Note: I will not be able to do any image reviews during August and perhaps September (I won't be around wiki much due to family concerns). Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Boldly going where no NFCC claim has gone before...
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Ok, so I was talking with film-meister Erik today about some difficulty I was having in picking a good representative screenshot for illustrating key aspects of Star Trek: First Contact. He suggested that a video might be better, but noted that as far as he knew it was untested insofar as WP:NFCC compatibility (the only article he could think of that used a video was U2 3D, and I could not think of any FAs that used non-free video content). So I was wondering if I could get some neutral evaluations of the video's compatibility from the FAC crowd. I think the video still meets the criteria in regards to respecting commercial opportunities, et al, but then there's always the NFCC#8 bit... anyhow, decide for yourself. The video is placed at Star Trek: First Contact#Effects and the file description page is File:S08-first contact borg queen assembled.ogv. Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)02:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Can this be done with a limited number of individual frames - I would argue between 4 and 6 composed as a single image would be fair to show the lowering effect. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
We have non-free video clips, although I can't remember where. There's probably a category. I would follow the audio rules, with common sense adjustment, if we don't have video specific rules. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Obviously I was using the audio clips guidelines in crafting the video. Technical difficulties aside, I'm not sure cutting out specific frames is as useful as the full video, but I agree that there's the nebulous 'minimal usage' clause in effect... I suppose we really need to craft a video use policy now, considering the amount of money being fronted for the development of it onwiki? (EDIT:) I should also humbly say that I feel File:S08-first contact borg queen assembled.ogv has a stronger FUR than File:CartmanAnalProbeSinga.ogg, which is apparently being used only to illustrate a character singing a song—hardly an essential part of the article.--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)15:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is illustrating a parody, a parody that is highlighted by one scholar as typical of South Park's comedy, as explained in the article, but whatever. Awadewit (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Next Sunday, Wikivoices will be recording a podcast where we explain what is involved in reviewing an FAC. Please sign up to help us explain to the larger community the immense amount of work reviewers put in and how we can make the reviewing process better! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
That urgent template again
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm more than half way through FAC, and haven't yet found a promotable article. Reviews are lacking. I'm always wondering why we have User:Deckiller/FAC urgents if we don't aggressively use it? Anything more than ten days old without consensus should be added there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, people are either a) Unwilling or b) Unaware that there is a backlog of unreviewed articles. It's no good just asking on here because those who do review already will be watching already. Places like the content noticeboard need informing as well, and maybe other places. Majorlytalk02:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Correct number of repeated refs?
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion
Just saw two posts by FAC regulars mildly anti User talk:Nickj/Can We Link It. I strongly encourage its informed use. Used wisely, it is a very valuable tool. People need to be trained in tiny little things like appropriate wikilinking — things we take for granted. [There are legitimate differences of opinion as to how much wl should be done, but all agree that common words or general terms not closely related to the topic at hand should be skipped]... I have repeatedly stated that GAN is the appropriate forum for this kind of education (see my user page). But GAN is not the topic here; here I'm just advocating use of the tool. Tks. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Unlike things such as typo-fixing, code simplifying and making MOS fixes, which are great tasks for automated tools, linking requires considerable discretion, and should be done carefully. I'm not condemning the tool, but the problem with scripts is that sometimes users attracted to the speed and efficiency of the tool don't stop and think about what they are doing and just blindly press buttons. Also, the widespread trend on Wikipedia is to overlink; if it were the opposite I would not be so worried. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, my post was not against the tool in any way. I was just reminding users that, to paraphrase someone else on that page, there's no replacement for judgement. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
When testing it at Tourette syndrome, it suggested 40 links, of which I agreed with six. I'm not for or against tools, but if the use of this tool becomes widespread, we'll have to do much more careful link checking at FAC. Experience shows that such tools are more likely to be used indiscriminately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It needs to strongly encourage the use of disambiguation checks after running it also. I'm running it on my FAs now, mainly to pre-empt future runs, but also because it has turned up some useful links that I'd missed. It's also great for checking where you've put " (double quotes) when you really wanted ''(two single quotes in a row to make italics or close italics). You do need to be very very careful on the linking, as it does return some howlers. Like any tool, it can be abused, but that's true of all the tools we use at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk16:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't make it work; when I tried to accept the six links for TS, it bombed and I lost the whole thing. (Have I mentioned that I detest IE8?) Yep, it returned some real howlers and errors for TS, and dab links as well, while none of the six I would have kept were particularly notable or necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried it on two pages. For Autism it didn't work at all (it claimed the article had a syntax error, with an undecipherable diagnostic). For Daylight saving time it recommended 48 links of which I took 5. Some of the links were obvious howlers (links to deleted pages, or to dab pages), but most of them were simply not relevant enough and would have led to overlinking. Why are you still using IE8 when you can download and install Firefox? Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The opening text of the tool seems to be pushing the indiscrimate linking of items—the old scattergun practice: "Can we link it? ... Yes we can!" More appropriate would "Can we link it? Possibly." with a few points about the skills required to achieve good wikilinking, and links to WP:LINKING. The very absence of guidance reinforces the danger that this will be used as a toy, and easy way around the exercise of serious judgement to optimise the utility of what can be a superb functionality (wikilinking).
So, the JS Bach article picked up the New Style / Old Style date syntax at the top as an error (it's not), or at least it was objecting to some closing square bracket that I couldn't locate. It refused to proceed until it was "fixed".
The Australia article: same trouble: curly square brackets. No go on doing the link function.
Subsequently: I finally found an article that didn't throw up the boom-gate at the start with false-positive syntax "errors": Geoffrey Miller (evolutionary psychologist). Lots of the suggestions are undesirable. This is highly problematic, unless the tool GUI itself warns editors of the dangers of overlinking and directs them to the appropriate guidelines.
Yes, I certainly agree that a note directing people to relevant guidelines would be a Good Thing. However, I see much of the chatter here as distinctly overblown. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the opposite: that we should be much more concerned, particularly considering the samples I've seen. When I review an article before promoting it, it's relatively easy to identify missing links. Checking links to see if they were done incorrectly with this tool will take much more time, and the examples show a massive trend towards the possibility of incorrect linking. I'm concerned that if it is used by editors looking to rack up automated edit counts on their path to RFA, it could make FAC reviewing much more difficult. I'd like to see much stronger disclaimers written into the page, and encourage its use only by editors very familiar with the article, discouraging use by others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I've asked Nickj for clarification about a technical problem with his script that a number of editors have been complaining about. He has answered bottom of this section; he points out that his RL work is rather full-on at the moment, so his wikitime is limited. He acknowledges the need for careful judgement in accepting/rejecting the script's list of suggestions for potential links. I agree with Sandy: users should not be lulled into thinking they don't need to examine the link targets for specificity and relevance. Tony(talk)09:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Super-meh. I've been using the damn thing for... ages, not sure how long... and have never been accused of over-linking. Meh. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh Nutty One, you aren't a typical editor. In fact, I'd wager that most editors who follow this page aren't typical editors. It isn't those following here we need to worry about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest if someone is going to use this tool to add links to FAs there should be something in the directions to encourage them to think twice on it. Someone linked all this in Harvey Milk. It was easily undone with a single edit, but I imagine if the editor who did it started to insist that most of that should remain linked, it would be an awful and tedious experience to go through each section and discuss each link. --Moni3 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and ran the tool over the FAs I watch, as well as some of the GAs I watch. I looked at it as a preventative measure, that way I could say that it's been run and all the relevant links included, so it wouldn't need to be run again. It did suggest a few that I missed (I didn't know there were articles on two zoologists mentioned in the Horse article, nor some of the technical anatomical terms), but yes, it needs to be used with care. It has a tendency to try to turn any phrase that's close to an album name into a link, which is kinda funny, but if it's just run bot-like would be bad for an article. Ealdgyth - Talk12:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's a fascinating collection of accents. All participants said valuable things. I wish I'd known it was happening. At 1 hour 37 mins, it would be great to edit it down (participants could be warned beforehand), and possibly to sectionalise it into themes (10–15 mins each?). Excellent for community bonding. Tip: participants could name each other and themselves a little more during the session. Tony(talk)09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments15 people in discussion
An FA reviewer of Otomi language is suggesting that using the <ref name > function to join multiple references into one is obligatory, and a requirement for FA-status. This wasn't the case with the two FAs I previously had reviewed. Has the practice changed? Is there a policy actually stating this? In my reading of the MOS I see no such statement. I don't want to use refname because it makes it more difficult to identify and change references when in edit mode - and because of the extra problems it causes when removing pieces of text with references in them. I also don't see the problems with having multiple separate references to the same source - why should it matter if there are three or four more notes in the reference section?
Another issue is whether to supply pagenumbers for all citations. I don't apply pagenumbers when citing a fact that is not confined to a specific number of pages but which is evident throughout the cited source. For example I cite the usage of a source which is evident throuhout the entire article - should I really supply pagenumbers beginning at the firt page and ending at the last? Also I don't put pagenumbers if the point cited is the general point of an article - and is argued throughout. Thirdly the reviewer is expressing concerns about several items in the bibliography not being in the body - this I have done because i want the bibliography to be exhaustive and to give the reader an overview of the entire field of study. Think of it as references and further reading combined. I also don't see why this would be a problem - wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and the bibliography isn't that long anyway. Am I completely out of tune with wikipedia citation practices here? ·Maunus·ƛ·13:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Short answer: no. There is a tremendous amount of leeway (hell, I'd even say often too much so) in citation styles. As long as our policies are being followed and the citation scheme is consistent throughout the article, there's generally no issue, especially as it pertains to FA criteria. Things about pagination and bibliography is another issue which I defer to greater minds than me. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)13:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
As for the bibliography and further reading being combined, that's going to be one of those things the MOS specifies, so you'll have to comply. See Wikipedia:Layout for details. On the page numbers, it's generally better to give page numbers for any book over 75 or so pages, unless it's completely devoted to the subject. Articles have a bit more leeway, and I've seen folks just cite an entire article or cite specific page numbers within that. Ealdgyth - Talk13:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well these are articles mostly, but there are cases for example where I cite the usage of a spelling to a book that uses that spelling throughout the book. I have passed FAs with bibliography and further reading combined before, but i will check the MOS.·Maunus·ƛ·13:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly encourage coalescing duplicate citations, both as a service to the reader, and as a service to other editors, who will more easily see that a source is being multiply cited. I realize that the <ref name=''foo''> syntax is more work in some situations, but it's worth it. As far as I know the MOS doesn't require coalescing citations, but it's a common and good practice. For citing books, if the entire book is the source then cite the whole book; but here it sounds like you are giving the book as an example of a style or orthography, which is an unusual form of citation and verges on WP:OR, so I suggest making this fact clear in the footnote to avoid confusion (and also help to dispel requests for specific page numbers). For books I often cite chapters rather than page numbers, as chapters are typically short enough and citations to chapters can be shared more easily, but page number citations are also fine of course. Finally, I am not a big fan of "Further reading" sections that cite works not referenced; if the sources are that good, they should be cited, and if they're not good enough to be cited, then why are we pointing to them? "Further reading" sections are fine for lower-quality articles, or articles in progress, but less so in featured articles. Eubulides (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I see further reading as for two types of things: 1) When the subject is covered by so many works that it's not practical to cite every single one as a source. 2) When the given books/articles go into more detail than is needed for the article itself. An example would be Ealdred (archbishop), where I listed an article about the funeral of William the Conqueror. I didn't need to cite the article, as the information relevant to Ealdred was already cited to other works, but it might be of interest to someone who wanted to go more in depth on a particular bit of Ealdred's life. Ealdgyth - Talk19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
One of the advantages of using refname to combine repeatedly used sources is you can see at a glance how often each source has been used, and that can sometimes be useful. It can also sometimes be a red flag, for the writers as well as for readers, to indicate that a broader range of source material should be introduced. SlimVirgintalk|contribs19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't wait till we have a show/hide tool for inline refs. For me, I have come to like seeing lots of the little blue buggers but can imagine (well I hear) lotsa folks don't like too many of 'em. So.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: Agree with Eubulides re further reading. If a source is unable to be used as a reference anywhere in a Featured Article, makes me wonder of its value in a Further reading section. I have seen examples but they are uncommon. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In my experience Further reading sections tend to be leftovers from before the article was developed, which nobody's yet had the heart to remove, because someone must have put them there "in good faith". --MalleusFatuorum21:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ealdgyth's comment that "Further reading" sections may be useful for "1) When the subject is covered by so many works that it's not practical to cite every single one as a source. 2) When the given books/articles go into more detail than is needed for the article itself" - Ealdgyth's example was of a bishop in William the Conqueror's time; I could sometimes add further reading to scince-related articles. OTOH Malleus's "leftovers from before the article was developed ..." often describes the actual content of "Further reading" sections. So there's no general rule, one must check each item to see if it adds value. --Philcha (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
While Malleus's comment is often true, "further reading" should be for standard or highly relevant works that have not been consulted; this may often be because they are in a foreign language. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the case here since the works are highly relevant I just haven't found any facts in them that I could not source better to another source - because they are somewhat to specialised for most of the general facts that I have included in this article (also some are very rare and i haven't been able to consult them). For me the point is that the references+further readings is in fact a (hopefully) complete bibliography of everything that has been written about the otomi language. The Otomi language is very little studied and to have a place in the internet with such an exhaustive bibliography is extremely valuable for anyone trying to find more knowledge about the language. ·Maunus·ƛ·23:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There are many topics that have no "standard texts" in the normal academic sense though. Added to which I'd be very dubious about the quality of an article that did not use a standard text as one of its sources. If the Further reading section is just an incomplee list of other books saying the same thing as the books used as sources, as is frequently the case, then what's the point in it? --MalleusFatuorum23:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Some have none, some have several. Normally, I certainly don't think WP should attempt to provide a full bibliography at all, though this may be ok for subjects with very little written about them. Normally works read, even if not directly cited, should be in references, imo anyway, with further reading strictly for stuff not read. Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Re SlimVirgin's "It can also sometimes be a red flag, for the writers as well as for readers, to indicate that a broader range of source material should be introduced" it should not be taken an automatic sign of trouble - WP has a habit of elevating such rules of thumb to principles. For example in zoology articles I typically use 2 or 3 sources for the basics, and some of these can be cited 30-40 times. There's no controversy about the basics, and using too many sources of such content will just confuse readers, especially as the sources tend to present the same content from different perspectives and therefore have quite different structures. --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Re SlimVirgin's "It can also sometimes be a red flag", as it was in the recent FAC of Ralph Bakshi where close to 100 citations came from one source, Gibson, Jon M.; McDonnell, Chris (2008). "Wizards". Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi. Universe Publishing. Also, it is easier to tell if a flimsy source, such as a newspaper article is being relied on overly. —mattisse (Talk) 22:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree it can be a problem, as in Ralph Bakshi - but not always, see e.g. the use of a few high-quality textbooks at Arthropod. Unfortunately WP has a habit of over-generalising and setting in concrete such rules of thumb. --Philcha (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
<INDENT> I just woke up to find what a discussion has come out of my comments overnight :-) You'll have to see Otomi language to understand the points, which are more specific than the discussion above and are: (i) "Bibliography" mixes up sources which are used and never used in the text - it is not like it is a separate "further reading" (ii) For some facts, page numbers are provided and for some are not; whereas some "non-paged" facts are indeed "broad", some are very specific, and I can not understand why some facts are given preference there. Regarding consolidating references, this procedure is built in the bots, and some consolidation I've done on that article is simply AWB work. Considering that AWB is run over most articles almost every week, consolidation is inevitable, and I thus can not understand requests of the nominator to me to revert my edits. Regarding "bibliography" there being short, you have to see for yourself, but I just find out that it is being split up into "further reading". Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what AWB does, consolidation of references on an article that has specifically been constructed in another manner is arguably the sort of change from one acceptable style to another that is specifically discouraged by the guideline. Christopher Parham(talk)23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not take a general answer to a specific question. You'll have to see the issue, which is beyond any reference style. As to what AWB should or should not do, please take it to the AWB talk. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why I haven't experienced these problems with my other articles using the same style. Never had AWB come change them as far as I remember.·Maunus·ƛ·23:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not some given article uses 'named references' / combines "duplicated" citations is a decision that ought to be left to the discretion, consensus and good judgement of the editors interested in and working on the given article. Just as is the case for other editorial decisions between valid style, formatting and reference system choices (eg. parenthetical vs citeshort vs 'full footnote', or BC/AD vs BCE/CE, & so on). It's horses for courses; while in some circumstances and in some opinions having named references might bring some advantages, in other circumstances and by other equally valid opinions there are disadvantages to that system that outweigh any minimal benefit, alternative systems work just as well if not better without them. There's nothing wrong with editors electing not to use them—named references are not mandated by any policy, nor are they specifically required in MOS, CITE or FOOT guidelines. Instead, the MOS general principles ought to be applied.
