Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive73

What to do about FAC?

Dear friends,

I worked solidly as a reviewer at this forum for a few years in the early days. I now look in every few months to see how things are going: reviewing is too much like my day job for me to want to do much, and when I do review, it's usually just on prose in the lead, which in many cases I find substandard for main-page exposure. I don't have time to go through whole articles, and I don't think that level of intensity is appropriate at FAC. Reviewers are not PhD advisors.

My impression is that the FAC process is not serving its purpose well, and is overdue for reform. Let's deal with FAR and FARC another time; my immediate concerns are insufficient reviewers, inconsistent amounts of reviewing, and a list of nominations that is far too long. The result appears to be an unnecessarily difficult decisions by the three coordinators, possibly inconsistent quality in promoted candidates, and a turn-off for potential reviewers, whose efforts must feel like a mere drop in the ocean. I feel for the coordinators when there's insufficient review text: do they archive by default, sorry 'bout that, or do they let it lie? I say: set up active procedures for avoiding this situation. It would improve the system for everyone if nominators' expectations were steered away from the moral hazard of a languid, almost static process, toward a shorter, sharper process that encourages earlier withdrawal, reworking, and resubmission.

Here's a quick run-through of the months/days that the 45 current candidates have spent on the lists. I've bolded candidates that have been listed for a month or more.

0/0 (almost no review text), 0/0 (no review text), 0/1 (no review text), 0/5 (no review text), 0/6, 0/7 (not much review text), 0/7 (almost no review text), 0/9 (no review text), 0/9 (almost no review text), 0/10 (no review text), 0/11, 0/13, 0/13 (almost no review text), 0/15 (almost no review text), 0/13 (no review text), 0/17 (little review text), 0/18, 0/20, 1/25, 0/21, 0/21 (lttle review text), 0/23, 0/25, 0/26, 0/26, 0/29, 1/2, 1/3, 1/5, 1/5, 1/5, 1/6, 1/11, 1/15. And the so-called "older nominations: 0/28 (no review text), 1/14, 1/30, 1/30, 2/2, 2/6, 2/11, 2/12, 2/21

If the "older nominations" list functions to make the ?normal list look less daunting, I don't think it succeeds. Here are some admittedly loaded questions:

• (1) Are reviewers expected to take a different attitude to the items on the "older nominations" list? I have no idea whether we should give them priority or leave them to languish. Is the binary not-older/older structure achieving anything worthwhile?
• (2) What, in psychological and managerial terms, is the optimal maximum length of either/both lists? To me, optimal length encourages more reviewers to take the list seriously, rather than feeling it's an endless kilometre-long train that hardly moves. Is 25 active noms a good number to aim for? Should one month be the automatic interval, perhaps with discretion by coordinators for minor extensions of a few days?
• (3) To what extent is FAC a teaching process, and how can its limited reviewer resources have the greatest impact?
• (4) Is there a role for coordinators to post at a designated point of time a summary of the situation for each nomination, as they see it? Perhaps at the three-week point (a week before judgment day)?
• (5) Should the coordinators have one or two appointed assistants (with restricted roles, to ease the clerical burden of the coordinators, like ArbCom clerks)?
• (6) Should coordinators (and assistants) create a pool of named, experienced editors who have (a) demonstrated they care about article standards in a particular area, and (b) would be prepared to come in on request to help out when the coordinator feels review text is insufficient in the approach to the one-month point?

My tentative proposals are to make FAC a more dynamic process by pursuing the following points:

• Make promotion a little harder. The rationale is that FAs appear on the site's main page and are viewed potentially by millions of people. We have Wikipedia's reputation to protect, so please understand when you're asked to rework and resubmit.
• In relation to (3), officially clarify that FAC often reviews by sampling, not by comprehensive sifting through and detailed directions to fix. Showing how to do it, and expecting nominators and their friends to implement that advice, would be a more effective use of reviewer resources. Besides, that's how editors learn. There's a marked tendency for nominators to confine their responses to samples specified by reviewers, rather than learning to apply principles throughout.
• Reviewers should be encouraged in the instructions to state the scope of their supports, and their opposes (e.g. on prose quality? referencing?).
• In relation to (2), I suggest that one month is ample time to remain on the list, and that nominators should be prepared to be available to respond to critical points throughout the article, not just directly fixing reviewers' examples. This should be seen as a learning process benefiting from some of the most senior and experienced editors at en.WP—not as an open-ended, relatively passive experience. The instructions should emphasise that withdrawal, reworking, and resubmission is normal, and that it should not be seen as failure but an opportunity for success.
• If it were me, I'd use a new-look FAC to actively attract more reviewers.

FAC is a great investment in both article quality and the skills of our editorial community. It needs to be tightened up. I'll be pleased to read critical discussion of what I've posted, even if there's disagreement with it. Tony (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are just a few first thoughts. The fundamental issue appears to be a lack of reviewers throughout Wikipedia, not just here. There's also a huge backlog for both GA reviews and peer reviews.

The backlogs at GAN and PR likely exacerbate the problems here. If people are unable to get feedback elsewhere, they're more likely to come straight to FAC. For Wikipedia to function as a collaborative effort, editors who put time and effort into improving an article have to be able to garner feedback from the broader community. FAC isn't the proper place to improve articles, but I can't fault people for seeking the forum where they are most likely to get feedback. People having to wait six months to get their GA nominations reviewed or FAC nominations being closed without any reviews is a fundamental failure of Wikipedia's collaborative nature. That's why I don't know how I feel about nominations being closed without any reviews.

I think making the FAC process more efficient may help somewhat, but in the end the only real solution would be to find a way to encourage more people to review articles, here, at GAN, or at PR, as they are all interconnected. I really don't know how this could be achieved. Maybe some sort of campaign within Wikipedia to make people more aware of the need for reviewers could help, but I'm skeptical.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Most GANs do not take six months to get reviewed, see this chart. Kees08 (Talk) 06:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Do we have a similar chart for FAC? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It could be generated from the data here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Also interesting, the GANs near the right of the chart tend to be nominators that have a low number of reviews (reviews are shown prominently at GAN), nominators who...create conflict might be the best term, and articles with many offline sources. Kees08 (Talk) 22:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts. I have no argument with what you say, although I am unsure about whether smaller nomination lists would make a difference, whereas a faster review process definitely will. After all, GA has a much longer review queue. At GA articles are sorted by category; this could be considered. What is an appropriate time for the review process?

• Many articles attract little or no attention in a month. Or ever. If there is no feedback, I have little choice but to re-nominate the unchanged unchanged (although I may of course switch to nominating another article that I think will arouse more interest). There is a two-week penalty for voluntarily withdrawing an article. The long lead time also means that sometimes I have an article at FAC when I am unable to work on it.
• The fora where I go to get feedback is A-class, but not all projects have this (and it only works for military articles). Some feedback can be obtained from DYK and GA; but the queues for the latter are very long, and the former is uncertain. (Paradoxically, it is the military articles that get reviewed most quickly and most often; sports articles can wait for up to a year.) This all begs the question: what is the appropriate forum for review and feedback?
• I encourage reviewers to review small, manageable portions of the articles. I often look at the final sections only myself; I have found that they attract less attention than the lead and first sections.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of reviewers is the main problem. What to do about it? We should try harder to involve our readership in reviewing, recruiting additional contributors this way. Most editors came to Wikipedia for writing articles (and this is what the Anyone can edit link on the main page is all about; no word about alternative ways to contribute), but I'm sure there are people out there who do not enjoy article editing but would enjoy reviewing, but just don't know they are needed. I propose to place a template that encourages comments and reviews directly inside the articles for the time frame of the review (including for PeerReview, GAN, and FAC), stating that "this article is currently under review", "please consider adding comments for improvement", and "Wikipedia needs reviewers". We do something similar in the German Wikipedia (see here for an current example). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

But how to make it more attractive for potential reviewers? I've proposed a few ways, though not a centralised list of them. I still believe the gigantic size of the list is a turn-off, for example. Tony (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't just making the review pages more visible be enough to attract a few more reviewers? I think most non regulars are simply not aware that such reviews of an article are taking place when they read it. The downside could be that FAC review pages get swamped by comments of inexperienced people, but is that much worse than what we have now? Looking at old FACs, it seems that more "random" people used to comment, yet briefly, were the nominations more visible back then? I think a problem is that the FAC process seems a bit too esoteric for most editors, and that they don't feel "good" enough to participate. And of course that many reviewers hesitate to review articles about subjects they are unfamiliar with, though layman reviews can be just as useful for identifying comprehension issues. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The usual excuse for FAC's malaise is shortage of reviewers, but while this is a factor, I see it as an effect rather than a cause. The cause, I believe, is a somewhat passive leadership that neither inspires nor encourages. I have great admiration for the coordinators' fairness, cool unflappability, courtesy and good manners. I accept that their's is a difficult and unrewarding job; but the present laissez-faire approach verges at times on the somnambulistic. Thus we have nominations that have been on the page for a month without attracting a single comment, and others that have been there for two months without gaining a single support. We are told that if enough monkeys were given typewriters for an infinite amount of time, they would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. Likewise, if nominations are left for an indefinite period they may in due course find three supports. Note also how source reviewing has gone out of fashion; of 45 current candidates, exactly eight have source reviews.

It's not just about finding more reviewers, it's about creating a dynamic atmosphere, a sense of purpose that will inspire people to nominate and review. A starting point could be a widespread debate about the whole process; as Tony points out, all featured articles are potential TFAs which may be read by hundreds of thousands. They need to be incontrovertibly our best work, not just those that "meet the criteria", a pretty low bar. I'd go further, and make the (no doubt highly popular) suggestion that while this debate proceeds we place a moratorium on all further FAC nominations. That would underline the point that we can't just go on as we are, and might concentrate our minds on finding a solution. Brianboulton (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd personally support a much more robust strategy of managing the list, if that's the eventual consensus here. The coords need strong backing from the community that we can point to as a mandate when we're more aggressively archiving nominations. --Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Tony and Brian. Every time this issue is raised, there's agreement that the list is too long, and that archiving needs to be snappier. I would say an upper limit of four weeks; coords can IAR for nominations that are about to make it. Archive before that if an experienced reviewer suggests that the nom be withdrawn; at the moment, those suggestions are regularly ignored. Archive if the nomination goes south for any reason (e.g. personal attacks). We need more involvement from the coords, and perhaps some additions to the team. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but I don't think it would hurt to also find ways to attract more reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think having a long list hurts anything. I find myself reviewing things at the bottom of the list and not worrying about how long the list is. If reviewing only portions of the FAC are acceptable, it would be nice for that to be made more clear. I could do a partial review, but would be hesitant to provide a support or oppose based on it. Some possible ideas for reform, in no particular order:

• Better tools/UX to review articles. In doing a source review, I would want to look at a list of source grouped by source (e.g. all The New York Times grouped together). That would make it a lot faster to root out the unreliable sources, and the articles dependence on it
  • An image review tool would also be useful (would just assist the reviewer, not provide any auto-reviewing capabilities)
• Initial review committee. Before being added to the list, the coordinators, or another group of elected individuals, do a quick review of the article to see if it is close to FAC standards. If it is obviously not close, it will not be added to the list, and the nominator can be directed to a resource to help them get their article up to snuff.
• Require reviewing nominations prior to nominating your own. You could make it anywhere from a 1:1 to a 3:1 ratio of reviewed to nominated articles. This could both slow the number of nominations and help nominations get through quicker. Coordinators still exist for quality control.

Just some thoughts. This problem will continue to come up until we start trying different solutions and seeing which work and which do not work. Doing nothing will result in no progress. Kees08 (Talk) 05:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

What would you anticipate the image review tool would include/do? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Great question! When I review images, I middle-click each image so I have tabs open for all of them. I will then go through each of them, and click the source page if it exists, and if it does not (own work for example) I open the Commons page so I can use the Tineye button there. After I go through every image like that, I will run through the article and verify there are not too many or too few images. If too few, I will run through Google, Bing, Flickr, and Wiki Commons to try to find something. After that, I verify all the captions are quality, and then verify alt text exists and either add it myself or request the nominator to do so.

I wrote that out in case your reviewing technique is different than mine. Based on my reviewing technique, a page that had a table format of: image, link to enwiki page, link to Commons page, license, alt text, caption, description, link(s) to source page, and link to Tineye. It would be great if the tool could post to the review page in a format of *[[:File:Exampleimage.jpg]] - Source link dead, inappropriate license *[[:File:Exampleimage2.jpg]] - Image not found at source, higher quality image found at foo.com It could have dropdowns in each cell for things like my example (for source, possible options could be Source is dead, Image not found at source, or for alt text "Alt text needed", "Better alt text needed"). Not sure if it would help others, but a tool like that would cut my review time in half at least, I suspect. Kees08 (Talk) 22:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Break

The way forward?

There have been some very helpful posts above: thank you. My thoughts at the moment are that, remarkably, the instructions already contain most of the solutions. Here is the wording:

"A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators ... insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met [or] a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn."

The coordinators determine timing, and they determine consensus—game, set, and match, as it should be. These rules were framed years ago because exactly the same problems were at issue. We have the ability to run this show much better, but we can't bring ourselves to. There's a cultural problem among (i) us reviewers, who are chary of stating (early on, one hopes) that a nomination is premature; and (ii) the coordinators, who understandably fear they'll make themselves unpopular by executing the rules the way they were intended. LaserBrain, just above, has given us the lead: support the coordinators in tightening up the process and they will. I'll repeat his words:

"I'd personally support a much more robust strategy of managing the list, if that's the eventual consensus here. The coords need strong backing from the community that we can point to as a mandate when we're more aggressively archiving nominations."

As well, I think the rules need a bit of tweaking to enact a one-month limit as the norm, with minor extensions granted by coordinators where appropriate. (Currently there's no temporal benchmark, so this would be just a clarification.) I'd also like to see the "older" list merged into a single list for simplicity. A one-month limit would reduce the numbers to less than 30 from the current 45. Another thing we could do is ask the coordinators to be more pro-active—two or maybe three weeks into a nomination—in briefly posting what needs to be done. Can we gather support via an RFC? Tony (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hopefully not WP:POINTy, but I put up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parliament of 1327/archive1 with deliberately no advertising: see what happens. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  Can you clarify? Do you mean you didn't notify relevant WikiProjects, or editors you know might be interested? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Exactly, Mike Christie, what do they call it in science—a blind control or something? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I think there are some good ideas raised above but perhaps some misconceptions too -- I'll try and briefly address the latter before moving forward:

Firstly, I don't think any of the coords is worried about unpopularity over not archiving aggressively -- as should be clear above, any archiving policy can offend someone. My tendency to leave noms open for longer than in days gone by (I daresay it's the same for Andy and Sarastro but they can confirm or deny) is to allow time for more depth of commentary from the available reviewer pool. It's all very well to archive and encourage improvement outside the FAC process (which we do anyway) but it can sound a bit hollow when there are few active venues of community review -- PR often attracts no commentary, and A-Class Review applies only to a select few areas like MilHist.

