Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive44

Proposal to move Wikipedia:Featured articles to portal namespace

An editor has requested that WP:FA is moved to Portal:FA. Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Requested move for the discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Image reviews needed

It's nice to see that in the midst of all this RFC-ing, lots of you are still doing reviews. Thank you!! The following articles urgently need an image review:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L'ange de Nisida/archive1 (L'ange de Nisida) - only 3 imgs! Left a query. --JN466 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• This has been resolved, I believe. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Indeed, resolved now; images are fine. --JN466 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Umbriel (moon)/archive1 (Umbriel (moon)) - only 2 imgs! Done! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

These articles have garnered some support but have not yet had an image review.

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Takalik Abaj/archive1 Done. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/July 2009 Ürümqi riots/archive1 Done. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Momentary Lapse of Reason/archive1 Done. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexander Pentland/archive1 --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mono-Inyo Craters/archive1 Done. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Andy, Ealdgyth, and JN! Karanacs (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation solver

tools:~dispenser/view/Dab_solver#Using_the_tool, in beta. Hopefully this will be my first tool that passes SandyGeorgia's easy of use test :-). — Dispenser 07:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:la

Is there any reason not to have a {{la}} template (looks something like: Example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) at the top of featured article subpages? As far as I can tell, it's not necessary or anything (FAC has been getting on fine without it for a long time), but it also wouldn't hurt anything, and occasionally it could be convenient. Would reduce the number of clicks it takes to get to the article history, for example, if you want to grab a diff. I know AfD and PR use templates similar to this to provide various links.

It could be added pretty easily by just putting something along the lines of this in Wikipedia:Featured article preload:

<noinclude>{{la|{{subst:SUBPAGENAME:Wikipedia:{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}}}}}</noinclude>

(it looks quite messy but once you save the page it becomes quite nice—you can try pasting it into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Foo/archive1 and saving the page to see the results). Because it's <noinclude>d, it should have no effect whatsoever on WP:FAC load times (since it would only load when you open the subpage itself). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is already a problem with Templates in FAC archives, more clutter would exacerbate that. (I have a cold, so I may not be following your suggestion correctly.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Since these would be <noinclude'ed, like the "Toolbox" that is already in each FAC, I don't think that would be a problem: the template would not appear on FAC archives. Ucucha 15:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, instead of using {{la}} someone could always make a FAC-specific template to suit FAC's needs. For comparison, AfD uses {{la}} directly with some other links, such as "AfD statistics", stuck on afterwards; FfD uses its own template with links like "delete", "logs", etc.; peer review uses its own template, {{PR/header}}. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, perhaps I can add this to Wikipedia:Featured article preload later tonight (it will have been 24 hours since I first made the proposal) and see what happens for the next couple FACs that get nominated? If it breaks something I can remove it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There is such a massive discussion about the lack of reviewers going on now, that I think this may have gotten lost. For the record, I would find this useful and since it is "no include", I think problems about archives and load time are unwarranted. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But we're already having such problems with load time on the page, adding anything to it really worries me. Just saw Awadewit's comment; can someone technical assure us that page size isn't affected? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's in noinclude tags, then it won't appear at all on the main FAC page, it will only exist on the subpages. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: since there haven't been any further comments (I put a request at WP:VPT several days ago for someone techy to look at this, but it seems to have been overlooked), I've gone ahead and tried out adding this to the preload. I'll keep an eye on FAC and see what happens with the next new nomination; if anything is messed up I'll remove the new code. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about References section

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Question about references section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So this doesn't get lost in the above... October thru December FAC stats

I went through Oct, Nov, and Dec's archived noms, both passes and fails. Note that I counted nominators as the "base" so every co-nom was counted as "one nom". I also counted them when they closed, so a 60 day FAC nom would be counted in the month it closed. For those three months, there were 256 "noms" from 174 different nominators. The relevant figures are:

• The average days at FAC per nom were 18.96 days over the three month period
• For nominations closed in Dec, the average time at FAC was 21.2 days
• For nominations closed in Nov, the average time at FAC was 16.76 days
• For nominations closed in Oct, the average time at FAC was 19.43 days
• Over the period, we had more than one nominations from 50 of those 174 nominators (remember, some of these are co-noms). 30 people had two noms up, 10 had 3, 7 had 4, and two had more than 4.

Note I'm not an accountant, so much more detailed analysis would be beyond me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, for December - we had 35 nominators who did no significant reviewing of FACs during the month, while 25 nominators for Dec did return the favor and review. Let's get that percentage up for January! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Answering a question from above, in the three month period, there were six nominators with multiple nominations with overlaps in their noms, for a total of 12 overlaps. Two of those overlaps (from two different nominators) were from co-nominations, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to make this more visible on the FAC page? Such as: "In the month of December 2009, XX articles were nominated by XX editors. Of those editors XX reviewed other articles. XX editors reviewed articles in December 2009 although they had no articles at FAC." This might make it more prominent that we need reviewers and add a dollop of shame to nominators who do not review. (I'll take my dollops where they are due.) --Moni3 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all the reviewers who worked hard to get some of these things passed! --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And one last bit: We had in that period, 23 nominators who re-nomed an article (not necessarily their last candidate) within a week. Of those, 8 had 2 or more fails out of their noms (5 of the nominators failed every time). So while it's not a HUGE problem, we do have a slight problem with folks coming back within the week and putting up something where they may not have had success before. But our most prolific nominator during the three months, never failed at all, so it isn't just how much you nom either. (For that matter, I myself nom'd within the week three times during the three months, but never had one of my four noms fail). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend if an article fails it Must go through at least one peer review before its submitted again. --Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Waste of time. Not saying that PR is a waste of time, but it's usually obvious what needs to be done after an archived FAC. Doesn't need anyone else to tell you to fix what you already know needs to be fixed. The solution to the widespread shortage of reviewers isn't to demand more reviews. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree, particularly if the failure was more from lack of reviews (still depressingly common) than any real flaw in the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Some more statistics: I've just finished the first draft of a Dispatch for the Signpost on the number of reviewers in the various content review processes in 2009. Highlights:

• Annual increase in FAs down 37%
• FAC reviews down 26%
• FAC reviewers down 36%
• FAC nominators who didn't review other articles up 250%
• FAR participants down 32%

• Annual increase in FLs down 33%
• FLC participants down 23%
• FLRC participants up 31%

• Annual increase in GAs down 11%
• GA participants down 25%

• PR reviewers down 37%
• PR nominators who didn't review other articles down 11%
• Three editors provided 43% of 2009 reviews

More details in the Dispatch. Dr pda (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making my day :-( (And we already knew only three editors are holding down all of PR). How depressing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The reduction in reviews is really not that surprising. Most editors have neither the time nor desire to deal with the abuse that frequently is tossed on reviewers from nominators, and little if anything is done about it. In deed, I've even seen the "seasoned" reviewers sometimes jumping in to join in the abuse even when the remarks were made in good faith. Not that there is really much that can be done, in the end. I know I stopped doing most reviewing because I got tired of the attitudes and nastiness., and Iv've heard the same from others. *plink plink* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way, but I'll explain why I've stopped reviewing at FAC. I deal primarily with one article subject area, and even then in one geographic subset of that topic. (In full disclosure, that's highway articles in the state of Michigan.) Our project has an A-Class Review process that strives to run as a miniature version of FAC. As the FA standards have increased, so have our project's A-Class standards. I stopped reviewing at FAC because too many times, I'll leave my comments and have them resolved. After I change to support, one of the FAC regulars reviews the article on some of the same areas I reviewed, tears it apart and renders a very valid oppose on some grounds. Their review makes mine look incomplete, and me look foolish. Rather than have that repeated over and over again, I just stopped reviewing. I stick with reviewing other states' highway articles at GAN and our ACR, and only come to FAC when I have something to nominate. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikicup

I'm sorry to bring this up during a massive RFC, and my apologies to all of the diligent FAC reviewers for falling behind with a cold in the same week I had surgery. The feedback on the RFC shows that FAC is very well alive and kicking !

However, I got a moment to check into WP:Wikicup yesterday, and I do think it has a lot to do with the current FAC flooding and the number of noms that are rolling in. We've discussed this many times (in FAC talk archives), but I don't have time today to locate those old threads. FACs that are from competition or other collaborations should be indicated in the nom, but that isn't happening. For example, when WP:FAT puts up a nom, I check that independent review (non-FAT participants) is undertaken. With Wikicup, reviewers/delegates need to know if Opposes may be motivated by competition: we need to have those nominations flagged, neutrally, without prejudice.

Does anyone have time to go through and add a line under the nomination for WikiCup participants, Wikicup nomination? If anyone can do this before I go through to pr/ar, it will be helpful (and it will also give us an indication of how many noms are rolling in due to Wikicup). There are quite a few, and already, the issue of a possible "competition" oppose came up on one nom (unhelpful commentary subsequently struck), even though the oppose was valid according to WIAFA.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to do it. Ucucha 15:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Let us know, please, if you get through all of them or need more help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I nominated mine and neglected to mention that, mainly because I had different reasons than the Cup. I have a priority to get rid of, end this year long FA-less streak.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm at about one-fifth now in ten minutes, so will probably get through all fairly soon. Mitch, no excuses. :) Ucucha 15:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not, If I had a choice, I'd post a big notice saying that no WikiCup members can support this FAC, best way to keep things fair. I mean my own project hasn't shown up either. So you won't probably see much. :| - I am not lying on this damn hell streak, the last FA I got was promoted on Jan 20, 2009.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 16:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck on this one!

