Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission Proposals/Archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Force

Physics WikiProject

Article currently floundering a bit at FAC. Needs some good reviews and copyediting. Incredibly important topic.

Discussion
How can we tell how it's going? There's nothing written on the current FAC page. I may be acting stupid, but... Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 15:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The past FAC closed, here. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Green

Color WikiProject

This would be the project's first FA. The article is currently at GA status. I don't know that it would be possible to get this through FA without some guidance from the FA-team. No other color article has ever reached FA before. Wrad (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Rudyard Kipling

Rudyard Kipling is one of Wiki's oldest continuous FAs that have not been reviewed. Tuning it up could help avoid WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Support: I could help with research on this if need be. He's one of my favorites. Wrad (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Substantial research would be required for this article. Although I would love to undertake it since Kipling is an important figure in children's literature (one of the fields I study), it would take months, if not a year to do all of the requisite reading. Note that the article barely discusses Kipling's writings. Awadewit (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Postpone. Lets do some other stuff first, and come back to this if the content improves. I think it would also be useful to discuss on the FA-Team analysis page whether it is valuable for the FA-Team to help out with articles which don't yet have the content to be potential FA candidates. Geometry guy 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Isn't really an FA team sort of thing, per Awadewit. If the team's work changes, it could be considered in the future. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

The editors of this article have busted their chops for months, since the last failed FAC. They are motivated, hard-working, have jumped through all the hoops, and can use any help they can get. Copyediting on the Indian articles has always been a concern, but motivation is there. They want to come to FAC, they've paid their dues to the best of their ability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: this was just renominated at FAC (Wikipedia:FAC#Preity_Zinta) and has already attracted comments about its copyediting. Karanacs (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This may not need FA-Team help, but why not watchlist it anyway: several FA-Team members know the article quite well already, and we could save a lot of editorial effort by bringing it up to the grade. Geometry guy 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ummmm ... ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Action potential