There was an assertion that withdrawal requests are frequently ignored -- quite the contrary, an early recommendation for withdrawal practically always results in a speedy archive. The only time I can recall us not actioning withdrawal recommendations that way was when they've come well into the review and after a good deal of supporting commentary was already posted. We're then into a consensus-determining situation where the withdrawal request carries the same weight as an oppose but no more.

Lastly, I'm interested in why at this stage you're especially concerned about the length of the list. Personally I don't like to see it above 40 (if fact I have a personal rule that I don't post a nom of my own unless the figure's below that) but the list has never been anything like 25. I don't normally quote stats to people but I thought I'd just post these averages for the end-of-month active FAC totals over the last decade:

2018 - 44 (to end of July)

2017 - 40

2016 - 44

2015 - 43

2014 - 48

2013 - 54

2012 - 42

2011 - 41

2010 - 37

2009 - 45

So the list isn't lengthier than in the past, but noms are staying open for longer. This leads on to suggestions for changing practice:

I don't have a particular problem with formalising a timeframe for noms but I think that, yes, that could be something that would necessitate an RFC to ensure everyone has a chance to say their say.

I also don't particularly mind the idea of losing the older noms demarcation, except that I find it a useful eyecatcher re. the break between noms that have been open more/less than a certain time (I think it's three weeks now) -- keeping it might actually dovetail nicely with a defined time limit for noms.

What I would like to see more of as a coord is early -- even high-level -- commentary on new noms to get a sense of whether they're premature (as opposed to simply out-of-process because the nominator has few if any edits or has another solo nom, both of which the coords regularly check), potentially leading to more withdrawal recommendations to nip unprepared and possibly lengthy reviews in the bud. That requires no RFC.

As far as more proactive stuff goes, I do sometimes seek out subject specialists, as well as good copy editors, for particular noms to add to my comfort level before considering promotion. We also do sometimes come in after a few weeks and warn that things are getting close to a decision on archiving. I'd be happy to do more of those things; re. the former, my concern of course has been to try not to overwork our most experienced editors --as with much of this role, it's a balancing act.

This is all I have time for at the moment, it's been an unusually busy week (partly accounting for some noms remaining in the current list longer than they should have) and I have an 80th birthday party tomorrow (not my own I hasten to add) so pls don't think me rude if don't get back here for several hours or a day. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Good points here. I don't agree with tough time deadlines, given the shortage of reviewers that everyone agrees is the main problem. Given that, a slightly longer list is the inevitable result. Although everybody complains about a long list, one might ask what exactly the great problem with one is, apart from the impatience of nominators. Mid-summer (for most) may not be the best time to say this, but both nominators and reviewers can take too long to respond, and delegates might chase more on this. To address the shortage of reviewers, I think FAC could do with some marketing - there are various ways this copuld be done. Initially this might result in a rush of less-experienced reviewers, but with luck some will stay and develop. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ian, these discussions keep popping up on this page, so clearly there's a lot of concern. We need some kind of change. Regarding withdrawal, you wrote that only an early suggestion that a nom be archived is acted upon, but not a later one: "We're then into a consensus-determining situation where the withdrawal request carries the same weight as an oppose but no more." But where was that agreed? Are you saying that one of the earliest commentators has to suggest withdrawal, and that you've decided to ignore the later ones? The instructions don't say anything like that: "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators ... a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." As I said above, requests that a nomination be withdrawn are routinely ignored by the coordinators, to the very great detriment of everyone concerned. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I am currently looking at the FAC list and there is only one item for which withdrawal has been proposed (and only a day ago), two where it has been mentioned but not actually explicitly suggested. Of all the FACs which passed this year, only one had an explicit withdrawal suggestion. Of the archived ones this year, I see one nom where a reviewer first suggested withdrawal then changed their mind, another nom by a new editor which was suggested for withdrawal then adopted by another editor with more experience, and a couple more which were withdrawn within no more than three days from the withdrawal suggestion, either by the coordinators or by the nom. So it looks like withdrawal suggestions aren't common but requests that a nomination be withdrawn are routinely ignored by the coordinators appears to be wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm deliberately not giving examples. And Ian has acknowledged that he treats later requests for withdrawal as equivalent to opposes. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The need for a formal source review creates another bottleneck. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nihonium/archive1 was opened on 3 June and has several supports, including from someone on 11 August saying the sources are fine. Ian asked for a source review on 19 July, so I assume that's what's holding it up. But there's no need for a formal source review, in the sense of someone clunking through every single source and writing up the results. This can be a pointless thing to do anyway, because what matters is how the sources are used, not only source type, and whether the sources are the most appropriate. Most source reviews don't look at any of that. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Sarah, but I make no bones about treating later requests for withdrawal as equivalent to opposes. The idea that recommendations for withdrawal are supposed to be actioned as promptly in the middle of a review as at the start of a review looks to me like faulty memory or wishful thinking. If you'd care to revisit the RFC that I believe introduced the instruction in question, I think you'd see that my interpretation follows the intended meaning -- unless you can demonstrate that the phrase "quick-fail articles on first review" really does include withdrawal suggestions well into the life of a nomination. As I've said before, when the coords see a withdrawal suggestion that follows what I understand to be the intended usage, they act on it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It is very interesting to see that some of the suggestions brought up in this discussion were also brought up eight years ago. The same points are being rehashed "FAC is turning into Peer Review, requiring quid pro quo, etc". One issue I think I see in both discussions is a lack of focus. There is no problem statement. In both cases, it seems like the list looks long, and folks come to various conclusions on that, usually without data. Ian's post that showed the list is just as long as it normally is was a good addition to the discussion, but confounds the problem statement we are trying to solve. One stab at the problem statement could be "Increase the depth of review at FAC". A couple solutions to this could be (somehow) increasing the number of reviewers or increasing how much time they spend on each article doing actual reviewing (through better tools perhaps). I recommend coming up with a clear problem statement to solve. I never go into a meeting at work without putting a problem statement (even if it is "Review data from the last test)" as the first slide. Neglecting to do so can create chaos and solutions to problems that do not exist. That was a very long-winded way of saying: let's agree to a problem statement, then focus on fixing the problem. My suggestion is "Increase the depth of review at FAC". Kees08 (Talk) 23:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ian, no matter what prompted the addition, FAC has said for eight years: "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators ... a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." According to your interpretation, this applies only if the reviewer suggesting withdrawal comments right at the start of the nomination. But it makes no sense to prioritize the views of early commentators, who may be the nominator's friends or quid pro quo supporters. Later reviewers can judge better whether any progress has been made or whether a review has gone south.

There have been several occasions where more than one experienced reviewer recommended archiving, but they were ignored. There was one occasion where another reviewer and I were harassed. I emailed you about it and suggested that you archive; you took no action and didn't respond to the email. The broader point, which has been made on this page many times, is that the coords don't seem to support reviewers. A broader point still is that we need more leadership. I think Laser brain is willing to provide that. Sarastro doesn't edit much. And you don't seem to enjoy intervening; you do it very reluctantly. So I think we need additions to the team. Personally, I would like to see Tony and Ealdgyth become involved, but I realize that it's a lot to ask. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I reckon a fairly 'hands off' approach to FAC coordination is a good one. Ian and the other coordinators do a good job of politely and rapidly archiving doomed-to-fail nominations. Other nominations should be allowed to run their course; it isn't for the coordinators to make calls early (and if they did they'd be pilloried). The underlying problem here is a mismatch between the number of FACs and number of reviewers, which no amount of fiddling with the rules or adding/subtracting/changing coordinators will fix (quite the opposite, IMO). Given that the standards of articles passing FAC seems to be improving over time, I don't see any problem which can't be solved by addressing the mismatch between nominations and reviewers. A Wikipedia-wide A-class review process could help with the supply side by improving the quality of articles arriving at FAC. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Nick, I would have agreed with you a few years ago about the "hands off" approach, but it has gone too far. The coords are largely invisible. I disagree that standards are improving; they did improve, and now they're heading in the opposite direction. As for the lack of reviewers, it has come to feel like a broken, pointless process. A huge part of the problem is allowing reviews to continue for so long. Reviews used to last up to four weeks. Now four weeks is the norm. This is exhausting, and it has led to the view that FAC is the rewrite department, which puts off reviewers. We need a shake-up. Higher standards expected of nominations, strong support for reviewers, snappy archiving, a process to be proud of. Then (maybe) reviewers will return. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah, I think that the problems you are identifying might be more the fault of nominators and reviewers than the coordinators. As has been discussed here on various occasions recently, many reviewers can be reluctant to post outright oppose votes. I try to keep an eye on new nominations, and jump in and suggest withdrawal if I think that they're clearly not meeting the FA criteria for whatever reason. I'm probably too reluctant to oppose other nominations which aren't up to scratch (e.g., I dragged my heels in doing so for the recent Bengal Famine nomination). Part of the problem might also be nominations becoming more niche: I find it hard to get excited about reviewing nominations on computer games or pop singers referenced mainly to magazines and the like (which seem to be becoming more frequent) or articles which are here for the umpteenth time, so it's not surprising that some nominations drag on. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nick, I agree that everything can't be laid at the door of the coordinators. There are too many supports after perfunctory reviews (there are a few editors who, in my view, ought to be banned from reviewing); we have quid quo pro supporters; and we have reviewers who won't oppose. The reluctance to oppose is at least in part because we're then expected to help fix the article, and if we don't, there are personal attacks, including gendered insults, and the coords rarely offer support. We also have too many nominators who've found a template for success and who keep producing similarly structured articles. That includes the pop-culture ones you mention, which are often very poor quality.

FAC is basically a request for comment. If the coords want to be hands-off, the question arises as to whether we need them. Perhaps FAC could be closed by any experienced editor who weighs up consensus. If we do want coords, the question is what additional value they ought to provide. In my view, leadership is one, about the quality of FAs, quality of reviews, the direction of the process, and so on. That's what's largely absent. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to think of the approach as "arms length" rather than "hands off" -- the coords need to be objective, dispassionate, to maintain fairness. They don't have the authority to enact topic bans, or interaction bans -- that's the province of venues like ANI and ArbCom. Shutting down a nomination where the atmosphere has become toxic is only a temporary solution if there are deep-seated issues. As far as quality goes, the coords don't take drive-by supports into account, and try to look out for QPQs; I've already said that part of the rationale for leaving noms open longer is to try and garner more in-depth commentary. Many noms hang around waiting for source and image reviews, and spotchecks of sources where the coords think it's appropriate, because we don't want to promote without those fundamental checks. Again as I've said previously, I also occasionally go directly to experienced editors to ask them to comment on particular noms, and could do more of that to help expedite the review process. I've noted that there's the risk of overworking our best reviewers, but they can always say no. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ian, is there not a reason that coordinators don't review? Separation of roles, avoidance of conflict of interest? But that's the extent of what should be "at arm's length", in my view. We need you to be more pro-active. You're the shepherds. Tony (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy to be the shepherd, Tony, as long as we keep the sheep jokes to a minimum... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah, I have a couple of comments. I like the current approach the coordinators take; their job is promotion and archiving, and day-to-day management of issues that arise within individual nominations. They do an excellent job of that. You (and Brian) are suggesting that more leadership would be beneficial. I think any member of the community can lead, in the sense you're talking about; and in fact Tony1's original post here is leadership in that sense. Authority here derives from the respect of one's peers; there many well-respected editors here. I like the fact that we're a community that can come to consensus without a designated leader chivvying us along.

You're right that there's a problem, but as Kees08 says elsewhere in this thread we should agree on exactly what the problem is before we start discussing solutions. Archiving nominations after one month is a solution, but what problem is it solving? If the answer is that it would keep the FAC list shorter and focus more reviewer attention on a shorter list, I think a case can be made that it would not do that, but my real point is that we have no agreement that a long list is inherently a bad thing. My submission for the problem statement would be that this is a "greedy" process: increasing the supply of reviewers and increasing the speed of review and promotion would increase the supply of nominations. (We have an article on the topic: induced demand.) That means there are limits to the speed and efficiency of the process. If we were to agree on that, I'd say we should discuss what it is we want to optimize -- it's like the good, quick, and cheap decision that often has to be made. We can make nominations reach archive/promotion faster, at the cost of lower promotion rates and slower promotion times. We can limit the number of reviews, with similar effects. We can reduce quality -- nobody wants to do that. We can try automation (as Kees08 suggested for image reviews): there are limits to that. But there's going to have to be a trade-off and we won't reach consensus on a solution unless we start with a consensus on the problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume the two-week wait before renominating would apply in the case of a shorter time frame to archive? Otherwise there'd be no point; the nominations would (mostly) just pop back to the top of the list.

If there's no resulting change in reviewer behaviour, I have a hard time seeing how this would help -- it would just mean an extra two-week delay, and the loss of any accumulated supports, which would tend to slow things down. If it did lead to a change in reviewer behaviour then it might be beneficial, but I'm not clear yet why we might think that would happen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Summary of proposals

I've tried to consolodate all the things that people have proposed so far in a way that may help focus discussion of them. Where possible I've grouped similar proposals together, and tried to also include some criticism of proposals. Feel free to add more and respond to each or all. I try to attribute everything, so if I mischaracterize your argument please correct it as you see fit. Hopefully this can help determine what proposals would be worth sending to an RfC. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Institute a time limit on how long reviews should be open for.

First suggested by Tony1, the common suggestion seems to be four weeks.

I still hold by my suggestion—but a maximum of four weeks, with coordinator-approved extension by a few days in compelling cases. Tony (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea and focussing on the wrong articles. Some broader topics are going to be involved, and these are the sort of articles we need FAs of. I think if an article is being worked on then that should count for something. I think it tapping (and archiving) unprepared articles is more important. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Sort nominations by category like at WP:GAN.

First suggested by Hawkeye7.

Encourage reviewers to review only small sections of articles if they wish.

Based on Hawkeye's first comment but reminiscent of Tony's original post. Kees08 likes the idea but would be hesitant to support or oppose based upon only a partial review. Tony had independently suggested making clear in the instructions that reviewers should include the scope of their supports and opposes.

Well, not so much "encourage" as to accept that reviews seldom cover all of the criteria. Let's be specific. This is why I, as a reviewer, would find it useful to have the template I proposed below displayed at the bottom of each nom. page. Tony (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Add a template to articles under review seeking feedback.

First suggested by Jens Lallensack. An example template, {{Open review}}, was created by Wugapodes.