I am now done going through them. 15 out of 50 were nominated by WikiCup participants (30%). I also noted that YellowMonkey, Juliancolton, and Hunter Kahn currently all have two nominations up, though in each case the second nomination has garnered at least a few supports. Ucucha 16:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ucucha; so almost a third of our current noms are from Wikicup! Can reviewers be sure to flag these in the future, if they aren't highlighted in the nom statement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be willing to keep track of it in the future, but perhaps we can add a line to the instructions to tell people to do this themselves? Ucucha 16:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never done that because I can't figure out how to word it. When reading FACs, I look not only for "awards-based competitions", but also for collaborations like WT:FAC and WikiProject supports, etc. It's broad. I thought we had it covered under some wording about previously involved editors need to indicate such, but apparently the message isn't coming through. If anyone has time to look at the wording and propose a change, that would be grand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is quite misleading; most of the FACs mentioned aren't eligible for the WikiCup, even if they were nominated by WikiCup participants. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain. Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The WikiCup requires content to have been worked on and nominated during the competition. I removed one notice on an article that was nominated in December. For the others, it probably becomes less clear—it will depend on what the WikiCup considers to constitute "worked on". Ucucha 16:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Only articles worked on substantially after January 1 are counted towards points in the competition. As far as I can see, many or most of the current nominations by WikiCup competitors were created or expanded last year, thus invalidating them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, what about this: A nominator can remove the WikiCup notice, but can then no longer submit the article to the WikiCup? Ucucha 18:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A third of the nominations are "from Wikicup" (disclosure- I have 1), but given that so many of the participants in Wikicup are top content producers anyway, what does that really mean? I know I would have nominated my article for FAC whether or not I was in Wikicup, and I suspect many of the other participants would have as well. I was checking the GAN report the other day, and while there's a huge backlog there, there wasn't a spike after the new year when the Wikicup started. This suggests to me that while the cup is incentivizing nominations, it's not having an overly large effect in and of itself at GAN or FAC. DYK was swamped when the cup started, though, possibly as it's an easy source of points. --PresN 19:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PresN, the notificiation is without prejudice :) Ucucha, my eyesight is struggling with the small notification, would you have time to remove the smalls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PresN, I think Sandy's text above indicates clearly why these notices are helpful.

Sandy, I have removed the "small" tags. I have now created a template at User:Ucucha/Cup to add this notice to future FACs. Julian, do you agree with the expanded wording I have now used? Ucucha 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure,  Works for me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I also take mild umbrage at the idea of noms being here because of the WikiCup, especially my nom. With one FA and one DYK this month (and the DYK an offspring of the FA) I am hardly likely to advance far, and am not actively trying. I put my name in the WikiCup out of curiosity out of seeing the discussion from last year. However, if despite the "without prejudice" language, if noms from WC entrants are being looked at askance, I will withdraw from the competition doublequick.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been a bit concerned about the Wikicup business. I don't know about anyone else, but it takes me ages to write FAs, in large measure because the more I read, the less I feel I know, and it can be hard to draw the line and say, "I probably know enough now to make sense." Often the only way I can do this is to focus on other things for a few weeks and kind of let things settle in my mind. The idea of racing ahead in some kind of competition makes me wonder whether a real depth of understanding is being achieved. No offence to anyone who's taking part in it—I'm just wondering, but I could be completely wrong. It's quite possible, indeed likely, that I'm just slower at writing and researching. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs}

I know enough to create featured content relating to The Golden Boys. But I'm not a good enough writer to simply churn them out, nor am I particularly organised. Wikicup prompted me to map out roughly when I'm going to do what, and think about what sort of help I'm going to need to enlist along the way (copy edits etc). It only becomes a race if you get through to the third and fourth rounds, where most people will have featured article experience. WFCforLife (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should add that not all articles need any kind of depth of understanding. My Stanley Green didn't, for example, and it was fun to write. So I suppose it does depend on the subject, too, not just the writer. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Great article by the way. I've chatted to him several times. We used to call him "the passion man". I may still have a copy of his leaflet buried somewhere. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC on introduction of {{r}} for citations

You will may wish to comment at this RFC, which I raised because {{r}} has been imposed without prior discussion on some articles, including some existing FAs, and because the implications for some well-used tools are not clear. --Philcha (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(Blows stack) This is why we need, as I proposed a week or two ago, a list of RfC's that affect WP:FAC to be put on this page. No one can be aware of everything going on on WP. Again, we learn of this once it is approved by a small group gassing all day about en dashes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This must be the week that the entire Wiki has chosen to use FAs to further personal preferences (see thread below); just when I had surgery and a cold in the same week, a backlog at FAC, and we have a massive RfC on the talk page <grrrrr> ... I guess we can draw the conclusion that people do take FAs seriously. Well, if I missed anything in the RFC that needs my response, or have ignored any queries there, please ping me, because there's been a lot to keep up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't figure out yet what the blooming template is supposed to be doing (and I should oppose on that basis alone, but that would make me look more ignorant than I am); Philcha, can you explain that somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Point us to where the explanation is in simple language? I tried figuring it out from the RfC but couldn't. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, E; I'm glad I'm not the only dummy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we consider the adoption of a policy which says we will not penalize articles for noncompliance with such changes when notice was not given on this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As the proposer of the RFC (most recent version), I've tried to avoid WP:CANVASS. I'll try to explain the issues, but that will probably include my perspective.

The supporters of template {{r}} have edited many articles so that all instances of <ref> tags have been replaced by {{r}} in the main text (see below about ). These have been made without prior discussion at the articles' Talk page - in fact they're trying to impose the use of {{r}} on an article I maintain. Current citations guideline recommend and explain <ref> and say nothing about {{r}}, so IMO replacing <ref> tags by {{r}} will confusion. I also have concerns that {{r}} will no work with some well-used tools - and at at least 1 tool-builder agrees.

I've proposed that installation of {{r}} be suspended until all the procedural and technical have been discussed at all the relevant Talk pages.

I link to the RFC at WT:FAC because some FAs have been changed in this way - e.g. Archeopteryx.

The supporters of template {{r}} have sometimes written as if list-defined references is part of the {{r}} issue. In fact the list-defined reference at the end can only be implemented by <ref> tags, while the references in the main text (which refer to the list-defined references) can be implemented as <ref> tags or {{r}} or even a mixture. I have not examined whether {{r}} can work without list-defined references, as I thought I had enough concerns. --Philcha (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the relatively new {{r}} template is another way to do <ref> by taking out the names of the parameters. So instead of <ref name=myname group=mygroup/> you might instead have {{r|myname|mygroup}}. This means editors/readers have to know the format of the template to be able to figure out what the parameters mean/are doing. Karanacs (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify a misconception. It is incorrect and potentially misleading to describe users of template {{r}} as "supporters of template {{r}}". That infers an agenda that doesn't exist, and to my knowledge never did exist. Our goal was 'list-defined references', where useful. It just so happens (and nothing more), that the examples we became familiar with utilised {{r}} templates. In the absence of information to the contrary, we assumed that {{r}} templates are the means by which this is achieved. With the caveat that you can see from my user page I began to become aware this was not the only way, and I explicitly say so. That is all self-evident if one works through our various discussions. It transpires that {{r}} templates are sufficient but not necessary to achieve the desired goal of list-defined references. We did not know that initially. That is the only reason we confused the two issues. It also transpires that {{r}} templates cause technical issues which we weren't aware of, and which is definitely self-evident in our discussions. So we were never supporters of {{r}}. We were users of {{r}} to achieve list-defined references, because we thought that's how it was done, but now we know different, and that is all. Wotnow (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are seeking to impose it on articles in which you have not played a major role in writing, I think "supporters" is a good word until something better comes along. What would you substitute? "Fellow travelers"?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC status

See also: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive43

It's been over a week since we started the RfC. On Monday a suggestion of closing was met by a request for more time. I would suggest that we can start closing some of the obviously unsuccessful proposals now, and come back to the others in another day or two. I would suggest we close these, none of which have gained a single support vote in the last few days.

1. Restrict the number and time between nominations (14/30). Close as unsuccessful.
2. Reviews for inexperienced editors (5/29). Close as unsuccessful.
3. Nominators must review three other FACs (5/30). Close as unsuccessful.
4. Reviews for inexperienced editors mark 2 (12/20). Close as unsuccessful.
5. Evidence of collaborative editing and reviewing (6/16). Close as unsuccessful.
6. A Queue for FAC (2/16). Close as unsuccessful.

I think we could close this next one as successful, as it's clearly uncontroversial, but I don't know what it will take to implement.

1. Proposed change to WP:Featured article tools (16/0). Close as successful.

Does anyone think these need more time? -- Mike Christie (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FA tools is already implemented, and I don't see the course of the RFC changing any now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Number three has also been added to the instructions already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is getting out of control (350KB :) Does anyone object if we go ahead and close and archive the RFC? I think we've got enough for now to control the page size, and we can revisit the pending issues if that isn't enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I will mark the unsuccessful ones as such and come up with a format for looking at the possibly successful ones for further action. Once I've done that I think we can archive the RfC; I think the discussion sections should be accessible until we decide on next steps, and there was enough support for some other items that we should continue to discuss them. Mike Christie (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want to do something about the size of this page before it reaches 400 KB :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Message received. I think we can do that this evening. Mike Christie (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you archive anything, could you put it all in a separate archive, that we can note in the archive list (as we did on the Short FA debates), and also grab the multiple related threads that came later? That will leave us to work on the citation template issue here without such a full page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I can create a new thread with the key information from the old thread; then archive the old material and include a link to the archive in the relevant sections of the new thread. That would cut page size and help us refocus. Mike Christie (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done the archive part of the job. Either later tonight, or possibly early tomorrow, I will create a new thread or set of threads with the unresolved proposals from the RfC. Mike Christie (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC on additional wording about citation templates

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Citation templates

The proposal is to add the following (underlined) sentence to the end of Criterion 2c.

(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. The use of citation templates is not required. If a citation template is used, list-defined references are preferred.

Reference this recent discussion.