AWB is a handy tool that makes repetitive tasks much easier, and is good for fixing obvious errors like typos. But it's not an instrument for enforcing policy or style guidelines—it's editors who make those decisions not some rule-set (that is no substitute for actual policy or guideline).--cjllwʘTALK03:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that if we don't have a rule saying "combine your sources when possible" then it shouldn't be required on FACs. I think we should have such a rule, but if we don't, that's fine. As far as further reading goes, it may be a red flag in some instances, but I feel it can also be a totally legitimate section. Some day, someone is going to get Abraham Lincoln up to FA, and I expect a very good further reading section to be included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Image review needed
Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
I think I've suggested this before; don't recall why it was opposed... but why not keep tallies of all Opposes and Supports (not including Leaning or Wobbling or whatever) atop the FAC page, as in RfA? Much easier to keep track of, IMO. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this would be that FAC is much less !vote oriented than RfAs, not to mention the amount of updating this would require. 6 RfAs at a time is considered a lot, and !votes are numbered, so a bot can take care of it. IMO, it seems too much effort to be worth it. Mm40 (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FAC is not a vote, that was done before and nominators used it to misrepresent, and not all Supports and Opposes are equal: this tally would be completely meaningless while adding to the workload of maintaining the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Sandy here. Not naming names, but we all know there are certain serial-supporters and serial-nitpickers whose views aren't taken as seriously by Sandy and co as those of others; plus, FAC is far more fluid than RFA, and a lot of opposes are provisional pending the fixing of a particular issue - an FAC with 0 supports and 5 opposes would look like a sure-fire failure on a tally-table, but it's entirely possible that those 5 opposes would all be over something like "insufficient alt text" or "unclear fair use rationale" which can and will be resolved. – iridescent17:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey! What gurgling moron suggested this idea anyway? Off with his head! 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
(In re: to Ling.Nut's comment above) Yeah! Making uncalled-for comments, having a weird user name, and *GASP* not signing his comments. I'm filling out the ArbCom request as you read...Mm40 (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FA process and expert retention
Latest comment: 15 years ago85 comments23 people in discussion
Currently the problems with expert retention are being discussed in many areas of wikipedia. I think it might be relevant to consider it here at FA as well. I think the FA concept serves two functions only the first of which is currently acknowledged, while the second is in my view more important - the first function is identifying wikipedias best articles, the second and in my opinion more important is the function of providing editors with an incentive to produce great articles. My three experiences at FA have been decidedly unpleasant experiences and entirely demotivating for continued article writing (regardless that the articles were promoted). If editors nominating articles were somehow given the feeling that "hey, thats a great article you've made there - we'll help you get it that last step" instead of "How dare you write an article without Alttext and where some references lack page numbers you sloppy, lazy person - why do you even bother to show us such a waste of wikipedia articlespace!", then I am quite sure that more FAs would be written and the best content contributors would be encouraged to contribute even more instead of discouraged from contributing any new material. It is possible that I am alone with this concern and that I somehow require more acknowledgement of my contributions than other editors, or that I am more sensible to criticism, but my impression is that nobody who writes articles enjoy the FA process - and frankly I would find it strange if most editors do not have a some sort wish for recognition of the value of their contributions. So what I would ask the FA reviewing editors to consider is if they by their actions and behaviour could make the nomination seem less like an opportuinity for reviewers to sharpen their critical senses by finding every possible flaw and chastising the nominator for not having seen them and more like a helping hand to make great articles even greater by conforming to some specific criteria. ·Maunus·ƛ·16:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you somewhat, but my experiences are a bit different. The FAC process itself is not as stressful for me as the main page day attention. And when I say attention, I mean abuse. The response from some editors who disagree with something in the article that I constructed is disheartening indeed. I have stopped nominating articles for FA, and there is at least one I have written that I may never nominate for FA, not because I don't think it deserves to be promoted, but the stress involved in defending it will be mind-boggling.
When I criticize content in an article, I expect to justify my claims with evidence of other sources that refute claims, or provide something at least that the editor who constructed the article can use to improve it. I remain quite astonished that other editors not only choose a different tack, but opt for abuse and vehemence in the place of sources and policy. I would very much like to work on higher profile articles, but the punishments far outweigh the rewards for doing so. --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You say "defend the article" - I have the same experience of having to defend one's work and I think this is fundamentally wrong. Editors should not have to defend their contributions, writing an FA candidate entails a huge amount of work (volunteer work) and is of course always done not only in good faith but with the will to give something to wikipedia and to the world, this shouldn't have to be defended - But we are pushed into the role of "defenders" because some reviewers take on a role of "attackers" instead of "helpers". ·Maunus·ƛ·16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No article is ever perfect and they can all stand to be improved in some way or another. I have no problem doing this when suggestions are helpful and they are given in the spirit of assisting content. It's easier for perhaps most editors to denigrate an article than it is for them to work a bit to find sources of their own. I welcome some discussion and scrutiny, but two editors who have no idea what they're talking about and take offense to something: a word, a sentence, a source, and are persistent in their criticism can be exhausting and harmful to content. One editor can start an RfC. How do article writers who have spent months constructing an article with over 100 cites make the point that a critic has offered noting in the way of sound sources or policy to make changes? Instead, I have been accused of owning article content for disagreeing. I understand your frustration. --Moni3 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) To offer a differing viewpoint, I enjoy the FA process, and welcome comments from any reviewer that wants to "sharpen their critical senses" to help improve any article I've submitted. The Fungus FA was a good example, many editors with varying interests participated, and the end product felt like a real community effort. I think it helps to "check your ego at the door" when putting up an article at FAC, and not take any comments personally. I may just be unjaded because I haven't had a bad experience yet. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it always help not to let your ego get affected by criticism of one's work - sometimes it is not so easy. In The currently ongoing FA I have personally been accused of deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the topic, and of all kinds of similar intellectual dishonesty - by editors who have no expertise in the area, but mereley react to orthographic mistakes and mistakes of omission. Its hard not to take that kind of comments personally. Another area that stresses me are reviewers who require articles to conform to their own personal tastes of reference apparatus, layout etc. without any back up in policy. Because its impossible to argue against what is basically statements of opinion.·Maunus·ƛ·16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Not so. Statements of opinion are easy to argue against, and carry very little weight unless supported by something more substantial than mere "opinion". --MalleusFatuorum17:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
What I mean is of course that when you are in a situation where you as nominator are expected to react to criticism you are not in a position to reject statements of opinion as such or argue against them without appearing to be uncooperative.·Maunus·ƛ·17:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course you are, and I frequently do. What you're not supposed to do is to ignore those statements of opinion, but instead to refute them if you don't agree with them. I don't see that as being adversarial. Where does it say that we all have to agree with each other all of the time? --MalleusFatuorum17:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well it is absolutely possible, as i have admitted, that my concerns stems from me having a more fragile personality, than others for example than it would seem that you have. But the point in issue for my part is that in a review situation like this one there is an imbalance of power - a nominator wants something an reviewers are in a position to give it or deny it - based on the nominators interaction with them. I feel that some reviewers endulge in that power imbalance instead of adopting a more collegial stance.·Maunus·ƛ·17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
For me, the issue is that the FAC process has taken all the fun out of writing FAs. I enjoy writing articles, right up to the point where I consider them for FA, then I instantly feel like a dog carrying my own leash. Every i to be dotted, and re-dotted, then dotted some more because some guideline has changed again. I feel it has gone too far, and that we're failing to attract some good writers to the FA process because of it. Each time I see a discussion about this, most of the people commenting seem to agree, yet the rules keep getting tightened even more. So the question is: is there any willingness to cut FA writers some slack? SlimVirgintalk|contribs17:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree - the FA process is the worst part. The main reason I still do it is to get that feeling of closure to a project that I've put a lot of effort into. I also agree that its the writers that ought to be cut some slack, not the articles. Be nice to the writers, but strict with the articles. I am convinced that we can attain the same high quality of FAs without demotivating writers to contribute. ·Maunus·ƛ·18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
There clearly isn't any will to "cut FA writers some slack", but I do share some of your concerns. Sure, FAs need to continue to be examples of our best work, but wtf has that got to do with alt text, to name a recent ill-considered addition to the FA criteria? Sweet FA is the answer. --MalleusFatuorum17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
And the insistence on total compliance with WP:MOS and its offspring - for example WP:DASH makes debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead look quite reasonable. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable to insist that FAs comply with the MoS, given that it's so sprawling and changes so often, and that the changes are often made by a tiny number of people (sometimes just one). If that requirement were eased—changed from required to encouraged—it would make a big difference. SlimVirgintalk|contribs18:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not have problems with the MOS minutiae. Along that line, I don't even care much about main-page day "Mr. Jenkins is a fag" type vandalism. Pain in the ass, yes, but a trifle compared to an abusive onslaught from persistent editors who are avowed not to crack a book to do any work. Were it not for the MOS niggling things, I probably would have kept the attitude that it's too small to care. Now the articles I construct mirror the MOS as I knew it once. As it changes, my articles may reflect that span of months that I followed the MOS. I don't think editors should be disparaged for any reason. When I see MOS blips, I either fix them myself or list them as minor things. Prose, comprehensiveness, and sources are much more important, but if the articles look sloppy Wikipedia will never be taken as seriously as professional sources writers and editors spend hours, days, etc. on the same small issues. --Moni3 (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
One thing we need keep in mind is that, at the moment, the MoS provision in the FA criteria is the only method by which WikiProject-generated guidelines can be brought up at FAC. There used to be an explicit provision for following subject-area guidance; but that was removed due to a feeling that not all projects could produce worthwhile guidelines, and we were told instead that we had to work towards making our guidelines a part of the MoS, and they would be given weight at that point. If we now remove the MoS provision itself, the net effect will be that anything WikiProjects produce will be left entirely out of the FA criteria, regardless of what hoops we've jumped through to ensure community acceptance of our guidelines. Kirill[talk][pf]19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If the criteria were to encourage, rather than require, MoS compliance, most people would still do it. The thing about forcing people is it creates a bad atmosphere, it's demoralizing, and it gives people the green light to nitpick, which not all reviewers do (most don't), but some do. Kirill, can you give an example of the kind of style thing that might be lost, wikiproject-wise. SlimVirgintalk|contribs22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:MILMOS and WP:MEDMOS come to mind as having explicitly made the transition from internal WikiProject guideline to MoS component as a consequence of the earlier change to the FA criteria. WP:MOSCHEM, WP:MOS-ANIME, WP:MOSMUSIC, and WP:MOSMATH are basically more of the same thing, but I'm not sure of the precise history behind the pages; generally speaking, most of the topic-area MoS pages consist of guidelines generated by the corresponding WikiProject, whether or not this is explicitly stated on the page itself. Kirill[talk][pf]13:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, MILMOS and MEDMOS are head and shoulders above others because they garnered community-wide input. But, I want to clear up a (possibly only semantic) confusion in Slim's assertions. Yes, WIAFA requires compliance with MOS, but MOS (unlike WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc) is only a guideline, and on FAC closings, I apply it as such. Hence, it's a very loose requirement ... I think you overstate the case. It's not "required" as policy is required. A FAC that violates NPOV or V will fail, period, while a FAC with only MOS issues won't necessarily. Some of the MOS guidelines are in such a state of flux that I just igore them; others are more widely accepted, but even with those, there are often good reasons to ignore them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we make that clear in the FA criteria? The belief that the MoS is rigorously applied during the FAC process is widespread, and somewhat off-putting, particularly so because it keeps changing. Just one example from my own experience: I was preparing an article for FA. Someone kept changing the formatting, and in particular was reducing the image sizes to very small thumbs. I was told by this person, who was supported by a couple of other experienced editors, that there was no point in my submitting it for FAC with anything larger than thumbs, because it would surely fail for not being MoS compliant. I knew it was unlikely that it would be failed on those grounds alone, and I also knew the support at the MoS for thumbs-only was weak (and that requirement has now gone, in fact). But the fact that this was being said, and that I was having to argue it, and was faced with having to argue it some more at FAC, meant I lost enthusiasm for doing the work, and I decided against submitting it. I shouldn't have been so sensitive, but I just got worn down by what I saw as the inevitable focus on "rules" that either don't matter or that don't have a clearly beneficial effect on the article.