Create tools to help reviewers evaluate articles more quickly.

First suggested by Kees08. Specificly, a tool which helps with source review, by grouping sources, and one for image reviews which can evaluate common errors in images.

Have a group of editors pre-screen nominations.

First suggested by Kees08 as an "initial review committee" which could reject nominations that obviously don't stand a chance. Independently, Ian Rose said that he would like to see more early commentary, especially high level commentary, to get a better sense of whether they stand a chance.

It's worth considering, but I think it would bring more problems than it would solve. The easy way to shorten the list is (i) to take seriously the existing rule about declarations that an under-prepared nom. should be withdrawn; and (ii) to establish a time limit. Tony (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Quid pro quo.

First suggested by Kees08, they suggested anything for a one for one QPQ to 1 QPQ for every 3 nominations. WP:DYK has a similar requirement that nominators with more than 5 successful DYK noms must review one DYK for every DYK they nominate.

We've put pressure of nominators before, here and at other forums. It was a disaster at DYK. I think just encouragement is enough. I agree with Brianboulton's comment below. Tony (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it being a disaster was before my time: but I agree that I don't think it would be useful. On DYK, the review is basically box-checking a laundry list (length, source, POV, etc), which is clearly and transparently done to the same standard (more or less!) every time. Here, say someone does a massive, in-depth review, per expectations (!!) what would stop me coming along and, needing to do a QPQ review, do one a couple of lines long? What I mean is: I would have done the most cursory review possible and yet still fulfilled my obligations. Which may of course be what happen at DYK already? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinators would have to look at the three reviews done and verify they are adequate. Considering DYK is not running short on content, it seems like it is working well for that portion of the project. Kees08 (Talk) 21:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove the "older nominations" section.

First suggested by Tony. Ian Rose said that he likes it as a visual marker, and that it might work well if a stricter time period for reviews was implemented showing which ones are liable for closing or need more reviews if there aren't any.

If our objective is to "fix" the current FAC process to make it work a little better, then most of the above suggestions make sense. For my part I would favour a much more radical appraisal as to whether the current FAC model is serving its fundamental purpose of selecting the best that Wikipedia can offer, and to consider alternative approaches, though I accept that this is unlikely to happen. But unless it does, I suspect that in a year or two's time we'll be having pretty much this same discussion.

One suggestion I am highly dubious about is "quid pro quo". This is vulnerable to misuse; I am always disconcerted when I see in reviews words to the effect: "I've reviewed your article and supported it, and would be very glad if you would now take a look at my current nomination" – especially when this request is followed by an immediate and largely uncritical support of the requestor's nomination. I'm sure this form of mutual backscratching has always gone on surreptitiously, but we should not seek to legitimise it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I share your views on "quid pro quo". I don't think it has improved DYK. There are a lot of people on here who enjoy and are good at researching a topic and writing about it, but don't want to or are not good at reviewing. There's nothing wrong with that and there's no reason to discourage them from using FAC or to force them to give lame token reviews.

I'd be interested in hearing how you think selecting FAs could be fundamentally remodeled.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a blueprint, which is why, earlier, I suggested a "Great Debate" on the issue, rather than what looks rather like a sticking-plaster job. A lot of formerly prolific (and high-quality) nominators don't bother with FAC any more – why is that? I would like to hear from them. We need, I believe, (to use that dreadful Tory-minister cliché) to "think outside the box". Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It isn't clear how FACBot (pinging Hawkeye7) populates the "older nominations" section and what the point of it is. In the regular section, there are currently several noms that have been open for four and five weeks, one for seven, and one for eight (Mullum Malarum, opened 29 June). The older section shows three open for three weeks, one for four, one for nine, one for 11, and one for three months (Nihonium, opened 3 June). SarahSV ^(talk) 19:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The "older" divider was my idea, so I can at least tell you what my intention was, though I don't think it's worked out that way in practice. It was meant to approximately divide the list in two. (See this WT:FAC archive for the relevant discussion, and the RfC above it.) I was hoping most people would focus their reviewing attention on the ones in the "Older" section, so that the noms above the line became, effectively, a waiting list; the motivation would be that their nom would not get reviewed as quickly unless it was below the line, so shrinking the bottom half would benefit their nomination. In practice I don't think any reviewer/nominator thinks that way, though I think it has a small benefit in reminding reviewers that there are some old nominations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for the explanation. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Mike, I had no idea it was meant to attract reviewers toward them. It would be much better to remove the "older" noms altogether, with encouraging advice on improving and resubmitting. Then the reviewer resources would not be spread so thinly. Tony (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Getting rid of the divider and archiving after a set time period such as four weeks are independent ideas; we could do either one without doing the other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Mike, that's true, and I'm open to being convinced. Your post above does seem to concede that it doesn't really work as intended (except to remind people that there are elderly nominations gathering dust—yesterday I asked why one had been there for 2.5 months, and the nominator took offence ... sigh). If the division were to stay, I'd like its purpose to be explicitly communicated to reviewers. With such stretched reviewing resources, we're being pulled in one direction by the visual coralling of the elderlies, and in another direction by Ian, who implicitly would prefer sheep separated from goats early in the process. Either way, it's emotionally hard to tell a nominator they should withdraw—for different reasons at early and late stages. Please tell me if I was hasty in suggesting withdrawal to an early nom., here. I didn't like doing it; maybe I'd get used to it if it were a more common practice. Tony (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that I'm opposed to the removal of the older divider -- at this stage (see my comment to Sarah above) I don't think we're all agreed on exactly what the problem is, and I'm hesitant to endorse any solution without getting that settled first. It may well be that removal of the divider would be beneficial. I just wanted to point out that we were talking about two ideas, not one.

I looked at that nomination, and I agree with almost all your prose points; the only exception is that I think "excruciating" is an acceptable figurative usage. I think your suggestion that it be withdrawn is not within the current behavioural expectations here, but perhaps it should be. What problem would it solve if this were withdrawn? Would we have less to do at FAC? Would nominators get more frustrated, and would noms take longer to get promoted?

The range of prose skills among those who bring articles here is also an issue. Some nominators will be simply unable to meet the bar set where you have it; they've historically succeeded by getting prose assistance during FAC. That benefits the encyclopedia but slows down FAC. Will those nominations no longer get that assistance if they are rapidly archived? Is that OK? I don't know the answer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Checklist?

Thinking out loud: would there be some advantage in displaying a template at the bottom of every nomination page, setting out a brief checklist of criteria. The idea would be that only coordinators could jot in (and update) their assessment—at intervals of their choosing—of how a nomination is proceeding. This would remind nominators and reviewers of the bigger picture, especially given that some of us are narrow-scope reviewers. It would expose the need to seek out a specialist reviewer—say, in the use of citations and their consistent formatting, or in the quality of the prose. Something like this, deliberately short, and possibly in a box?

CHECKLIST

Only coordinators may write within the checklist, which is for periodic guidance of nominators and reviewers.

• Quality of prose throughout (1a):
• High-quality, reliable sources used appropriately (1c):
• Citations consistently formatted (2c):
• Images/media copyright and policy compliance (3):
• Comprehensive, appropriate length, neutral (1b, 4, 1d):
• Follows style guidelines (2):

Tony (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, this is a good idea, but I don't think checklists would be kept up to date. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, I like the way you used the checklist on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Army of the Rhine and Moselle/archive1. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Feedback Request Service

For RfCs there's the Feedback Request Service which editors interested in these discussions can receive talk page posts from a bot asking them to participate in discussions needing more input. What if we instituted something similar? People interested in discussing FACs can sign up to receive x number of requests for review a month on candidates with little to no input. If we implemented a topic categorization it might even be more enticing, since editors knowledgeable in a particular field could sign up only for notifications they specialize or are interested in. We could call it the "Review Request Service" or something similar, and if it goes well, it could be expanded to cover GAN and PR to help improve reviewing across processes. Thoughts? Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 18:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is worth pursuing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Focus

Quite frankly, I think the focus of this discussion is not going to get anywhere until we address the big problem in my mind - the insane focus on "prose" without any corresponding focus on making sure that the articles at FAC are reliable and accurately sourced and based on the scholarship in the subject. And I recognize that I helped contribute to this problem by doing so many "source reviews" that reviewers appear to have abdicated their responsiblity to look at sourcing before worrying about the final polish of prose. The best prose writing in the world means nothing if the article hasn't been well-researched.

• See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HIAG/archive1, where a spot check showed issues, I stepped in to check things, and while it was going on (and while there are numerous sourcing issues listed on the page), reviewers are still reviewing as if the sourcing issues brought up by others are not important. THIS is what Sarah's talking about with regard to supporting other reviewers - if someone has brought up serious sourcing issues on the review - you should at least look like you've paid attention and read those issues. Instead, it's like sourcing is this little ghetto of reviewing that has no impact on whether or not the article is ready to be featured. Folks - if there are serious sourcing issues ... the article is NOT ready to be featured and the prose should not be polished further because ... that prose is not built on a foundation of solid sourcing!
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Friday (1910)/archive1 here Sarah brings up some serious sourcing issues - which were ignored by other reviewers. Some support for source reviewers there... huh? And you wonder why I quit doing source reviews - it's the constant feeling that no other reviewers really took on board anything I said in a source review.
• I've run into other issues similar (if not so extreme) where a source review finds problems but other reviewers seem to consider that to be not a problem and go on to support "based on prose".... well, again - the sourcing and research are the foundation of the article. At some point, it just got so dispiriting that I couldn't deal with it any more.
• Let's look at a recent FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herman Vandenburg Ames/archive1 - which covers this Herman Vandenburg Ames article. I see a LOT of late 19th and very early 20th-century sources used here - surely we can find better sources. "He was ordained in 1854, becoming in the words of David Ford a "brilliant, fervent, and impressive" Congregational preacher who ministered throughout Massachusetts, later serving as superintendent of the Lancaster Industrial School for Girls and chaplain of Rhode Island's asylum, prison, workhouse, and almshouse." is sourced to an 1899 history of Andover Academy - there is no indication in the article that the Ford quoted is from a 120-year-old work. Large chunks of the article (I count 25 citations) are to "Memorial: Herman Vandenburg Ames. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1936." - this is not quite an independent source since Ames was associated for a very long time with U PA. And it's from 1936 and it's written the year after Ames died - I'm not seeing that this is really a good source for anything critical of Ames - in fact, it's likely to be pretty close to a hagiography just based on the fact that it's a Memorial put out by his long-time employer. Is there NO biography of him that's relatively recent? The fact that so many of the sources are from before 1950 is concerning and should be a red flag for any reviewer. It may be that they are fine but they need to be looked at - which didn't happen.
• Or look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abby (TV series)/archive1 - I see this from AllMovie used as a source - but what makes this reliable? Who's Hal Ericson? What makes him reliable? From AllMovie's FAQ it appears they get their information from Rovi - who are they? Do they have a reputation for fact-checking and reliablity? Seeing our article Rovi Corporation redirects to ... TiVo Corporation. Hm... this is something that should probably be looked at. And then there's this FutonCritic source - what makes this a high-quality reliable source? Or what about BuddyTV? Neither of the last two sources even have an author listed - is that really a high-quality source?
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Donat's Castle/archive1 is mostly fine - but this source is from which appears to be a personal site devoted to castles the owner has visited. Ouch.
• Or let's look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Williams (actress)/archive1. The third reference is to a "Who's Who in California" book - which is not a reliable source. Most Who's Who books are basically self-submitted blurbs without any editorial oversight at all. Or ref #24 "Television Guide. Triangle Publications. 1997." - is this for the entire year of 1997? If so, I'd expect a page number at the very least - is this just a listing of the program? Or is it an article? This is not a helpful citation for verification purposes.

I could go on, but my purpose isn't so much to shame other reviewers but to point out a big glaring elephant in the room. Too much time at FAC is spent on nitpicking prose and other formatting issues without actually even considering the research that goes into an article. Without everyone actually starting to act on the criteria that address sourcing, FAC is going to continue to be something that folks consider just a bunch of people worrying about prose and MOS issues without actually worrying about the content. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to highlight my request above for a problem statement to be defined. This section could serve that purpose. Problem statement could be revised to say "Increase the depth of source review at FAC". This can obviously be modified. Thoughts on what we are trying to accomplish with this discussion? (also, you have an open paragraph tag). Kees08 (Talk) 21:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right that we should figure out what the problems we're trying to address are, but I think those are as varied as the proposals. I think depth of review is seen as a problem both ways, and may be better characterized as a balance of review issue. The focus on prose and MOS compliance is perhaps too deep, whereas things like source review and image review are rather shallow. So I think a good characterization would be:

(1) Reviewers focus too heavily on criterion 2 and not enough on criterion 1 (and especially criteria 1a and 1b).

I don't think any proposal adequately deals with that, but I also think that's symptomatic of larger issues that people have brought up. I know that part of why I tried reviewing for a bit but eventually stopped is that for a lot of nominations I don't really have the expertise to judge the comprehensiveness of the article in relation to the literature. I think (1) is a big issue, but I think part of it is

(2) There are too few reviewers.

which means a small pool of people are needed to have a broad understanding of disparate literatures. For example, I don't know much about dinosaurs, so I don't feel comfortable judging the comprehensiveness of Cetiosauriscus, but I can definitely review the prose. I think there are some additional problems people have raised that have driven a lot of the suggestions so far as well.

(3) The nomination list is too long.

(4) The process is too labor intensive for reviewers.

(5) Reviewers are reluctant to oppose a nomination.

I think all of these problems are interrelated. (3) and (4) I think both feed (2); I think (5) feeds (3); I think (4) feeds (1). I also think (5) points to some cultural issues others have brought up but that I don't have experience enough with to comment on or even define well.

