have listed FA quality? The one I looked at isn't. Will we oppose the episodes you have listed after you improve them? That's kind of hard to tell without seeing the improvement, don't you think? Want a general rule? That's hard. As a general rule, I worry about cookie-cutter FAs: tell the plot, give a few brief nods to reception and production, and expect the little gold star as a matter of course. FAs are supposed to be the best we have. "The best" is rarely produced by an assembly line. Homer's Phobia is clearly unique - it won an Emmy, among other awards, was the subject of lots of controversy, etc. Can This Little Wiggy be made equally good? You'll have to show us. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The only way to really find out if something can be FA is to do your best on it and then nominate it. Even AnonEMouse is just one editor. FAs are determined by consensus, so it's really impossible to speculate. Just do your best and go for it. Wrad 18:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) - as a guide, Make Way for Ducklings was one of the shorter FA Candidates I've seen, is there a shorter one? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene (2005) is the shortest one I know of. There may be one about a nickel or dime that's shorter; don't recall. Mike Christie (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha, well spotted. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, I have stated that the episodes I listed got no awards or caused any controversy, at all. Simply, the articles I listed contain all the information that has ever been released on the articles. I'm not exaggerating, it really is so. Now, as I said, if I knew the articles were ready for FAC, I would have nominated them. Of course, I know they need a lot of copy editing to fix it up. My main point that I came here was to ask to see if an article needed a lot of references or sections on controversies, cultural impacts, awards, etc. when similar articles had them. I was asking this, because these articles simply had none of that. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It would help, yes. If something hasn't made any impact, it's hard to see why it should have an encyclopedia article at all, really. Giving it one would seem to be a violation of Wikipedia:Undue weight; it's like we're manufacturing notoriety for it that it wouldn't have otherwise. That said, of course, Hurricane Irene (2005) seems to be a counter-example; an article about a storm that didn't do anything. :-)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) —Preceding comment was added at 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a subtle but important difference between having exhausted all available sources and having written a comprehensive article. Many times there are just no more sources available, but that doesn't automatically make the article comprehensive. In those cases, the article just doesn't belong in FA and maybe it can never get there. I have worked on some articles to the point where I can't readily find any more sources (see Steve Lukather for example) but I would not bring them here because they are really missing information. I'll either find more sources eventually or I'll just leave it be. And it's frustrating to work on an article for so long only to discover that maybe you can't make it to FA.

In your example, you are saying, "I really have said everything that can be said about the subject." but the article is still rather short with few sources, even fewer of which are secondary sources. Now you have the crux of the question: Reviewers may claim that an article is missing information and the author will challenge them to identify what is missing. But that's not really possible in many cases. If you can gain consensus in FAC that the article is comprehensive, it can pass. That's about it. --Bloodzombie 19:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think there are cases where leeway has to be given over comprehensiveness, especially on ancient subjects such as Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre where contemporary sources are scarse. As long as the article covers the important elements. Epbr123 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon, what every Simpsons episode is notable, as it was aired on a major network, and has (and still is) aired internationally many times. It's just that the older episodes (the ones that are FA'd) have more coverage on them as they were older and considered classics, during the time when mostly every episode was great. Of course, with a different show runner in season 9 that many people dislike, things changed, and episodes started to get bad and people didn't care to write about them (unless they were so bad, that they made a top worst episodes list). Also, an article is comprehensive, for Simpsons episodes, if it has a good Production section info, good plot, and some reception, and all of these have them. They have all the information ever released regarding the subject, too. ALso, to Epbr, your statements aren't very accurate, as there could much more information that was never revealed about current FA'd episodes. But, whatever was released for them has been put in their articles, as it has with the ones I listed. xihix(talk) 21:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• First, I would think that a good Simpsons page would have to have something about the "Themes" of the show, not just the plot, production, and reception. Second, I would think that there isn't enough written on these episodes yet. I have been working on Lessons for Children (1778-79), for example, and even though it is one of the most important children's series written in English, there isn't enough scholarship written on it yet for an article beyond GA, in my opinion. Sometimes we just have to wait for the published material to catch up. An article might be comprehensive for the moment, but that doesn't actually make it comprehensive. In the case of Lessons for Children or The History of the Fairchild Family (1818-47) or The Guardian of Education (1802-06), there are just too many questions that a reader would have after reading the article for wikipedia to grant it that "comprehensive" label. Although The Simpsons has been around for twenty years or so, its cultural impact has not been thoroughly analyzed. I have a feeling this is a minority opinion, but please carefully consider it. I believe that excellent articles can be written on The Simpsons (I've heard wonderful papers at academic conferences on Star Trek and other popular culture) and sometimes I think that we sell ourselves short. (There is no reason to cite anything in the "Themes" section of The Simpsons article to the Orlando Sentinel. for example.) I would suggest that the editors hold themselves to the highest scholarly standards in these articles. If the editors do this, complaints about the proliferation of the pages or their quality are sure to diminish because the quality of the pages will be an argument for their retention and the time spent on them. Awadewit | talk 08:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I don't know..I think there are plenty of folk on WP who appear to feel that anything produced past 1940 is inherently worthless and would probably scorn these articles no matter how scholarly they were....(agree we need to ramp up finding themes/thorough critiques/analogies/etc ) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Devi_Mahatmya/archive1