The perception of the nominators and the reviewers is as important as the reality, because it's the perceptions that determine whether people take part in the process. SlimVirgintalk|contribs16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I see the problem, and the information you were given there was wrong. There are some areas of MoS that are clear and long-standing, and if there are breaches in those that no one has addressed, I just fix them myself. The thumbsize images debate is one of those murky areas, often-changing, less clear on long-standing consensus, and I won't hold up an otherwise compliant FAC over a murky and often changing guideline. I will take a look at WIAFA later today and see if I have an idea for how to address this, and will propose it in a new section. Busy for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
A suggestion would be simply not to mention the MoS under #2. It currently says " follows the style guidelines, including the provision of ...", and links to the MoS. Instead we could say: "It is internally consistent in style, and includes the provision of ..." SlimVirgintalk|contribs16:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Reviewers are only human, and so I don't doubt that there is sometimes a perception of "power", and perhaps even occasional abuses, but you have to go into FAC with the conviction that everyone wants the same thing. And that's not necessarily a bronze star; it's that the article comes out of the process the best it can be, whether that's ultimately judged good enough for promotion or not. In truth the bronze star can be a double-edged sword anyway, as anyone who's had to defend their article against the vandalism that happens to all mainpage articles can testify. --MalleusFatuorum
Well, I do go into the review process with the aim of making the article better and getting help with catching those no-brainers that every writer who spends weeks with a text becomes blind to. I also go into the review process because I am proud of something I have done and I would like the fact that I made a mjor contribution to be recognized by others - not necessarily with a bronze star - but definitely not by being the butt of condescension and disparaging comments.·Maunus·ƛ·18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I do agree with you that the process does too often have adversarial overtones of "Do this or else I won't support", or "I can't believe anyone would bring an article here with such a glaring misuse of a dash hidden away in the footnotes – you need to find a good copyeditor and bring this back when it's been peer-reviewed". On the other hand at least the rules are (mostly) applied consistently, rather than made up apparently on a whim as at FLC. --MalleusFatuorum18:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, you can have the article your way, the FAC reviewers way, and occasionally you can have both. The best thing to do is ignore your feelings on the subject, and just do whatever the reviewers tell you. You can't fight city hall. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Believe me it's crossed my mind to just do as the reviewers say and then change it all back the week after the review. But more than the actual feeling of one's deliberate decisions about best to present the subject being rejected my problem is with the manner in which it is rejected.·Maunus·ƛ·19:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Given the concerns that you've raised in this section I can't help but note the irony of your response. It appears that you want everyone else to be encouraging and supporting, but you're excused for some reason? --MalleusFatuorum19:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
May I express however my dissapointment at Ottava Rimas attempt to make this look as if I am complaining that "someone asked for alt text". This is not the issue - I have stated repeatedly that i do not mind criticism or suggestions for improvement done in a collegial athmosphere - but I'll be damned if I'll write article upon article for wikipedia and be ridiculed for it afterwards - then I'll rather spend my time on writing something i'll get paid for.·Maunus·ƛ·19:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
One thing I thought was interesting about the recent Wikivoices episode was how much the reviewers stressed that although it might seem that they tore the article apart, it was actually a very good article. I think the same can most often be said about articles at FAC, but it is probably not made explicit that often. --Harthacnut (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Maunus, Alt text is nothing. Plagiarism is something big. Original Research is something big. Misrepresenting sources is something big. I have pointed out a lot of this lately at dozens of FACs. Those nominators are still working on pages and cleaning up items. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with point that some of the reviewers sound like they want to bit you and bark and act like guard dogs for the FA status. After getting more into it you experience that some are really helpful, but the tour through FAC is not allways that pleasant and if you get only a; oppose because of 1c, 5d, 7675g and please look at WDF EWF GTF and MOSDF; you feel like you did something wrong, and even for me it takes some time to figure out what this all means. Attract somebody to a this process should look a little different. Some projects avoid the FA and GA and focus only on internal reviews making them less visible, but more effective in writing articles. Nobody needs the star, it is nice and good for your self-confidence, but nobody is forced to ask for it. On the other hand I got support on the most difficult things without any hesitation and most of my nominations became FAs.--Stone (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Of late I've noticed fewer comments at FAC about prose and content, and a huge increase in commenting on minor issues, such as those mentioned above. I also can't help but be slightly miffed that people are so willing to OPPOSE on single issues - for me, lately, image copyright, and even audio clip copyright.
Frankly I'm beginning to wonder if its worth the effort any more. It seems I could nominate a bad Chinese translation, but so long as it ticked the right boxes it would pass. Do people bother to actually read the articles they're 'reviewing'? Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Some editors oppose to get the FA director's attention and tell them not to promote just yet. I know sometimes that when I don't oppose, articles are promoted even when I haven't finished reviewing. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that's pretty poor use of oppose then. An oppose should, in my view, come only once the reviewer has reviewed the article and formed an opinion. Perhaps an icon or status similar to that used at WP:GAN is warranted. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the reviewing for MOS takes away from content issues at all. A lot of really POV and incomplete articles passed in 2007 and before. It's more the nominations are more comprehensive. In the end it's usally up to people inside the Wikiproject to work out if an article is missing stuff, as they know the content best. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
My initial concern was not at all about whether the MOS was applied to strictly or about whether Alt text was a reasonable requirement- it was about the reviewers role and how they fulfill it. I belive reviewers role is to make wikipedia get as many FA quality articles as possible - this involves telling nominators how to improve their work, that is how to make articles conform to the FA criteria, including MOS and Alt text and what have you. But it also includes encouraging nominators to make as many FA quality articles as poossible - treating nominators like garbage does the opposite it discourages nominators from writing fgreat FA quality articles for the pedia. In short reviewers are not guarddogs guarding the holy grail of FAhood they are helpers opf the wiki trying to make sure as many articles as possible reach FA quality - and they should treat and interact with nominators accordingly. ·Maunus·ƛ·01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Wording for alt text requests
Since alt text seems to be a sore spot here, I'd like to ask for suggestions for better ways that I can make requests about it. Here are my most recent first-time requests for alt text in FAC or FAR pages. Specific suggestions for improving this sort of wording are welcome. I would rather that this process be as painless for editors as possible.
'The alt text is quite good and very detailed, but it's a bit long; see WP:ALT#Brevity. Relatively unimportant etails like "The sky is blue with no clouds." can be omitted.'[2]
'Alt text is present (thanks), but it repeats the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition) and doesn't convey enough information about what the picture tells us that Procter looked like (see WP:ALT#Portraits).'[3]
'Alt text is mostly present, but needs work. Most of the alt text entries are near-duplicates of the caption. Alt text should minimize duplication with the caption; see WP:ALT#Repetition. For example, the alt text "A map of the boundaries of the United States Courts of Appeals and United States District Courts" is largely a duplicate of the caption "Map of the boundaries of the United States Courts of Appeals and United States District Courts"....'[4](please follow the URL to see the full comment)
'Alt text is present and mostly good (thanks), but the alt text for the lead (infobox) image is merely "Track of Hurricane Georges", which doesn't convey much info to the visually impaired reader, and also contains a claim (that this is the track of Hurricane Georges) that can't easily be verified by a non-expert. Please reword it to not use the name, and to briefly describe where the track goes. Thanks.'[5]
'Most images have alt text as per WP:ALT (thanks) but some work is needed. The lead (infobox) image lacks alt text, as does File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg. The following proper names are not obvious to a non-expert who is looking only at the image and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT: "Chicago Picasso", "Buckingham Fountain", "Fountain of the Great Lakes", "Fountain of Time". Also, a minor thing: I suggest rewording "Crown Fountain" to "The fountain" in most of the alt text entries (e.g., "Crown Fountain spouting water on frolicking children" should be "The fountain spouts water on frolicking children") to avoid needless repetition.'[6]
(a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
(b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
I don't really see a way of fixing the concern, because I'm not a prose guru. I do think we need to link to MoS, but I don't know how else we can say what is already said: it's a guideline, not policy, and it's applied as a guideline, not policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It's a guideline, 'nuff said. I think you should actually have good reasons for ignoring the MoS other than, "well, that's how I do it," but it's certainly not the most important part of the criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)16:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
How about changing the first two words from "It follows" to "It generally follows"? That will help make it clearer to the casual reader that the MoS is a guideline and may have some exceptions. Eubulides (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
While readers of this page will follow your meaning, I'm not sure that will fix the dilemma described by Slim. Others won't understand that "generally" means that MoS is interpreted for what it is-- a guideline-- and that some parts of MoS are more stable and have longer standing consensus than others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirgin suggested not linking to the MOS. The original discussion that eliminated the mention of WikiProjects is here; not mentioning MOS would also means not mentioning those Wikiprojects whose guidelines have become part of MOS. Mike Christie(talk)12:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
How about:
2. It is internally consistent in style, taking guidance from the Manual of Style as appropriate, and includes the provision of—
That works for me, but let's see what others say (give it plenty of time), and be sure to get Tony's input (to take advantage of his MoS experience and prose guruness). A crosslink should be posted at the talk page of WP:WIAFA (done). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Tony1. On the other hand, I note that:
the flow of nominations is plentiful;
the pass/fail ratio hasn't changed significantly in years;
major nominations are subject to significant improvements during the process, some of them as a result of style-guide recommendations;
the standard of FAs has risen noticeably over the past two to three years, particularly WRT verification and writing; and
the consistency of style and formatting that results from the advice of the style guides adds significantly to the authority and readability of articles, with FAs' taking the lead.
I'm a great believer in the ability of FAs—indeed all articles—to benefit from centralised guidance on style and formatting. All self-respecting publishers have an in-house style guide with which contributors are expected to comply; the difference here is that (1) there's no employed copy-editor to do a final check- through and tweak of the "final" product", and (2) the style guides are a sizeable body of work, although nothing like the external authorities such as Chicago MOS.
I don't favour a watering down of the role of the MoSs in this process, as suggested above, and I think the instability of the style guides is overstated. However, I have three suggestions.
That we impress at the style-guide talk pages the importance of posting announcements of substantive changes here and at FLC talk (more specifically, that we ask for this to be standard practice).
That we calmly examine the "rudeness/unkindness by reviewers" issue, and add to the instructions wording to minimise this (however, being told your style or formatting or referencing needs to be improved is always going to be difficult for some reviewers, and there's no easy way to say that the odd nomination should be withdrawn for the time being).
That we consider the creation of a MoS for beginners page that might be an entree into the parts of the manuals that matter most for nominators.
Please note that I announced here the major change in MoS guidance on the sizing of thumbnail images only a few weeks ago. Tony(talk)02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Tony1. For users who oppose on stylistic reasons alone, we should emphasize the importance of doing it themselves. I spend about an hour each week on mature FACs cleaning up minor MOS and proofreading issues, which I don't mind, especially if it will help avoid threads such as these. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The numbers at FAS have to take into account when the provision for withdrawing FACs came into play ... we didn't have those before, so a straight analysis of the FAC archives will be a bit off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how useful this will be, but here's a graph (that we've put together for unrelated reasons) of the monthly acceptance ratios since January. I vaguely remember one covering a two-year span floating around earlier this year, but I might be mistaken. Kirill[talk][pf]03:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
←Kirill, that's an interesting graph, and yes it would be good to see the figures further back. I remember in 2006 I calculated that Raul was putting through from 32 to 40% of nominations (varied month to month), but the standards were pretty bad in those days. (Personal comment: I'm pleased to see MilHist's high score, although it may be a combination of factors, such as (1) better quality on nomination; (2) ability to respond to reviewers' comments promptly; or (3) different standards unconsciously applied to MilHist noms (unlikely given the professionalism of Raul, Karanacs and Sandy).
(EC)I'm not a statistician either, but according to Wikipedia:Featured article statistics, if you sort table by most noms, March 2009 is the first 2009 entry. Its 25-30 entries down the chart. If its a cycle, it isn't a yearly one. The bottom is mostly 2004, 2005, and 2009. Its a WP wide phenom, that FA and FAC have no control over, unfortunately. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again, we now withdraw noms that would have been archived under the older rules, so numbers aren't strictly comparable. The archival rate is much lower now, too, because noms get withdrawn. Before, anyone could nominate a FAC, but if it wasn't ready, it chugged along until it got archived; now, they have to be nommed by a significant contributor, and they get withdrawn immediately if they're not. So, overall noms are lower, and archivals are lower. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a tangential point about MilHist. I noticed the MilHist tag was added [7] to an FA I wrote, Night (book)—after it was promoted—that I really don't think has anything to do with MilHist. I've been wondering whether this was just an error, and I was going to mention it to Kirill.
Noted and untagged. I suspect that it was tagged as part of a wider effort when we expanded our scope to cover literary depictions of military history; but, as far as I can tell, it doesn't really fall into that category. Kirill[talk][pf]04:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering whether the rate of FAs has been rising in some kind of proportion to the increase in articles and editors generally. I get the feeling it hasn't, and I suppose you wouldn't expect it to hugely, but I think it ought to have risen perhaps a little more than it has. But some hard figures would help. SlimVirgintalk|contribs03:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
See the graph at the bottom of WP:FAS (and then realize that delistings have been at all-time highs lately ... it's not about overall FA production there, but additions minus demotions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
PS Response to dabomb's "SOFIXIT" remark: while it's a major contribution to the process that he and a few other reviewers make direct contributions, I don't think anyone should be expected to do so. I sometimes copy-edit a portion as an example; but the reasons I don't copy-edit systematically are (1) there are just too many nominations and not enough reviewers to go around already; and (2) I don't want FAC to be seen as a fix-it process—that would encourage nominators to submit at an earlier stage in their preparation. It needs to be a balance between generally offering no direct assistance, and doing all the article improvement ourselves, probably leaning heavily towards the former.
If there were four nominations a week, sure, I'd be fully copy-editing those that had sufficient merit in other respects; but at the moment it's hard to review more than a small proportion of nominations even on the basis of rationed coverage. I do think this is a way of spreading the reviewing resources more efficiently, provided one is willing to return to spot-check and write rejoinders. Prose is such a time sink, isn't it. Tony(talk)03:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to keep asking for figures, but do we have any that show the number of nominations by month over the years? That's the issue I've mostly been wondering about, namely whether the FA process is discouraging people from nominating their work. SlimVirgintalk|contribs04:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I linked and mentioned that above, here. You have to add promotions plus archivals, but then realize that we now have withdrawals, that aren't added into numbers, and the instructions changed to specifically discourage driveby noms, so the comparison is invalid ... noms should be lower because changes were implemented to discourage drive by noms. I stopped updating those stats because the comparison is no longer valid (and I got tired :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
To try to answer your question more comprehensively after reviewing some data: I'm not sure we can say if nominations have declined, because requirements to nominate a FAC became tighter. But there are two other trends worth mentioning-- trends that affect the data and may have made FAC "harder" and may discourage ill-prepared noms.
1) Since March 2008, Ealdgyth has systematically reviewed the sources on every single FAC to determine if minimum requirements for reliability of sourcing are met (quite a feat). Other reviewers might check sourcing issues more carefully, and this is rarely done; nonetheless, the sourcing hurdle is much higher than it used to be.
2) Some months after that (I'm not sure of the exact timing), we began to assure that every FAC receives an image review.
Before these two changes, FACs were more or less a matter of which reviewers happened to show up, and what they happened to check. There was no systematic review of minimum reliability of sources, and no guarantee that someone would show up to review images. Review in these areas has certainly increased; possibly, editors who don't want their iffy sources or images checked are now disinclined to nominate a FAC.
I watch how well promotions are doing relative to demotions. In almost two years, I've promoted 893 articles (34% of the current FAs-- perhaps Karanacs can add her numbers to those ?). Of those, 3 are no longer FAs: one was merged, one was demoted, and one was a demotion that has been questioned of an article that might have been "saved" in the heyday of FAR saves. I'm pretty sure none of Karanacs' promotions have been demoted, so I believe our overall total is three. (See here.)
I hope these trends mean that reviews have gotten more rigorous, and more of this crop of FAs will hold their own over time. But all of these factors combine to make a straight comparison of numbers difficult.