As for a problem statement, I think maybe we should treat (2) as the main issue and the others as causes and effects of that issue. My stab at a problem statement "Not enough editors help review featured article candidates. As a result, not enough editors with expertise in relevant fields are able to evaluate sources, comprehensiveness, and due weight impacting the quality of articles promoted; nominations languish without comment; and the list of nominations becomes backlogged. The few regular reviewers available pick up the slack, resulting in a high time investment which can lead to burn out, furthering the cycle." Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I broadly agree with this, but I think your (1) and (2) are the key points; (1) is Ealdgyth's point, but most other comments have focused on (2) and its consequences, which includes the length of the nominations page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ealdgyth, apart from your dissing of prose checks ("insane focus", "Too much time at FAC is spent on nitpicking prose"), which I decry, your post above makes valuable points concerning a matter that's been bothering me—without being able to put my finger on it. Source reviewing does need to be elevated in our priorities, and your post shows just how much knowledge and judgment is required to do it well. I wonder whether there's a teach-yourself page for the skills required to check out sourcing? If not, we need one! Can you advise how we might make the skills and knowledge more accessible to would-be specialist reviewers, and to existing reviewers (like me) who might be encouraged to broaden? One thing that might help is a linked collation of what you consider your most instructive source reviews over the years, covering all the main points. Tony (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Whereas we classify sources as reliable or not, historians are accustomed to there being a continuum of reliability. Even the most reliable of sources contain errors, most often because facts have been superseded by subsequent events. It doesn't follow that more recent accounts are necessarily more reliable; we normally go for the most contemporary records. When it comes to biographical subjects, some have multiple biographies; some have only one; some have none at all. The articles are produced from the best available sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hawkeye, it's sounding more complex by the hour. Where does this leave us? Perhaps it's a matter of knowing which questions to ask of a nominator, when we're unsure? Tony (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Tony – are you aware of this? Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Brian, I wasn't aware (I'm out of touch). Looks really good; I'll take a look within a day. Tony (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh, that's excellent. Kudos to Brianboulton, Sarah, and others who've been working on it. Tony (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for August

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for FACs ending in August.

# reviews	Type of review
Reviewer	Image	Source	Ordinary	Total
Nikkimaria	16	1		17
Dank			8	8
Casliber		3	5	8
Fifelfoo		2	5	7
Tim riley		3	4	7
Tony1			6	6
Jo-Jo Eumerus	4		1	5
Peacemaker67		1	4	5
Ian Rose		1	4	5
FunkMonk			4	4
Nick-D			3	3
AustralianRupert			3	3
Dudley Miles			3	3
KJP1		1	2	3
Brianboulton		3		3
Moisejp		1	2	3
Hawkeye7		1	2	3
Aoba47			2	2
JennyOz			2	2
SchroCat			2	2
Jimfbleak			2	2
Edwininlondon		1	1	2
Freikorp			2	2
<none>			2	2
Kees08	1		1	2
J Milburn			2	2
Cplakidas			2	2
Giants2008			2	2
Wizardman	1	1		2
SounderBruce			1	1
WereSpielChequers			1	1
TrueHeartSusie3			1	1
Jens Lallensack			1	1
White Shadows			1	1
Catlemur			1	1
AmericanAir88			1	1
John			1	1
Wee Curry Monster			1	1
Ceoil		1		1
Pseud14			1	1
Chetsford			1	1
SnowFire			1	1
Gerda Arendt			1	1
Squeamish Ossifrage		1		1
Lusotitan			1	1
Editorofthewiki			1	1
Attar-Aram syria			1	1
Vami IV			1	1
Gog the Mild			1	1
Wehwalt			1	1
Damian Vo			1	1
213.205.194.191			1	1
23 editor			1	1
IJReid			1	1
Indy beetle			1	1
Grand Total	22	21	100	143

There were 67 declarations of support, 8 opposes, and one struck oppose. The reviewer "<none>" in the table attests to two FACs that had no reviews at all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what does a review count as which by the time of archival has neither expressed support or oppose? Such as my Rajasaurus review, for example... FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It counts as a review, but doesn't show up in the counts of supports and opposes. There were 67 such reviews this time round; 43 of them were either source or image reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations

Currently these are those older than 20 days. Most nominations are therefore "old". Should it be increased to 30 days? or 60? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Tks Hawkeye. There's been some discussion above about whether we should have the marker at all. We've had it for as long as I can remember and while that's no reason in itself to retain it, I find it a useful jogger to get a quick idea of how old the majority of the list is at any given time. There's also been talk above of fixing the duration of FAC noms (while allowing the coords some discretion); that doesn't seem to have gained traction but if it did I think this marker would be of still more use. As to the time frame, I recall at one stage "older noms" being those that had been running two weeks or longer; then a couple of years ago, in response to the reality of noms running longer to achieve sufficient commentary for promotion, we went to three weeks (or 20 days, close enough). I don't think we should be making it more than 20 days; if the older noms section seems too big, it's probably telling us a few have been open too long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If it functions to imply a shorter "normal" list, it's unsuccessful. I think the boundary should be removed—and that we should expose the real length of the list at first glance. And Hawkeye, should nominations be listed for more than 30 days, let alone 60 days? Really? I think the system's dysfunctional if that happens, and building such long durations into the structure normalises them. We should aim for no more than 30 all up on a unitary list. Fewer if Mike's sourcing-list trial works. Tony (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see the marker removed so that we have a better sense at first glance of how long the queue is. Mike added the marker in February 2010 after this discussion. The idea was "once it is moved to this highlighted section the FAC only has 2 weeks (with allowances) to either be listed or not." That's a good idea, but it's not what happens. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I suppose what might make the FAC forum work better is if it's more dynamic—that is, the average frequency of reviewer posts is quickened, especially through participation by more reviewers. Perhaps we should aim to be done within two weeks of nomination. The drip–drip–drip model is unlikely to attract a larger community of regular and semi-regular. Reviewers can't easily keep track of the outcome of their effort (whether support, oppose, withdraw, or no specific declaration). And there's evidence that after a certain time a nomination languishes: reviewers lose interest in the swamp. I've just reviewed 1a for a nomination that's been there for seven weeks. The previous review was one month and five days ago. A few reviews made useful but very very partial spot checks of prose and a few other issues. These issues were fixed and received support declarations (generalised, not on specific criteria). There was no evidence that the nominator had realised the whole piece needed input from other eyes. This should have been withdrawn before a month was up, with pointers to encourage reworking and timely resubmission. Tony (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sarah's right that the marker does not work in practice as I had originally hoped it would. I find it a useful starting point in looking at the list, though, and I think it's harmless -- Tony's comment about building a long duration into the list is not really about the marker but about the list overall. The marker could be set at the seven-day mark if there were a fourteen-day limit, after all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Only the first seven are less than a week old. All those after the marker are more than 20 days old. The oldest was created on 3 June. It's over 90 days old. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ooops - need help

I had everything going smoothly, and then I accidentally forgot to save the transclusion template on the article TP. See this part - I reverted my other edit here, so hopefully someone can help with the TP transclusion template before I do anymore damage. My apologies, and my sincerest thank you in advance to whomever I inconvenience because of this mistake. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done DrKay (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on a few weeks of prose reviewing

This is the first time for about a decade that I've exposed myself daily to FAC reviewing. It can't go on forever; I'll try to make an effort in the less-pressured parts of my year. I see FAC as an engine for raising our standards of writing (and sourcing, etc). There's the chronic problem of encouraging would-be nominators to seek out editors to collaborate on improving prose before nomination.

While it's in my mind, here are some summary observations of issues that at a guess concern about 75% of my comments on prose:

• Comma usage (too much, too little, wrong positions), and related to this, awareness and control of sentence length. Commas involve both rhythm and precision of meaning.
• Over-repetition of words (a combination of too many times and too close together—especially repetition-sensitive, non-technical items).
• Contextual redundancy ("Aluminium metal was unknown to them", where it's perfectly obvious "them" refers to the ancients).
• Grammatical redundancy and unnecessary complexity ("in order to" -> "to" is an easy one ... to become good at simplifying wording takes years ... there are so many forms of complexity, and so many simpler alternatives).
• Ambiguity (another tough one, but some instances should be easy to fix before nomination).

Perhaps we need an essay on these, to show ways for nominators to improve their text before we see it. I can't write one at the moment. Tony (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, & I hope you will stick with it as long as you can. I find general clumsy wording, typically fixed merely by rearrangement, and over-long paragraphs are my most frequent complaints. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on FA video game articles recently - that is, articles that already have FA status - and none of them have prose I would consider worthy of GA, let alone FA. Popcornduff (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony, I appreciate your spending time on so many reviews -- what I hope is that if many of our nominators, whether regulars or first-timers, are exposed to such scrutiny then lessons will be learnt and applied in future. I echo the concerns with repetition, and also with redundancy and complexity: yes, "in order to" is one I always search for before promoting; also excessive or unnecessary "however"s, "in addition to"s ("also" will often suffice), and variations of "a number of" ("several", "a few" or "many" are obvious substitutes but sometimes nothing at all is fine). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian, I agree with every word. Tony (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: I don't know that it needs a separate essay - I often send people to your writing pages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: Nice of you to say/do that. They might help preparation of some FACs, but I'm toying with a checklist and examples of the issues I'm most-commonly encountering. Let's see. Tony (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Echoing Cas on Tony's writing guides; they were where I cut my teeth (spelling aside) on this website, and are still invaluable. Great that you are revisiting FAC Tony. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony, as Cas and Ceoil say, your writing guides are incredibly helpful. Anything else you're willing to write up would be most welcome. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we could provide a link to one of the style guides in the FAC page header. Ceoil (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Opposes over the past year

Some time ago there was a conversation about how often people opposed at FAC. I now have a year's worth of data on FAC supports and opposes (September 17 through August 18), so here are a couple of summarized points.

• Not counting source, image, and accessibility reviews, there were 1766 reviews at FAC in the year.
• Of those 1766 there were
  • 1350 supports
  • 71 unstruck opposes
  • 9 struck opposes
  • 12 opposes that were converted into supports
  • 324 that made no declaration
• 5% of all prose reviews were opposes (struck or not)
• Among reviewers who reviewed at least ten times during the year, the following are the most prolific opposers (as a percentage of their reviews)
  • SlimVirgin - 4 opposes in 10 reviews: 40%
  • Sarastro1 - 1 oppose and 1 struck oppose in 10 reviews: 20%
  • Mike Christie - 3 opposes and 2 struck opposes in 25 reviews: 20%
  • Tony1 - 1 oppose and 1 struck oppose in 11 reviews: 18%
  • Ceoil - 5 opposes and 1 oppose converted to a support in 41 reviews: 15%
  • Ceranthor -- 1 struck oppose and 4 opposes converted to supports in 36 reviews: 14%
  • Brianboulton - 6 opposes in 52 reviews: 12%
  • Nick-D - 3 opposes in 26 reviews: 12%
• The other editors who opposed at least three times are Deckiller, John, Aoba47, Nikkimaria, and Victoriaearle.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mike, as I recall the discussion, we were looking for data on who was supporting, not opposing, because there was a big jump in the percentage of nominations being promoted. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Mike, see this table, which showed a leap from 62 percent promotion in 2016 to 73 percent in 2017 to 85 percent in January and February 2018. I can't find the discussion we had about counting the supports, but what we were hoping to see was who had posted the most supports in, say, February 2017 to February 2018. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Sara and Mike. It's excellent that people are gathering these data. It's probably onerous, but it would be great to know how many days after nomination each occurred. We can do without that luxury, though, unless it's trivial to extract. Tony (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You know what would be handy; perhaps that RfA graph that shows how people supported/opposed over the seven days. Surely the principle is the same (although of course with fewer editors involved). I'll try and find it, but it's a thing that only occasionally gets posted... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sarah, I only have data back to September 2017 so far, though I'm hoping to have time to extend it further back. Tony & SerialNumber54129: I can't easily get the date of the support/oppose -- it's not always obvious just from looking at the nomination, since people sometimes just switch "Comment" to "Support" in the heading for their review, and there's no attached date. For struck opposes and opposes converted to supports more than one date would be needed too, which would complicate things. That means no graph like the RfA one is possible. I do have the total duration of the nomination, from nomination date to coordinator close, and I have the outcome (promoted/archived), if those are of interest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah! OK, understood. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Mike, instead of the opposes, can you post the supports for, say, the period September 2017 to March 2018? If it's a lot of work, I'm willing to help. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I can do this but would need more details on exactly what it is you're looking for. I've emailed you with some more details about the data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Supports

I've now added data back to mid-2016, so I can provide the answer for the date range Sarah originally requested -- February 17 to February 18. Here are the top supporters for that period. This only includes prose reviews and counts both straight supports and opposes that were converted into supports.

S - Support; O - Oppose; OS - Oppose converted to Support; SO - struck Oppose (but not a support).

February 2017 – February 2018

Reviewer	O	OS	S	SO	None	Total reviews	Support %
Dank	5		139		6	150	93%
Casliber			82		12	94	87%
Aoba47	3		83		6	92	90%
Finetooth			73		3	76	96%
Wehwalt			71		3	74	96%
Jimfbleak	1		61		5	67	91%
Moisejp			51		2	53	96%
Mike Christie	6		43		3	52	83%
FunkMonk			48		3	51	94%
Brianboulton	4		21		15	40	53%
Ian Rose	3		24		8	35	69%
John	4	1	16		10	31	55%
HJ Mitchell	2		25		3	30	83%
Ceoil	4	1	21		3	29	76%
Edwininlondon			20		9	29	69%
Peacemaker67			28		1	29	97%
SchroCat	1		27		1	29	93%
Ceranthor	1	3	24		1	29	93%
Gerda Arendt			27		2	29	93%
Tim riley			26			26	100%
Tintor2			25			25	100%
J Milburn			16		9	25	64%
Syek88	5		13		6	24	54%
Sabine's Sunbird	1		23			24	96%
Sarastro1	5		15		3	23	65%
Hawkeye7			19		2	21	90%
Midnightblueowl	2		13		6	21	62%

A total of 249 editors supported at least once in this period, for a total of 1724 supports. There were 480 candidate articles in this period, of which 120 were archived and 360 promoted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Table above now revised to show supports as a percentage of overall prose reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Mike, many thanks for compiling this. I hope you don't mind that I made the table sortable. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Happened to click on this. Interesting data. I have always wondered about this question; glad someone went ahead and looked into it. ceranthor 17:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Prose review

In a more realistic, and in my view also more useful, review process the prose review would take place after the article is promoted on the merits of its content. In the real academic publishing manuscripts are not rejected based on prose concerns, unless they are egregious enough that they actually compromise the ability of reviewers to access the content. How about if we also put excellent content first at FAR and then afterwards did the copy-editing to make correspondingly excellent prose?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed this, above; if we implement the suggested approach (the workshop is in progress) then I think it may be a move in the direction you're advocating. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Maunus. Just one point: "and then afterwards did the copy-editing to make correspondingly excellent prose"—FAC should not be regarded as a copy-editing service. Tony (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus that this is a problem. After all, we are an international Wikipedia, and many of us, including me, are not native speakers. High prose standards are highly important, but we should not exclude editors from the FAC process whose writing skills do not yet meet these high standards. Having said that, I'm not sure if an editing service (=letting other people do the job) would be the best solution — rather, we need to offer as much help as necessary so that the editors can improve their articles (and writing skills) by themselves. We cannot, of course, expect substantial improvements during the time frame of one nomination, so patience and leniency are also in order. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Jens, I do sympathise with non-native speakers; I help them with professional English almost every day. But I expect Wikipedias in every language (there are nearly 300 of them) to uphold excellent writing in their language in whatever equivalent forum and process they have. We need greater social support in the en.WP community for copy-editors on specific topics and for non-native speaking editors. This needs to be done before nomination to FAC, I'm afraid to say. Tony (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought. I used to edit submissions to academic journals and my work was done after submission but before publication. I think we can all agree that an integrated process is good, but to Tony's point, by time the article gets here it should require only fit and finish. The heavy lifting needs to be done beforehand. --Laser brain (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Initial source review

@Mike Christie: any news on your trial? Tony (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It's at the stage where we need coordinators to do what coordinators do -- close as successful or unsuccessful, or prompt for more comments. I gather that the three coords had agreed that Sarastro1 would take that role, but he's been offwiki for three weeks (busy, I hope, rather than ill), so I just pinged Laser brain today to ask if he could pick that role up. The workshop is here if you want to take a look at the state of play. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Had communication from Sarastro and yes, just busy, not ill, tks Mike. Andy (Laser brain) has actioned a couple of the workshop entries now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not get a fourth coord. It would dissipate the slack when Sarastro1 isn't around, which is as often as not. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with 54129. There is a large burden on our, rather unappreciated, coordinators. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tks guys. Personally I think the workload for two active coords with one in reserve is not particularly onerous, so although I'm not averse to another person joining us in principle I think it's a bit premature to consider now. I'd prefer to wait at least until this source review trial/workshop concludes and the community decides whether to proceed with it for real, then we might want to reconsider the workload and indeed the specialisations of the coords, perhaps leading to people like Ealdgyth or Nikkimaria being recruited, if of course they were interested and their current responsibilities at WP:TFA and WP:FAR, respectively, were taken into account. My thoughts for the moment anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

your efforts don’t go unnoticed. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for September

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for FACs ending in September.