• Support. While not barring the use of text-cluttering citation templates, this additional point would at least encourage editors to minimise the amount of clutter within paragraphs that makes editing very difficult to achieve, while making editing and organising the actual reference text easier. Tony (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - we should not even be saying which is preferred. I personally, do not like list defined, and it's one step from "preferred" to required. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe the FA criteria should be a set of requirements for featured articles, and should not be misused as a tool for recommending a certain format to editors. Ucucha 03:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ealdgyth. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose — I personally prefer the templates, and I'm starting to use LDR, but I'd never force my choices on others. Maybe someday when the function of the templates is built into the Media Wiki software. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It may be too early for this type of change; many users are still not aware of LDR. Perhaps we should just mention its existence, via footnote or otherwise. After more editors become familiar with the feature we can survey opinions on whether it is preferred to normal referencing or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per instruction creep; if this becomes a policy, a bot can change all of the articles. Until then, let's not bother people who are trying to write good content. Awadewit (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ucucha. Bishonen | talk 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC).
• Oppose. Per Ucucha. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Dabomb. If this one day becomes part of the FL criteria,But if we're advocating LDR, long references should always go at the bottom, templates or not. WFCforLife (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Saying it is preferred MEANS it is required, so far as FA reviewerthink. --Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: FA criteria should be based solely on the quality of the reader's s experience. Technical considerations that affect only the editing environment or process should not enter into FA consideration. If FA reviewers are convinced that the reader's experience is significantly improved by use of short-form inline citations, with all full-form citations in a bibliography (whatever the section may be called), an FA criterion might express a preference for that system, but it should not have anything to do with whether templates are used. I don't think that criterion would be wise, however, because there are too many article-dependent variables to say that this system is usually better across the board. As for clutter in the edit window—although, again, that should not affect FA evaluation, in my opinion—an article that is very dense with full-form, manually entered, inline citations is more difficult for editors to navigate than an article with, say, one-fourth the number of full-form, inline citations in templates, especially if the templates are vertically filled.—Finell 12:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I can imagine cases where it would be reasonable to include editor concerns in the FA consideration. If an author insisted on using (&#117;&#115;&#105;&#110;&#103;) HTML codes for every letter in the article (WP:BEANS?), that would impel other editors' ability to edit the article so much that I wouldn't think such an article worthy of being featured in "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". But such concerns are unlikely to come up often enough (or at all) to be a part of the FA criteria. Ucucha 13:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree as per Awadewit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I detest list-defined references in general. Given that I'm not the only one who views them in this manner, I think it inappropriate to recommend their use in FAs. Karanacs (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose; per Ucucha. But also because the proposed text is not quite clear; if citation templates are used with a short footnotes type arrangement, LDR isn't needed. It should make clear that it is applying to articles where the full citation is in the footnote. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any attempt to make LDR preferred. Also per Finell because the appearance in the edit window should not have anything to do with FA consideration. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ucucha and Karanacs. Why make something more complicated.? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Regardless of the wording or what we recommend, I'd like to see something discouraging editors from adding template clutter to texts, because it makes articles very difficult to copy edit. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I support the use of list defined references, though this is the first I've heard of them. (Long overdue). However they're too new to require, and may not be the best solution for every article. So long as the article has consistent and properly formated citations (with or without templates), the exact method shouldn't be specified.   Will Beback  talk  10:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decloaking to strongly oppose this. At least there were legitimate arguments that could be made in favor of mandatory alt-text; this is a pure case of someone trying to foist their personal prejudices onto the process. – iridescent 14:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So why do you have to make it personal? I'm offended. Tony (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not "personal" in relation to you, or Slim, or anyone else supporting; personal in the sense that – as there's no technical reason why LBR's are 'better' – making them mandatory (which in reality, "preferred option" means at FAC) is purely a case of those who support LBR insisting that we do things in a particular way. Personally, I dislike LBR intensely and find it very hard to work with – I tend to work my way through articles one section at a time, and the introduction of LBR means the references are in a separate section of their own, and thus invisible to me when editing, necessitating an irritating save text section → open reference section → edit reference section → save reference section → re-open text section routine every single time I add anything, or editing the entire article instead of a single section, with the consequent need to keep scrolling here-there-and-everywhere each time I add or amend a reference or just want to check what it says. If I were to insist that LBRs were banned (don't tempt me) I'd be just as guilty of assuming that my personal preference was automatically "right" for everyone. – iridescent 15:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Any "one size fits all" is probably wrong. IMO the following cases are not suitable for list-defined references: any ref using only once; book where only 1 page/range is cited; more journal articles that are fairly short,so that where pages/ranges are not used. --Philcha (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I can say with a degree of confidence that Tony isn't supporting the use of {{r}}. WFCforLife (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I support tony's argument. --DuKu (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose FA is not the place to try to override and define what is the "preferred" citation style when there are more than enough legitimate ones. Basically banning any article from FA because the editor absolutely abhor LDR as one of the most hideous ideas ever implemented....ugh. Just wrong wrong wrong wrong. There is no consensus at all across Wikipedia that claims this style is even remotely better. Leave as is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only are the arguments by Awadewit, AnmaFinotera, Ealdgyth, Ucucha, Will Beback, etc. compelling, but the proposal itself labors under the incorrect assumption that not using templates (and formatting citations by hand) avoids the clutter. Featured article criteria shouldn't treat template-formatted citations differently from citations formatted by hand. Eubulides (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Citation templates. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a checklist of some sort at time of nomination?

Is there any way we could have a checklist at the beginning of the article for the standard reviews (as opposed to sourcing, comprehensiveness, and prose). I never really know without reading the entire FAC if the images, alt text, or technical things like disambiguation and external links still has to be reviewed. A checklist that is automatically inserted as the nomination is created might help that out. NW (Talk) 01:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a suggestion similar to this a few days back here. It seems that, because i didn't put it in the format of a definite proposal, just in the "other suggestions" section, it didn't get much attention. Obviously i am biased, but i still think a version of what i proposed is a better idea, and going to elicit more cooperation from nominators, than anything currently under discussion. So yes, we should be doing something like this. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs may have a different view, but something like that was tried before, and it wasn't helpful. Nominators sometimes tick off the boxes when criteria aren't actually met or a solid review hasn't been given. So, I can't really use the box, and it creates more work for nominators and reviewers. I still have to read the entire FAC and make sure everything is done. And the system was abused of by nominators in the past (tallying supports and opposes as if "FAC were a vote", and not always accurately reflecting supports and opposes-- in this case, quality of review. For example, what happens when Ealdgyth leaves sources out for others to review?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can see there's a couple of different aspects to what NW and I were proposing. I was suggesting nominators be required to make statements about what has been done, to indirectly encourage them to actually do those things. NW is talking about checking off certain things as having been done. Sandy, i would say nominators would not be allowed to be the ones who ticked things off. If I'm reading NW correctly, only a reviewer might give the tick, say, to Alt text, or dablink check. That doesn't seem a bad idea. You mention it creates more work for nominators. Well, that is kind of the point. If the nominators do more work before putting something forward, there are fewer issues (particularly potentially distracting technical and policy matters) to clog up the FA discussion. As to your concerns about the past system, you will always have to read the whole FAC, whatever proposals are implemented. But we can have a system that makes it easier for reviewers to focus on important stuff, and hopefully thus leave you with a shorter FAC to have to read. Finally, I thought a proposal like mine or NWs will help keep the focus on what i'd have thought were the two most important FAC issues: how well is this researched, and how well is it written? And there will never be a checkbox or list for these things :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe y'all can figure out a way to make something like that work; in the past, we had nominators ticking the box anyway (nominators don't always read instructions :) and it led to some "FAC is a vote"-type thinking. Which leads next to, "all my boxes were ticked, but you archived my FAC!". Which leads to angry orange bars going off on my talk :) And then someone has to check that nominators didn't check the boxes erroneously, 'cuz if they do, that could actually stall the review (for example, an image reviewer thinks the images are cleared, so passes up that FAC, but they're really not). If you can find a way to work around that ... it is a good suggestion, but those are the problems to work around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Final image review prompt

For the record, after today, I am not going to continue prompting for image reviews. If there are image issues, someone needs to Oppose, and not wait for me to prompt. Notice has been given ... Karanacs may have a different procedure :)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wendell H. Ford/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes/archive1

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Both sorted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that image that violates WP:COPY could sail through by default? --Philcha (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Only insofar as an article that's not well written could sail through by default. The criteria are clear. Unless otherwise qualified, a Support is a Support. PL290 (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please review the images?

An article I've nominated, Battle of Winterthur (1799), still needs an image review. Could someone please do this? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Working on it now. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Charles, they should be good now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Formalize responses by aligning with explicit criteria

Been toying with this idea for a while; I still can't decide if I like it or not, so I'm interested to see what others make of it. The basic idea is similar to what GA reviewers commonly do: start with a layout of the criteria, and locate each review response under the criterion it pertains to. So, for FAC, within this single layout of the criteria, all reviewers place their responses, with the option to indicate either (a) Support for the whole nomination against the criteria, or (b) Support/Oppose/Comments relating to one or more criteria at any level. Benefits could include:

• Encouragement to busy reviewers to at least review parts of perhaps a greater number of nominations; we have a range of specific reviewing skills among the regulars;
• Unambiguous mechanism for all reviewers to indicate Support relating to specific criteria they have reviewed;
• Greater onus on reviewers to justify comments by placing each one in the context of the criteria;
• Clear visibility (to nominators, reviewers and delegates) of overall strength of support for a nomination, and of any areas lacking support. Among other things, by highlighting when support does not yet include media or sources, this would become a natural replacement for the manual requests for those reviews.

PL290 (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to hear from the delegates on this. Would what PL290 is proposing solve a problem for you, and will it have an effect on the number of reviewers, iyho?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

When I nominate an article, I would welcome reviewers making any suggestions that, even when not explicitly part of the FA criteria, do improve the article; this proposal would (I think) discourage that. Ucucha 14:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This creates more work for reviewers, in my opinion. If I oppose a nomination, I list the criteria I'm opposing on. If I support, it should follow that I believe the article meets all the criteria. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GA normally just has one reviewer; I think this would look extremely messy on FAC, & probably be hard for the closer to interpret in many cases. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm loath to ask

I'm not offering bribes this time, because last time I triggered a billion pages of RFC about handing the backlog. But... I've just added several articles to the FAC urgents that are hovering at or well past the two-week mark. How about every pick something off the list and review it? --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Skipped image review?

I notice that all the nominations at the top of the FAC list have received or are receiving image reviews - except Voyage of the Karluk, which seems to have been skipped over. True, the article has a lot of images, but they're all pretty straightforward and have been looked at and okayed at peer review. So I wouldn't anticipate many problems. I'm slightly restricted with access at the moment, but I will respond as soon as I can if there are any issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. All images look to be in order. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why I stopped reviewing.

Since many are bemoaning the lack of reviewers I will share some thoughts on that subject. I don't review FAC's very often anymore.