I had nominated this article expecting that I would get a number of suggestions/feedback for improvement. But one of the users nominated it for peer review and then suggested that the FAC nomination should be withdrawn.

It is very difficult if not impossible to get an article about an esoteric ritual text reviewed. This is shown by the fact that right now it is classified as of no importance to Hinduism.

I was prepared for being bashed up. But I am disappointed that what I have got is total indifference and attitude of " How dare you nominate this article for FAC?"

Thanks to Rosiestephenson and DaGizza for the encouraging words.--Sankarrukku 06:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading the archived FAC, I don't think anyone was expressing a "how dare you" attitude. Pagrashtak 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

FA gold star free to use anywhere?

I see that one of the nominators (who has engaged in talk-page dialogue with me) has a Featured Article user page. Everyone OK with this? (User:Guroadrunner). Tony (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors have wide freedom to decorate user pages, excepting (mainly) offensive content and fair use images. I don't see the problem. Gimmetrow 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have something better, I'll trade you for it. Guroadrunner 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd have a problem if it categorized his user page, but it doesn't. I'd caution Guroadrunner that it might cause others to not take him seriously, however. Pagrashtak 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the "What links here" for Template:Featured article, about twenty other user pages have the FA star as well. I don't think it's a problem though. Epbr123 00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, either. We at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs have been using the FA star (and the GA circle) on WP:DABS so we can keep track of which articles are Good and Featured, and which ones still need work. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally use the star on my page to show articles I worked on that are GA/FA/TFA status, but mine link to the article itself, not the FA page. I think anyone who reads the FA criteria will realize very quickly that it is not a featured article...since it isn't even an article at all. I believe this is an instance where someone is trying to find a "broken rule" where none exists.

BTW, the image is free to use anywhere on any webpage on any server worldwide...seems kinda silly to limit its use here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The obvious difference is that people should be linking the image only (Image:LinkFA-star.png) for other uses, and only using {{Featured article}} for designated featured articles and lists. --Bloodzombie 01:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the above. Raul654 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bloodzombie (talk · contribs). Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Should we ban user pages from using {{Featured article}}, though? Epbr123 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, If you have something better, I'll trade you for it. Guroadrunner 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

With this diff i have shown you how to do it. That is better than using the featured article template. Woodym555 13:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just use this code:

<div style="right:10px; display:none;" class="metadata topicon">
<imagemap>
Image:LinkFA-star.png|14px
rect 0 0 14 14 [[Your wikilink here]]
desc none
</imagemap>
</div>

and you'll have the star, but it won't be in the "links here" for the template, and won't say "This is a featured article". I would support migrating all user pages with {{Featured article}} or {{Featured list}} to this code. Pagrashtak 13:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If people think the alt text and link to WP:FA are a problem, the template code could restrict the alt text and link to display only in namespace:0. (Featured lists use {{featured list}} because the link is to WP:FL.) The approximately 50 user and user-talk pages with {{featured article}} would still show up in "links here", but is this a big issue? It directly affects the FA maintenance scripts, but the scripts long ago excluded these pages by a namespace check. Gimmetrow 15:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The road to FAC