WillowW has been heroically trying to save this article from being delisted at FAR. She is doing (has finished?) all of the research. What remains is copy editing, organizational, and MOS issues. Scientifically-inclined editors would be particularly helpful with the copy editing (Scartol and Awadewit can only do so much when it comes to equations!) but I think a concerted effort by a group of three or four editors would assure that this article kept its star. Awadewit (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is really wonderful, and I'm warmly grateful to Awadewit for suggesting it. :) I do see, as she does and others do, that it doesn't fall within the mandate of the FA-Team, which is to train new people in the art of making FA's. Also, as Mm40 notes below, the tide seems to be turning in favor of Action potential passing its FAR. Still, I would be grateful and encouraged if any of you would like to help. :) Willow (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Comment. This would need fast and decisive action from the FA-Team, as it has been at FARC for a while. It has one of Wikipedia's best editors improving it, so it doesn't necessarily fit the FA-Team model, but I believe in the power of teamwork, and will be happy to join in if other editors do. Geometry guy 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Extended discussion
  • Poor Willow can't do everything by herself to save the article! Team to the rescue! :) Awadewit (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    I agree, and would encourage anyone reading this to help out now. What I mean by saying "it doesn't necessarily fit the FA-Team model" is that a large part of the FA-Team motivation is to help inexperienced editors and hence create new featured article builders. Geometry guy 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Oh yes, I agree with that part. Unfortunately I am not seeing many proposals that fit that model, so I thought I would mention this. I apologize if it was out of order. Awadewit (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Absolutely no apologies necessary: I would encourage all FA-Team editors to help this article; it is a win-win situation, even if it not officially FA-Team activity. Geometry guy 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The biggest hurdle here is citations (although there are also article organization issues): I don't see how FA-Team members can help with the research/citations. The Medicine Project seems to have washed its hands and hasn't even tried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Willow's doing the research. I was thinking it might be nice if we freed her up to do more of that. Took some of the more mundane tasks off of her hands. She has been a one-woman FA rescue machine on this article. Awadewit (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I offered to the MoS cleanup, but I think she went ahead on that on her own (?), and other suggestions (summary style) haven't been used. It's certainly curious that none of the med/bio people will help; I don't have the content knowledge, but that seems to be the main holdup. I did some work in there tonight, was alarmed still at the external links, TOC and lack of citation. Lots of citing to be done still; what it mostly needs now is content experts, although I can continue adding the missing PMIDs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • According to the talk page of the article, 23kb of prose have been cut, leaving the article at 50kb of readable prose. The "Mathematical models" section is now smaller, so I think progress is being made, slowly but surely. Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
          When I see "Lots of citing to be done" and "Content expert" in the same sentence about a biological article, the name that immediately springs to mind is Tim Vickers. He has already been providing occasional helpout with the article, but if you two were to turn on the charm on his talk page, I think this article might move very rapidly to where it deserves to be, and with more expertise than the FA-Team can provide. Geometry guy 06:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I believe many messages have been left already for Tim. I would also like to add, again, that there is much for non-experts to do. Poor Willow - she helps everyone else out with such good grace and no one will help her out! Really, it's too bad. Awadewit (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, I regularly and routinely ping Tim on bio/med FAR/FAC articles (this is but one of many samples of such, action potential is not an unusual bio/med FAR, been working on saving articles at FAR for two years :-). I pinged him on action potential, as I always do.[1] We don't need to turn on the charm; Tim always does everything and anything he can, as soon as he can. The article I pinged him about just before that, he salvaged in a matter of hours and it was a Keep at FAR.[2] He entered a Remove on Action potential because it's uncited and the material can't be verified. Tim rarely enters an Oppose; what else can I say? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
              Sorry for my naive and unhelpful suggestion, but I don't know what else to suggest. I've helped out a little with the math section already, but I don't know what else to do. Willow has added a huge amount of material to this article, which is now over 100 KB and is a completely different article from the one that was brought to FAR. Of course she is the most deserving, graceful, and generous Wikipedian that all of us have met, but it may be that the best we can do is follow Tim's line and vote remove. The attention of a later FAC may provide the help that the article needs. Geometry guy 07:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
              Apparently I am just as unconvincing as Willow in trying to drum up help for this article. Ah well. It is the action potential curse. Awadewit (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) G guy, I totally don't follow your system of asterisk and colons, so I'm outdenting :-) Ah, what to do; now you see the problem :-) Like I said, I've got hundreds where action potential came from. It beats the heck out of me why the Medicine Project doesn't help on FARs, why there are only six to eight editors we can count on for saves at FAR, and why more reviewers and editors don't help. Dozens of articles a month that are almost there, and just need a little push to save. That is my point about Rudyard Kipling, about the hundred or so I could bring here. Right now, the one that is killing me is Samantha Smith; nice little article, two or three citations away from a Keep, but nobody can or will do it. It's not naive or unhelpful; it's the disappointment that Marskell and I deal with every day. This is why it's important that we recognize Wiki resource limits and use our resources wisely, expending effort in areas that will generate maximum return on editors who will pay back. Teach them to fish rather than giving them the fish. We can't feature them all and we can't save them all; as Tony says, we can leave the largest possible footprint, reach as many editors as we can, and hope it spreads from there. This is the crux of the matter; how can FAT achieve its mission without draining our limited FA writers, FA reviewers, and FA savers. It's a small pool, and there are many editors, articles and Projects who would die for a moment of the attention and talent and knowledge available on this page. Hard to pick; hard to see articles that are almost there and that have received so much work not get their star when the editors have worked so hard. Especially when you look at some of those that are getting their star, while FAC is missing its best reviewers. I guess this sums up everything I would say on the post-mortem: the importance of a footprint to Projects that will yield ever-widening circles of editors and articles, and if no one is over reviewing at FAC and FAR, and article standards slide, for what is the effort, anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say that after attempting to source A Tale of a Tub, I would never recommend that anyone participate in trying to save an FAR that is unsourced. And after seeing the problems with Action potential, I am doubly convinced. I consider the work I did a complete waste of time wiki-wise. I spent weeks reading on Tub and even after all of that reading, I could not properly source the article (it would probably take me a year to do the proper amount of reading). If an article is completely unsourced, only someone who wrote the article, who knows the subject from top to bottom, or who is willing to rewrite the article, can fix it. Sorry to be so pessimistic about FAR. Awadewit (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
But we've restored 119 articles 122 articles since the citation requirements were strengthened and the new FAR was put in place in June 2006 to process them. Action potential started a month late, and no other content experts could help. Tub was a different story; many are doable if editors are available. But you're right; in two-thirds of the cases, euthanasia is the best option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Show me some good examples. Being a lit person, I am less impressed with stats than I am with representative examples. :) I want to see a "before and after" example of an article that had few to no sources and ended up with excellent sources. I remain skeptical. :) Awadewit (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The list of all saves is in the link above, and the before and after are in articlehistory; pick one from the list that interests you, articlehistory will show you the original featured version as well as the version that passed FAR<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> (FAR is sometimes harder to pass than FAC, by the way). If you want to see one of our oldest restored featured articles you could look at either punk rock or Byzantine Empire. (I imagine you'd rather find something literature related; since I don't work on them, I can't name one off the top of my head.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe James Joyce? Original featured version and version that passed FAR (but in Dec 2006, standards have significantly improved since then). Or George Moore (novelist), Original featured version and version that passed FAR. The improvements in the medical articles I've worked on are more easily notable to my eye: TimV and I worked on Tuberculosis, original version and version that passed FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This might be a moment for us to remind each other that our primary goal at Wikipedia is improving the encyclopedia, not creating more featured articles. The latter is simply a mechanism for achieving the former. The improvement in the quality of Action potential in the last month, largely thanks to Willow, has been absolutely incredible. I do not see any of our efforts to help her as wasted: they have converted a fading FA of years ago into an article burning with life and information. Whether it has a bronze star in the top right corner is secondary to whether it provides readers with top quality information and insight.
Not wasted; if no one can cite it, resignation that it may need to come back to FAC after it's cited if it wants a star, but it's still a hugely improved article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sandy (post multiple ecs :), I find your outdented post very insightful and it should probably be copied/paraphrased over at the /Analysis page. Unfortunately this rather sad and reflective morning (to me) also starts my busiest day of the week, so I won't be able to reply any further until this evening UTC. All I can do for now is explain the bullets (asterisks) and colons (indents). In a nested discussion it is best to copy exactly the sequence of asterisks and colons of the previous commentator, and then decide if you want to precede your comment by a bullet or not: if you do, add an asterisk, otherwise add a colon. In this discussion I did not want to precede my comments by a bullet, because I was not voting or making a point, but simply exchanging thoughts with two of the Wikipedians I most admire and treasure. That's why I interspersed the asterisks with colons, and I tried to do it without changing anyone else's choice about whether to precede their comment with a bullet point. I wish I could talk here longer, but I have to go... Geometry guy 08:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never before encountered that mixture of colons and asterisks on Wiki ... I don't know what it means, actually, or what to do with it (in other words, I don't know what to put before or after it). It's not sad ! We can spread a large footprint and teach a lot of editors how to write the best possible articles, as long as we are realistic about Wiki's limits and think about where to reach the most editors who are hotly seeking help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
We're in complete agreement about the maximizing the footprint. Concerning colons and asterisks, the short answer is that it means absolutely nothing. It is just a bizarre feature of the Wikimedia software: if you want to add an indent or a bullet to a discussion, then you have to copy the previous editor's markup exactly, then add a colon or bullet. If you don't do this, the Wikimedia software attempts to provide a whole string of bullets and indents according to your request, and the result is not often pretty. So, just copy the string of the previous editor, put nothing before it, and put whatever you want after it. This may often lead to odd code (as it did here), but the result will be formatted as Wiki intended, bless it. Geometry guy 21:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that I'll CE it. Again, let me point out that I haven't taken physics yet. And this is also sort of important, as this is the type of article that people would look up. Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 11:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara‎