• On several occasions at FAC and FAR I brought up concerns that were ignored ie: the article passed or was kept without action on my comments.
• Arguing over improving the article using the "That isn't a requirement!" excuse. ie: adding OCLC numbers to book sources.
• Having to wade through a solid wall of text to make comments and respond to them. Subsections and collapse boxes are discouraged. After several incidents of edit conflicts you're frustrated. --Brad (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! What a perfect example of my first point above! If that wasn't enough my oppose was reverted just to rub it in. It's comforting to know that articles are being promoted to FA when they contain uncited and inaccurate information. The important thing is that the FAC list is being kept shorter by faster promotions. --Brad (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand - the FAC had already been closed - you added an "oppose" after the decision had already been made. Since an article can always be improved, I suggest you make your concerns known on the article talk page. I might also point out that not all of reviewers comments get addressed during an FAC - no article will look exactly as you, the reviewer, want it to. User:Awadewit 03:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Calliope confusion is my fault. To keep the page size down, I promoted on an off-day yesterday, which means the bot won't run until the weekend to make it look like an archived nomination. I did add a closing note, but that is at the bottom and I can see how that can cause confusion for reviewers who are looking for their own, previously entered, comments (I used to get caught out with this occasionally when I was reviewing). Please note, however, that if infobox information is cited in the article, it does not need to be cited in the infobox, which is just a summary. Your two bottom concerns were nice-to-haves but, as they did not affect the quality of the article, were not enough to stall promotion, and the top concern appeared to have been fixed. We do appreciate your comments, but, as noted above, the review process is a collaboration, and articles don't always need to look 100% like the reviewer envisions. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with Karanacs and Awadewit, the Oppose was stylistic, not actionable based on WP:WIAFA, and entered after the FAC closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a limit on number of nominators

Ucucha found an example (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices) of an FA that had nine nominators. SandyGeorgia said this "lends new perspective to Wikipedia:WBFAN. That was an isolated case, AFAIK." (See FAC archive 43) This current FAC has six nominators. Is there any limit? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the Timekeeping devices (which was an "award-based" project, where many of the listed editors hadn't made substantial contributions, several were inexperienced relative to WIAFA, and Malleus pulled the article through), the Diseasters of War is a collaboration among well-established arts editors who have all made significant contributions to the article and written many FAs. Apples and oranges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, what about The Disasters of War? Here are the contributors[1]. Only one contributor User:Ceoil appears to be "substantial" by the standards used above. Two have 4.8 and 4.1 percent respectively and one has 1.5 percent. Will they all be awarded by a listing in Wikipedia:WBFAN? Of the example in the archives of the History of timekeeping devices it was said that "several of them had small contributions". But the small contributors are similar to the percentages of the "small contributions" in Disasters of War.[2] —Mattisse (Talk) 16:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What tosh! I have 138 edits, & User:Modernist has more - over 180. Ceoil uses a high-save edit style, others don't, though he has certainly done the most on the article. You might also look at the talk page edits too. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just using the tool that SandyGeorgia established as a way of assessing an article's contributors at an FAC. The tool is used to establish what editors were major contributors. Her recommendation for that tool passed something like 12 to 0 in the recent RFC to change the toolbox on the FAC page to assess editor contributions. (Please see FAC archive 43 for discussion). It replaced a tool that showed number of edits. Look at the toolbox at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Disasters of War/archive2. It includes dashboard per the RFC vote. Do you disagree with the RFC vote and the decision? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do you derive "Only one contributor User:Ceoil appears to be "substantial" by the standards used above." from? Over a hundred edits is likely to represent a "substantial" contribution by any standards, & I don't see where SG or anyone else has suggested otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree I was wrong about only "Ceoil", but three co-noms had below standard as defined by SandyGeorgia in the the comment by SandyGeorgia quoted above where she said that "several of them had small contributions" in reference to nine co-noms to the History of timekeeping devices. Yet all those co-noms have a higher percentage than some of those listed as co-noms in The Disasters of War. I was using that criteria used by SandyGeorgia. (See above and in the archives.) Three of co-noms to The Disasters of War had a smaller percentage than any of the co-noms to the History of timekeeping devices. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse, I consider you repeatedly misrepresenting my statements as disrupting FAC with your usual FAC cabal and ownership charges. Please consult your advisors. You are misrepresenting the correct use of a tool for determining, and only determining, whether to withdraw a nom, and it appears that you attach undue significance to WP:WBFAN. Stop now. Last request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I was answering a question directed to me. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Matisse, what specific problem are you seeing that you feel needs to be addressed? I'm not seeing what you're trying to address. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Mattisse's point may be that the rules for who is added as a co-nom, and therefore who is added to WBFAN, are either unfair or irrational. If it's a list of people who helped to get the article through the FAC process, co-noms sometimes or often don't do that. If it's a list of people who made substantial contribs to the article, co-noms sometimes or often didn't (not commenting on the particular examples Mattisse gave, which I haven't looked at). I agree that it would be good to limit co-noms and WBFAN to people who did make substantial contribs—though it would have to be based on self-reporting and honesty because there's no clear way to monitor it, even if we wanted to—but it would be a major change and I foresee lots of resistance. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The dashboard tells an incomplete tale. Looking at some articles I wrote, I wrote and sourced Marshalsea in its entirety, yet dashboard gives me only 75 percent of the edits. I rewrote and resourced Muhammad al-Durrah practically from scratch, yet dashboard gives me just 39 percent. What matters is not the number of contribs, but their impact, the extent to which they shaped the article. Some editors with lots of edits may barely influence it at all. So really I think we have to leave it to nominators to be honest about whether they made a substantial contribution. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion during the recent RFCs and this particular tool was proposed, voted upon and passed unanimously. It is to be used to assess whether an editor is a "major contributor" and whether they would be eligible to be considered as a co-nom. Frankly, I do not like that tool and prefer this one: contributions You should review the extensive discussions over this issue in the archive. The issue of how man co-noms was brought up, with SandyGeorgia saying that nine was too many. But the issue of how many was not settled. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about the number of nominators, but I would like to add some historical information about WBFAN that may be relevant. Nominators at FAC were at one time expected not to be significant contributors; any nominator who was a significant contributor was expected to declare the fact, as it was thought to be a conflict of interest. The situation is now reversed at FAC, but WBFAN records nomination totals that include nominations from the earlier regime. Hence WBFAN does not, in general, record the number of featured articles that an editor has been given credit for creating, only the number of articles that nominators have succeeded in shepherding through the FAC process. I think it would be a mistake to tie the "award of a listing" in WBFAN to rules for nomination at FAC: WBFAN has not tried to stay consistent with FAC's rules, and FAC bears no obligation to WBFAN when it sets its rules. Mike Christie (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, Mike, but just a point of information -- I don't recall it ever being regarded as a COI or in any way inappropriate to self-nominate, though we were expected to declare that that's what it was. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I find this entire discussion unseemly - we are supposed to promote collaboration. Arguing about who gets to be the nominator or who contributed more than someone else does not do that. Encouraging all of the people who worked together to nominate together is a good idea - it promotes collaboration and group responsibility for the article. FAC can adjust to different editing styles. Awadewit (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(To SlimVirgin): You're right; "conflict of interest" was too strong; it was never inappropriate to have been a contributor, but it was also not a prerequisite, which was my main point. (To Awadewit): I agree completely. Mike Christie (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion probably isn't helpful, but I don't agree that FAC is meant to promote collaboration. This is a collaborative project, but when it comes to individual articles there's no reason not to treat an article written by one person the same as an article written by a thousand. I know from my own experience that, after editing in various contentious areas with input from dozens of others, it's often very soothing to be able to retreat to a space no one else cares much about, and bring it up to a better standard. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also don't know the what the point of this discussion is. Perhaps more relevant to WP:WBFAN. Last summer were some suggestions to make changes to that list, and they seemed to have been soundly rejected. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, now nominations are rejected if they are not by a major contributor. Although it did not gain support, various hierarchies of editors were proposed recently, based on number of FAs, to determine whether an editor could nominate without going through various procedures first. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is based on two schools of thought. The first, a collectivist approach, says it doesn't matter who writes, who contributes, who nominates: all that matters is the collaboration and the end product. The second, an individualist approach, says it does matter who wrote and did the research, and it does matter who is being awarded the stars. Both approaches are valid, but it's certainly true that the second is often used to judge editors, especially at RfA or if they stand for ArbCom, or if they're facing a block or ban, where being an FA writer is used in their favour. Given that the second approach is common, regardless of who agrees with it, Mattisse has a point about the process that awards stars to individuals needing to be a fair one to some extent. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, and take that with a grain of salt, rules to make sure articles were nominated by major contributors were enacted because too many nominations were "drive by" nominations: ones which the editor made few edits to, did not have the knowledge of the topic to answer questions at FAC, and were suspected of neglecting to maintain the article after its FA designation. I'm not sure what the various hierarchies of editors proposition was, so I am unable to address that. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