Wikipedia:The perfect article, widely cited on the road to FAC, has been rewritten to include such tidbits as "is titled smartly" and "categorizes itself". A patient person with good copyedit skills might want to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My first instinct is to mass-revert after comparing the before and after, but I don't suppose that would be helpful at this point. --Bloodzombie 16:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my first inclination, but I suggest others have a look, as prose isn't a strength for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I think the rewrite was done by a non-native English speaker. I normally don't like to just revert, but the changes were throughout the entire article. :-(. Let's not discuss this here, though. Wikipedia_talk:The_perfect_article#Nov_9.2C_2007_edits --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a better place for the discussion, but I brought it here because the edit history there indicates that the article isn't well watched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to delete that page. The perfect article is a vanishing point—not much else to say. Marskell 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a useful little list. Our policies and quidelines are huge; just the Manual of Style is so long that not even our best FA writers know it all. On the other hand, the FA criteria list is so short that the meaning of every word needs to be pored over. This is a useful compromise, long enough to be actually read. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Then rename it. Marskell 17:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When I was a new editor, that was one of the first Wikipedia-space pages I read. It made a impression on me and the last point underlies what I feel to be the core spirit of Wikipedia, or at least a major component of that core. I like the page at its current title. Pagrashtak 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, I like the article and to be honest, I didn't object to the changes but more the manner in which they were made, as you can see at User talk:Leranedo#Wikipedia:The perfect article. I will, however, bow to the consensus on the grammar, and also ask that people not move the page. Hiding Talk 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to maintain a FA

Can someone please take a look at the recent history of Palazzo Pitti and this thread here [2] concerning image sizes. I have attempted to explain that overzelous interpretation of the MOS alters not only the layout of an FA but also its integrity. I would be grateful if someone else could endorse this view. I don't want to become involved in an edit war over this. I see Amanda has had similar problems with this editor [3]. Having remonstrated with him - he now seems to be attacking the page. It will be on FARC before he is finished.Giano 10:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh have it your way. "Remonstration" is not explanation. It's a shame you didn't chose the latter. I said I would leave the two small adjacent pics alone and pointed out that there was no apparent effects to layout on the others. My suggestion would be to use a better word than "attack" - you might find yourself using it on long standing and respected editors who also know a bit about gaining FA's. As for Amandajam, he couldn't explain his demands to go against the MOS either, but I let him have his way too. --Merbabu 10:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps in future you may find it beneficial to discuss changes to FAs which are clearly being maintained and watched on their talk pages first before making large alterations. Secondly, when remonstrated with on that subject on your own talk page, it is perhaps not a good idea to just revert those who have been maintaining a page, dismissing them in an off hand manner. The MOS recommendations are just that recommendations and a guide. They are not absolute definitive law. Giano 11:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not because I think you are right, but because I sometimes try to chose my battles. lol. Perhaps one day you could actually explain exactly in what manner the lower pics in that article affected the layout? I can sense the two adjacent pics might be problematic (as I said now a few times without a reply from you), but cannot see the problem with the lower pics. regards --Merbabu 11:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive24#Image sizes for a previous discussion on this matter. Woodym555 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow - I'm not going to be able to read that properly tonight, let alone digest it. but thanks. Interestingly I first came across the this issue in an FAC - but that process was asking for the opposite - ie, no forced pixel sizes.--Merbabu 11:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Images are used in different ways in different articles. It is my opinion that articles that are about visual subjects require large pictures in order that the subject being discussed can be clearly seen. This is the case, whether the subject is a building, a painting, or a stained glass window. Moreover, a portrait in a biographical article that is reproduced too small to see the features is pointless. Yes, one can continually hop backwards and forwards to W.Commons but this is not a helpful process, particularly if the article is long and takes a while to load.