Did I see someone mention WP:FARC? Well, one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People is in FARC: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara‎. I contend it's POV; others disagree... I hope to do some fact checking this weekend. Any help from one or more steely-eyed, just-the-facts-please fact checkers (regardless of political stripe) would be cause for slavish levels of gratitude from yours truly. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Qualified Support I would certainly like to be involved in this, as it's obviously in my line of work. In fact, I already made a couple of edits. I'd be happy to take a look at the relevant biographies, too (not all of which are English, as far as I'm aware... Paco Ignacio Taibo II for instance?). The only downside is that I don't have masses of time at the moment. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    I've changed to qualified support after spending some time with the article this evening. This article has a lot of problems that I hadn't really realized or expected, and that's without even getting on to the question of POV issues. Moreover, I see the FAR is an unholy mess. Still, this is probably somewhere that a group such as the FA-Team could have an impact, precisely in fact because they're not particularly close to the subject. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Am I dithering much? Anyhow, I've just spent most of the night on this. So I do think it's worth it. And though the talk page and the FAR are both something of a train wreck, really it seems as though the problem lies with just one editor. Perhaps this is where teamwork might have some effect? Especially if the team-members are not particularly invested on one side or another of a POV controversy, and have wise heads such as is the case here.  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The problems are deeper and longer than what is currently evidenced by one editor (particularly since most other editors left, most likely fearing the article was going to end up in a nasty ArbCom). I hope you're aware of the full history (that Jimbo Wales put a POV tag on the article last summer, and it's been war ever since). I hope that once you start trying to improve the article, you don't find all the old editors flooding back to begin edit warring and POV-warrioring again. But you're right that the only chance at fixing that article is if a lot of people descend on it at once, to push through the ownership and POV. Me? Powdered glass until I see several weeks of rational productive editing. If y'all can do it, you earn 18 brownie points and every barnstar in the book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh. I saw the Jimbo POV tag, and completely agree with those who contested it. Egads! Anyhow, it looks as though my edits from last night may stick. What's needed now is above all some sourcing. I continue to believe (and call me naive) that it's not actually very difficult to write an NPOV article about Guevara. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy

  • Editors/Wikiproject(s) involved: User:Itsmejudith, User:Mrshaba
  • This would be suitable for the FA-team because this muckity worm muck of a page needs the touch of experienced wikipedians and the FA-Team comes recommended. Sources are strong and I have access to several databases for additional references. All significant editing is complete from my point of view but miscellaneous tweaks continue. This is a top priority topic and the lead article for the solar energy category. The subject is also internationally relevant. Mrshaba (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... A recent peer review exposed a lot of to dos for the page. Maybe now is not the time but I would appreciate the team's consideration when the time comes. Mrshaba (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

General proposal

I admired your work on MMM from afar and have a general suggestion. At Peer review I see several requests each week that are either near ready for FAC or have recently failed FAC (FLC too), but just need some polish (copyedit and MOS issues). These are articles that seem to already have all the facts in place, just need some help. I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but if it is let me know and I can provide more details. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think this is a great idea, and I'm sorry I missed it earlier. (NB however, that I'm not in charge of the FA-Team in any sense... heh, though arguably it might be a good thing if someone were!) I'd love to hear more. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
My thought was just that WP:LOCE seems to be dead or at least barely functioning, and this was a way to help some articles that were almost bu not quite ready for FAC (before they got mauled there). I have long thought that copyediting and MOS help should be handled more on a triage basis (i.e. potential FAs need it most). One possible drawback is that most FA TEAM projects seem to have been for arts and science articles, but many of the potential FAs at PR are in pop culture (albums, musical groups, tv shows) and sport. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to try to stir the pot a little more this week (though I'm rather busy and will be away for a while from Friday). You make an interesting observation about pop-culture articles: I hadn't thought about it, but you're quite right. Hmmm. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(ecx2) I'm not completely convinced, though I agree it's (in theory) a good idea. The plus points would seem to be motived and interested editors, who are keen on improving their articles... on the downside, they may already be familiar with FAC, or may not even want to go for FA. Maybe Ruhrfisch (or whoever closes the PR) could suggest to editors that they bring here those articles he thinks might benefit from a FAT treatment, thus screening them somewhat? EyeSerenetalk 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I like that idea, ES. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I used to do almost all the archiving by hand, but thankfully a bot does it now. I still do update the list of PR requests without responses and help with reviews of these "orphans". I also do all of the semi automated peer reviews as AZPR, although that will be done by a true bot sometime in the future.
I never meant to just send editors here looking for help, but if there was interest from the FA team or its members in say a geography or music article, then I could suggest a few to choose among. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
PS Rereading the posts, the articles at PR I was thinking of are either ones that have failed FAC and seem to only need copyedits and MOS help, or ones where the PR nominator says their intention is to go for FAC, but it is clear they need help with copyedits and MOS. The Everglades articles by Moni3 are a recent example of some that have wound their way through PR and are now being helped by FA Team. Ideally more along those lines would be identified. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I am wary of the FA-Team turning into a copyediting force. That was not the intention at all. Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
My thought has always been that if the project or its members were looking for projects to take on, PR is one place to find them (and I could usually suggest some possible candidates there) and recent failed FACs are another. I was not trying to turn this into the new WP:LOCE, nor was I ever planning on sending editors here will-nilly with requests for help. I always mentioned both copyediting and MOS help, per you own quote (see above): The FA-team mostly deals with reviewing, copy-editing, MoS-ifying, guiding through FAC, and some other top-secret stuff we cannot disclose at this time :) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I am going to stop watching this page. If any members of the Team ever want my ideas on possible candidates to help to and through FAC from Peer Review just drop me a line on my talk page, or email me if you don't want this project to become known (although I do not check my email every day). Take care and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As a note, if we do what ES suggested, the folks with articles at peer review could just nominate the articles themselves here - no need for a change of process. By the way, what happened to AndyZ, anyways? Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Scattered disc