One proposal was that an editor who lacked three FAs (another was one FA etc.) was required to go through GA, peer review, or some other process, first. Or if an article were archived and the editor did not have a FA already, then that editor would have to wait two (three) weeks before nominating again at the delegate's "discretion". As SlimVirgin says, certain privileges accrue to the "FA editor". So to give that status to someone who provided 1.8% of the edits to an article, the last one being five months before the nomination, seems like a "too many co-noms" situation. From my experience at FAR, I know there are "FA editors" who are not willing to maintain their FA articles currently so why should they have privileges? Too exclusive a view of an FA article contributors does not encourage a community effort and could encourage an ownership mentality, which may be what is going on in the recent Signpost Dispatch FAC statistics. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse - none of those proposals passed. One could equally well argue the more co-noms the better if article ownership is your concern. Heaps of stars for everyone. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Mattisse is misusing, overrelying on a tool. Other than that, I don't know what the issue is here. Timekeeping was an award-based program, where several taggged on. In this article, all of the editors have made significant contributions, and you don't get that by using an edit counter. That's why it's only a tool, and we often have to query. Mattisse, why are you tring to turn this into an issue about who gets awarded stars? Does anyone except you care about that ? We understand that you're on a crusade about ownership at FAC, but this example doesn't cut it; all of those editors contributed, and none of them cares whether they get a star or not. Both you and SV seem to misunderstand the use of the tool, and you are misstating facts (good time to consult your advisers about the direction this conversation is heading). Both tools are still used, and neither of them is ever used to decide who can be added as a co-nom; there are no limitations on co-noms, but the tools are used to determine if significant contributors are still editing and were consulted about the nom-- nothing more, plain and simple. And just because SV may say or believe that "certain privileges accrue to an FA editor" doesn't make that true; if it were, Ottava, Malleus and Giano would have far less problems. SO, unless you have a constructive point to make, and can make it without misrepresenting the point and use of the tool, please don't disrupt the talk page with your ownership issue, and please consult your advisors before continuing your "FAC cabal" owernship issues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the ownership at FAC issue is; I didn't entirely follow Mattisse on that point. But I think she does have a point about WBFAN. There seems to be an enormous variation in the extent of people's contributions. I would see it as beneficial to ask co-noms not to add their names unless they've made a substantial contribution. That doesn't stop the nominator from thanking or acknowledging them. But being added as a co-nom should be limited to people who really did make an important contribution (in their own opinion; I'm not suggesting we should "police" it), otherwise it becomes meaningless. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse has an issue with what she perceives as FA ownership, and missed the point about the "context" of WBFAN, and attaches too much importance to who gets a "star". No part of the discussion about adding a tool to the Featured article tools had anything to do with "who gets a star". Anyone who overinterprets WBFAN will come to faulty conclsusions; in that sense, it is meaningless and it should be. I'm a bit worried that we may be putting too many changes in place that people don't understand. We don't police co-noms, nor do I intend to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my views, SandyGeorgia. I will take offense if you continue to do so. I agree with SlimVirgin. I find her attitude regarding ownership refreshingly honest. I have no problem with FAs belonging to editors, as long as it is acknowledged that is what the situation is. SlimVirgin deserves her stars. The fact that an editor who made 18 edits (1.8%) of an article and has not edited the article for five months before its nomination for FAC, and is thus equated with with SlimVirgin, means the "star" is meaningless. See the dashboard What is the point of having the dashboard in the toolbox if not to see who is a major contributor. If 18 edits to an FAC gets a star, then I have stars up the ying-yang. If I cared about stars, I would not refuse to copy edit or review FACs and GANs. I got plenty of recognition when I did so, but I stopped at the end of 2008. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a helpful discussion - everyone has a different idea of what it means to contribute meaningfully to an article. Some people may only contribute by helping to identify reliable sources, some by finding sources, some by helping to make suggestions regarding organization, etc. None of these things are even reflected in the edit count of an article, but are extremely important. The tool works to help us decide who might be a contributor, not to make us into brainless zombies who follow its dictates. Let's stop making a problem where there is none. Awadewit (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The main concern should be that the nominator(s) are sufficiently involved to be able to deal with issues arising in FAC on content/sourcing/subject matter etc etc. Usually this will be one or more significant contributors. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And I do wish Mattisse would stop obfuscating and confusing issues because of her own misunderstandings. First, nothing was replaced; both tools are in the Featured article tools. Second, the two different tools show the same info, only presented differently (one shows a timeline, making it easier to know if past editors are no longer active on the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop bad mouthing me. Plenty of people have expressed confusion. You do not have to single me out and put me in a bad light. This was my original question: "Ucucha found an example (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices) of an FA that had nine nominators. SandyGeorgia said this 'lends new perspective to Wikipedia:WBFAN. That was an isolated case, AFAIK. Several of them had small contributions' (See FAC archive 43) This current FAC has six nominators. Is there any limit?" The answer to my question as I understand from Awadewit's comment that there is no limit on co-noms nor any particular standards that can be enunciated. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 23:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So let it be stipulated. Now, is there a problem? It strikes me that any means we have to motivate people to contribute to plausible FA candidates and shepherd them through the process is a good thing. How can six people "winning" stars possibly be construed as a bad thing if the end result is an excellent article that meets our FA criteria? DocKino (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I appear to be listed as a co-nom on the FAC and while I appreciate Ceoil extending the courtesy and consider myself capable of addressing most issues that might arise during the FAC (now I know about it), I also regard the FA rankings embodied by WBFAN "credits" as amazingly silly - they are one of the reasons I no longer participate at FAC - so I'll be removing myself. With regard to "significant contributors" though, I wouldn't consider edit counts or the amount of text added a useful measure of an editor's input or potential input to an article; there's no reason there shouldn't be a hundred co-nominators if they can add some value. Yomangani^talk 23:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am almost sorry for digging up that old FAC (out of curiosity) now. I quite agree with what DocKino, Awadewit, and a few others are saying. The proposal Mattisse has been referring to failed, and there is really not much meaning in someone's being listed as a co-nom now, except for that silly list at WBFAN, which I don't think anyone needs to care about. Ucucha 23:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a colorful history of ranting at FAC, because I fundamentally misunderstood what FAC is. What is FA, and by extension FAC? It is a place where some truly excellent articles are rewarded — and some pretty good but clearly less than excellent articles manage to pull off getting the same reward. The mistake I made was to believe that FAC is a place that functions as a selection forum for excellent articles. It does so only partially... why am I saying this now? The only reason anyone would or should give a flying fig about who's listed at WBFAN would be if FA was a truly reliable indicator of excellence. It is not. Therefore, I suggest that while it's quite fair, reasonable and positive for reviewers to make a good faith attempt to swat away freeloaders, getting worked up about it is unnecessary. Make some attempt to police it, but in the very end, let it be. • Ling.Nut 04:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just my $0.02. I don't care who else is listed at WBFAN. Why? I know what I did to earn that little bronze star on the small handful of articles I've nominated. In the end, that's what is important to me. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Imzadi. I am proud of my FA's, very much so. But it isn't a competition. If anyone wants to display a little bronze star based on minimal contributions to an article, I do not care.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a few FAs and I have worked reasonably hard with others on each one of them. Ceoil nominated the editors who added important additions to The Disasters of War including Yomangan whose contributions there are invaluable - I don't really care how many edits but rather how important those edits are...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh. The article was created by VA editors who have often worked as a team in bringing FA's before, and in this instance I selected thoes who had mage significant additions to the content, in the last six months or so, it cetrainly had nothing to do with number of edits (I tend to make a a series lot of small, I suppose annoying, 'tweaking' edits. Johnbod, Yomagani and Modenists roles as primary editors are without doubt. JNW was invaluable both in the main article, and advising and discussing on talk. Anyway, look, if I caused a problem, I apologise, and nom list has been cut down now anyway. Ceoil ^sláinte 16:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You didn't cause a problem. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You didn't cause a problem, a mountain was made out of a molehill, and I'll likely deal with it myself if promoted at WP:WBFAN anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with WBFAN, though! I used the noms to thank and credit the people who had spent time and put hard work with me since we began. I would have seemed callow not to have included them, when frankly I would not have a hope with an article like this on my own. But I can see how it could be mis-interpreted. Ceoil ^sláinte 16:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Images in FAs lack in image page caption quality

Not that I'm an FAC regular, but I think the project should really consider adding to the criteria something regarding the captions and overall quality of the image pages of images in FACs. I was just reading the article on the USS Constitution and came across this great photo, but was more than disappointed to see what shape the image page was in (I therefore reformatted it to its current, expected form). At least in this case, the information was there, but sometimes even good information is lacking. If FAC is going to put such emphasis on alt text, then it really should be putting a lot more emphasis on quality image pages as well, because it's a sore disappointment when you click on an image to see the larger version and find the caption and source information there severely lacking or terribly formatted. It seems backwards that this is not considered, but that alt text is so godly on this project. At the very least, a thorough caption should exist at the image page, making use of the {{Information}} template at Commons (and here for fair use images). Ideally, the caption should be well linked from Commons to relevant articles on the English Wikipedia and the description should be labeled as being in English ({{en|Caption text...}}). Just something to think about. upstateNYer 21:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the most important focus on those image pages should be information. Yes, it would be nice if everything was nice and tidy, but that page already had a remarkable amount of description of the image compared to many I've seen which say things like "Painting of king" or somesuch. Again, the focus should first and foremost be on getting detailed information, not the format. Awadewit (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's part of what I'm saying (hence "but sometimes even good information is lacking"). Also, one of the matras here is consistency. Using that template (at the very least) will offer a much greater level of that. Are you opposed to the idea? I mean, checking and fixing this problem during the process of a nom shouldn't take very long, yet adds a great deal to the presentation of an FA (and all the other articles the image is used in). Seems like a cheap and easy investment to me (and much more useful to the general WP audience than alt text will ever be). It should be added to the criteria that information and formatting of image pages be reviewed before promotion. upstateNYer 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's true that file pages are often lacking. However, we don't fail a featured article merely because it links to an article that's of lower quality, and linked-to file pages should be similar. A featured article review should focus on problems that affect the featured article itself. Eubulides (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