# reviews	Review type
Reviewer	Accessibility	Image	Source	Prose	Total
Nikkimaria		13	5		18
Tim riley			4	10	14
FunkMonk		7		5	12
Tony1				10	10
Casliber			1	7	8
Aoba47		2		5	7
Ceoil			2	4	6
Wehwalt				5	5
Mike Christie			1	4	5
KJP1			2	3	5
Johnbod				4	4
Dudley Miles				4	4
SchroCat			1	2	3
SerialNumber54129				3	3
MarchOrDie				3	3
Jens Lallensack				3	3
Sarastro1			1	1	2
Bilorv				2	2
Tintor2			1	1	2
Kees08		1		1	2
J Milburn				2	2
SnowFire			1	1	2
John				2	2
Carabinieri				2	2
Ceranthor				2	2
Pavanjandhyala				2	2
Dank				2	2
Giants2008				2	2
Jo-Jo Eumerus		2			2
Chetsford				2	2
Moisejp				2	2
Aa77zz				2	2
Cplakidas				1	1
Clikity				1	1
Ww2censor				1	1
Brianboulton				1	1
CPA-5				1	1
Midnightblueowl				1	1
Tisquesusa				1	1
Gerda Arendt				1	1
Giano				1	1
RexxS	1				1
RetiredDuke				1	1
Czar				1	1
Outriggr			1		1
Maunus				1	1
R8R				1	1
Graham Beards				1	1
William Harris				1	1
Coventryy				1	1
Damien Linnane				1	1
AmericanAir88				1	1
Numerounovedant				1	1
Dunkleosteus77				1	1
Lazz R				1	1
Parsecboy				1	1
Hemiauchenia				1	1
RileyBugz				1	1
XOR'easter				1	1
Kailash29792				1	1
Katolophyromai				1	1
Yashthepunisher				1	1
Lewismaster				1	1
Ssven2			1		1
Woebegone				1	1
Sturmvogel 66				1	1
KAVEBEAR				1	1
DisillusionedBitterandKnackered				1	1
Wugapodes				1	1
TheJoebro64				1	1
Peacemaker67				1	1
Epicgenius				1	1
Gog the Mild				1	1
Jimfbleak				1	1
Firebrace				1	1
Homeostasis07				1	1
PlanespotterA320				1	1
DePiep				1	1
ANode				1	1
Argento Surfer				1	1
Praemonitus				1	1
Vami IV				1	1
Laser brain		1			1
Grand Total	1	26	21	145	193

There were 93 declarations of support, 12 opposes, one struck oppose, and two opposes that were converted to supports.

I have been capturing data from old FACs, and now have data on supports and opposes back to mid-2014. I'll keep entering old data till I run out of energy; in the meantime let me know if anyone has questions that could be answered by that data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

FAC instructions proposed change

Currently the instructions say:

If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

This does not reflect the usual practice, which is to intersperse responses. I edited the talk page guidelines in 2015 to clarify that this practice was acceptable in review pages, and that wording is still in the guidelines:

• Review pages: Peer reviews, good article reviews, and featured article candidates are collaborative processes in which a reviewer may provide a list of comments on an article; most editors expect the responses to be interspersed among these comments. An example is here; note that you should not modify the comments themselves in any way.

Here's a possible rewording:

If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors. Replies may be added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary, or, in bulleted lists, separately under each bullet point. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not terribly clear - I had to read it twice to get the aim (bolding changed bits would help). You need to change "or splitting up the reviewer's text" I think, since this is just what it is (rightly) proposed to allow. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Splitting up posts is one of the practices I wish we would discourage. It leads to "tick, done" responses, and it makes the page very hard to read. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally I find a long list of points, followed by a long list of responses, much harder to read. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod, is that true for pages in which you're involved, or do you also find it true for pages you look at after the fact? It seems to me that we leave a lot of pages hard to read for future editors who may want to check what happened. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Both, not that I've been a main nom for years. Long reviews are often hard to read, but I don't really see a way round that. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I rather like the brevity and clarity of the peer review instruction above. But what about: "Where a reviewer lists comments, nominators typically interpolate indented responses, or provide a diff of the edits they have made in response and a summary remark, below the comments, or a combination of both." Or something like that. Tony (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Per Tony's comment, here's another draft, based on the talk page guideline wording:

If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems good. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The change has been made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

An ancient FAC

While looking after the abovementioned Ubinas FAC, I came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eastern Hills, Bogotá/archive2 which was opened last year by Tisquesusa, never closed but was apparently never transcluded so got no comments. What's the recommended action? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

In future, the Bot will flag these for action. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

As the original nominator has been editing since the ping and the nomination is still untranscluded, I think it's safe to assume that it can be deleted. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Now that it is doing it, the FACBot also informs me that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voyager 1/archive2 has been outstanding since August 2018. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Bottom FAC in the queue

Greetings, at the risk of sounding overly pushy/demanding can someone take a gander at the last FAC in the queue? As far as I can tell, lack of a source review and a question/concern about the flow are the main outstanding issues. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I can take a look this evening if nobody else gets to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems like that FAC has gotten a bit of attention now (thanks). Is there someone who can make a source review there? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• It seems that half of the articles that are archived now are not because of opposes, bur for lack of reviews. Is this really a gain for the project? How about archiving articles that are at the bottom due to lack of interests later than those that get downright opposes or recommended withdrawals? FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• We're already doing that. In times of more brisk archiving, we'd archive something once it passes the two-week mark if it's faltering or failing to attract attention. Some of these are now lingering for more than a month. We can beg and prod but ultimately if reviewers don't make any kind of declaration they'll get archived. A lot of the feedback we get is that the size of the list is daunting—it's way longer now than I'd personally prefer. --Laser brain (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it would be interesting to at some point identify if there is any common pattern to the articles that are archived from lack of reviews rather than from opposes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It would! I haven't done any formal data analysis, but it strikes me that many of them are pop culture articles, usually television or video games. Or sometimes sports. --Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I've seen some disputes in pop culture FACs, so maybe that's putting reviewers off? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Attn: Coordinators

The FACBot complains if a FAC is closed but has not been moved to the archive page. This happened to two nominations today.

• I get a message from the FACBot in the form of an email to this effect. The FACBot could report problems here, or email a coordinator.
• I've taken the liberty of adding the nominations to the archive page myself, because I wanted to watch the FACBot run. It could do this for you, but you originally asked for it not to.
• The FACBot will update the goings_on page for you. In this case it merely reported that this had already been done manually. It seems that the coordinators still routinely do this manually (even when they don't add the nomination to the archive page).
• One issue that we can have with goings_on is when an article is promoted on a Saturday. The Bot will not run until Sunday morning (UTC) and will not add the article to goings-on, because it was promoted the previous week. I don't know if this is important or not. It could update the previous week's goings-on.

Let me know if any changes are desired. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Tks Hawkeye, the failure to move the promoted articles to the Featured Log page was my oversight (working with four noms, two archived, two promoted, but managed to only put the archived ones in their log this time). I still like doing these steps myself but I wouldn't mind the reminder email if we miss one (don't think we do it often!) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to workshop a source review process

I propose we do a trial run of a separate source review process. This isn't an RfC, because I'm not proposing we change any existing processes.

The goal is to determine if a source review process can be:

• Well-defined: what is reviewed, how are reviews done, and what are the pass/fail criteria?
• Useful, in that it eliminates work elsewhere, rather than duplicating work

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then further discussion would be warranted as to whether it would be useful to separate source reviewing from the other elements of FAC.

Participants

To test the process we need two or three nominators to submit articles to be reviewed, two or three reviewers to do the reviews, and a coordinator to determine if the criteria for passing the review are met. I would like to see an article from a prolific longtime reviewer, such as Wehwalt, Sturmvogel 66, Hawkeye7, or Casliber; an article on a popular culture topic, perhaps from Aoba47 on TV, or a gaming article, or an article on an Indian film; and another article, perhaps from a relatively new nominator. Just as at FAC, only one source reviewer is needed per nomination -- the goal is not to add weight to the existing process. If Brianboulton could be persuaded to do one of the reviews that would be great; I think we should not have anyone do more than one review. I'd like to do a review as I'm not an experienced source reviewer. I'd like to see Ealdgyth take the coordinator role, and post comments as needed if the review appears incomplete or has missed a question she feels needs to be addressed. The coordinator would make the "pass/fail" decision.

Reviewing criteria

I suggest the following criteria (parentheses refer to FACR):

• Source are high-quality, reliable and representative (1c)
• Source formatting follows the style guidelines (2c)

This does not address whether the prose is actually supported by the source. There are two reasons for this omission. First, we don't regularly do this for all FACs; we do it only for new nominators. The goal is not to make this review process more stringent than it already is. Second, text-source integrity is one of the situations where prose and sources can't be separated, as Sarah points out above. I think reviewers can comment on this issue if they see problems, but it should not be assumed to have been reviewed by the time an article passes the source review and reaches FAC.

Role of reviewers and coordinator

If the criteria are not met, the reviewer should list the problems. Problems with 2c should be assumed to be resolvable without an Oppose. Problems with 1c are within reviewer discretion to support or oppose. When a reviewer declares support or oppose, the coordinator decides whether to pass or archive the nomination. For a support, the coordinator looks to see if there appear to be omissions in the source review; for opposes, they look to see if the problems could be fixed reasonably quickly. A pass or fail removes the article from the nominations list. Details about renominations, time limits, and simultaneous nominations can be deferred until we decide if this is a process we actually want to implement.

Reasons to test-drive a separate source reviewing process, and some answers to objections

A recap of the section above with a couple more points I've thought of since.

• We already have a source review process with specialized reviewers and coordinators; it's baked into the FAC process. Hence this is not more work; it's just separating the work from FAC, and should reduce wastage (e.g. prose reviews when the sources have to be changed)
• Source reviews are one of the things that slow down FAC. Splitting the process may speed up both source reviews and FAC. In principle there's no reason a source review should take more than a day or two; there's no requirement for multiple reviewers to agree.
• There is nothing to prevent FAC reviewers from raising additional source issues, just as there's nothing stopping a FAC reviewer now raising issues not cited by a source reviewer. This does not limit what can be commented on at FAC.
• Nominators have little motivation to do source reviewing now; it's not apparent to them that it's going to help their nomination at FAC. At a source review process, there'd only be one way to clear the backlog -- do source reviews. I believe more people will do source reviewing with a separate process; and under Ealdgyth's eye they would learn to do it well.
• If sources or source formatting change after the review and before FAC, reviewers at FAC could either comment on the changes if they wish, or recommend a return to the source review process -- e.g. if there has been a wholesale change in referencing style, or if a significant number of new sources have been added.
• All of FACR would still apply at FAC; it would not be the case that FAC no longer required 1c or 2c to be met. Opposes on those criteria would still be allowed.
• It will become easier for reviewers to oppose for both sourcing and prose reasons, because of the narrower criteria -- there's less of a case for saying "but it meets all the other requirements so it's really close".

Next steps

If enough people express interest in trying it (a couple of nominators, a couple of reviewers, and someone to take the coordinator role) then I propose to set up a page in my user space where that group, and anyone else who is interested, can run through a handful of reviews. Once we have a couple of completed reviews we can come back here for discussion.

Comments

Any takers? Any comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I can volunteer an article if you consider me a new nominator (co-nom'ed a failure w/ Hawkeye7, co-nom'ed a pass w/ Hawkeye7, co-nom'ing another currently in review). I agree that we should be trying new things, although a little hesitant that we have not agreed on a problem/list of problems. Kees08 (Talk) 23:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I need to do a quick review of one of my battleship articles that I've been considering nominating to see if it's as ready as I think it is, but I'm happy to contribute an article for evaluation in the next day or two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Kees08, Sturmvogel 66, thanks very much. Ealdgyth and Brian, would either of you be willing to take on the coordinator role for the workshop, as outlined above? Or, if not, would you be willing to do a review?