Solar energy

Félix Houphouët-Boigny

  • Editors involved: Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs), Nishkid64 (talk · contribs)
  • I've brought a wide variety of articles to FA, but Houphouët-Boigny is unique, as its my first translation project. I don't speak French at all, but I managed (with translators, dictionaries, and wonderful French editors on IRC) to help translate this article in its entirety in less than a week. Now we need the FA-team to help us copyedit the article and to also check for discrepancies between the English and French versions of the article. I hope the gang can help. :) Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Deadline: Preferably featured by the end of August...2008!
I can help (je parle français), I'll proofread sections 4 & 5 (In African politics; Personal life). I'll post back here when I'm finished. I'll try to proofread other sections but cant promise 189.104.127.20 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, mysterious IP! By the way, does anyone know if a translated article has ever been taken through FAC before? Are we going to run into problems with the French sources, for example? I really hope not, because I think translation can be a huge advantage to Wikipedia. I just wanted to ask. Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure some translations have gone through FAC. As for the sources, I hope this won't be a problem. Almost all scholarly work on Houphouët-Boigny is written in French; in fact, I don't think there's an entire biography of Houphouët-Boigny written in English. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Nishkid has done a substantial translation of this article, it is very, very impressive. I think we should just copy edit and leave the article alone, its state right now is very comprehensive already. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 23:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Meldshal. This shouldn't be too hard of a task; most of the prose errors look fairly obvious. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I speak French and am willing to help out, but it looks like the article has evolved past the translation issues and merely needs to brush up on its English prose now. Gary King (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
As there seems to be support for this mission, I have officially added it to the mission page. If you would like to help out, please add yourself to the list of participating editors. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the IG Farben Building is mostly a translation of its German equivalent. On to Leon Mba! --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topics/State touring routes in Essex County, New York FA drive

  • Editors/Wikiproject(s) involved: Mitchazenia, Durova, Polaron, Shoemaker's Holiday (WikiProject New York State Routes)
  • This would be suitable for the FA-team because roads are a thing where copyediting and Manual of Style are big issues. This would help with the FAC and FLC process. There are 9 articles left, and all to most are getting there. Its really important I have this done, so I can focus with school a bit too.
  • Goal(s): The main goal is to get the rest of the remaining articles that are GAs to FAs. You guys do not have to any research, as the main ones doing this work. If you could be of any benefit to the project, it would be a big help.
  • Deadline(s): January 1, 2009 should be sufficient, since by then, I will have some time on my hands, with my to-be busy schedule.Mitch32(UP) 17:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose- As Awit said, we are not a newly minted LOCE. This project (FAT) does not help those experienced with FAs, of which all of you have some FA experience. If this was a drive to get FT, then no as well. Sorry, but we don't help experienced Fa users as yourselves. ;) --Lord₪Sunday 15:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose Per excellent point raised by Awadewit. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC) It'll be good to work on something new... I'm sick of the Everglades ;) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - These editors have FA experience (some of them quite a bit) - the aim of the FA-Team is to help those who do not know how to take an article to FA to learn the ropes. Awadewit (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Juliancolton. ~~ ĈĠ890100Review me! 19:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Leon M'ba