But you won't pass an FAC if it lacks alt text, something that - to newcomers - usually takes longer to produce than an informative image page. Know what I'm saying? upstateNYer 06:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, it takes a great deal of time to add that template to every image in an article. And frankly, that template isn't nearly as useful as alt text. Alt text helps users who can't see the image (the blind, people on mobile phones). The template simply organizes the information. After having done hundreds of image checks at FAC, I can tell you that adding that template is a serious time investment and I stopped doing it. It is simply not worth the effort. Would it be nice if it were done? Yes. Is it necessary? No. I would absolutely oppose this being added to the criteria. We don't even have enough people to review the copyright of images. We have hardly anyone reviewing the quality of the images themselves. The last thing we need is people worrying about the formatting of the image pages. Let's worry about the substantial issues first: copyright and quality of images. Once we have those adequately covered that at every FAC, we can turn to the formatting of the image page. Awadewit (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I'm saying that not all FA images even have information on their image pages, but some editors seem to have just run with the formatting issues. That is the base argument here. The supplement is that they should also have a set formatting standard. And how you can claim that alt text is more useful than a good image page baffles me. Do you have stats on the percentage of WP visitors that depend on alt text? I should think it's less than 5%, at most. Whereas the other 95% have the chance to click on an image and learn more… only to find that they won't learn more because there is little or no additional information on the image page. Regarding your comment about time to put into image pages, it is less than what I ever had to put into alt text, and far less than 1% of the time it takes to write a good FA (having reformatted, expanded, and fully linked 1000s of image pages at Commons), a completely justifiable time commitment expectation. upstateNYer 06:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree this isn't such a problem for FAC, but I'm often astonished at how poor, and even inaccurate, the information behind featured images is. This seems not to get reviewed or commented on at all in the FI process. Maybe you should address your comments there. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see images all the time with no dates or incorrect dates, or inaccurate titles, or no collection, I think there is so many complicating factors that we do the best we can to add accurate and complete information as we find it...Modernist (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly all key information should be added, but a template is not necessary to do this. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree I think a template is not the answer; there are too many complications, and far too many factors for a template...Modernist (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I see there is a consensus here, if not a very disappointing one. Having added to or updated 100s (more likely 1000s) of image pages on Commons, I can tell you it takes no more than a minute each, even when including links. When you think about it, the images really make the article. They may only be the icing on the cake, but what is the cake without the icing? Currently our standards are for crappy icing. They shouldn't be. When one clicks on an image, there should be at least as much information as is given in the caption in the FAC. I'm not even opposed to literally copy+pasting the caption from the FAC, as long as something reasonable and informative is there. As for alt text, I think there are probably millions of more people that could benefit from this requirement than having alt text. I think that alt text is more than a luxury considering the population of the blind in the world. Most smart phones these days show images, and all will soon in the future, for sure. I'm still in the thinking, regardless of the (appreciated) thoughts here that a reasonably complete image page is 1000% more useful than alt text, and therefore this group has its priorities backwcontrolards... by far. No offense meant, but it just confuses me that to inform people better, you choose alt text over controlled/good general image information, a small time investment for a huge dividend (that affects more than one article, most likely). You can't convince me that the time invested in alt text (which confuses many a first timer at FAC) has nearly the large investment value to the project. Not saying get rid of it, only to supplement it with (what turns out to be a more worthy) cause. upstateNYer 06:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On UK on my broadband it takes up to 30 sec to load each page, including after saving a change - so UpstateNYer "takes no more than a minute each, even when including links" is almost up before I do any useful work. And if that includes checking or copy info from other pages, that's a minute for each other page. Before you that's a system-wide problem, remember that the only thing the editor can control is whether he/she accesses the page at all. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking the time to actually write and update the page, not to save the changes. My assessment was meant to be independent of the system used. However, how much time does it take to add alt text? At least the same amount (usually more), in my experience. upstateNYer 19:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

All in all I think that it is a good idea to provide better image information.
However, from all above, this FAC is not the place to make that mandatory. Basically, a FAC can either provide the relevant caption/Alt text for use in the FA article; or select another image.
The responsibility of the images themselves is outside the FA remit (expcept for the obvious copyvio issues). Arnoutf (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

April Fools

See also: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests § April Fools blurb

Uh, oh, it's Feb 1; who's got something in the can? Malleus? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling. It's perfect. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Only if Malleus writes Husband donating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a way of beefing up it's low page view statistics,[3] and maybe even get it linked to other articles at Wikipedia so that it contributes to the general encyclopedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that its page view statistics are in any way a negative to its contribution the general encyclopedia, and I'm rather disappointed that you choose to make whatever point it is that you're making in that way. And to SandyG, there are a few cases of husband selling as well, but so few as to make writing an article difficult – not impossible though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the price? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Husbands didn't make the prices that wives did, that's for sure. Can't imagine why. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. Parrot of Doom has suggested Cock Lane Ghost. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to take a stab at the blurbs, or call in The Fat Man? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to write the blurbs for either, but I don't want to have to choose between them. I can't afford to piss off PoD, we're soulmates. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Outriggr: Roxxxy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tee-hee. That's for Valentine's Day, surely? I presume only the washing machine operation module is delaying the male version. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Per {{globalize}}, I think an effort should be made not to favor certain views and to Counteract systemic bias. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Of the current FAs, Wife selling is my first choice, cock lane ghost is my second. Traumatic insemination remains my favorite non-FA choice. Raul654 (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

" Of the current FAs, Wife selling is my first choice, cock lane ghost is my second. Traumatic insemination remains my favorite non-FA choice." Hum, says a lot about the culture of TFA. Scary. and certainly not concerned with wider Wikipedia interest and participation. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is this furthering systemic bias? Sure, wife selling is an English topic, and thereby perhaps furthers our Anglo-U.S. bias, but it certainly works against our bias for video games, storms, roads, cricket players, and what not—anthropological articles like that aren't that common in FA. Ucucha 04:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For April the 1st - Wife selling or Stanley Green. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see Wife selling as TFA, but having it on 1 April rather misses the point of All Fools Day. People will think it's a spoof, like the annual Guardian false story. Can't we run our own spoof for, say, the first half of 1 April, then replace it with something authentic? Brianboulton (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

People will think it's a spoof, like the annual Guardian false story. - that's *exactly* what I want to happen. Wikipedia's April Fools tradition, such as it has evolved, is to run a bunch of ludicrious-but-true stories on the main page and see who takes the bait. We are fooling them into thinking we are fooling them. Raul654 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First half of April 1st where, Brian? I believe we did run a spoof once amidst much hand-wringing and cries of "think of the humourless", but having decided WP:V trumped jokes (you'll have to search the archives), we moved on to being confused, then bluff, funny names with a dash of ostrich racing, and eccentricity. Personally, I think DYK has historically done April Fool's better than TFA, with such unlikely beauties as the Tempest Prognosticator and Colonel-in-Chief Sir Nils Olav, but that's neither here nor there. Yomangani^talk 13:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling's the perfect April Fool's TFA in the Ima Hogg vein, as an interesting article that readers will incorrectly assume is a joke. The Museum of Bad Art was a great article, but a little more obviously accurate than ideal for April Fool's. Steve Smith (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they will assume it is a joke; we are only about 40 years from the heyday of wife swapping, after all! But I looked through the list of FAs and saw nothing better.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And if you do a thorough Google search you will see that recent incidents of wife selling have occurred in other parts of the world. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

... but not conducted in the ritualised way this article describes, by public auction with the wife led to market in a halter. The scope of this article is strictly defined to be the English custom mistakenly believed by some to be a legal alternative to divorce. The talk page discussions make that very clear. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the blurb would presumably follow the article lead: "The English custom of wife selling...", which makes clear that we are not talking about the regrettable current practices in other parts of the world. I agree that would make a perfect April 1 TFA. Ucucha 16:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, apparently FA editors see humor an English custom of public auction with the wife led to market in a halter. I think TFA should be concerned with the general reader, rather than what gives FA editors a chuckle. I think there are many who would not see the article as all that funny. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Cock Lane ghost would be a better choice anyway as far as I'm concerned. It really was a hoax, plus it has the word "cock" in the title and Scratching Fanny in the article which will cause the vandals' tiny brains to burn clean away with joy. Yomangani^talk 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be labouring under the mistaken notion that "hoax" is synonymous with "funny" Mattisse. OK, I've got the point; you've chosen to take a dislike to wife selling and have decided to invent as many reasons as you can to make sure it doesn't get chosen. Fine, I really couldn't care less whether it's picked or not, and it's not my choice anyway. Nor yours. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that my posts above were not expressed in the right spirit of cooperation but I do think that, since wife selling exists in other parts of the world, it may be a sensitive topic that others may not find funny. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• That women (wife is irrelevant) and men too are bought and sold in many parts of the world today is indeed objectionable, but trafficking in humans is not the subject of wife selling. If you take the trouble to read it you'll see that it's about the history of divorce in England and to a much lesser extent English colonies. How that can possibly be considered offensive I can't even begin to image, and to be brutally frank I've found the tone of your remarks so far to be rather insulting. It's nothing to do with your "spirit of cooperation" as far as I'm concerned, it's to do with your deliberate and continuing efforts to denigrate a perfectly good history article. So you don't like the title. Tough. That's what it's called in the literature, we didn't invent the name "wife selling" for a bit of a "chuckle" as you seemed to be suggesting. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think Awadewit can push Pride and Prejudice and Zombies to FA by March 15. --Moni3 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I could, if I didn't work on my dissertation, but that really needs to be my priority. Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that one before. Now I really am torn.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well let's all conspire against Awadewit, so she'll finish her dissertation and we can call her Dr A. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Seth Grahame-Smith replaces every occurrence of "horse" in the original text with "zombie" and occasionally mentions ninjas. What a masterpiece!" Will anyone co-nom? Yomangani^talk 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Play with fire and you're apt to get burned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read the book - it is hysterical. "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains." Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Harumph, well you could have had Mary Toft for 1 April but you couldn't wait :) Really, I'm not mithered if its Wife selling or another article over Cock Lane ghost, the latter stands well enough on its own to be TFA at some point anyway. Besides, there are plenty of other astonishing things to get to FA for the future :) Parrot of Doom 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for the sexual reference. More page hits! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should've waited a few months before putting "Bale Out" on the main page. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling is perfect for April Fools. Dincher (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon William Shatner's musical career. That article is funny already: George Clooney, for instance, chose this as one of the Desert Island Discs he would bring along if marooned – as an incentive to leave the island. He said, "If you listen to [this song], you will hollow out your own leg and make a canoe out of it to get off this island. Someone should do it. --Moni3 (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see Rhinoceros Party of Canada as a future April Fools TFA (it would require work, though it's not in horrible shape). Some of their antics have become the stuff of legend in Canada (ie. running a candidate named John Turner in the same riding as then-Liberal leader John Turner), think of the blurb that could be written! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a worthy cause, too. I read that once when it was up at GA. Brilliant. Not the article as much as the party itself. --Moni3 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I got a good laugh out of that article. I especially like their proposal to adopt driving on the left gradually--starting with trucks!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The best part is that they actually had a candidate finish second in a riding - at a time when there were three major parties in Canada. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks rather similar to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, which is still going, but both articles would need a helluva lot of work to get to FA in the next six weeks or so. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it for this year, I was putting it forward as an article to consider for next year. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I could get Quehanna Wild Area to FA in time. It is the largest wild area in Pennsylvania and is home to a herd of elk and a lovely trail, but I think it could have a really clever April Fools blurb - the land was originally state forest, mostly acquired at tax sales after being clearcut and burnt in the early 20th century. The wild area was established in 1955 as a test area for nuclear jet engines as a giant circle (then it was too hard to fence in a circle so they settled for a 16 sided polygon. It also had a research nuclear reactor, followed by hot cells for radioisotope work. In the 1980s it was struck by a tornado, and the state set up a prison boot camp for youthful offenders there in 1992 (no neighbors to complain). The blurb could be something like

Quehanna Wild Area in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania was established in 1955 as a habitat for the rare nuclear jet engine. Quehanna was also home to endangered radioactive species like Cobalt-60 and Strontium-90, and was the only wild area in the state with it own nuclear reactor and hot cells. The 48,000-acre (19,000 ha) wild area is Pennsylvania's largest; its great size allows visitors to track migrating tornados. The land was acquired by the state in the early 20th century as a preserve for tree stumps and ashes. Wapiti became locally extinct in the 19th century and were successfully reintroduced by the commonwealth in the 1920s; in 1992 Pennsylvania estrablished a small colony of prisoners in the wild area. (You get the idea)....