Another trend: rigorous reviews at FAR seem to be making a comeback in recent weeks, but I'm concerned that some articles may be indiscriminately cite-tagged, and then reviewers vote to Delist without checking whether the tagging is warranted. I frequently see "Delist, riddled with cite tags", but no indication if reviewers have checked to see if all of those tags are justified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I just saw this response. Thank you for that information. I can see that the sourcing and image issues might make a difference. I suppose my worry is that, as soon as anything becomes systematic, there's a danger that it will quickly go too far. For example, I was challenged on one of my articles (I forget whether FAR or an FAC) because the image-page fair-use rationale wasn't written using one of the templates. I'm writing this from memory, so I may not have it quite right, but it was something like that, that I hadn't used the right format, even though what was written was perfectly clear.
In themselves, none of the examples given of too-stringent requirements should be deal breakers. But the combination of them, when the writer is already struggling to get the narrative right, make sure it reflects the sources and so on, is a heavy burden, much heavier than any professional writer has to face; professional writers never have to do all this themselves, and also don't have 20 copy-editing bosses each with a different concern. SlimVirgintalk|contribs01:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not contributing more here in this forum in spite of my heavy activity on the project page side. I think I've been through the FAC process almost as much as anyone else and I don't personally have a problem with how it functions. The FAC process isn't necessarily fun, but it isn't an excruciating ordeal for me either. If reviewers want to use the MoS as part of their criteria for evaluating and improving an FAC, fine by me. I have had FA's promoted with open oppose votes, so one or two unreasonable objections won't necessarily sink an FAC. The reason I haven't nominated any articles recently is because of life-demands, not due to any concerns about the process. (By the way, the moment I see an article that I nominated get promoted, I exhale. Does anyone else?) It is fun once the article is promoted. Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Citation consistency
Nice to see WP:MOS put in its place. Re prose quality, I agree with the criterion at another discussion, "clear and concise" - assuming that it's grammatical, but not not in a pernickety way (e.g. "logical punctation" vs whatever). I think it's mistake to prescribe citation formats as tightly as above (16:39, 29 August 2009) - partly because highly prescriptive approaches make me nervous, and partly because I can see a need for various approaches from the reader's point of view, for example:
Single passage used multiple times (e.g. journal article, modest section of a book). Here I think named refs are the best, with one instance holding the full biblio details.
Multiple sections of a book that has the same author(s) throughout:
<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) is good for simple page ranges, with a "Bibliography" section immediately following the "References" section and providing publisher, date, ISBN, etc. I dislike Harvard referencing as it takes too much space in the text - especially for books written by a team, e.g. "Ruppert, Fox and Barnes: pp. 808-812" (the book is Ruppert, E.E., Fox, R.S., and Barnes, R.D. (2004). "Lophoporata". Invertebrate Zoology (7 ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 829–845. ISBN0030259827.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) I like the variant of <ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref> that links to the biblio section, e.g. <ref name="ManualPCTacticalCombat">[[#refMOO2ManualPC|MOO II Manual (PC)]], pp. 119-130</ref> links to <cite id="refMOO2ManualPC">{{cite book|title=Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares|publisher=MicroProse|location=Chipping Sodbury, South Gloucestershire, England|date=1996}}</cite>
However I also like to supply chapter names, in case the pagination differs in a later edition or in a different format, e.g. coffee table vs paperback. Haven't found a solution for this that satisfies me.
Multiple sections of a contribution in a compilation, e.g. Rouse, G. (1998). "The Annelida and their close relatives". In Anderson, D.T. (ed.). Invertebrate Zoology. Oxford University Press. pp. 179–183. ISBN0195513681. If different sections of the same contribution are cited, I'd go with e.g. <ref name="Rouse1998AnnelSect1">Rouse 1998, pp. 179-183.</ref> and linking to ...
I'm sure there are other combinations that I just haven't met much or at all. I suggest allowing up to 3 or 4 approaches, but asking editors to explain thie rchoices. --Philcha (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Misunderstanding here: citation formatting is not tightly prescribed. Examples are given merely to distinguish the two types of formatting. This has been included by necessity, as many reviewers fail to understand that the cite.php format is not prescribed, and Harvard-style formatting is acceptable. The only thing that is prescribed is internal consistency: the rest of the sentence is an example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
In that case I think there are difficuties about "consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)":
"... using either ... or ..." seems to suggest only these alternatives are allowed.
does not consider a single passage used multiple times, where I think named refs are the best, with one instance holding the full biblio details.
and of course the simple variant of that, where one source is only used once in the article, where I'd go for <ref>{{citation | ... }}</ref> --Philcha (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, sorry if I'm missing the obvious, but what other citations styles are available besides those two? I suspect you're mixing the examples (of individual citations, which isn't prescribed) with the type of formatting (ref or inline). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I see what caused the misunderstanding. How about changing "<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>" to "<ref>...</ref>", because "Smith 2007, p. 1." makes it look like it's considering only books (or the very rare journal article that exceeds 20 pages). --Philcha (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:WIAFA should not go too much detail, but refer to other pages as necessary, especially WP:CITE. For example:
In criterion 2c ("consistently formatted inline citations ..."), avoid examples and omit the stuff about the meta:cite format, because [[WP:WAIFA] cannot summarise all the options thoroughly; if there are changes to WP:CITE, WP:WIAFA may be left out of step.
Rewrite WP:CITE so it concentrates on the effects of various techniques, and why are recommended and why. The markup and template coding required can then be described in separate pages as needed. --Philcha (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The examples are necessary and were included specifically to address frequent FARs of articles that used Harvard-style referencing, because many editors didn't/don't understand that those are perfectly acceptable, and without the example, they didn't understand the distinction. Perhaps the sentence can be re-worked to make more clear that those two are examples of the citation style, not prescribed formatting. WP:CITE used to be a very nice page, but like many guidelines, it has really deteriorated lately. I'm glad Slim is looking into some of these pages again, as many of them are straining under verbosity, instruction creep, and confusion over the nature of a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything misleading about the examples, which are just examples of two broad styles of citation. The point is any consistent style of citation is fine in a featured article. Cite.php is the more common citation technology, so all other things being equal, it gets a recommendation, but other systems may be and are more appropriate for some subjects or articles. Gimmetrow16:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Discussion about Lead length
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
During its proposed deletion several months ago, Outriggr (talk·contribs) suggested restructuring it. I thought it was a good idea and could be used by editors looking for help or suggestions from others who have written similar articles. The discussion seems to have stalled and I opened an RfC on it. See here, please. --Moni3 (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
green links
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
Can someone perform an image review on some of the FACs at the bottom - looking for copyright problems, fair use problems, etc. I noticed that the Covent Garden Journal FAC hasn't yet received one among others (so, those at the 20 day mark and older are in need). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
We have at least 14 image reviews outsanding on FACs that are maturing towards promotion. I typically promote on Saturday, although lately, I've been waiting 'til Sunday because image reviews are lacking. If they don't get done, my choices are to 1) not pr/ar, or 2) promote FACs with no image review. Going through FAC with so many still missing image reviews doesn't make much sense. Feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
An editor recently began removing the bold in various article opening sentences, several of them FAs such as History of Puerto Rico & Renewable energy in Scotland. To my surprise these actions are backed up by a MOS guideline I had not come across before - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) - see the WP:MOSBOLD section - which states that "If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive (e.g., history of the United States), the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does."
The problem as I see it is that the policy of emboldening article titles is so widespread that this guideline has in effect fallen into disuse and its likely that hundreds of articles, many of them FAs and certainly FLs do not adhere to it. It seems to me that is going to be easier and more consistent to amend this MOS page than the many others it affects.
Well, speaking as someone with more familiarity with FLC than FAC, I think you'll find that the FL community is well aware of this guideline. No list has been promoted with "This is a list of things" as the lead sentence for a very long time. So I'm not sure why you wrote "certainly FLs do not adhere to it". Old ones may not, but then again old FAs and FLs may be deficient in various ways. BencherliteTalk19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
My issue with this is that one editor took it upon himself to change dozens of FAs when the FA community has a differing opinion of what this means. The rule itself is unclear. I don't know why the first line/title of the article should not be bold, so I don't know where this particular issue comes from. I cannot say who put it in WP:MOSBOLD and what community discussion/thought process went into adding it. If folks here decide to make it clear and widely understood in FAs, then so be it, but I think it should be discussed here before changes are made to articles. --Moni3 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines don't need to be discussed at FAC before being implemented. Changes to MOS are discussed at the relevant MOS talk pages and FAs are expected to follow them as is any other article. If you disagree with the specific MOS guideline then you can propose a change over there. And while editors are certanly free to discuss the issue here, any final decision needs to be taken at the relevant talk page. 189.105.1.25 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand where changes need to be made and discussed, but if an editor is going to change FAs only when editors who work on FAs have a different general understanding about the MOS, then FA editors should be aware that 1. their understanding of MOS issues is flawed, or the policy should be clarified and 2. FAs should adhere to the MOS, and editors should be given the opportunity to give input or make changes to the articles they work on. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There are a lot of articles at the bottom of the list that have been up for almost a month and have few or no reviews. Several of the articles are pretty close to being able to be promoted, but still need more eyes. PLEASE review as many articles as you can over the next few days so that I won't have to archive these. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
I've been wondering if we need to make it more clear in the FAC instructions that all editors are invited to review an article. Twice in the last few weeks I've spoken with nominators who weren't sure if they needed permission to begin reviewing or not. I want to make sure we get as many reviewers as possible. Perhaps we could expand the first point under Supporting and Opposing? Karanacs (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Support :) as a newbie, I wasn't sure what the process was, even after reading guidelines, etc. Also, it could be made clearer that some reviewers actually only review on one or two of the requirements, such as images or sources, or whatever...and that they simply write meets c 3 , or something to that effect. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Tailing on that, I review on what I feel qualified to review on, which sometimes is connected to an overall feeling or impression of the article. I was hesitant to get involved in review in the beginning because I didn't feel I had the expertise to comment on aspects of subject I knew nothing of, or articles that were too technically outside my scope. I think reviewers should be welcomed to give reviews on whatever they feel like reviewing as long as they can back it up with some reasoning. --Moni3 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
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). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches for an overview of the review process.
I'll pile-on agree with Moni here. Except in absolutely glaring cases (images forced so wide they go off the edge of the screen, color-coded headers, etc) I always ignore MOS considerations entirely when it comes to reviewing, as I don't agree with strict-compliance or standardization of appearance and think the main criteria should be "Is it accurate?", "Is it verifiable?", "Is it comprehensive?" and "Is it interesting?". If we give the impression that everyone is supposed to be looking at every aspect, all it does is put people off; I imagine I know more than most about Wikipedia standards, but I no longer touch GAC reviewing because of the insistence that reviewers are familiar with all the arbitrary standards against which every reviewer is expected to check every article. – iridescent18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Karanacs' suggestion is an improvement, but it doesn't go far enough in welcoming and encouraging reviewers. This welcoming should also be put at the very start of the instructions. I propose the following change as well (new text):
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.
I think it's a help, definitely. It should also be clear to new editors that we don't have to be experts on all of the "criteria", right? I try to make it clear that I'm not touching the images and much of the technical stuff... I leave that to people like Eubulides and Stifle, who know the rules about public domain etc. better than I do. What I do feel comfortable discussing, on nearly any subject, is the quality of the writing, contextualizing the subject/topic, and the relationship to claim and verifiability. And basically, if the quality of the writing is good, it doesn't matter what the subject is, because it's an e n c y c l o p e d i a, duh, and we should be able to learn something from it. I've read more about those **** battleships than I ever thought I would, am not really interested in those **** battleships, but the articles are well and intelligibly done, and a sensible contribution. If I'm done reading it and am totally confused, as I was with some bridge thing I reviewed not too long ago, or put off, as I was on a different article, or it would take tooo much to get it into shape, then ... obviously, it's not ready for prime time.
on a slightly different note, and perhaps this will eventually warrant another section...there recently was an article by a non-native English writing editor that had really quite minor grammatical problems, easily fixed. A couple reviewers made it sound like it was the end of the world. Another editor and I fixed the grammatical problems, but the response to this editor's nomination was initially very bluntly stated. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Unless we're talking about a different case, I believe that was a translation, and translations get into serious WP:V issues-- did the person translating consult and verify all of the sources, or did they just translate what was there? If we're talking about the same case, the comments were warranted, not because of the prose, but because it was a translation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
no, it's not the same case. This wasn't a translation of another article on another wiki, it was an original article. And it did have some serious problems in the prose, which were fixed. It seemed to me that the reviewer bringing this up was less than tactful (and I got on that reviewer's case about it too, but off the review page). The article is in good shape now, and I think it will go through the process without a problem. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've made updates to the instructions.[9] There are now 2 invitations to review (with links to the dispatch FAQ) as well as a note for specialized reviewers to let us know what the support means. Does this loook okay? Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear nominators and reviewers: a few weeks ago there was extensive discussion on this page about the vast size, complexity and instability of the Manual of Style, which concerns the FAC process through the operation of Criterion 2. On reviewing the text of the MoS, I agree that the Manual is much larger than necessary to cover the areas it does: about 20 thousand words. In particular:
it is often wordy;
it provides more examples than necessary;
it lectures around some of its points in a way that is not strictly necessary;
it is a little repetitive and disorganised.
As a service to nominators, reviewers and editors at larger, I've created a new, user-friendly version of the MoS that is only 40% of the size of the full version. There are no intended changes in substantive meaning. The new version has the following features:
brevity and directness of language, including the default use of active voice and contractives;
new inline headings for every point, for ease of navigation;
the removal of highly specialised points about numbers and dates, which are treated by MOSNUM;
the removal of a few other sections that appear to be on the fringe, including Blason;
the addition of a Currency section, summarised from MOSNUM.
improvements in structural organisation;
the use of links by asterisk, to reduce clutter.
Any changes to the full MoS as reflected in the new version will be notified here, at the start of each month. Your feedback is welcome on the talk page.Tony(talk)02:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
"Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two."
That thread is still discussing a proposal to replace "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other" with "Images should be laid out so that they work well with browser windows as narrow as 800 pixels and as wide as 2000 pixels". Further comments are welcome there. Eubulides (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the update Eubulides. This had been a stable guideline since 2007, but consensus at WT:MOS and FACs (partly a result of discussion with a visually impaired user who uses a screen reader) is that there is no accessibility problem with this practice, as some had thought. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
and the instruction has been as murky as mud to a lot of people. the bit about placing images directly below a 3 level heading. It took me about 3 months to figure out what that actually meant. And in the meantime dabomb got pretty annoyed w/ me when I kept putting the image left aligned (following the instruction left right left right on images), and s/he kept moving it back, and then I kept moving it back, and so on. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, MOS#Images has always been confusing (don't sandwich images, stagger left-right, images face the page, start with a right-aligned image even when this contradicts other MOS guidance, etc). Hopefully Tony1's condensation of the guidelines will help. I'm male by the way :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If people would remember, Fowler has trolled my FACs before, including Samuel Johnson's early life, and he was warned for it. Almost everything he says either goes against all basic English grammar or is pure nonsense. He even claims that there is a problem with "The ode begins with an epigraph from Matthew 6:28: 'They toil not, neither do they spin.'" It is a declarative sentence that is impossible to find any grammatical fault with.