I will see if I can find a pop culture article or two whose nominator is willing to participate in the workshop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's really "pop culture", but I have a GA article about a 1940s play that I would be willing to submit. I could also do a review if you want feedback what the new process is like for someone doing both sides. --RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; that would be great. Aoba47 has agreed to submit either a TV article or a song article, and I've asked one other editor for a pop culture article, so with Sturmvogel 66 also volunteering we just need someone to take the coordinator role for the workshop; plus one or two more reviewers. Ian, Sarastro1, Laser brain: if Ealdgyth isn't interested, would one of you be willing to take that role? (Brian has declined it.) It would be a subset of your existing responsibilities -- you're currently responsible for deciding if a source review is adequate, so we'd want you to apply that same reasoning to the source reviews in this workshop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Not that I'm not interested, its just really really bad timing. This weekend is the annual library book sale that I help at. And our house goes on the market the 15th of September. I'm a bit busy. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I did like the idea of Ealdgyth and Nikki taking coord roles for separate source and image review stages if this concept gained traction (assuming of course they'd like to do it and taking their roles at TFA and FAR into consideration) but we could make do for a workshop. I'm sure between us the three FAC coords could oversee the source review part, we'd work it out and let you know. Unless of course Nikki was interested in the source review stage for now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

As a coordinator or a reviewer? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikki, I can't speak for what Ian intended, but would you be interested in taking the coordinator role for the workshop? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of Nikki taking the source review coord role here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Could do, but I'm not actually sure that's the best option given what's been said here - Brian in particular has expressed that there aren't enough people doing source reviews, and I'm one of the few trying to pick up the slack in that department atm, so making me the coord and not a reviewer might exacerbate that problem. For that reason it might make more sense to have one of the FAC coordinators take on this role. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I get that, Nikki -- I was thinking it might not be such an issue just for the workshop but whatever you prefer is okay by me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Y'all can kick the tires on Lion-class battleship and take it for a spin whenever y'all are ready. It's not the article I was initially thinking of, and only just started an ACR at MilHist, but it has a much more varied sourcing than Petropavlovsk-class battleship, which is already A class and is almost ready to nom for FAC. But it relies heavily on the one major source in English for Russian battleship info and so probably isn't best suited for what we want to do here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Try—*^{self-promo alert}*—this, too, if it helps. Of course, I'm not sure if it's what you want; on the one hand, all the sources are off-line (bad), but on the other hand, they're 100% solid scholarship (good), so anyone with access to the online catalogue of a university library with a decent history dept. should be able to just run em through. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks! I think that gives us enough articles to review for a worthwhile workshop. The list is

  • Lion-class battleship - Sturmvogel 66
  • Roger B. Chaffee - Kees08
  • Parliament of 1327 - Serial Number 54129
  • Shannen Says - Aoba47
  • Saving Light - MicroPowerpoint

  Per the comments above, Ian and/or the other FAC coordinators will take the role of coordinator for this, which makes sense as they're already playing that role with respect to source reviews. We have a couple of volunteers to review, and I'll trust we will get more. I'll put a subpage together and post a note here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  Would we be able to encourage more than one source reviewer per nomination? That was a reason I had not reviewed yet, since it was not likely someone could catch my mistakes. I do not want to throw a wrench into the workshop if that was not the intent however. I can also volunteer to source review one of the other articles, if you want someone that has never performed a source review before to do one. Kees08 (Talk) 18:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, definitely -- we allow multiple source reviews at FAC and there's absolutely no reason to change that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Workshop page now up

I've created a page for the workshop at User:Mike Christie/FQSR workshop. ("Featured quality source review" is the acronym -- my best guess at what we'd call it if we were to adopt it for real.) Four of the nominated articles have been posted there; I've left out Kees08's article as he has indicated he wants to work on it a bit more before nominating it. Pinging Aoba47, MicroPowerpoint, Serial Number 54129, and Sturmvogel 66, the nominators of the other four articles.

If you are interested, please consider reviewing an article there -- it's essentially the same as a source review here at FAC, though I've added some details at the top of the page. The nominators are of course also free to review the other articles there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Chaffee is ready. I have been putting that off for months, glad something could motivate me to do the last little bit. Will try to get a source review done soon. Cheers. Kees08 (Talk) 04:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been under work pressure for a few days. I was going to make the following comments:

• I think it should be trialled on the official page, not elsewhere—probably for three or four weeks (but now I see the experimental page, maybe not).
• I'd like to see the boundary between old and not so old removed if this is adopted, to avoid increasing the structural complexity on the list.
• Over the past few days I've warmed to Mike Christie's proposal. How much more work is needed on the essay on source reviewing? Tony (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Tony, the essay (WP:FASOURCE) needs some work. Examples of things to look out for would help: this looked like a good source, but closer examination showed such-and-such. Also helpful would be links to WikiProject advice about sourcing.
    One problem at FAC is getting across the idea of an appropriate source. Current practice is that ordinary articles need RS, and FAs need high-quality RS, and therefore at FAC you can use any source within the high-quality category that supports your text, rather than looking for the best source, including a primary source. An academic's book published by a university press will be used even if (a) she broaches an aspect of the topic she's not that familiar with; (b) she relies on a poor source; and (c) her poor source relies on a poor source. So I would like WP:FASOURCE to discuss the idea of a source being appropriate, or the most appropriate, for the point in question. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Well, up to a point, Sarah. The problem is that only a reviewer with expert knowledge of the article's topic can properly make judgments about the relative qualities of academic sources – such reviewers are few and far between (and tend not to do source reviews). Articles in the popular culture fields, where the sources are mainly magazine articles or websites and there is no great body of literature, will be relatively easy to source-review, while there's a risk that, if the bar is set impossibly high, articles based on historical events, biography, literature, music etc., won't be source-reviewed at all. We need to temper idealism with pragmatism.

On a separate point, we need to be aware that source literature changes over time, as new works are published and older texts become outdated. I began researching the Guy Burgess article in 2014; by the time I brought it to FAC earlier this year, the source literature had been augmented by at least half-a-dozen new studies, and I had to completely revise my approach to the article. Some nominators are zealous about maintaining their FACs, but many are not. I would like to see a caveat that every featured article should undergo a fresh sources review every five years, to keep its FAC status. Probably not a suggestion that needs to be acted on in this thread, but something to bear in mind later. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I like the idea of doing source reviews first, but it seems like a missed opportunity to explicitly not include require some tests of claims against the references given. By this I mean the reviewer taking a sample of 4-5 citations from subset of the sources they have access to. I think the vast majority of FACs use at least some sources that can be accessed online. My sense is that footnotes support what they accompany much less often than we commonly assume, if only because editing a long wiki-text is difficult and prone to error. I recently did this with a current FAC; two of the four I checked were entirely wrong (like, wrong-book wrong). If people are looking for ways to weed nominations more quickly, I'm sure that verification tests would help with that. Outriggr (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC) To be clear, I'm talking about the difference between "can include" and "ought to include" such a review... Outriggr (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I trust the sourcing of articles in good journals more than in books. I do believe that even reputable book publishers nowadays skimp on the painstaking work of auditing citations and how they support propositions in the text. I've just read a scholarly single-authored book by a major figure in her/his field who makes an important claim at one point, supported by seven numerical ref-tags. I felt duped to find that five of them were tangential, one was unconvincing, and one was an oral presentation at some conference, without even a published abstract. Annoyed. OUP is the esteemed publisher, if you please. Tony (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not exactly a secret that commercial publishers have been cutting back on editorial staff, much less fact-checkers, for a very long time. Disappointing, though, that academic publishers might be doing the same thing. Kinda makes our underlying assumptions about WP:RS a lot less tenable, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Yeah. This concerns a wider issue in our RS policy, which we clearly can't resolve here. But my hunch is that journal peer-reviewing tends to be more effective at identifying urchins than whole-book reviewing, because of the much smaller size of the text at hand, and possibly the narrower, deeper expertise of the reviewers. Tony (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Bot report

00:05:40 Thu 25 Oct 2018 WARNING: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luka Dončić/archive2 has NOT been transcluded on the nomination page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It now is, which isn't my doing however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing approach adopted by User:Tony1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@FAC coordinators: Tony1 - I would appreciate advice from the FAC coordinators on the approach to reviewing being adopted by User:Tony1. My concerns relate to the Hector Berlioz review and after, although I'm aware of earlier concerns regarding Tony's approach. The problem began with Tony raising a series of, mostly stylistic, concerns. The nominator responded, disagreeing with the majority of the points made, but indicating a willingness to review them if other editors were similarly concerned. This was met with:

• "I'm not used to being challenged by having a consensus required for my points." Things then went rapidly downhill and since then, as other reviewers have made comments, we've seen:
• "I'm not one of x's lickspittles or sycophants";
• "crude attempt to undermine the FAC review process";
• "We're going to have to put up with a lot of RFCs on this page: I'm prepared to start a run of them if consensus has to be debated";
• "You're telling blatant lies";
• "the FAC process is becoming increasingly corrupted—by several editors here"
• "Your claims are themselves defamatory";
• "Mostly lies and exaggerations";
• "x indulges in defamation" (edit summary);
• "Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum";
• "the FAC process has sadly become corrupted, so that success is now more likely if you're part of the "in" crowd".

I am struggling to see how any of the above can be squared with the policies Civility, Consensus, Harassment, No personal attacks, No legal threats and the guideline Assume good faith. Additionally, I think it likely that this approach, if it continues unchallenged, will have a detrimental impact on the FAC process. Having done a number of FACs, I'm fully aware that the process can be a bit bruising. That's fine, and probably as it should be as editors debate improvements to a nomination. But in my judgement, the above goes well beyond the bounds of acceptable debate. I'd be interested in the views of the FAC coordinators on these points. I've pinged User:Tony1 so he's aware I've raised the issue. KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've also been concerned about the tone of many of Tony's comments since he started this series of reviews, and this problem seems to have escalated sharply over recent days. These kinds of comments are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia, and especially not as part of the process for considering whether articles represent Wikipedia's best work. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That's just too bad. I find Tim Riley's attitude totally unacceptable, rude, and abusive. And yes, I do find his attempts to game the process corrupting. I will continue to inform nominators of this degradation in the forum's process. Tony (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Ian, Giles, and I haven't had ample time to discuss this among ourselves, so please take my comments as a personal response. Frankly, I'm unsure of what appetite the FAC community has for the coordinators to act in an authoritarian manner on behavioral disputes. The last couple of times I asked about it, I got a lukewarm response and a couple suggestions that if things really go off the rails, we ought to start hatting or moving off-topic comments to the review talk page. There have been a few requests for sharper action (like immediate archiving) but I felt those were in the minority. What does the community want, here? On a personal level, I'm irked that discourse has reached this level of negativity. And I'm pissed off that I'm put in a position to deal with behavioral issues. Tony, if your idea of reforming FAC involves shitting on my porch, lighting it on fire, and ringing the doorbell, I'm not laughing. --Laser brain (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: My opinion, and I'm certainly not criticising that approach: after all, everyone's a volunteer, and if coords wanted to wield that kind of authority, then two-thirds of them would run at RfA. But unfortunately, on occasions, a public display of authority is required—if only because, if it doesn't happen at WT:FAC, it will perforce happen at WP:ANI. And there, no-one will care how many GAs one has or how much one has done for the project. So I guess it's a choice of keeping it in-house or—not. If nothing else, people would be well advised to bear that in mind. ——SerialNumber54129 17:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tony, How many people does it take to say your approach is troubling before it sinks in? Alternatively, how many people does it take before your disruptive approach is the subject of an ANI thread? Adding POINTy and rather threatening headlines to reviews says an awful lot about you rather than others:

• "NB Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum." at the Tom Thomson review
• "NB Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum." at the Thalassodromeus review
• "Note: the FAC process has sadly become corrupted, so that success is now more likely if you're part of the "in" crowd. Tips on how to see off troublesome comments about prose: (1) demand consensus for the criticism/suggestion; (2) declare that it's subjective; (3) complain that other reviewers haven't raised the matter; (4) get your friends to come in and declare "Support" (minimal explicit reasoning is necessary)." at the WAVES review

As I said in one review, there is more than one way to put things, and while you have your thoughts, they may not always be the best choice, or even a necessary change to make. Your rather didactic and dictatorial approach just isn't right in a collegiate setting. Tim is an incredibly polite and flexible editor who reads good faith into pretty much every review (just look at how he has dealt with other comments on that review). At some point the penny may drop that it's not everyone else's fault, but yours, Tony. Calling other reviewers lickspittles and sycophants (while also saying that you are not going to use ad-hominem insults) just isn't helpful and is utterly divisive and disruptive. Please at lease try and pretend that you value other people's viewpoints. - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You're lying. I said that I am not his lickspittle or sycophant. I named no one. There's only one way out of this, and it's for the nominator to address my comments properly, not to game the system. I don't appreciate Laserbrain's comments, and I regard this thread as nothing more than an attempt to intimidate me. Tony (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony... I've never gotten into any spats with you that I can recall, and I have the utmost respect for you contributions to wikipedia and to FAC. But... right now you're not coming across well to folks like me. Quite honestly, I see nothing in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hector Berlioz/archive1 where Tim appears to be gaming the system or disrepecting you to any degree. Frankly, your replies to his rather calm inital replies seem way out of line compared to what he stated. Is there something behind this hostility you displayed to his comments on your comments? I'm not seeing what lead to the breakdown of collegiality there... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ealdgyth on all points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony1's attitude has been troublesome, and not just at FAC, for some time. The problem isn't with FAC, or with any of the co-ordinators, it's firmly with Tony1 and his childishly authoritarian attitude to other editors. Eric Corbett 16:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

And attitude to the English language, one might add. I think it's no accident that his spats are most often with British editors, as there are aspects of British English style he seems determined to eradicate. Having said that, I think his reviews are generally helpful, but sometimes the author just has to say no firmly and politely. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

BrEng is generally my own style, so I'd be interested in examples of the bias you accuse me of, and any zest for eradication, as you put it. If nominators want to say "no", they at least owe the reviewer substantive reasons. Tony (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Classic playground bully: dishes it out but can't take it, bursts into passive aggressive screams and then goes off to bully someone who he hopes won’t stand up to him. Tim riley talk 16:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(e.c.) I hope you see the kind of attitude Tim Riley espouses in the post just above. In deference to some of the views here, I've removed the two meta-comments I made at individual FAC pages. But if you think demanding consensus on a reviewer's comments before even bothering to offer substantive reasoning for rejecting them—and then ignoring a further comment about the lead—is not gaming the system, it really is becoming corrupt. I would like to review more than the lead in Riley's nomination; but I'm waiting for a reasonable response on my comments thus far. Tony (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You do know that Wikipedia is built on consensus, right? (And now I'm a liar too?) - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Where's Wehwalt? There's a space right here for him to issue poison, just like Eric Corbett's. Tony (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC) ->

