User:Wugapodes/Bibliography review draft

A previous proposal to modify the Featured Article process to help resolve a backlog of source reviewing. While the proposal was not adopted, a number of suggestions were made in the resulting discussion which may better resolve the problem and be more likely to find consensus. The purpose of the present discussion is to help refine some of these ideas to identify which suggestions should be put forward for implementation.

Recap of the previous discussion

The original proposal was to create a new process, separate from the Featured Article process, meant to check compliance for criteria for criterion 1(c). That original proposal had 16 editors in support with 31 editors opposed. A compromise proposal to have a two-step FAC process was better received, but had no consensus. The compromise suggested having the process as internal to FAC where source reviews were required before a candidate could receive general reviewing, and 23 editors expressed support with 16 opposed.

The opposition to the previous proposal was nuanced. A number of editors were generally opposed to requiring source reviews before general comments regardless of where this process takes place, falling into two broad categories. The first main reason for opposition was that by requiring source reviewing to be done before general comments it places undue importance on one aspect of reviewing (and on one group of reviewers). The second main reason for opposition was that the FA process itself could be damaged by these changes.

Those remaining generally opposed on the grounds of undue promotion pointed largely to the potential for this proposal to be self-defeating. Intended in part to remedy editors "wasting" time on an article whose sources are inadequate, the proposal would simply cause editors to "waste" their time reviewing the sources of an article which would not pass general content reviews. Supporters rebutted this by arguing the problems are not symmetric, as source reviews may lead to significant prose changes that would then need to be looked at again, however this was not seen as particularly persuasive, with some in support pointing out that the main issue may in fact not be use of time, but rather getting people to do source reviews at all. Other opposers picked up on the implicit values associated with this ordering of reviews, viewing it as privileging and valuing a certain kind of review over another (and by extension, a certain kind of editor).

Those opposing because of the potential problems it would create for FAC generally pointed to the change creating a bottleneck. A number viewed this as potentially creating a significant slow-down and backlog. In trying to address the problem of a source review backlog, it would create a general backlog. Specifically pointed to is the trial of this proposal which had one nomination unreviewed and another abandoned. Others pointed to the potential problem this new backlog would create. Out of an interest in eliminating this backlog, source reviews may be rushed or cursory, the process may exacerbate FUTON bias by putting articles with print sources at disadvantage, and generally leading to a decline in quality of both source reviews and Featured Articles.

Suggestions made during the discussion

• 1(c) source review process: Mike Christie, Johnbod; with star awarded: Factotem.
• GOCE-like process (Guild of Source Reviewers/GOSR): FunkMonk, RL0919, Czar, Indy beetle, SarahSV, Wugapodes
• A-class process across all projects to address source reviewing: Wugapodes
• Split FAC reviews into source/content sections and run them simultaneously: WhatamIdoing
• Inculcate expectation among nominators that 1(c) must be satisfied: Victoriaearle

There were negative or at least pessimistic comments about some of these options; I haven't listed those names.
— User:Mike Christie

The discussion identified a number of places in the proposal that seemed unlikely to find consensus as well as areas that may be able to. Editors were generally opposed to requiring source reviewing to come first, and any proposal that modifies the FA process to require source reviewing before general comments is unlikely to find consensus. For this reason, discussion trended back towards a solution separate from FAC in its entirety, though some editors made suggestions that could be done within FAC.

Two main suggestions were made which could be accomplished within FAC. The first is to separate the nomination page into two concurrant sections, one for source reviewing, the other for prose reviewing.^ Reviewers could do either at any time, and the dearth of reviews in the "source" section would hopefully encourage editors to undertake them on their own. The second is to encourage particular cultural changes at FAC to resolve these issues. Among these changes are making opposition to nominations less socially costly, and inculcating an expectation among nominators that promotion requires both excellent MOS compliance and excellent bibliographic material and content. A further suggestion in this line is to promote a culture among reviewers as to when they should take on certain reviews. As they are WP:VOLUNTEERS, it is their prerogative to not take on content reviews for nominations that no one has or cares to do a source review on.

Among the suggestions which would create a group or process independent of FAC, two main themes emerged. The first was a formal process for the evaluation of sources, similar to the original proposal, but which is not a requirement for FAC (similar to how Did you know and Good article reviews are often done but not required to be done before FAC). Some users suggested articles with brilliant sourcing be awarded some topicon upon completing the review, like is done for featured and good articles. The second theme, and most widely approved suggestion, was establishing a group similar to the Guild of Copy Editors who would field requests for review of article bibliographies. There was a range of suggestions for the form this project would take, including partnerships with the Wikipedia Library, a noticeboard-type page, or research help.

Discussion on these proposals was extensive but not comprehensive. The goal of the following discussion is to refine these ideas and determine which seem most likely to succeed in terms of volunteers and wider consensus.