User talk:Mike Christie/FQSR workshop

Discussion of FQSR workshop

This page is for discussion of the FQSR workshop. Originally there was a separate section on the workshop page for discussion, but at the suggestion of a couple of editors I am moving comments here for further discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main goal of this is to run these through FAC (if the source review passes), and see how the nomination goes when the source review has been performed first. Do I understand the main goal correctly? Kees08 (Talk) 06:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of it like that; I think when the source reviews are completed, one way or the other, we should know enough to talk about whether we want to implement this approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes vs. support/oppose

Outriggr asks above, in the "Saving Light" review: "is this source review process supposed to be another place for long exchanges about fixing problem areas, or a place where the reviewer supports or opposes?" I think that's one of the questions to be resolved by this workshop. My opinion is that articles should be opposed unless the fixes are straightforward. Fixing a long list of citation formatting errors, or replacing two or three dubious sources, seems straightforward to me. More than that and I would consider opposing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded reviews

I think if this does end up becoming a more widespread process, we might need to return to the transcluded-reviews design of the main FAC page - edits to the section of interest get lost in the sum business of all reviews. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]