I am proposing the following:
Ban Fowler indefinitely from all FACs I am nominator on, and I will not edit any FACs that he is nominator on.
or Ban Fowler from FAC indefinitely.
or Block Fowler for WP:POINT and general disruption followed by a removal of his comments from the FAC so normal people with legitimate concerns are not overwhelmed by this.
Meanwhile, can anyone on Wikipedia, any of the FAC regulars,such as Awadewit, Tony1, Moni3, Karanacs, Malleus F., Ceoil, Cert, YellowMonkey—other than Ottava Rima, that is—point out mistakes in my critique? This seems to be the standard Ottava Rima response. Either quote unnamed people who have agreed with him privately in various forums, or drag the critique to ANI or wherever it is this time. The problem with the sentence quoted above is that it is ambiguous. Think about it. Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ceranthor - they aren't nickpicky. They are trolling. This shows that the first thing he does on coming back is to do this. He did the same thing at The Lucy poems FAC and Samuel Johnson's early life FAC. He has not edited -any- other FAC in this manner. He has also declared that every page I write is filled with grammatical errors and problems and that not one line is correct. This was during The Lucy poems FAC. The "concerns" range from trivia to patently absurd and show a complete lack of understanding basic grammatical structure. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I realize that now, after reading through the comments. The suggested corrections are somewhat ridiculous, I haven't came across one that made sense. ceranthor20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
We generally do not ban editors from FAC. Sandy and I read through all the comments and give them the appropriate weight.
Fowler&Fowler, it is not necessary (nor encouraged) to list every single prose issue that you found in the article on the FAC page. In general, it is best to list a representative sample on the FAC page, and you can leave further details on the article talk page (with a note at FAC linking back to that discussion).
Ottava, nominators do not have to implement every suggestion made by the reviewer. If you disagree with the suggestions, state your reason why and then disengage with the reviewer. Again, Sandy and I read through all the comments and we take your comments into consideration as well.
Karanacs, this is the third FAC for him to do this. He has just returned to editing so it is not a coincidence. His only edits at FAC are to my pages. He has on his own added 30k to the FAC and he is not done. That is more than double what everyone else has written. This makes it almost impossible for other people to have any ability to comment. This is a clear WP:POINT violation and I would like it dealt with. If FAC does not want to handle it, I would have no choice but to open up an ANI page calling for a ban based on WP:HARASS. Raul made sure that it wouldn't have had to come to this last time. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
That is why I am asking Fowler to limit his comments on the FAC page itself (so that others aren't scared off). Other editors have agreed with at least a few of his comments. If you don't like his comments, disengage. This does not currently need to be escalated. Karanacs (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Karanacs - his concerns, every single one, show a misunderstanding of grammar and the rest. Look at the above example where there is no possible way to make the claim he does, and yet he does. He does this for -everything-. Either he has such a flawed understanding of every possible grammar rule, or it is done on purpose. Is it a coincidence that the first thing he does on returning to Wikipedia is to review this FAC? He never reviews FACs besides mine. There is a clear reason. I would rather not have to bring this to ANI when we can simply solve the matter with a clear prohibition. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Fowler knows how to limit his comments, see the Rob Hemance FAC. The timing of Fowler's return to editing, the length of comments, commenting on the grammar of Ottava's reply, and the trivial nature of some of the points are suspicious. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Reasoning that we consider unactionable, flawed, or against consensus is ignored during the promotion/archive process. Therefore, if Fowler agrees to limit his text on this FAC page so as not to intimidate other reviewers, he is not causing a detriment to the FAC process nor is he harming the article. If the text is much too long on the FAC page, feel free to wrap it in a show/hide box with a note that the issues are not closed (we can make an exception). For my perspective as an FAC delegate, I don't care how much text a reviewer spews on the page; if the text is garbage, I'm going to ignore it; if the advice is valuable, I'll consider it. Just ignore the requests you disagree with, stop taking the bait, and see if it dies down. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
There may be a serious issue here, I haven't looked at the review so I don't know, but Ottava's claim that "He {Fowler&fowler] never reviews FACs besides mine" is patently untrue. He gave my nomination of this a pretty good coshing at FAC as I recall. --MalleusFatuorum20:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify - in this manner. You can compare. Plus, this followed the fall out from this page when he was warned about his actions. Do I need to requote where he attacked every page of mine and stated that he would not stop until he proved that every line was wrong in them? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just been through some of the other FACs where Fowler has participated. Consider YellowMonkey's Ron Hamence, Proteins' Euclidean algorithm, and ErgoSum88's Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. While these do prove that Fowler edits FACs other than just Ottava's, they also demonstrate that Fowler is quite verbose, and is capable of writing volumes of text about the finest points. In at least one case, he hadn't even read the article (Euclidean algorithm) and was already dominating the page with some issue of syntax or semantics. What is of even more interest to me is the dramatic contrast presented when Fowler participates in FACs involving editors he has had conflicts with. Consider Ottava Rima's Samuel Johnson's early life, The Lucy Poems, and Dineshkannambadi's Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore, the last of which was the finale in a long conflict between Fowler and Dineshkannambadi that manifested itself in several FACs and FARs. Dineshkannambadi finally left Wikipedia after this last one.
I submit that it might be better for Fowler to avoid the FACs of editors he has ongoing conflicts with, and I would love it if he would agree to do so voluntarily. I do understand that the FAC director and delegates can weigh his feedback and act as necessary, but I'm not sure we need to put them through the exercise of wading through all that text trying to determine what is objective feedback and what might be a product of the long-standing dispute between Fowler and the author. --Andy Walsh(talk)20:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)]
(ec)My impression from reading the comments in the FAC page is that Fowler makes a number of pertinent points (the 'most enjoyed' is a prime example) and many nit-picky points (but addressing nit-picky points only improves the article). However, he also goes over the top in his comments about Ottava Rima's grammar expertise and my suggestion is that he confine his comments to issues with the articles rather than focusing on the editor. Not only is that bad form, it is also unwarranted when all OttavaRima is trying to do is to make an FA quality article for which he should be commended rather than harassed. May I add that OttavaRima is clearly no pushover (I liked the 'absolutely redundant' comment!), so perhaps Karanacs admonishment is enough. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC) (Post ec addition: While I agree with Laser_brain that perhaps F&F might want to voluntarily not participate in FACs where he has had a conflict with other editors, the reality is that he is often right and sometimes conflict is necessary. In the DK case, for example, F&f was right in pointing out that the articles were really almost all synthesized (though he was wrong, IMO, in ascribing motives to DK, who, I think, was just being overly earnest.) In the case of OttavaRima, though (this has gotta be an incorrectly used though!), his comments are more pedantic and the level of acerbity is uncalled for.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, especially Karanacs, Malleus, Laser Brain and RegentsPark, for you comments. I've moved the last unresponded part of my critique to the article's talk page. I have to say, the part about the Euclidean Algorithm is funny. I think there was a good reason why the primary authors were being somewhat differential to me. I know the subject somewhat, and I'm guessing my language must have demonstrated that. It is true, I never got around to reading the article ...! Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Karanacs, as Ottava knows, I am opposed to banning people from FAC, and I do my best to stay abreast of personal animosities that are carried from other parts of Wiki to FAC and to account for those. FAC works; don't sweat the little stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right, Ceranthor. That seems like an appropriate end to this episode. I should add, in response to Sandy Georgia's post, I've never interacted with Ottava Rima outside of FAC. I had no awareness of his existence, until he reacted shrilly to my critique of the The Lucy poems earlier this year. He and user:Dinesh Kannambadi, both very thin-skinned and defensive in their responses at FAC, are the only two people I've had such interaction with. The other nominators of Lucy, for example, Ceoil and Kafka Liz, became good Wiki friends, in the aftermath of the FAC. The same with Malleus F (in Manchester Small machine) or the author of the Federal Bridge Formula, I can't say I've had any issues with them. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, personally I think it might be wise to think before commenting of Ottava's FACs, or perhaps avoiding them altogether. ceranthor00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Fowler was crucial in taking The Lucy poems across FAC; an article in which myself and Ottava were co-noms. I have to say, in the end F&f went to great lenghts to help us, went to fine detail, created sub-pages with suggestions, found images and after the first archived (it took 2) FAC, was personalble, took the time to listen, and made such effort that for sure I consider him a wiki friend, professionally -as it were- and personally. However he clashed with Ottava big time during that first FAC-with fault on both sides-, and I cringed, the way you do, through cracked fingers. Dunno- the two are too alike, stubborn, self assured and deeply impatient. Both are great reviwers, and highly capable when it comes to content if they managed to tone it down in heated situations. I know both are in my top5 people I would like to have look after a page I was looking for feedback from. But they are so alike, these guys should just ignore each other - this fight can never be won. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
As a somewhat neutral observer, part-timer at FAC my observation is that they are both brilliant editors, neither should be banned from anything although they might, both be more mindful and respectful of each other; or at least give each other some needed slack...Modernist (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to thank both Ceoil and Modernist for their very generous remarks and helpful suggestions. If congeniality were the overall governing principle of FAC, believe me, I would begin ignoring Ottava Rima with the promptest dispatch. But is anyone willing to go out on a limb and say that the prose in "Ode on Indolence is brilliant? If so, could they provide some examples from the article? Or have we abandoned that principle now? Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
With respect, Fowler, you are ignoring the letter of what was just said. Deny. Its clear there is history and ye two need to be kept apart - let Ottava's FAC's be some one else's problems, no doubt your ability is need on many other pages. Look at the huge backlog. Ceoil (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to opine (screeeeeeee) here. Only by reading this thread so far and not wanting to get sucked into a problematic FAC, I have two points:
Comments at FAC should be given only to improve the article. Actions from reviewers should be taken in the spirit of improvement, not impediment. If the article's problems are too complicated to overcome in the time you are willing to spend in assisting, gently encourage the nominator to delist the article to work more on it (then still give helpful advice). FAC is not intended to list every single thing you think is wrong with the article, and if there are issues you can fix that you think can be improved, then do it yourself. If you are not willing to comment in the spirit of helpfulness, then move on to another article.
Secondly, there certainly must be better ways to handle the stress of FAC, and particularly problems with a single editor than demanding they be put on FAC topic ban. This seems to be an issue of self-governance and I will be honest in saying, though not limited to the editors at FAC, that it appears that self-governance seems to be at an all-time low lately. The moment an editor brings an article to FAC s/he must be confident in the material and writing, but not so arrogant to think it could not be improved. The community should not have to validate the efforts of an editor by agreeing with him or her in categorically denying the input of another editor. Have some faith in the system--the collective of editors--to be able to realize what should be fixed and what can be compromised. --Moni3 (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The first option was only to prohibit him from editing my FACs as they tend to be the problematic ones. And, as Slim Virgin has stated, a few of the problems Fowler had were with her fixes, and I agree that her changes did improve the page. So, there really wasn't anything about me favouring the page (especially when I was responsible for only half of it, and there were many, many copyeditors since my original wording). I respond merely as someone who has taught grammar, rhetoric, and linguistics. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
there are many of us here who teach grammar, rhetoric and linguistics. Ottava, please chill on this. I'm reluctant to comment on any of your FACs because your reputation precedes you, and I don't have time for arguing. When I write something I hope it will be useful to someone. My goal is not to show off my erudition, but to provide something usable, intelligible, accurate (verifiably so), and worthwhile for someone to read. I don't want to spend my wiki-time arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood the point - I was showing that I was not responding because I am personally attached to the language. I was only responding in regards to my experience with language and how various things are either wrong or are unnecessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I always value what Moni3 has to say. I plead guilty to charge of focusing on details, but (honestly) I've never tried to be an impediment. I think (and I've done thinking about my motivations) what gets my goat is defensive editors, who are either not confident about their material or about their abilities, who then attempt to blast past a reviewers suggestions with bluster and aggression. When that happens, I tend to go for puncturing their balloon. Most editors don't adopt that strategy. Most are honest, confess their anxiety (as I remember Malleus F. did in his nomination for Manchester Small Machine) and then attempt to honestly deal with a reviewers suggestions. In fact when I wrote my initial comments on the Lucy FAC, the other two editors dealt with my points one by one; it was only Ottava Rima who rejected all my suggestions en mass. When a nominator shows that sort of arrogance, they leave themselves vulnerable to a drawing a reviewer's ire.
How did this latest flap start? I saw a literature article about a poet that we've all read at some point in our lives. I read the lead and it was abysmal. I cursorily read through the other sections, they were no better. I cursorily read the FAC comments, they were mostly of the "polite comments" variety (after 3 weeks on the block). So I spoke some home truths. Literature articles, after all, should have the highest of prose standards. You guys (at FAC) are way too smart to not have realized that Ottava Rima is a poor prose writer. If that's a problem for him, then he should routinely collaborate with people who can write (as he apparently has done in a new FAC, which seems to be well written). But for heaven's sake, since when did showing bluster, or crying foul, or running home to mommy become the way deal with FAC anxiety. Anxiety of this sort (as V.S. Naipaul said somewhere) can be relieved only with the exercise of the craft.