  Do you think that kind of childishness is likely to be productive? Eric Corbett 17:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not concerned by Tony's approach to reviewing. He is allowed to oppose. Tim is allowed to say he disagrees with the suggested changes and refuse to make them unless consensus shows otherwise. The comments in their discussion on the nomination page as of now are all fine up to 16:43 on the 3rd, when Tim mocked Tony and called him arrogant. The mocking tone adopted against Tony from that point is unhelpful. Other reviewers should judge the prose and comment on the article's quality. Coordinators then judge the consensus of those comments and close nominations with either promote or archive based on the consensus of such comments. I see no evidence that Tony's comments are any worse than those directed at him or those made by others in the discussion. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• So lickspittles and sycophants is okay? "Note: the FAC process has sadly become corrupted, so that success is now more likely if you're part of the "in" crowd. Tips on how to see off troublesome comments about prose: (1) demand consensus for the criticism/suggestion; (2) declare that it's subjective; (3) complain that other reviewers haven't raised the matter; (4) get your friends to come in and declare "Support" (minimal explicit reasoning is necessary)." is useful and constructive? It’s not just the Berlioz review, there is an ongoing pattern of behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe, having been a victim of Tony's approach, that it is incumbent on the coordinators to take him in hand, either directly, or by making it clear they will not view his points as actionable under the circumstances. The increased level of conflict that Tony is causing is greatly destructive to the FAC process. I can add to the list of his regrettable diffs, but why should I bother? Either the coordinators will deal with the matter or there will be some Wiki process, such as AN/I or Arbcom, that will be used and all the diffs will be submitted. On the point of Tony stating that he is not a "lickspittle or sycophant", I should add that Tony is not entirely negative, he can be obsequious to the point of toadyism to the right people, see for example this.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know how anyone can read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hector Berlioz/archive1 and think this is Tony's fault. Look at Tim's repeated replies (four times): "Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point." When Tony eventually says he's not used to "being challenged by having a consensus required" for his points, Tim tells him: "Oh, get you! I suggest you get used to it. Your assumption of a monopoly of wisdom is arrogant and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Oppose by all means." SarahSV ^(talk) 19:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking as a lickspittle or sycophant, it would be wise to remind people that Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus, not the diktat of individuals - regardless of how correct they think themselves. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

From my experience I can say that it is generally best to implement a reviewer's suggestion even if you consider the proposed change unnecessary, at least as long as you don't feel too strong about it: the article quality will normally increase, as the reviewer may see problems you do not. I can understand that a reviewer gets annoyed when his suggestions, which required effort, are rejected, especially when the author calls one "arrogant". But replying to the author on the same insulting level does not help of course. In this case of lacking willingness on the part of the author, it should be OK (and preferable) to simply give immediate contra without further comment, and leave the decision to others. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem like this discussion is going anywhere. Maybe an external discussion would not be such a bad idea. ceranthor 20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed, Ceranthor, fresh air and fresh eyes. ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

To those who say Tim riley caused this unfortunate situation to occur with his attitude, note that while this specific nomination has turned into a flashpoint, it is hardly the first time since Tony's return that he has needlessly antagonized nominators, been dictatorial in the enforcement of his style preferences, or failed to engage in constructive followup with editors. Wehwalt did not want to bother bringing all the diffs here, which is understandable, but highlighting a few more instances of failure to assume good faith or adhere to common civility are instructive:

• At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Adams/archive2 he bickered with the nominator over a grammatically correct sentence because he did not appreciate the absence of a comma that was not strictly needed. When the nominator linked to a style guide upholding his position, Tony mocked said guide as amateurish, yet failed to provide any outside authority for why his own position was correct.

• At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_Matthews_(priest)/archive3 the nominator asked extremely politely whether all of Tony's comments were neccessary for correct syntax or if some were merely personal preference, and Tony replied that its "probably better that you don't cast aspersions on others here. "syntactic propriety"—too intellectual for me to understand. I've provided reasons for every point: is there something that's not crystal clear?" While the two did resolve their differences amicably, this was an aggressive posture to take to a fair question.

• At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SM_U-1_(Austria-Hungary)/archive1 Tony became agitated because he felt the nominator was not addressing his changes and demanded the nomination be removed. This despite the fact the editor was making changes to the article and had merely not updated his progress at FAC. This was after he had already accused the nominator -- and perhaps an entire Wikiproject -- of sexism. When asked to assume good faith by the nominator, he responded with the retort "Ah, like your good faith, on disply above? I hope I do better than that."

• At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jason Sendwe/archive1 he took affront at the implication he may have misapplied the MOS on a particular point and engaged in a protracted and pointless argument centered around the need for the nominator to withdraw an accusation.

These are not the only examples of Tony coming into sharp, yet easily avoidable conflict with other editors on FAC. Of course, he has also engaged in many nominations that have gone quite smoothly because he provides generally constructive suggestions based on a firm grasp of the English language. The moment he is challenged in his views, however, no matter how meek or polite that challenge may be, he turns vicious immediately. I only rarely participate in the FAC process, but I like following the nominations just to have a sense of what is happening at the highest quality level of the project, so I have read through literally dozens of them over the past couple of years alone. In all that time, I can honestly say I have never seen a single editor spark so much conflict in such a short time at FAC. This behavior needs to be reigned in, as it is harmful to the FAC process and in violation of Wikipedia civility policies. I agree with other editors that if a remedy is not agreed upon in this forum, then it may be necessary to engage in the Wikipedia judicial process. Indrian (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• And, I will add, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Apollo_15_postage_stamp_incident/archive1.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wehwalt, what do you see that FAC as illustrating? Tony and Clikity identified problems with the prose. Czar objected to the reliance on primary sources. Ww2censor wasn't keen on the title. The only person supporting was Tim, who didn't offer a review. (His peer review was very brief (diff). SarahSV ^(talk) 23:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• I believe Wehwalt is referencing the tone taken by Tony1 during the review, specifically for comments such as "Sorry you can't cope with a proper review of it." and "You seem to think I have a special place for you in my social mind: I don't. I barely remember any interactions. This is not the place to spew personal issues. It's undignified and irrelevant to the process.". Reading through the FAC, I do not see Wehwalt as taking issue with the oppose votes themselves. He had a discussion with Czar about the issues with the article. I believe Wehwalt took issue with Tony1 because of the tone of the conversation rather than the oppose vote itself. That is just my perspective though. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• As the John Adams nominator, based on my own experience with the editor in question there, the evidence brought forth by others, and the attitude displayed here by Tony1, I agree that something ought to be done. I move that we decide that either Tony1 accepts the consensus that his behavior has to change (the exact opposite of what he's done so far on this thread), agrees to voluntarily absent himself from the FAC process, or we bring this to AN/I. AN/I is an absolute "s*** hole" and I usually do a good job of avoiding it but they have a way of getting things done over there. Display name 99 (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I am just shattered and depressed at this sudden wall of hatred, personal insults, and threats. I've worked hard to try to improve prose standards in promoted FAs. Perhaps I sometimes come off as a little blunt, and I've found a few nominators to be rude when their prose is critiqued in ways they're not used to, in marked contrast to most nominators, who appreciate my input. Never did I expect to be abused, threatened, drubbed, and stomped on publicly for my efforts. A herd mentality has taken grip to give license to some who resent criticism of their writing. Here we have a coordinator referring to my shitting, which I find deeply distressing and inappropriate for any editor, let alone a coordinator. I'm threatened with being sent to "an absolute shithole" to be "done". I'm called "vicious", "obsequious to the point of toadyism", "childishly authoritarian", "bursts into passive aggressive screams", "a playground bully". If that's not harrassment and abuse on a grand scale, what is? What kind of place is it? You people know how to destroy someone. Tony (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised my the above response. Do you really think that you can routinely call people liars and cheats, and expect them to take it? You seem quite happy to dish it out, but you don't like it when people are rude to you. Time to grow up or walk away, I'd say Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The abuse continues. Tony (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You've all just proved my point once again. Both sides are being as unpleasant as each other. Neither side should be making these insults or aspersions. DrKay (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why my post just above was per se abusive. "Both sides", you say. Tony (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tony, please reread my response to your review on Berlioz. I meant, and still sincerely mean, that when you have reviewed my PRs/FACs I have always been deeply grateful for your reviews, it I have found that not every point ‘’needs’’ to be made. Sure, when it’s a grammatical error or something is too tangled to understand, then of course you should point those out, but often some of your suggestions don’t have to be made (or at least made, it not insisted upon). All people want is a little flexibility and to have their opinions taken as seriously as yours should be taken. No-one here is perfect and writers do appreciate having errors sorted and clarified, but you have to take on board d that you are not perfect either, and sometimes others have a better feeling for th wording than your u do. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't "insist" on many points. I never check what changes are made to a candidate article in response. I don't often come back to query a negative response (there aren't, in all, many of them). But the briefest reasoning is in order if a nominator doesn't agree, and I do feel my concentrated efforts are spurned when I get a generalised brush-off. Tony (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony, this thread isn't about whether your prose critiques are useful (they are) or whether nominators are required to comply with reviewer suggestions (they aren't). It's about the language you've used in multiple FACs, quoted at various places above. I'm still at a loss to understand what prompted some of those responses, or how this escalated to such unpleasantness. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Whereas you (and apparently Jimfbleak and many others) endorse "childishly authoritarian", "passive aggressive screams", and "shit on" that have been hurled at me in this thread. Nice to see such even-handedness. (You must be an admin.) Tony (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: It's a metaphor. Your pattern of behavior across various reviews has created a situation that coordinators have to deal with, and there's really no way to deal with it without making a mess. If you don't believe that you've created a situation, then you're being obtuse and we probably don't have anything else to say to each other. --Laser brain (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• It looks to me like there is fault on both sides here. The replies of "I'll make this change if there's consensus for it" are not helpful IMHO - people rarely comment on others' reviews, so a "consensus" for individual points raised by a reviewer is neither necessary or sufficient for that point to be actionable. The reviewers put a lot of work in here, and I'm sure it's a thankless and arduous task, so to reject their points without an explanation is discourteous and likely to be viewed negatively by the coordinators. That said, though, Tony's "I'm not used to being challenged" comment and bad faith accusations that other reviewers are "lickspittles" or "sycophants" show clear disregard for the collegiate nature of Wikipedia. Tony, your reviews are immensely valuable, and bring clear improvements to our FA library in the majority of cases, but you have to leave room for accepting that there are several ways to skin a cat, and that your suggestions may not always be taken on verbatim. I suggest that everyone here take a step back and concentrate on being civil to each other and working together rather than sniping. We are all on the same team with the same goals. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  I for one am rather tired of this "there's fault on both sides" line of reasoning that seems to have taken hold on Wikipedia. The implication is that both sides are equally at fault, whereas the truth my well be be that one party is 99% at fault, and the only fault of the other party is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. As in this case. Eric Corbett 13:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Any tense situation usually involves two people talking past each other, but when Tony causes tense situations across multiple nominations, a clear pattern emerges. Furthermore, if you read some of the examples I provided you will clearly see that some of his abuse was entirely unprovoked. And this is setting aside that he started posting nonsense like "NB Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum" in reviews where no altercation had ever taken place. There is a pattern of abusive behavior here, and its a real shame because Tony is a valuable contributor and his insights on articles are generally excellent. I would prefer not to drag him into ANI, but look what happened when the situation was brought up here: instead of being apologetic or attempting to understand why people were upset, he immediately started lashing out again. This is exactly what abusers do, and its unhealthy. Now, when all people in this discussion had to go on was a single review where both people were becoming a little testy, I can see why some would think there was equal fault, but I am simply astounded that when additional examples were posted here to demonstrate a pattern of behavior that anyone would still trot out the old "both sides are at fault" chestnut. That's like saying "I would not need to hit her all the time if she did not make me so angry." I agree it would be best if we all took a step back, but Tony needs to take the first step here by apologizing for his behavior and promising he will work to moderate his tone. Indrian (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  And for the record, I have never been reviewed by Tony at FA, GA, or anywhere else, had never interacted with Tim Riley before conducting a review of this article after Tony did, have not participated in any FACs over the past few months in which Tony was also a participant save this one, and have, to my recollection, never had any meaningful interaction with Tony on Wikipedia outside of this review and the subsequent fallout despite being on the project slightly longer than he has (though he is a much more robust contributor than I am), so I am about as impartial as you can get. I am just a guy who likes reading through FACs and noticed a disturbing pattern beginning to emerge. Indrian (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Indrian: True dat; With the exception of this page and that of the FAC-in-question, you have never edited the same page as Tony1 within effectively the same year  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think the point has been made and this discussion seems to have stopped being productive. Tony has been adequately pilloried, and I trust that he will be more mindful of his tone in the future if only to avoid a spectacle like this again. Unless anyone wants to propose an actual remedy I suggest this be closed as Trout and move on. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 16:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, it is up to Tony to say he will be mindful of his tone, not a random proxy. If Tony apologizes and indicates that he will moderate his tone, I will personally be satisfied. Instead, he continues to blame the victims, which is unseemly. To close this without an apology, or at the very least some kind of accommodation between Tony and those he has aggrieved (which I again stress does not actually include me) is to sweep it under the rug rather than require accountability, which is enabling poor behavior. Indrian (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I would consider myself on good terms with most if not all people involved, but I restate that I think an external discussion might be necessary at this point. ceranthor 18:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I believe we are operating under an extreme time zone difference with Tony, so he has probably yet to see the latest round of comments. We should give him an opportunity to respond. After that, yes, this should probably change venues. I am not encouraged by his further comments at User talk:Jimfbleak in which he stated: "Sadly, there is lying and distortion in that thread, which is being run by a small band of people who don't like their prose being criticised." Not only is this highly insulting to these FAC nominators, but it is demonstrably false seeing as all of the nominations contain prose critiques from other editors that the nominators have graciously accepted and worked through. Indrian (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @Indrian:, I don't disagree that there should be accountability, nor that this should be taken elsewhere, but I also think Tony is smart enough and should know well enough (see WP:TROUT) from this thread that the community thinks he needs to be more civil and will fix that. If we don't believe that, someone should propose some kind of solution to ensure that the change takes place, but I don't think a pile-on harangue has been or will be effective or useful. Asking for an apology is simple, either it is given or it isn't, and if it's not given we ought to do something more than bring up even more concerns since that didn't work in the first place. If you think a change of venue is appropriate, do so (though I think giving him a chance to respond to the last round of comments is a good idea), at least that way the discussion will have a goal other than how much we don't like the way a particular person edits. As I intended with my last sentence in my original comment, but perhaps articulated badly (I've removed the bolding to hopefully make the intent clearer), either this discussion needs to be taken in an actionable direction or closed because it has quickly become a mess and I only see it getting worse. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
          • If people want Tony to express his views differently, I'm sure he'll take that on board. But please don't ignore the issues that he's pointing out. We've had lots of discussion about what's happening to FAC, but nothing changes. Let's try to fix it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
            • I agree with SarahSV that these issues require further discussion. However, that should be done in a separate discussion, as the current conversation is about another point (i.e. Tony's tone/attitude during reviews). I am more uncertain than Wugapodes and SarahSV that Tony will really change his view given the comment already cited by Indrian and the following comment I'd like to do that; but I'm being abused and bullied off FAC) left on his talk page. I fail to see how either of these two comments indicate either Tony taking responsibility for the objections to his review style or engaging in a more productive conversation about it. I think that Tony is a valuable reviewer, and it is important to get another perspective during FAC reviews. I have to agree with Mike Christie that the issue is not the usefulness/value of Tony's critiques but the language used in them. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
              • Exactly, let's not rearrange the deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking. Also, while I am sure there are larger FAC problems that can be pulled out of this discussion, the "issue" Tony is pointing out is a conspiracy of editors attempting to corrupt the FAC process because they cannot stand to have their prose critiqued by another person. That is both a disgusting personal attack and utter nonsense. Indrian (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• I would propose as a remedy short of an AN/I thread or Arbcom case that Tony be restricted from posting on the nomination pages of individual FACs for six months. He would still be able to post on the talk pages and nominators could adopt his useful suggestions, and of course other reviewers could adopt his suggestions and urge their implementation, if they thought it useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we have the power here to impose that type of restriction without going to ANI? If we do, I support it because it is clearly warranted both by the diffs provided and the behavior demonstrated here.Display name 99 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:CBAN, WP:AN is the preferred venue.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for parachuting in, but I poked my head in here a few days ago, noticed this conversation and have been sitting on my hands since. Ideally I'd still be sitting on my hands, but as someone who hasn't been editing for months, it seems to me that this thread isn't really productive. We need reviewers; Tony is, and always has been, a good reviewer. FAC is what it is. Nominators take their work personally, as they should. The reviewer's job is to review. People get upset. It happens. It's been happening since I've been around and until we have a constructive discussion about adopting new reviewing techniques, i.e applying rubrics, nothing will change. As long as I can remember there have been groups of people who have supported one another; the groups shift, but to deny their existence is to deny the reality of FAC. As long as I remember Tony has been brusque, yet fair. Either take his advice or ignore it, but it's not worth a dust up. We don't need to revisit what happened in 2010 - it wasn't a happy time around here - we don't need to take anyone to AN/I, we don't need to ban anyone from reviewing. We just need to get along. Seriously. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• So what you are saying is "it does not matter how insulting Tony is nor how often he attempts to bully and abuse other people because we are desperately short on FAC reviewers and Tony often offers quality critiques." I don't find that position helpful. What Tony has done on multiple pages goes far beyond a decorous exchange of ideas that occasionally gets tense because people are personally invested in their articles. Indrian (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that Tony1 is a good reviewer, but I think that questions on his tone/attitude are valid. How are comments such as "Sorry you can't cope with a proper review of it." and "You seem to think I have a special place for you in my social mind: I don't. I barely remember any interactions. This is not the place to spew personal issues. It's undignified and irrelevant to the process." beneficial to a review process? I believe these types of comments are open to criticism and discussion. I agree with you that it is best to just get along. If there is a disagreement, then it is best to just agree to disagree and then let other reviewers contribute. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Aoba47, the reality is that over the years we've seen many comments that haven't been polite, and people have excused them, for whatever reason. I looked at some of the diffs and don't see problems with Tony's points. It's annoying to get pushback when reviewing. It's equally annoying to be critiqued when nominating an article. But that's the nature of the beast, so to say. The way I see it, and I've really really not been involved with Wikipedia for quite a while, both nominators and reviewer got their backs up. It's not helpful, but frankly opening a thread like this isn't helpful, either. No one wants to be the subject of a discussion like this, and seriously, at the end of the day the discussion is about the use of colons & semicolons. In my view, less piling on would be helpful. Chilling would be, too. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the response. I agree with your points. I think reviews should not escalate to the point where comments like the ones I cited above are used. If a reviewer feels that a nominator is not addressing his or her points, then it would be best to leave a message saying that this is their opinion and they would leave the FAC to other reviewers. If a nominator feels that a reviewer's suggestions are either not appropriate or applicable, then he or she can just agree to disagree and see how other reviewers respond. Ideally, I would prefer to see the FAC space conducted in a more professional manner. I hope that this thread will be useful however in terms of providing perspective and encouraging contributors on either side of the review to avoid using the tone/attitude from some of the above conversations. This is just my perspective however, as I am just a single contributor. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I honestly do understand that FAC is prone to more tension than it should have and that it would be better if everyone could get along. The problem here is that we have a reviewer engaging in abusive behavior across multiple FACs. Systemic problems call for discussion and resolution. I am slightly confused by your statement that you "don't see problems with Tony's points." Do you really see no problem with any of the following:

• a person responding "Well, probably better that you don't cast aspersions on others here. " when someone politely states "I've gone ahead and made those changes. I do wonder, however, whether these are issues of syntactic propriety or personal preference. "

• telling someone "If you must use sexist language—as the MilHist males have successfully fought tooth and nail to be allowed to persist with—could we not at least ration it a little"

• starting a review for an editor that has never been involved in a dispute with the phrase "Note: the FAC process has sadly become corrupted, so that success is now more likely if you're part of the "in" crowd. Tips on how to see off troublesome comments about prose: (1) demand consensus for the criticism/suggestion; (2) declare that it's subjective; (3) complain that other reviewers haven't raised the matter; (4) get your friends to come in and declare "Support" (minimal explicit reasoning is necessary)."?

These are just a few of the more egregious behaviors that some of us would like to see called to account. No one is here because they could not handle being asked to place a semicolon someplace. Indrian (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• What we need is data. We've had several discussions about groups who appear to support each other's nominations with minimal review. (Indrian, I haven't seen you take part in those conversations, so I don't know which concerns you're calling nonsense.) Mike's figures only go so far. Rather than engaging in online shaming of one individual, let's gather data so that we don't have to rely on anyone's impressions. We have this table from Brian, showing that promotion was 53–55% in 2008–2011 and 73% in 2017. So something has changed. We could ask one of the bot operators to write a script to find out more, including whether there are patterns of support. We could pay the bot operator if necessary, and maybe the Wikimedia Foundation would help. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Grant applications are open. GMG^talk 23:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sarah, Brian is not at all well at the moment, and I think would be glad not to be part of this discussion, verb sap. Tim riley talk 23:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

All of which is an entirely separate topic to the behaviour in question. Let's not get sidetracked into an entirely different issue than the behaviour attached to one reviewer. The "data" in this instance has been provided with the diffs above and doesn't need a bot operator to uncover. Open a different thread if you want to ride whatever hobbyhorse you're on: this isn't about whatever you're decrying here. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I understand how we are talking past each other now SarahSV. I understand that FAC may have a systemic problem with friends helping friends on reviews. That is not nonsense and is certainly something that needs to be addressed. I feel that Tony1 is using this larger issue as a pretext to cover up abusive behavior. He sees the recent censure here as a group of bullies out to corrupt Wikipedia with himself standing in the way, which is utter nonsense. What is actually happening is that he dislikes being questioned about his suggestions and therefore immediately lashes out in a vicious manner when someone dares to do so. When he gets called out on this behavior, he resorts to name calling and personal attacks. That is a serious breach of Wikipedia civility policies that has nothing to do with whether the FAC process is rigorous enough to counterbalance favoritism among reviewers. He wants his problems to link to that cause, but they really do not in my opinion. Also, I do take issue with your characterization of this exercise as "shaming" a reviewer. This is about standing up to a bully, and unfortunately sometimes bullies do not stop their behavior until they are called out publicly. Indrian (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Indrian, you're assuming bad faith of Tony that he's using the "friends helping friends" problem as an excuse. Please AGF instead, and consider that he might be trying to address it. You're welcome to disagree with how he's done it (that's fair enough), but an email might have achieved a change in style; one of the coordinators could have emailed him too. Instead we have this thread, with his name in the heading (which is very poor form), and look what happened when I tried to remove it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• I assume nothing, here are Tony1's exact words on the talk page of Jimfbleak: "Sadly, there is lying and distortion in that thread, which is being run by a small band of people who don't like their prose being criticised." That is nonsense. I, for one, have never even had any prose of mine criticised by him, while Tim Riley responded well to my criticism and the criticim of several other editors at the FAC that started this mess. Talk about Assuming Bad Faith... Also, if Tony had apologized at the start, I do not believe we would be here now, but this was his initial response: "That's just too bad. I find Tim Riley's attitude totally unacceptable, rude, and abusive. And yes, I do find his attempts to game the process corrupting. I will continue to inform nominators of this degradation in the forum's process." I know if he had apologized or engaged in dialogue up front, I may never have posted here in the first place. Finally, I did not name this thread, but how are people suppsoed to know what the thread is about at a glance if we keep it vague? Indrian (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I originally didn't want to weigh in here, but I feel like this discussion is getting out of hand. And I do think it's fair to say that "both sides" are responsible for the escalation. There seems to be clear consensus that Tony's prose reviews are very valuable, but that his tone is often problematic. The number of people complaining about his tone should give Tony pause and I would hope that he'll change the way he expresses himself when he reviews. If he doesn't that's a problem. But all the piling on here and especially suggestions that he be banned from reviewing FACs seem like attempts to get payback for some perceived or actual slights. Sanctions or whatever are never supposed to punitive on Wikipedia. They should only be designed to improve the project. In what world would kicking Tony out of FAC help? Or, for that matter, moving this discussion to some other forum? I would hope that Tony acknowledges that his tone has been a bit aggressive at times and vows to change his approach and that we then leave it at that. All of these attacks on him don't seem to be aimed at getting him to do that, but at driving him away. How would that help the project? Carabinieri (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• I believe all your points are reasonable. I do not want Tony out of FAC, and unlike some here I am certainly not calling for him to be removed. He NEEDS to apologize though. If he does that, I will exit this conversation at once, though I do concede others will not. Indrian (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony, it looks like the next move is yours. Do you accept that your approach has been problematic, and will you try to change it? MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You people flatter yourselves that I'd ever set foot in here again. As I wrote above, I'm shattered and depressed by this exercise in pack-rape. Not that anyone would account for that: Wikipedia really does have a sickness in its piling-on herd behaviour, where the prey is beaten mercilessly for days. It becomes a self-sustaining sport, an exercise in social bonding for the attackers. I don't think I've ever participated in one of these trophy hunts and bashings, so I can only guess how fun it must be. It's curious quirk of WP that "civility" is officially valued as a global commodity but applied only selectively (it's the meat of admins and arbcom, inter alia). How many editors, particularly females, have fallen away from the site in mental illness transitory or severe from the drubbings they receive? We'll never know. Or care.

So it's the nuclear option or nothing, and even better when it blind-sides. A functional group of coordinators might have might privately or on-wiki done their job properly by pointing out to me (privately or onwiki) a couple of examples where they thought my language was unnecessarily harsh or inflexible. But they're incapable of that. Instead, Laserbrain did the opposite at the top here. In some weird scatalogical attack I still can't understand, apparently I shit (laughably, he calls it a "metaphor", as though that might exonerate him). It's seriously unbecoming of a coordinator, reduces whatever dignity this forum might have laid claim to, and gave implicit license to the pack-rape that ensued. The moment I read his post I lost confidence in him as a coordinator. In my view, he should resign. The coordinators should obviously have required Tim Riley not to spurn my comments as a sly put-down, but to engage with them to improve the candidate article. Notably, he revelled in prompt, effusive interactions with all other reviewers—a precursor to this bullying pit. But the article will be promoted with its indigestible lead paragraph no matter what.

Expecting me to apologise after putting me through this? You are kidding. The chief toxics—among them the vengeful and now deeply satisfied Riley and his side-kick who began this thread; Indrian, whose every second word is "abuse" or "abusive"; Wehwalt, who was surprisingly abrasive toward me in my first review; the aggrieved SerialNumber, Schrocat, and Display name 99 who don't like their prose criticised; the chronically foul-mouthed Eric Corbett who stopped by to enjoy; the loathsome Laserbrain; and the serial admin Ceranthor—I wouldn't stop to help if you were dying on the street. Who would want to come into contact with your venom? Oh, and if there were any doubt, I meant every word of what I've said, and something you won't be able to swallow: ultimately it was in good faith. You're all just shell-shocked that someone would say these things. Humiliation is your only weapon.

You've got your prize: you've hounded me out of FAC and ensured I'll never return. What a fool I was: FAC just isn't worth helping. Sorry to be stopping the party, but you've cooked and eaten the prey and none is left. You can all go back to lining your gold-star trophy cabinets on your user pages.

A gold star, in my view, is tainted. It's like adminship: a brown smear. I'll be devoting considerable effort over years to letting the community know that FAC is dysfunctional, and at its worst shows clear signs of having fallen into corruption—you see, I know the details from insider observation. I'll strongly discourage editors from participating in the forum, whether as nominators or reviewers.

No doubt more insults will be hurled at me in my absence. "See, I told you so", "He's abusing again", "Good riddance", "Irksome victimhood", "Laserbrain, ignore his rantings". You may as well get it out of your systems. Have fun reinforcing each other's self-perceived righteousness. I'm unwatchlisting out of this echo-chamber. Tony (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way, but if you are really unable to see how damaging your behavior is and bend enough to apologize and moderate your tone, then unfortunately we are probably better off without you. It's a shame really, because you are a good contributor when you don't get in your own way. Which, by the way, I did try to point out in the relative privacy of the FAC where this all began, and you dismissed it. Indrian (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• "pack-rape"? Seriously? FFS, Tony, if anything I'd likely to drive away the female editors, it's comparing the text-based criticism of your behaviour with the abhorrent physical and mental trauma of rape. You need to get a sense of perspective about how to react to legitimate criticism about your behaviour if you are going to compare this to "pack-rape".
• You've missed the point in you posting above. This isn't about people reacting poorly about criticism of "their" text, but your behaviour: there are ways and means of doing things, and you need (or needed) to have done it differently. Again, I will repeat (as you have said above that I don't like my prose criticised), that's not correct: I said at Berlioz and in this thread, that I have welcomed your reviews in the past and found them useful. This isn't about anything to do with that: it's your approach to it that people are complaining about. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @SchroCat: I didn't even say one critical thing, other than suggesting external discussion, and somehow I'm now a "serial admin" - whatever that means. ceranthor 13:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I think it means "you are an admin on more than one occasion"  :) Either that or you were found in a box of cheerios  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 13:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

And I'm supposedly "aggrieved"; @Tony1:, on the assumption something more than paranoia is bothering you, what, exactly, am I supposed to be aggrieved over? ——SerialNumber54129 13:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Welp, this has far outlived its usefulness. I'm not going to close/hat it because I weighed in, and was the target of plenty of the invective on display here. A sensible takeaway would have been the message that Tony's reviews are valued but ample consensus that his tone and demeanor are sometimes unhelpful. Unfortunately much of what's been said here isn't sensible or helpful. As a coordinator (unless there is a significant sentiment that I should resign for telling Tony that he was shitting on the porch) I will take a more active role in hatting off-topic remarks in individual nominations when they arise. Pings are always useful when problematic behavior is spotted, from nominators or reviewers. I spend hours combing through this page at least once a week, but certainly not every day, and things may escape our notice. --Laser brain (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ian or Sarastro, please hat this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: FYI, Sarastro hasn't edited in two months and Ian Rose not for three days. ——SerialNumber54129 15:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.