So what do you all think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good even :-) Quehanna Wild Area is my favorite suggestion so far, for several reasons.

It builds on the recent tradition to use misdirection in the blurb: I can see possibilities for this also in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, which is hilarious, as we could suggest that Jane Austen wrote it without actually saying so. There are other excellent ideas and excellent articles, but I don't yet see the blurb for some of them.

While April 1 is an opportunity to show the world that Wikipedia does not take itself too seriously, it is also an occasion when Wikipedia receives extra media attention. It is great that year after year, many commentators believe our true articles are hoaxes, and others praise our cleverness in deceiving them. We don't want to give the media another story beyond that. So, even though Wife selling, William Shatner's musical career, Cock lane ghost are all excellent articles and excellent choices humor-wise, I think it would be unwise to use an article whose blurb might rely on issues such as living persons or sexual politics and/or innuendo for its humor.

The other thing I like about Quehanna Wild Area is that the humor comes from us. The article is not intrinsically funny, any more than George Washington (inventor) and Ima Hogg were. Geometry guy 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I really should write that article about Brett Lee the race-winning greyhound dog that only had one testicle YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'm sticking with my traditional nom, Fountain (Duchamp). • Ling.Nut 08:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

British rail flying saucer would be perfect, provided enough sources could be found to expand it. Steve ^T • C 10:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You won't; there's a lot less to that than meets the eye. It wasn't actually a secret government plot to build UFOs; it was a by-product of the RTV31 hovertrain research that was eventually abandoned in favour of the Birmingham Maglev line, and BR patented potential future uses as a precautionary measure (this was only a short time after the abandonment of the Avrocar project, so it wasn't as odd as it sounds). It shouldn't really even have its own article, as the article gives it hugely undue weight. – iridescent 23:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I like Quehanna Wild Area, for the reasons Geometry Guy cited, and it would be expandable, plus it can be linked readily to other articles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets help and encourage Ruhrfisch in his efforts to bring the article to FA standard then! Geometry guy 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any particular problems with the article, but we generally have the blurb closely track the lede of a FA, and a lede like that could never pass FAC as it stood. Habitat for jet engines? Endangered isotopes? No. If you have to do what is effectively a satire lede to make this work, don't make it work.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with Wehwalt; I can't see any way to make this funny without bending the truth beyond any reasonable limit. Besides, all three April 1 TFAs since the tradition started (George Washington, Ima Hogg, Museum of Bad Art) have been on US topics and two of the three have been on the East Coast; it would be nice to broaden the net a little. – iridescent 00:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Wehwalt. Although I'm sympathetic to the view expressed by Geometry guy and others, that some may take offence at wife selling or a bawdily named hoax, I see that as their problem, not ours. The proposed lead for Quehanna Wild Area does stretch the facts to at least breaking point. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many excellent editors here who can make the blurbs (for this, and other ideas) work better. No other draft blurbs have so far been proposed. However, we can use satire in the blurb without using it in the lead: I suggest rereading the lead of Ima Hogg and the corresponding blurb for an example of how much we can stretch the truth and still be praised. As for systemic bias, why not worry about this for the other 364 days of the year instead? Geometry guy 00:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. The public perception of Wikipedia is our problem too.

As someone who spent far more time than I really had available yesterday to sort out the confusion between Loutro, Messenia and Palaio Loutro, and who has helped more than a fair few Singapore-related articles through GA, and recently helped Nokian Tyres retain its GA listing I feel that I am free of any accusations of systemic bias. The systemic bias in this case is yet another US April 1 article. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. So far as public perception is concerned, I'm with whoever it was said that most people are mostly wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone of systemic bias, merely suggesting that raising this as an issue about April 1 (as several editors have done, not just Iridescent and Malleus and Wehwalt) is an unnecessary complication, while issues of public criticism could be more harmful to the encyclopedia. However, those who have made their bed can lie in it. I shall now return to mine, content that I have freely offered good advice without prejudice. Thanks for all your attention :-) Geometry guy 01:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're dreaming. I never raised the issue of systemic bias and I don't see that Wehwalt did either. That would be Iridescent I believe. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) I was trying to write the blurb similar to the Ima Hogg TFA blurb here. I think it could work as a fairly "straight" blurb too - not many nature preserves were established as test ranges for nuclear jet engines, or have to worry about nuclear and other hazardous waste dumps, or have their own prisons. Even the 16-sided-polygonal shape (because making a circular fence was too hard) and the odd name (lets lop off the first three letters of the Susquehanna River's name) are almost too good to be true. There are also a bunch of over-engineered bridges on the hiking trail there (mostly built by engineering professors from Pennsylvania State University) but I am still looking for a RS for those. I will work on the article in any case, just thought it might be a good April Fools TFA. Can't help where its located and it is a bit big to move somewhere else (not sure that even the British Rail Flying Saucer could move it) ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest writing a straight blurb. Ima Hogg was a special case, the name carried all before it, it almost didn't matter what was written. This is not in that league.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work on actually expanding the article first, just wanted to give the regulars here a heads up and see if others thought it worth the push to try and get it to FA before April 1. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Everyone. Just thought that if you didn't know of it already you should probably check out Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article. There are a ton of suggestions there. Also, it looks like people want something from outside of the United States, and preferably from the UK simply because all of the April Fools TFAs so far have been from the USA. I am personally partial to Superlambanana--Found5dollar (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The ones we've chosen seem okay; I personally think Crown Fountain has potential. ceranthor 18:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I missed this discussion. For the future—maybe Halloween—one might want to consider the My Way killings. Oops looks like it already appeared as a DYK. Lambanog (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of potential FAs

1. Wife selling
2. Cock Lane ghost
3. Stanley Green
4. Quehanna Wild Area

How is Quehanna Wild Area coming along? Anything else ready? If so, please add to list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to list this as it's not immediately funny, but I bet we could work Crown Fountain into something good. ceranthor 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we'd list here things that had been discussed above and were ready, to shorten the talk for Raul. Perhaps others will discuss that one above (I can't discern anything funny about it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, no problem then. I just thought we could take the misdirectional route on it, or something. ceranthor 01:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

While all three of those are great i would vote Wife selling. It is the most unbelievable and the most likely for people to think is a fake page.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize we should actually work on these. The Quehanna one is doable. I've expanded it already, but I need some help. Even as I was working on it, it seemed incredible, and I wondered if those government sites were a hoax. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Auntie Ruth, I wish you had contacted me. I said I would work on Quehanna, I went to the libraries and looked up lots of stuff, came back and see you have added a lot of material. I will do what I said I would, but you do not mention the West Branch Susquehanna River or Sinnemahoning Creek (the wild area is between these), nor do you mention the Allegheny Plateau, and as far as your Geology and Indigenous peoples sections go, they are completely uncited and not very accurate. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PS I did not mean to say I WP:OWN the article and welcome help, just wish our efforts could have been more coordinated. Will raise specific concerns on the Quehanna talk page. Sorry to come across as cranky, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No indeed I did not mention those; I always considered my contribution a "work in progress" and had not even approached the Susquehanna material yet, and certainly had not added all the cites that I had accumulated. Do you have a source on the name? it's meaning, etc.? I did not notice in this complicated set of posts about the April Fools thing that you had said you would work on it. As far as I'm concerned, you can take it over, and I'll go back to writing my diss. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The name is explained on Stranahan's Susquehanna River of Dreams on page 188, "Company [i.e. Curtis-Wright] officials even coined a new name for their reservation — Quehanna — in honor of the river that drained the entire region." I have read other sources that say it is derived from the river, i.e. just "Susquehanna" with the first three letters lopped off. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) FYI, this is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#April Fools blurb Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1910 Cuba hurricane/archive1

Not to be pushy, but I'm just curious as to why this is still open. It's near the bottom of the list, all objections have been resolved, there are three supports, and there have been no votes or major reviews in well over a week. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

When I ran through that today, I only saw two supports. Reviewers, PLEASE make sure that you put your declarations at the beginning of a line. If it is indented, in the middle of a sentence, or in tiny font, it is often difficult for Sandy or I to notice them. Karanacs (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I emphasise; this was such a messy FAC! And what was the point of using a small font such as this: "support"? I think nominators have a responsibility to keep their FACs well and clearly formatted, without, of course, changing the substance of reviews. I like to see "Status" reports from nominators, particularly towards the end of lengthy nominations. But, I don't know if our cherished delegates find them useful. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I just posted this summary at the bottom of the review.

Supports Aaroncrick Waffling support from Auntieruth55

Struck oppose from Cool three. Oppose is struck, but I couldn't find a support.

conditional support from mav, but this editor hasn't been back, and it does look like Julian dealt with the issues raised.

Source review: Ealdgyth, and it's unresolved.

Dabomb checked the dabs and they apparently have been taken care of.

Image review? I couldn't find it.