To sum up, I agree with the various comments above about my going a little over the top in my comments. But, remember too, all this wouldn't have happened had Ottava Rima honestly addressed even half of my points, which likely would have gone unaddressed had I not intervened. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, Fowler, about the editors at FAC being too polite. I agree that the prose needs some "tweaking"...I have always been reluctant to get involved in Ottava Rima's reviews because his/her reputation precedes him or her, and I just don't want to spend my wiki-time in pointless arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (as I've mentioned in other posts elsewhere). However, I have volunteered to deal with at least some of the prose issues if the editors will let me. My students say I'm pretty good with being gentle about their prose plunders.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, you are clearly bright, and smart, and motivated, and all that, as well as defensive and maybe just a little too reluctant to accept well-meant criticisms from some of the other FAC editors. As I mentioned earlier, in another post, I've been reluctant to get involved with your FACs because it's just too much work to deal with your defensiveness. Successful scholarship is not only about being right, it's also about being a good colleague. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
FAC is about getting things correct. And if you think I am defensive then you are not speaking from experience or from any of my pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it odd how Fowler calls me a "poor prose writer" when the pages he reviews and attributes to me are pages that I did not write the prose for, or had many copy editors that have gone through the page after and the problems he attributes to me are not from me? Look at the recent FAC for Slim Virgin accepting that the part in question was from her changes. Does no one else realize that the fact that he attributes it to me is something that is definitely wrong and problematic? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have analysed the concerns by Fowler. I have made two corrections based on two typos ("July" when it should have been "June" and "In" when it should have been "By"). Many of the concerns have been explained as to why they are inappropriate. Most of the concerns deal with passages that other reviewers have already discussed and/or rewrote themselves to the language that Fowler has a problem with. I check each and every edit when people rewrite the page and I have no concerns with their changes. I have defended them based on objective standards of English grammar. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Auntieruth55, Please go ahead and improve the article. In addition to the prose issues, sentences 1 and 2 in section 1 (Background) have errors of fact (please see my remarks in the FAC). My suspicion is that the sources have not always been accurately interpreted elsewhere in the article as well. I trust your judgment from the evidence I have seen thus far and am happy to take a back seat. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima is no stranger to wikistalking himself, so even if Fowler is really wikistalking him he is only getting tit for tat. He is also utterly incapable of dealing with criticism, he understands Wikipedia as a contest of amassing "FA" badges, and he is prone to making the issue about the editor instead of the concern raised. If Fowler and Fowler is really guilty of raising trivial points of criticism out of spite, I am certain that this isn't going to be a problem, as criticism without merit will simply be ignored by everyone else. No need to ban anyone. This entire discussion should probably be collapsed out of sight as irrelevant and WP:LAME wikidrama. --dab(𒁳)17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It is nice to see Dbachmann stating the absolutely absurd. Everyone here knows that I am the furthest from seeing FAs as "badges" or the rest. It is nice to see that Dbachmann is still following my contribs, though. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New footnote system
Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion
This is what I get for being mostly off-wiki in July :( According to the discussion, the previous method (inline ref definitions) will continue to work. For FAC purposes, then, either method is acceptable, and I will smack anyone who tries to change an article at FAC to the new format just because they like it better. Thanks, Dabomb, for bringing this to our attention. Karanacs (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides and Karanacs, both feisty and funny in one thread ? What is the world coming to? grumbling because I have another thing to catch up on when I return from travel, happy that TS has manual footnotes! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The day this becomes mandatory is the day I stop writing articles. And, Eubulides, I would kick instead but that might ruin my pretty shoes; then again, if my shoes are ruined I would have to buy more! :) Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
(interesting ec with Karanacs ... another shoe obsessed woman :) Over my dead body (and several others that I know of) ... we just have to follow those pages closely. There are plenty of editors who oppose any mandatory citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone who has followed the discussion needs to edit and update the Signpost article to remind readers that this system is not mandatory. Sounds like a job for the bomb! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, but we don't want to see FAs showing up at FAR because they don't use it, editors switching citation styles on articles because they think it's mandatory, or bots converting citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
It's quite likely there will be some form of script or bot to convert the footnote styles, actually. I don't think it'll be a big deal though; as far as I know, we haven't seen any FARs based on the lack of alt text, which is somewhat similar. –Juliancolton | Talk15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Julian, if you see any discussion about a potential bot for this, will you please make an announcement on this page? I think many of us would be interested in joining a discussion about that. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I would also oppose any attempt to force this new system on editors, as I don't see how sticking everything at the bottom is an improvement over the system in widespread use now. I can't even tell what order the definitions are supposed to be in, or if it doesn't matter. Honestly, as long as there are well-formatted cites in articles, I don't particularly care how they got there. Bots should be handling formatting tasks etc., not changing citation styles throughout Wikipedia. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Based on a discussion here some time back, I've started another discussion at WT:FL? here on the topic of removing a clause limiting the number of red links in a FLC from their criteria. Mostly wondering how that's worked out here over the past couple years. Any opinions welcome. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine (talk)02:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Image reviews needed
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
External Links, Disambiguations, Interwiki and Alternate Text
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion
Being new to the whole process of Featured Content, I am confused by these aspects, I know alternate text on images is needed per WP:ALT, but the other three are a blur for the most part. Users can check them, but things are not always done. I regularly check the dabs, and correct those that I can, but for interwikis and externals, nothing happens, I mean, look at this and there are 27 bare links in total as well for FACs. Is this proper FA style or not? I can understand if its been FA for a while and no-ones checked, but it really isn't that difficult for FAC's.
Concerning interwikis, are they checked at all? I understand that the majority of the time there will be no matches, but should it be mandatory to check them? --Lightlowemon (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
On external links, their status, reliability and formatting are checked by User:Ealdgyth at some point during the FAC. Disambiguations have a tool in this template, and if there are any disambiguations, they are generally brought up an fixed. Interwikis are generally put in by bots soon enough after the other language articles are created. I suppose it may be a good idea to add an interwiki to the FA tools template.
Actually, I don't check "external links" as in that section of the article where folks can list links to other websites. I check that the link checker tool doesn't show any links as dead. And I check the reliability of links used as references. And others are MORE than welcome to check that sort of thing themselves. As far as categories and interwiki's, please to the gods, lets not add MORE crap stuff to worry about, please? Pretty please? Interwiki's and categories have nothing to do with whether the article is featured or not, so let's just leave them alone. Ealdgyth - Talk21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought categories were something for the main editors to do during the actual editing to featured point. Interwikis, I mentioned as an after thought, and considering how large the English one is, I don't think there needs to be a criteria or anything, it was just a feature I saw on the tool server that seemed neglected.
It was mainly dabs and links I was thinking about, I use the disambig tool on the tool server to check all new FA, FAR, FL and FT stuff to see if anything is picked up and most I can fix, but when it comes to something along the lines of dulcimer I have no idea. For externals, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) has so many redirects and Virginia is a rainbow of colour.
I thank all for their replies, but should they be brought up during the voting process that there are a 'multitude of redirected links', or should they just go by ignored? I don't mind checking them all weekly, (if they should be) and bringing them up, but I was just unsure and wanted to check here before making a mistake. --Lightlowemon (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Interwikis and categories don't affect the readability of the article, and checking for those at FAC seems an unnecessary burden. But the other items you raise are items that should be checked and fixed: incorrect wiki links or dabs that need to be fixed affect the reader's ability to understand the article, and they are easy to fix. Since the tools detect incorrect dab links, the nominator should address those. And, the issue you identified at Trump Hotel and Tower should probably be addressed as well; that many redirected links on sources likely means that those sources would eventually become dead links, so the nominator should update the links now. (If I'm understanding the problem correctly ... the example you gave is not about external links, rather sources that are going to redirects.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes that is what I was referring to, both the external links and the external links in the sources. I apologise, I should have probably been clearer about that. So worry about links and disambigs (that are either too nummerous or to ambiguous to fix oneself), and don't worry about the rest? --Lightlowemon (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually the redirects aren't a problem. A good webmaster will create redirects to keep the old links working. A bad webmaster just doesn't care, leaves links as dead, and lets their Google ranking plummets. It should not be our job to clean after lazy webmaster mess. I'll give wired.com as an example of good webmaster, they've changed their content management system (CMS) many times in the past 10+ years, but all the old links continue to work. And when we're not deleting.... — Dispenser01:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Corrected negative 13:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a case of "being ignored". Its a case of "FAC nominators already have a great deal to worry about, and this is just trivial". If you see a problem with categories or links then just fix it. Neither of those have any bearing on the quality of the article, which is what FAC is about. --MalleusFatuorum07:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm the author of most of those tools, I'll be addressing each of the points
External link - Checklinks was my first tool, it was actually designed for another purpose of project mass repair and many things have been tacked on. I'm current redesigned the interface with focus on improving individual articles.
Disambiguation - Developed Dablinks and dabfinder after coming across a dab in a TFA. I'm working companion tool to speed up actual disambiguation plan to announce it at the next NYC meetup.
Interwiki - No real point to doing this, it would just get in the way of the bots. Might be fun to implement enough of the pywikipedia API so they could run on the web.
Alt text - More recent, was good until the software changed. That threw all the knowledge of the tiny details out the window. Will need to research that stuff again. :-(
I would like to more more towards submitting using the tools and checking the information and part of that is to improve the interfaces and part is to make the tools easier to find. — Dispenser01:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
WP:Featured portal candidates could use some additional comments and reviewers, there are currently only three candidates, so there is a lot less to look through than what is currently at WP:FAC, though of course it is of a different nature :). As one of the co-directors I generally try to hang back from the review process itself.
Insights, comments, queries to the nominators, etc, would be appreciated at the three individual nomination subpages. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Cirt, I think it's obvious that we have quite a backlog, which is too much for our current supply of reviewers. I'll leave a comment or two over there, but don't expect major help. :) Best, ceranthor00:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago57 comments27 people in discussion
As regulars on this page know, there's increasing concern about the way featured articles are reviewed, particularly regarding the MoS (including things that aren't actually in the MoS but that reviewers request anyway). There's a sense that there's too much nitpicking, too rigid an application of the guideline, and that the process is driving FA writers away and failing to attract new ones. There was a long discussion about it recently on Iridescent's talk page, initiated by Karanacs here.
My own feeling is that FACs shouldn't have to comply with the MoS, because it's a guideline, but there has been resistance to clarying that in the FA criteria. I'm therefore wondering whether, as a compromise, we should draw up a minimalist version of the MoS that featured articles are expected to adhere to: Wikipedia:Featured article style. It would be short and sharp, and easy for writers and reviewers to remember. Once created, the expectation would be that it would remain stable, with nothing added to it without clear consensus so there are no surprises. Reviewers would be expected to become familiar with it, and not request anything that isn't on it. How does this sound as an idea? SlimVirgintalk|contribs01:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Tony's is a slimmed-down version of the MoS for everyone. My idea is to have a minimalist (and I mean really minimalist) style guide specifically for featured articles, which would only include style issues that all agree are essential for FA. SlimVirgintalk|contribs01:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that as an encyclopedia with the aim to be taken seriously, we should recognize that an essential part of packaging information is enforcement of a house style that should be applied to all articles; setting aside of FA-only bare minimum subverts the aforementioned goal and adds instruction creep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)01:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm worried that the creation of such a style guide would a) make it even more tiresome for FA contributors to keep track of Wiki style conventions—general MOS and this proposal—and that by creating another style guide, inconsistencies between the general style guide and this specialized one would form. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
David, the aim would be to reduce instruction creep. The way some FAs are currently reviewed is driving people up the wall, and something has to be done about it, because it's not sustainable.
Dabomb, it would make it easier for reviewers and writers to keep track, because FA writers would be asked to keep track only of this one, not the MoS in general (unless they wanted to, of course). The aim would be, once created, that this thing would remain stable. The MoS isn't stable, that's problem number one, so hardly anyone knows what's advised and what isn't. Problem number two is that it's being applied as though it's policy, when it isn't. Problem number three is that reviewers ask for things that have never been in the MoS anyway. Creating a very short, stable featured-article style guide of issues that are required for FAC, not just recommended—one short and stable enough to allow writers and reviewers to become familiar with it—would deal with all of the above. SlimVirgintalk|contribs02:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say that parts of the MoS are indeed unstable, but many others are long-standing, accepted guidelines. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
That's kind of true, but there are also long-standing parts that are widely ignored, until you come to FAC and suddenly things that no one does anywhere else are being enforced as though policy. And any reviewer can choose to enforce any part of the MoS, no matter how absurd. It's true that the delegates are likely to ignore those reviews, but FA writers don't know that, so a very unpleasant atmosphere is created whereby writers feel they have to jump through a series of often ridiculous hoops, or else risk looking aloof and uncooperative. In addition, long review pages with multiple nitpicking objections make other reviewers less likely to want to get involved, so it's a discouraging situation all round. SlimVirgintalk|contribs02:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Look, the bottom line is that the current situation is untenable, unsustainable. The easiest solution is to make clear in the FA criteria that the MoS is a guideline, and is not mandatory. That's my first preference, and I've suggested it here before. Our articles are meant to be the best of Wikipedia—the best of this project, not of some other one.
However, there has been resistance to doing this, so I'm suggesting as a compromise that, if people want some style issues to be mandatory at FAC, we make a separate list of those and call it featured article style. It has the potential to satisfy both sides here: the list would be mandatory for FAs, but it would be lean, reasonable, and stable. And reviewers would be asked not to request anything that's not on it. SlimVirgintalk|contribs02:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see much MOS stuff at all, mostly the complaints are about inconsistency, and even then, it isn't difficult to note undetected inconsistencies on one's own FAs or others (recent ones I meant, the old ones can be all over the shop). Also, some people do say that MOS focus can take away from content issues, but I disagree with this notion that people will start checking the content if the MOS rules are relaxed. I doubt people will start looking up books to check for OR violations or fake refs, and even then most topics hardly anyone is fully up to speed with it (except maybe the author) so that would be the main obstacle to unbalanced (deliberately or otherwise) or incomplete articles getting through. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I sympathise with SlimVirgin's point of view but I'm not sure that a separate lean/mean FA style guide is the answer due to the likelihood (expressed by Dabomb) of inconsistencies developing between that and the 'main' guide, and because (like David) I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of FAs being treated differently. What I would prefer to see (though admittedly I don't by any means 'live' in the MOS and try not to lose sleep over it) is one master style guide with the must-haves clearly marked and the rest being advisory. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
As one of the finest writers I've reviewed on FAC review, you, SV, of all people, must know that compliance with any manual of style—Chicago, AP, or Wikipedia—ensures only that some obvious errors of grammar and usage have not been made. It doesn't make the prose error-free, much less brilliant. The problem at FAC review, as I see it, is that an increasing number of people, whose FA ambitions far outstrip their writing abilities or effort, are looking for easy passes. Instead of nursing an article over the long haul, as you have done with Marshalsea, or respecting the reviewers and working with them, as I am doing in History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), these people are parking their three-day wonders at FAC review and expecting perfunctory support, or failing that, a list of spoon-fed instructions before the eventual support. Perhaps the whiners should consider copying a paragraph (any paragraph) of Dickens over and over again, and then comparing it with their FAC handiwork. Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I deplore the kind of reviewer whose sole contribution to an FA review is, for example, a complaint about em dashes (about which the average reader will not care at all) I don't in fact mind a comprehensive MOS. It may even assist those of us who did not arrive as professional copy-editors to improve our written style. What I do however think is totally dysfunctional is the instability of MOS itself. We are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - but why does that mean we have to have a Manual of Style that anyone can edit? And they do edit it, hour after hour, day after day, and (so far as I am aware) there is no way of knowing whether these edits are trivial, or are affecting thousands of articles. It's a nonsense and no-one except a savant could keep track of all the edits, reverts, disputes and comments. I don't have an a priori objection to a simplified FAC MOS, but my concern is that it would be just another page, probably inconsistent with MOS istelf and subject to endless changes. What I would prefer is for MOS to be locked, now. A single talk page would be created, listing (not debating) proposed changes. A small group would be empowered to implement minor corrections - typos, syntax etc, that did not change the meaning of the guideline. After three months an evil vote would be taken on the ten most important proposals, which would then, over a two week period be debated and implemented or rejected. MOS would then be locked again for three months. This would prevent ongoing instruction creep and inconsistency and enable those seriously interested in producing quality articles in a style that is acceptable to the community to be provided with a stable and understandable set of "guidelines". BenMacDui07:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I started this, so I suppose I ought to step into this lion's den. My views are given in more detail on that thread, but here's a short(er) version.
At the moment, the MOS is ridiculously long—as I've already pointed out, Wikipedia's MOS is longer than the entire Guardian Style Guide—and even Tony's condensed version is long enough that many users will take a look at it and decide not to even try. The reason we're not seeing as many MOS-nitpicks isn't that the nitpickers have gone away; it's that more and more people are either not coming to FAC at all because they're scared off by its reputation, or have given up on it as a process. Additionally, relatively minor points that should really be raised on the article talkpage or with a quick note to the nominator are being discussed on the FACs themselves, giving FAC an ANI-like appearance which further enhances the "people will jump on me for a comma out of place" reputation. Leaving aside the issue of whether strict-compliance is a good or bad thing, the fact remains that a huge swathe of Wikipedia's writers are now unwilling or feel they're unable to come to FAC, either as nominator or reviewer. Perversely, this has a net negative effect on compliance to the "house style", as people who have no intention of bringing an article to FAC/GAN won't see the need to comply with formatting and prose requirements (Giano is the most obvious example).