With art objects, we are dealing with things of different scales. It may not look appropriate to have a picture of a building at the same size as a picture of a small detail of the same building. Probably the best person to assess such an issue is an editor who is in the habit of looking critically at the plan, proportion and scale of art objects, rather than an editor who simply carries a rule in his or her head that pics should be aligned to the right and reduced to the minimum.

Moreover, and this is purely personal, I can't help thinking there are more valuable things for an editor to do than get up the noses of wiki's enthusiastic art editors to are striving to create the best possible article they can. It is pedantic to the point of being quite unpleasant. ....Amandajm 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've made the personal comments before, Amandajm, and suggests notions of "pleasantness" are clearly as subjective as when to go against the MOS. Is it necessary to bring it up publicly, particularly when I have indicated I wasn't keen on pursuing the issue (and my contribs show it such)? --Merbabu 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit though shows some common sense. Similar edits of mine looking for the same effect were removed. But thanks. --Merbabu 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the edits that you refer to. They certainly had the effect of reducing the length of the caption, but at the expense of the content. Part of achieving the aim was the enlargement of the pic both to accommodate more text and to scale it to the other picture better.

With regards to "personal comments", this is what you have written here, about me, and in my aparent absence:

"As for Amandajam, he couldn't explain his demands to go against the MOS either, but I let him have his way too."

This is nonsense. I took the trouble to explain my criteria to you, on your page. I really can't help it if you didn't comprehend.

Furthermore, I have explained, on your page, why I consider your attitude rude.

Apart from anything directed at me, you have changed the FA article that Giano has written three times, despite its status, and despite his request that you should not persist in so doing. Why are you surprised that people are annoyed and consider you rude?

Amandajm 14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from saying I disagree with Amandajm's new comments on "personal" aspects, I'm not going to reply further here. I ask he (and others?) do the same. This place is for commenting on articles, not editors.--Merbabu (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Palazzo_Pitti (Caniago 14:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Who gets to nominate an article?

There existed in the mindscape an idea of needing three people nominating or supporting it's nomination before discussion about it's candidateship - I was wondering whether it is a viable idea. Whether that kind of idea makes sense.

For that matter, what exactly does consensus mean - more than 3 people supporting, none objecting?--Keerllston 15:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Passing FAC generally requires at least a few participants supporting, with no significant outstanding actionable objections. I don't think your idea makes a lot of sense because often an article will come to FAC in a state in which few would support the nomination, but emerges (post-discussion) in an excellent state -- the discussion is valuable even when the article arrives at FAC not quite ready. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The FAC I'm currently involved with currently has two 'supports', both switched from 'oppose', and two comments. I don't think any of those people thought the article wasn't worth talking about on FAC. If something really is not worth talking about then that will quicky become apparent. The Land (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Webcomic FAs

I was planning to put the article for the webcomic Jack for FA status, however I do not know if I should, as webcomics do not tend to get promoted to such ranks. This is mainly because there are very few reliable sources for webcomics. Many of the reviews for webcomics tend to come from blogs and therefore are not really usable. Currently, there is only one webcomic at FA rank, Megatokyo, a manga webcomic, and manga also tends to receive more media attention than other forms of animation anyway (Jack is furry). Therefore, is there any point of putting the article up for FA? ISD (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The subject matter of an article should never be a bar to FA candidacy or FA status. This isn't always the case, but what should be important is compliance to WP:WIAFA - prose, MOS compliance, images, all the rest of it. The article you suggest looks reasonably promising, but I doubt it would pass as it stands now; too many single paragraph sections, citations from David Hopkin's own website, stuff like that. But if it were to be brought here and failed, the failure shouldn't be because it's a webcomic, or because Jack is furry, but because it doesn't comply to the FA standards. Nowhere in those standards does it say that an article has to be high-brow, intellectual, or any thing like that (even though some reviewers might prefer that it did!) Carre (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)