I think it's clear what support means. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if nominators (and others) would strive to keep FACs clean. It sounds like Karanacs processes them the same way I do; on my first pass, I skim to see which might be ready for a closer look for promotion, or are ready to archive. I had to stare at this one for a very long time to find the Supports. If supports aren't bolded where they belong, per instructions, I'm likely to miss them on the first pass. My second pass is to read those that may be ready for promotion thoroughly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a difficult enough job without having to go searching for supports. As a matter of general interest, do you read through the article as well? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The ones you're about to promote. I recall a discussion I had with a software tester some years ago. It's impossible to test everything, and even if it were possible it would take too long, so I asked him how he decided which areas to target. There were some obvious things, like use case compliance, common programming errors, complexity metrics and so on, but at the end he said, almost as an after thought: "Oh, and I look more closely at the code produced by some programmers than by others". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What does it take to get a laugh out of you, Malleus?  :) Some, I'm familiar with before they come to FAC, many I read through over the days while they're maturing at FAC (instead of upon promotion), I carefully read first-time nominators and contentious FACs or those with weak or only involved editor support, and yes, some editors whose work I know well, I only skim. It's been a long time since anyone disputed anything in a Ruhrfisch & Co FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My wiki-sense is tingling! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that knowing my secrets doesn't make you complacent, or lead you to stop parking those lovely pictures on my talk page :) Your articles are not in contentious topic areas, and I can never find anything wrong with them! My FAC concerns are generally more with those articles that don't always get independent content review (Milhist, hurricanes, ships, geology, math/physics, birds, etc. ... ) and making sure "outside" editors have reviewed them, but I don't always get that, sometimes have to promote anyway, and I sometimes find things in articles that escaped reviewer attention: not yours :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, if you need a content review on a warship ever, feel free to ping me. I'll try to keep an eye out too —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I took it as a compliment - thanks! Now my secret agenda to get non-notable bands to FA can proceed ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off; now we'll all be scrutinizing those :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Curiously my wife sometimes asks me the same question. I've had to ask her to wear a silly hat when she's telling a funny story, so that I know not to take her seriously. Sometimes she forgets though, and I explode with rage. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I just had a vision of Homer Simpson running at a ruined barbecue pit with an umbrella, after he beat it screaming "Why must I fail at every attempt at masonry???" That was awesome, Mal. Even if you're not laughing, you're making me laugh. Moni3 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Go review some boats and stop goofing around! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To get back on the serious side, Auntieruth, I deliberately don't read the summaries - posted by either reviewers or nominators. Sometimes a reviewer will support with a big "BUT..." that actually backs up a point another reviewer made in opposing. It's not just the declaration alone that's considered, but what is written along with it, and it's better for me to read through those myself to determine how to weight it. There's also the possibility that reviewers will change a declaration, but not change the summary. I don't even keep notes for myself from week to week - I read through each of the "close" FACs all over again. Karanacs (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Same take on the summaries as Karanacs; they don't always tell the full story, and reading through the full FAC before promotion is key-- but the problem for me is that I may miss mid-sentence bolds on my first pass through (eyesight). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Source reviews...

Quite honestly, I don't have the time to do every FAC anymore, and for a while User:Rafablu88 was picking up the slack, but he's busy in RL also, so someone needs to step up to the plate and pick up the Video game/music/movie FACs for a while. I just do not have the time for that. The current list of ones that are needed is:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 Giro d'Italia/archive2 done by RB88. Mm40 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek III: The Search for Spock/archive1
  • Rafablu88 already gave it a clean slate, with the recommendation that other editors mention their stance on a couple of potentially borderline sources when they review. Steve ^T • C 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killswitch Engage/archive2 Done by Auntieruth55. Mm40 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Kinks/archive2 Done by RB88. Mm40 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Film noir/archive1 DocKino (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Beauty (film)/archive1 Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pilot (Parks and Recreation)/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Milbanke Sound Group/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive1 Done by myself. Mm40 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rookie (1990 film)/archive2
  • This has been archived. Steve ^T • C 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ram Narayan/archive2
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kala (album)/archive2
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Say Say Say/archive1

Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a stab at the one for Parks and Recreation; feel free to unstrike (destrike?) if it seems inadequate. Ideally, all reviewers should consider sources before they "support"; I'm as guilty as anyone for leaving it up to you; you just seemed so good at it. :-) On the handful of FAC reviews I manage each month, I'll try not to shirk that aspect. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And I had a stab at the one for Ram Narayan. Feedback on the review itself welcome. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so someone's going to be putting a list together for Ealdgyth of all the source review reviews, right? :-D Steve ^T • C 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's always seemed to me to be a mistake to expect one editor to go through sourcing, another images, yet another alt text and so on. Any reviewer who supports ought to have looked at the whole package, and flagged any areas of concern for those more expert in a particular area to look more closely at. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and this seems closer the way it used to work. As I say, I'm as guilty as anyone for ignoring images when the "experts" have already pitched in with their comments, or even holding off support until I've seen Ealdgyth or Rafablu88 give the sources a clean bill of health. So ... I won't be doing that any more. A support is a support is a support. :-) To remind reviewers, new and experienced, I wonder how easy it would be for all new FAC pages to automatically include an abridged version of WP:WIAFA in the edit notice. Something along the lines of this? Steve ^T • C 11:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember though that per the instructions (and rightly so, in my opinion), "A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria." This applies as much to, say, prose and comprehensiveness as to media and sources. I think if we were to insist on total coverage of the criteria by all reviewers, that would not achieve anything and would undoubtedly act as a disincentive to editors to participate at all. I thought we were trying to find ways of encouraging greater participation, not ways of putting people off. PL290 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Any reviewer is perfectly at liberty to qualify their support in whatever they wish if they feel that's necessary, although to my mind that's not really a support, more of a comment along the lines of "the image licensing looks OK to me, but I haven't checked anything else". My point was to do with the reliance on one or two individuals to check specific aspects of the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Only one still needs review, Kala (album). I did Dragon Quest, so someone might want to take a quick look. Mm40 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PL290's "we were to insist on total coverage of the criteria by all reviewers, that would not achieve anything" (13:16, 24 February 2010). I suggest a standard set of specialisms, mostly based on current informal ones, e.g. content, prose, images, etc. However, it would have to be adaptable - for example Malleus elsewhere said that country articles are monsters, and I could imagine such reviews having divisions by sheer bulk as well as function such as contents, etc.

In "normal" reviews the coordination would be mostly the job of the delegates. But for complex reviews the specialists may need to check that there have been no undesirable side-effects. --Philcha (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that the two aspects Philcha identifies (having a standard set of specialisms, and the need to coordinate specialist reviews) relate directly to my recent suggestion above which hasn't really provoked much reaction yet. I remain of the opinion that the suggestion may have merit, particularly if it can be implemented in a way that works well visually for reviewers and delegates. PL290 (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies

I was just looking through the FA categories to find the biography category, because I'm looking for some of our best bios to show an editor who's currently writing one. And I find we have no bio category. Would it make sense to create one, rather than having bios spread throughout other categories? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be too large to make sense. Here's the list; there are over 600 FA biographies. Mike Christie (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, best just to leave the bios in their topics. Hopefully the category answers SV's needs.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. What I was looking for was a list of FA bios of women. Maybe I should create a subcat, though practically all my experiences of trying to create categories end with me being chased off by category specialists outraged that I've violated some sacred tenet of their system. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I see it's including things like bands, and articles about events, rather than bios. It includes anything that the bio wikiproject puts its tag on basically. It would be nice to have a separate category of pure bios that got to FA, with separate cats for men and women. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better addressed at WT:FA?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Brief article summary at candidacy?

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I'd like to suggest that nominators of FA are encouraged/required to provide a very brief (one, at most two sentences) summary what the article is about. The reason is, that I often find myself in the situation that I want to do some review, but from the title, it is often hard to guess the topic. However, I tend to be interested in certain topics more than others. Without clicking at each article, I can't know, though. Any thoughts on this? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that would be helpful. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

By floating over the link I can read the first paragraph of the lead, enough to know if it is an article in an area for which I would not be a good reviewer. I always want the nominator to include a compelling reason to read the article, such as a personal connection, something thought-provoking for folks who are skimming to find something to review. --Moni3 (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(For those who may not know, if you enable My preferences/Gadgets/Navigation popups you'll see the article preview that Moni's talking about.) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Moni on this; it's not necessary for the nominator to provide a two or three sentence summary. I'd rather see the nominator include something else in the nomination, such as why they wrote the article, or why it's important, rather than the article says such and such, and I'm nominating it because it has passed 3 other reviews and it's ready....Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

At FLC I scan through the titles. If none interest me, I skim read a few nomination paragraphs, to decide whether there is anything there to motivate me (first time nominator, new format with potential for rollout, previous nom failed solely due to inactivity, quirky and innovative, etc). I don't think anything like that should be required, but if a nomination is engaging it's more likely to attract reviews. WFCforLife (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, is there an agreement that encouraging (not requiring) nominators to give a very brief summary would be a plus? (I also like additional engagement commitments of the nominators, but that's not my main criterion). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it works well enough as it is. Even the brief exchange above has shown that reviewers have different preferences about what they'd like to see there. Leave it up to nominators to put something they think's appropriate for each nomination. PL290 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PL. In my opinion it's to a nominator's advantage to entice me, but I don't think we should formalise it. Besides, it's no longer an "advantage" if everyone does it. ;) WFCforLife (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Nominations" versus "Older nominations"

I'm back from the dead after a hellish RL work schedule. First time I've seen the binary structure. Newcomers will wonder what these two categories mean in terms of the way the articles in each are treated. (I don't know myself ... should I go to the older ones first to review? I'm scratching my head.). Could there be a brief explanation in the pre-amble, and perhaps in a one-sentence lead for each major section? Tony (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Newcomers will see this in the preamble. As to adding text to the two sections, I think it would often be missed, since people are likely to navigate directly to articles from the TOC. It's really just a marker in the TOC. PL290 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that, although I did quickscan to find some reference to the issue. Perhaps it should be bolded? Tony (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ram Narayan (20 century classical Indian musician)

Since I'm not the nominator, i'm going to put in a plea for the above nomination languishing near the bottom of the FAC noms list. I did the GA review. Hekerui received almost no feedback at the first FAC, and is facing the same situation at the second nom, even though dablinks, external links and alt text have been checked, the image review completed, and a source review has been done. It would be a shame if this dropped off the radar at FAC twice primarily because of a lack of readers. It isn't too long an article... any takers? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Instead of arguing about the alt text below. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)