"The writing is of a professional standard" is in itself a meaningless phrase. A children's book, a newspaper article, a technical journal and an instruction manual on the same subject will all be professionally written, but will be wildly different. Professional writing in specialist journals—the main source for many Wikipedia articles, and thus what I imagine most writers mean when they think of "professional standard"—is generally dense, jargon-heavy and assumes that the reader is familiar with a lot of background material, and that's a style that's completely unsuited towards Wikipedia's "provide a basic background for those unfamiliar with the topic" remit.
In my opinion, talk of a "house style" is inappropriate. We're not trying to recreate Encarta here; with the exception of a few basic across-the-board guidelines, what's important should be that the articles are consistent internally in how they handle formatting, layout etc. To me, the only real significant criteria are:
Is this article accurate and reliably sourced?
Is this article comprehensive?
Is the formatting of this article internally consistent, and not unusably ugly, confusing or poorly laid out?
If a member of this article's intended audience, with no prior knowledge, were to read this article, would they understand it?
Is the text written in such a way as to make this article interesting?"
Does the article comply with those parts of the MOS which are necessary and justifiable, such as the key parts of WP:ACCESS?
We're writing for general readers, not for other Wikipedia editors, and most general readers could not care less what Wikipedia's policy on comma-separated dates, em-dashes or image alignment is, providing it doesn't detract from their use of the article.
I agree with what I think Slim's proposing here. Not a separate FAC MOS, but a short list of those style and formatting policies with which articles must comply to pass FAC/GAN, leaving the remainder of the MOS as what it was always intended to be (and indeed, used to say in bold letters at the top); a list of style recommendations which can be disregarded providing there's a reasonable reason to do so. – iridescent09:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with SV, Iridescent and others that MOS is bloated and unstable. Iridescent (09:53, 30 September 2009) sums up the real priorities pretty well (except that I still have doubts about alt text in some cases). --Philcha (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Alt text is a different issue (read the original thread for my thoughts on it); the issue there is whether it's an important part of WP:ACCESS which ought to be essential, or an additional feature that only benefits a small group and doesn't always justify the time and energy it takes. That's a discussion for another place (apparently, The Community has decided that "another place" refers to my talkpage). – iridescent10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
My own attitude to alt text is less binary than Iridescent's, who contrasts options "ought to be essential" vs "only benefits a small group and doesn't always justify the time and energy". IMO:
I'd judge each case on cost vs benefits, with a fairly low cost ceiling.
The "physical description" approach currently enshrined in the alt text guideline is not always informative. E.g. "Lord Nelson dying on the deck of Victory, propped up by Hardy" is much more concise and informative than "A man in (long description of early 19th cent UK admiral's uniform) lies on the wooden deck of (long description of ealry 19th cent UK first-rate battleship), partly supported by a man in (long description ofhis posture) and wearing (long description of early 19th cent UK naval officer' uniform, sorry I don't know his rank and frankly I don't give a damn). --Philcha (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Featured Articles are supposed to be our best work and one of the advantages of the FA process is supposed to be that it drives quality across the pedia; a separate MOS for FAs would not help that process. I suggest that if editors have concerns with MOS they change MOS, personally I would like to see FAC become a driver for improvement of that turgid tome. ϢereSpielChequers10:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This is what we are saying. Nobody is proposing that FAs work to a different MOS. The FA process patently does not drive quality across the project, and it's ludicrous to claim that it does – 51658 articles (0.748%) of the 6,910,693 total are rated FA, FL or GA, and most of the rest of the project is never touched by what goes on here. By making "quality" appear to be an arcane and incomprehensible process, if anything the current setup reduces quality elsewhere, by discouraging people from even trying to comply to standards. – iridescent11:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I read the above as considering a cutdown version of MOS for FA as opposed to reforming MOS. As for FA driving up standards across the project, I beg to differ. My hope is that many editors read FAs, learn from the FA process and that this improves their editing of other parts of the project. I think that my editing skills have been honed by experience here and I doubt that I'm alone in that. ϢereSpielChequers11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
In an ideal world WereSpielChequers' "if editors have concerns with MOS they change MOS" would be the way to go. However in practice MOS is controlled by zealots who will fight unrelentlessy for each every minutia. Much of thier motivation and power base is WP:WIAFA's injunction that MOS must be observed to the letter. The advantage of SV's and Iri's proposal is that avoids fighting the zealots at a time and place of the zealots' choosing, and will also weaken their influence when the time does come to cut MOS down to size. I think that's the way "to see FAC become a driver for improvement of that turgid tome"--Philcha (talk)
If anything I think the opposite -- the close relationship between FAC and MOS tends to undermine the usefulness of both institutions. (1) The MOS is mainly applicable to improving FACs, the vanishingly small fraction of articles which have a dedicated author willing to expend huge amounts of time on tasks that have effectively no benefit to our readership. Meanwhile it offers little useful advice for the vast unwashed millions of articles with no dedicated author and thus has a much lower impact on the quality of the encyclopedia than it potentially could. (2) FAC is burdened with a large amount of work unrelated to improving the experience of the average reader. I think separating the two, by specifying exactly which aspects of the MOS are require by the featured article criteria, would be a useful measure. Christopher Parham(talk)19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
As a comment, recent activity at MOS has lead me to the idea of having WP:MOS being the style guide that is used 90-95% of the time (covering the basics that every editor should be aware of) with more exacting details for things like numbers and the like spelled out in sub-MOS guidelines (like MOSNUM). I would think this would achieve the same result as if having a FA-specific MOS page, and would be a better end result for everyone (not just FA authors or reviewers). --MASEM (t) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
arbitrary break
I asked SlimVirgin to post her comment here because it was the first concrete proposal (other than totally scrap the MOS) that I've seen to "fix" the perceived issue of too much MOS nitpickiness at FAC and I was curious to see what the regulars think. From what I've seen recently, it looks like large parts of the MOS are already being ignored by reviewers and nominators (non breaking spaces and dashing are two well-known areas that are hit and miss). Yes, some of the MOS provisions (such as alt text) are enforced very well and can be annoying to nominators who had no idea that this was a requirement and no idea how to implement it.
I personally think that all articles should be encouraged to have a consistent style (and not just internally consistent, thought that is a great start). At the same time, though, the MOS is so freaking detailed, and the subject of so many edit wars, that it can be impossible to follow. In an ideal world, I would like to see a giant RfC on the MOS with the aim to identify what is most important (along the lines of Slim's proposal), and throw away the rest. Tony's slimmed down MOS is a good start, but I'd still like to see a massive overhaul, I'm just not sure how to go about organizing one. Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
We could, of course, just scrap FAC; that's another "concrete proposal", but not one that would go down well with the "FAC regulars" (as if they were the only editors who mattered). Physchim62(talk)13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Like it or not, we need an article grading system, so that users can see what's good and what's not, and to motivate editors to improve the huge mass of poor artciles. That means there must be a top grade. So all we have left to haggle about is the pricritieria for each grade.
My job as a delegate is to determine consensus per WP:WIAFA, whether or not I necessarily agree with the consensus or with the particular aspect of WIAFA. I've nominated 15 articles or so through FAC and reviewed hundreds of them. Still, every once in a while someone comes up with an MOS requirement that I have never heard of, even though it's been part of some obscure subpage for a long time. I don't have a problem following most of the MOS guidelines, but the little bitty detailed stuff can grate. Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Featured articles are supposed to be the epitome of Wikipedia, not something separate from the rest of Wikipedia. (For example, I'm confident that we'd love it if all articles had a professional-quality writing style and perfect spelling.) For this reason, they should not have a separate manual of style. If the MoS is too restrictive, then the answer is to change the MoS, not write a new one.
The MoS is treated like rules and not like a guideline. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but we must acknowledge it.
Tony's shorter MoS isn't any less restrictive than the regular one. The explanations are shorter (or absent), but it has all the same rules in it, so it would not reduce the amount of nitpicking. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Responses by Tony1 indented:
The MoS isn't stable,... so hardly anyone knows what's advised and what isn't.
I undertook to provide a monthly report at this page and elsewhere on substantive changes to the MoS (i.e., those that were substantive enough to be reflected in the concise version. I'm afraid I could find nothing worth reporting for September when I scrutinised the diff of the MoS yesterday. (However, it's true that in August the "Images" section was updated, to everyone's relief, although see the concise version for how that section should be set out, IMO.)
I don't mind if the style guides are locked and independent admins unlock for changes.
Periodic reportage at WT:FAC/FLC is, frankly, just basic good manners.
Rationalisation of the MOSNUM–MoS relationship is important. So is the adoption of a concise version of the MoS; the benefit of FAC and FLC nominators was a primary reason for my writing the concise version.
[The MoS is] being applied as though it's policy, when it isn't.
FAC and FLC long ago decided that the MoS was a suitable anchor for both nominators and reviewers to raise the standards of featured material. IMO, this has worked; however, no one is claiming the relationship works perfectly—only that it's the best one available.
... reviewers ask for things that have never been in the MoS anyway.
The MoS says not a jot about redundant wording, which is by far the most vexing problem for writers. Does that mean reviewers should not point out examples of redundancy and ask for a copy-edit throughout? Redundancy is not something that is suitable to inclusion in a MoS. Reviewers need to be free to advise on how to improve style and formatting. This seems to stray from the MoS issue: it is more pertinent that we see pointed out here examples of unreasonable requests by reviewers. It's important that we deal with this by example so we can moderate the problem behaviour.
Suddenly things that no one does anywhere else are being enforced as though policy. And any reviewer can choose to enforce any part of the MoS, no matter how absurd.... [under the proposed system,] reviewers would be asked not to request anything that's not on [a special FA style sheet].''
Could we have examples, please? If aspects of the MoS are absurd, they should be changed for all articles, not just FACs; I share the concerns of dabomb and others that another style sheet for FAs will make the whole box and dice harder to manage and will bring into question the model for fine articles that FAs and FLs have represented for many years. The MoS is a critical part of counterbalancing the freedom of a wiki; it is, if you like, a way of bringing at least some order to a language and a project that are both "big and baggy" (quoting Clive James). This freedom and the centralised guidance/requirements will always be in dynamic tension. That's like real life.
... long review pages with multiple nitpicking objections make other reviewers less likely to want to get involved, so it's a discouraging situation all round.
As I've pointed out before, I see no shortage of nominations or successful promotions. However, I am most concerned that some nomination pages have led to upsetting situations, and have possibly shown evidence of a less-than-good-faith attitude by reviewers. Perhaps we need to agree on a beefed up set of guidelines for reviewers to balance the requirements of nominators and to reinforce the positive aspects of the process. I'm unsure, but please remember that in past years we have had to resist gaming by some nominators: sorry, I had to say it.
"The writing is of a professional standard" is in itself a meaningless phrase.... Professional writing in specialist journals—the main source for many Wikipedia articles, and thus what I imagine most writers mean when they think of "professional standard"—is generally dense, jargon-heavy and assumes that the reader is familiar with a lot of background material, and that's a style that's completely unsuited towards Wikipedia's "provide a basic background for those unfamiliar with the topic" remit.
God no, we don't want to stoop to the levels of academic journals, whose authors far too often use the captive specialist readership as an "excuse" to avoid the rigours of writing for real human beings: journal articles are typically poorly written and edited, and aimed so narrowly that even the semi-expert struggles. No, FAC sets a much higher standard of specialist communication that many professional researchers would be well advised to learn from.
[One of the proposed criteria:] If a member of this article's intended audience, with no prior knowledge, were to read this article, would they understand it?
One hopes so, but all WP articles need to aim higher than mere comprehensibility: they need to be a good read, too. Academic journals are often comprehensible if one spends hours hacking through the jungle—we aim to give the world information (often complex, involved information) that is as easy to comprehend as possible. The MoS is one factor that on balance helps us to produce the good read.
... most general readers could not care less what Wikipedia's policy on comma-separated dates, em-dashes or image alignment is, providing it doesn't detract from their use of the article.
This is an important point. On the surface, it's true: readers do not care about these technical matters in the sense that they consciously think about them,unless they're professional writers/editors. The best writing, I say, is writing that is not noticed as the reader slides over it. If what lies beneath the surface of the text isn't right, readers will simply not slide over it easily. They will not think as highly of it and it will lack authority; this is true even though a reader may not be able to explain why. By analogy, film-goers do not notice film editing (unless there's a glitch), and I do not think about the oven temperature chef has used when I eat a slice of the perfect cake. The MoS is there to help us to get the underlying technique right, to force us to think about all of the issues it raises: it helps us to prevent our readers from noticing the techniques we use. If we don't like what it says, we should argue it out there. It's not perfect, but I believe it's not too bad (except it needs to be made more concise).
Nobody is proposing that FAs work to a different MOS. The FA process patently does not drive quality across the project, and it's ludicrous to claim that it does – 11584 articles (0.38%) of the 3,047,406 total are rated FA, FL or GA, and most of the rest of the project is never touched by what goes on here. By making "quality" appear to be an arcane and incomprehensible process, if anything the current setup reduces quality elsewhere, by discouraging people from even trying to comply to standards.
What is the evidence for these claims? Why do the proportions of promoted articles affect the influence of these quality-assurance processes? Some editors might argue that too many promoted articles might dilute the model, and therefore the influence. Perhaps you are reacting to the bloat in MoS main page and the somewhat uncontrolled relationship between the MoS pages; if so, could we shift the argument to that?
In conclusion, I believe we need to:
analyse examples of unsatisfactory/unreasonable requests or demands by rewiewers (the Marshalsea FAC, in my view, has been particularly hard—even unrelenting—in its demands, and less than encouraging of the superb editor behind it all: why?);
consider a permanent official lock-down of MoS and MOSNUM and MOSLINK (any others?), or at least an editors' note at the top of both page and talk page saying that substantive changes will be reverted unless there is consensus for them on the talk page, and insist on periodic notification of substantive changes (here and at The Signpost?);
consider the concise version as a model for removing some of the bulk from the MoS;
push for a sane relationship between MOSNUM and the MoS;
support the activation of WP:MOSCO, which was moribund from the start, despite the desperate need for coordination; and
It bears to be acknowledged that the "bulk" to which Tony refers consists mostly of explanations and examples. They make the MoS longer, but they also make it easier to understand and use, especially for people who are not writing or editing experts to start with. If we are to reduce the MoS's size, it should be by reducing the number of rules where we can find rules that should be removed, not by removing useful text.
I don't know that the MoS needs to be locked down. However, perhaps it does merit being treated differently from other articles. Ordinarily, the consensus process does not require people to discuss changes, even large changes, on the talk page first, only afterward if they're reverted. It might be good to explore an alternate system for the MoS and other policy-type pages.
Like MacDui, I find myself in general agreement with Tony's six suggestions. In the interest of full disclosure, I add that I had never heard of WP:MOSCO until this morning, and I'm unfamiliar with the Marshalsea debate, though I understand what they represent. I think Darkfrog is right about the usefulness of examples; learning by imitation is often quicker and more effective than learning from an abstract alone. It would be easy to include examples of for each (or at least some) of the abstract guidelines as linked sidebars. Tony's condensed MoS or something very like it could become the core MoS with examples of whatever embedded as a clickable link at the end of each guideline. (Each set of examples would be a separate article.) I'd be fine either with locking down or requiring consensus first for future changes to the MoS. Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Though, really, Tony's concise version already includes so many specific examples and links to further elaborations, is anything else needed? Finetooth (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Either switching to optional or implementing an MoS bot would be an excellent idea. If the ratio of substantive feedback to style feedback improved I'd bring articles to FAC more often. Had two GAs promoted yesterday, but current FAC climate just isn't worth the time. What's particularly grating is the sight of reviews that appear to spend more time and effort listing minor style issues than it would have taken for the reviewer to fix them. Durova32002:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
A well-implemented MOSbot, or its equivalent script or server, seems as though it would be very helpful to making more and better FAs. A few advantages I see for a fully automated MOS-checker include: (1) it would be impartial and tirelessly thorough; (2) it could catch subtle violations that even the best single reviewer (sorry, Tony!) might miss, e.g. misspaced list items such as this one (violates WP:ACCESS, which is part of MoS); (3) it could be run by authors before they bring their articles to FAC and suffer the public humiliation of people piling on to criticize their style and grammar with no regard for the article's content; (4) it would force us all to define exactly what our MoS is, because it would have to be encoded in software; (5) it would serve as a kind of "Flagged revision" system for the MoS, in the sense that we might not consider an MoS violation valid until it had been encoded in the software. However, we would need to agree on how to interpret the feedback from such a bot/script, as was raised in an earlier discussion; perhaps it would be best to consider it as "suggestions" and leave the final decisions to the human community. For illustration, I wrote a rudimentary script that checks for violations of MOS:HEAD. (It works, but I'm embarrassed about the grossly inelegant programming, since it was written as a quick'n'dirty proof of principle.) Anyone here is welcome to test it; the instructions are found at here (click "show", it's the first script). Dank55 had promised to give me feedback and help improve the script, but I fear that we both got distracted. Finally, one should not underestimate the difficulty of producing a script/bot/server to check the full MoS; this script took a day or two, but writing, testing and debugging a full MoS script might take months for a programmer working alone. If this were a high enough priority for the community, you might consider appealing to the Foundation for programmer time, but experience suggests that that would be difficult. Proteins (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a lot to be gained from a MOSbot, which would take a lot of the grunt work out of FAC reviewing and bring us up to a higher level of reviewing. As Proteins mentions, we would be more consistent. I'm afraid I can't offer programming skills, but I would be willing to help draw up a list of needed "requirements" and help run tests. What are others' thoughts on this idea? Awadewit (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The idea of a MOSbot is excellent, but if it comes about it may not have as much impact on FAC reviewing as is being assumed. Look down the current FAC page and you'll see very little reference in reviews to MOS issues. What will the bot do to prevent nominators suffering "the public humiliation of people piling on to criticize their style and grammar with no regard for the article's content"? Nothing, I imagine—but why is criticism of style and grammar considered humiliating? Close attention to these issues has raised the standard of FAs considerably within the relatively short time I've been writing them, and I appreciate any such comments and suggestions which come my way. As to "no regard for the content", reviews of content can only properly be done by those with relevant expertise; even so, a poorly written article is just that, even if its content is unimpeachable. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for having distracted with a colorful illustration. The focus of the present discussion is the MOSbot, not the reviewing process. The only point I wished to make in point #3 was that a MOSbot would allow authors to check their work against the MOS with little effort before FAC. That would forestall unnecessary work and unpleasantness at FAC, and allow for reviewing of other elements, leading to better FACs. You raise a good point that a MOSbot won't catch many types of poor writing, e.g., a confusingly organized article with weak flow, grammatically correct but confusing sentences, or basic style choices. A MOSbot won't change George Eliot's sentences into those of Ernest Hemingway, or vice versa. However, the present MOS seems so dauntingly vast for newcomers, and holds such sway at FAC, that a MOSbot (or its equivalent) seems advisable. Proteins (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There is also a perception that reviewers harp on MOS issues and fail to raise substantive issues. If we had a bot, we could forestall that problem. Sometimes perception is important, too. The bot may encourage more nominations simply because of a change in perception. The writing, as Proteins right points out, is entirely a different matter. Awadewit (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Awadewit is exactly right. Under the current atmosphere at this process, to some of the site's dedicated editors (such as myself) FAC just isn't worth the hassle. Anything that would shift the focus toward stubstance would be an improvement. Durova32020:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support removing obstacles on the path to FAC, but I have doubts that a "whole hog" approach to a MOS bot would succeed. Trying to offer one master MOS script seems overly optimistic, given that MOS is ever-changing and endlessly disputed and many provisions will likely be unscriptable. Developing a small library of scripts—like the section header script mentioned above, Brighterorange's endash script, etc—seems more manageable in the long run from a coding standpoint, although perhaps not as attractive to an editor looking for a single quick fix. Maralia (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused by all of this talk of a bot option, as there already is one; it used to be regularly run at peer review, picked up most common MOS items and was frequently recommended here, but we asked that it be added to article talk pages so it not clutter FAC. Is no one still operating that bot? I can't recall its name or owner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This would be far more sophisticated - this bot would fix the MOS problems. It would be like the dashbot, but for the entire MOS (or whatever parts we programmed into it). Nothing like this exists, I promise - it is a massive undertaking to write this bot. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see; yes, something else entirely. But that other bot, that already exists and is run at peer review or on article talk pages, would resolve most of the concerns raised about getting MoS issues addressed; is no one still running it? (Although having read through all of FAC yesterday, I'm still unsure what all this MoS fuss is about-- the biggest issue at FAC is lack of reviewers, and I encountered very few MoS tussles.) I'm not sure I would trust a bot that would try to fix most MOS issues, since they often require some judgment ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
All bots require checking, I agree. However, there is a perception in the wider community, I think, that FAC requires a level of MOS-compliance that is beyond most editors. I agree with you that people are not arguing about those issues currently, but the community may not know that - this will reassure them. This bot will also prevent those disputes from arising again. Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec'd a bit) There appear to have been coding problems with that bot. It was unable to distinguish material inside quotation marks from outside quotation marks. Possibly changes may have been attempted to improve it, but it was not widely adopted because its reputation was that it was not a particularly useful tool. Possibly the most useful thing it did was check image licensing. Another somewhat useful function is to check for units of measurement for separation from numbers (but it didn't actually fix the latter problem--even though the fix would be easy to code). This new proposal would be a "fixer" bot rather than a "suggestion" bot; its action would be less ambitious than an overall peer review. The dashbot, for instance, has a very narrow purpose and most people consider it satisfactory. Think of something like a dashbot to address related MOS issues whose solutions could be mechanized. Durova32022:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Awadewit's comment, I simply haven't the temperament for minute compliance to an unstable manual of style. WP:SOFIXIT isn't a good solution to MoS's flaws because of its tendency to become a nexus of bitter and longstanding disputes. My aim in mainspace is to contribute useful content. If it were possible to get through FAC by memorizing the Chicago Manual of Style, which has the virtue of stability, then I would come here more often. But when I suggested that at another page a month or so ago the reaction was "Bring it on". For heaven's sake, the last thing I want is a battle over that. The time and effort that my last FAC consumed less than a year ago could have produced a GA or two FPs, which wouldn't have been an objectionable use of time if it actually made the article better. Instead the attention went into trivial issues such as a review that complained about passive voice and suggested alternative text which was also passive voice. I tried to conceal that I was rolling my eyes as I jumped through the hoops, but it reaffirmed the cynical assessment I already had about FAC. Really, the cost-benefit value to this process appears to be negligible unless one regards it as a gathering point for political clout to be spent elsewhere. And I write this as one of five remaining finalists in the 2009 WikiCup. Since that doesn't provide enough motivation to return, probably nothing but a change of process will. I dread this part of the site. Durova32022:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
With the greatest respect to the above editor, I don't believe that perception of FAC is generally held, and we shouldn't try to legislate as though it were. Anecdotal evidence is not a basis for good law. In fact, more and more editors are bringing articles to FAC, more and more articles are being promoted and the quality of featured articles is rising. As Sandy says, the system needs more reviewers, but that was ever thus. The proposed bot may help reviewers, and may help to change nominators' perceptions about the process, but its effect, overall, will be quite small. Nonetheless, if it can be done I'll welcome it. Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Debate over the future impact of a MOSbot may be academic, if no one is willing to code up such a bot, or if no one is willing to use it once it is coded. Three minor clarifications: (1) I agree with Maralia's suggestion for a modular design of the MOSbot, which is what I had in mind as well. A top-level program can invoke several lower-level, independent programs. (2) Although I almost always agree with Awadewit's ideas, I would suggest that the bot not fix MOS problems, but list them for human editors to fix. Simple problems could be amended automatically, but some MOS situations seem to require human finesse, both to understand the issue and how to fix it best. Fully automated scripts have their limits; for example, the AndyZ bot often flags passages that are not incorrect, and I assume that any MOSbot would make mistakes. (3) My experience suggests that the AndyZ bot encodes relatively little of the MoS, and I haven't found its feedback useful. But perhaps it might be helpful for newcomers to FAC, who might make more basic mistakes. Proteins (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the MOSbot could fix some MOS issues and not others? :) For example, the dashbot fixes dashes rather than listing all of the dash issues. That is why it is so wonderful. Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
MoS update: September 2009
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Number signs: Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No."
He edit wars at all plot-related policy pages, screams madly at anyone who dares say anything pro-plot, and generally shows himself to be trying to tear down all coverage of fiction on Wikipedia.
How bad is it? He was editwarring on WP:NOT to try and get the section on plot summaries to say that plot summaries are only sometimes a valid inclusion in coverage of a fictional topic. And shouting in all caps that if you don't say it's only sometimes appropriate, you're out to destroy Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm recently taken to updating the "FAC urgents" list and I'm saddened by the number of FACs that desperately need reviews. We won't get quality articles at FAC unless we provide quality reviews! :) Go team! Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Awadewit as Bring It On-esque cheerleader. How are the meds they're giving you for that herniated disk? And I will try to review some this weekend, amid writing a couple articles. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Could someone who understands images (Awadewit, Fuchs, ?) take a look at Ellis Wackett images and see what the problem is? The discussion over why they need different statements is very confusing, and the person who reviewed the articles wants a different permission statement, but it isn't clear what is needed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Why was this FAC closed? There were only three or four reviewers that commented, and although they doubted if the article was ready, all their issues had been resolved. No further specific comments had been made regarding how I could improve the article. The FAC was closed way to early.--Music26/1115:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Upon looking at the FAC, there was one weak support, image and source checks, and Tony1 saying that a copy-edit was needed. At a time when FAC is loaded with candidates, an article like this that isn't attracting support is likely to be archived after a couple weeks. The article will have a much better chance to pass with a fresh start in a few weeks, after the necessary work has been done. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Feedback?
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
After the recent promotion of the Rolls-Royce Merlin article (thanks very much BTW) I wondered if the FAC team might be interested in some feedback of the process from my point of view (as the nominator)? I found the process a little mysterious as a 'first timer' and I have an idea that might help to avoid articles appearing as candidates with obvious problems outstanding. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)13:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely - we are always interested in improving the process. Feel free to elaborate on any ideas you have right here. Karanacs (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok! Thought I would ask first and check that this was the right venue. It's not much really, I used the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria page as a guide but I failed to notice some of the 'small print' like the inclusion of alt text and checking for disambig links. I don't think that it is mentioned there that all the external links need to be live (though this is obvious really I suppose), I only discovered the tools to check things like this when the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce Merlin/archive1 page was created (the useful toolbox on the top right) it was at this stage that my statement in the nomination rationale that the 'article met all of the FA criteria' became plainly untrue!!
All I was thinking of was some kind of summary checklist table on the criteria page with simple and short questions that could be ticked like 'Image alt text' (yes), No disambig links (yes) etc. We use a version of Template:B-Class in the aviation project where requirements have to be checked yes or no, an example of the coding can be seen here. If an editor adds just B class without completing the list then it remains at the original lower class. Perhaps something like this for FAC articles could be included in the project banner, I am no good with code BTW!! The intent of this idea is purely to reduce workload for reviewers in the initial 'basics' checking stage.
On the actual process the instructions at the top of the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page are very good, what would be very nice is a link to an essay from one of the main FAC team editors similar to User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article (I have only just found that and have no idea how useful it is or whether it is appropriate). Just noticed that there are links to essays on the criteria page. I was personally worried when the Merlin article sat unreviewed for a while as I have heard that nominations can fail just through lack of activity, as I understand the process most, if not all, of the improvement work should have been done through earlier peer reviews, leaving some minor work or unseen omissions to be noted, this was the case with the Merlin article and the points noted and actioned did improve the article markedly over a short period. The last stage (as I see it) is one editor reviewing the discussion (and the actual article?) then awarding (or not awarding) the promotion to FA. Nothing wrong with that at all, just noting my understanding of how it works. Hope this helps or gives food for thought, I can see that you are all very busy. With my experience I hope to return with more articles (but not too soon!). Cheers and all the best. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)15:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
For one small step along the lines suggested above, I added a mention of the toolbox to the nominating instructions. This way the nominator can easily use the toolbox before nominating the article. Eubulides (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry for the silence, I took the FAC page off of my watchlist, which of course removes the talk page as well! I am so thick at times! Sorry if my suggestion caused a programming gremlin. I have read the essay now, certainly some familiar feelings being noted in there, lots of humour as well. I was thinking of something much shorter that mainly described the review process with the odd hint and tip. Thanks to you guys my talk page is filling up with barnstars, a very warm feeling. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't we just mention that they're tools and link to the template? We already have a section labeled toolbox above. Nimbus, are the links at the bottom of the automated peer review noticeable enough? I haven't included Checklinks since it isn't usable without all reading through the documentation. Also, if you could critique my tools that would be helpful. — Dispenser03:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The small addition to the Template:FAC-instructions should be very useful, the proof of the pudding will be if you guys notice an improvement in new candidates. From my experience with the Merlin article I was very busy with constantly trying to maintain the quality of the text (which meant having to 'reign in' some enthusiastic editors that were adding basic errors, they did understand the need), being very busy with that I probably did not read the instructions as fully as I should have. I have only recently discovered the auto reviewer tool and am publicising it to others and using it for lower class promotion reviews now. No, I didn't see the links at the bottom originally but I can see them now that you directed me there, perhaps they need to be a tad more prominent, bulleted? Could you direct me to your tools and I would be glad to comment, perhaps on your talk page to save clogging this page. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Perhaps everyone who watches this page (!) could review one article on the FAC urgents list this weekend? Think how helpful that would be be. Like. Wow. Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Done by Black Kite 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