This would be suitable for the FA-team because Nishkid and I have been working hard on translating its french featured equivalent. However, we do need help from The Team to copyedit etc. It would also be the first Gabon-related article above B-class. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Goal(s)
  • Deadline(s): Hopefully on the main page by November 27, his death day

Comments Hopefully after the FA-Team helps out with Félix Houphouët-Boigny, which is an article both of you brought to us and are working on as part of this mission, we will all have learned something about translated articles and FAC? Remember that the FA-Team is here to help "groups of editors with little-to-no FA experience (e.g., a new or recently-reactivated WikiProject)". We are not a newly-minted League of Copyeditors! Awadewit (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Casu marzu (Maggot cheese)

  • I believe the intention was to help editors learn how to take an article to FAC. FAC is often too late, actually. The idea was to make FAC as painless as possible. This project would be very atypical for us, but perhaps fun. Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree, FA-Team help is most effective if it starts well before FAC. I think it may be too soon to start on this one, though. Geometry guy 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    I don't know where Nousernamesleft got that idea, since the mission states no such thing. Awadewit, I don't see it as atypical at all, as it allows you to increase your footprint by helping three different Projects learn how to bring an article to featured status. (By the way, if you all can think of a better article for April Fools, go for it ... my goal is to avoid the last-minute rush of last year, so I don't at all see why it's too early to get started.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    The "too early" comment refers to the fact that the article is not developed enough. I think, in general, we are very resistant to doing research. If there were specific editors lined up to the do the research, we might be more open to guiding them through the research process. Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, you'd have to prompt someone to come up with the research. Anyone game to approach Giano? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    By the way, here is what the Ima Hogg team had to start with (nothing, basically). One person (Karanacs) did most of the research; everyone else pitched in here and there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    We are here to help people who haven't written lots of FAs. Find me an eager, cheese-loving FA newbie and I'm on board. (I'm not particularly interested in writing it myself, you see.) Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    I keep putting out feelers to editors in the Food and drink department, and no one has taken the bait. It's going to make me angry if there's mad rush at the last minute, when I started nudging so far in advance :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(←) I was going to raise the same issue as Awadewit: we really need some (preferably FAC inexperienced) editors who want to do the research to make this fly as a mission. However, we could be proactive about it, as Sandy has been, and try to find such editors through related WikiProjects and the article edit history. We could also hedge our bets and consider more than just one possibility for the April 2009 article. (See the dispatches link.)
So, here's a concrete suggestion in the spirit of my wacky solar idea: let's agree to have an FA-Team mission on "Wacky articles" starting in September (say). That gives anyone who likes the idea the rest of the summer (northern hemisphere) to find editors interested in doing the research and writing such articles, by promising them FA-Team support. Geometry guy 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could run an advance Dispatch, with an offer from FAT to help any Project bring a wacky article to FAC? Maybe specifically mention April Fools, or maybe not, if we want to keep that under our hats? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I like it. If we want to keep the April Fools idea "secret" then having the mission in the fall (nh) will allay suspicion. Geometry guy 19:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Bait: would you be interested in starting that Dispatch in your userspace? You could specifically mention the articles listed in last year's Dispatch ... I'm partial to the weird name article, for reasons I'll not divulge publicly, and I would even know where to look for some research on that one. BTW, you should fix my typos when you respond to my posts, like any good friend would do :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a dispatch on the FA-Team would be a good idea, including this plan as part of it. Prerequisite: FA-Team support for such a mission. Okay, I will fix such typos. I didn't spot any recently though. Geometry guy 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup, no problem with that, although I'm not completely clear on what constitutes a 'wacky' article (are we looking for unusual subjects, or wordplay, or obscurity, or...?). I'd also like to thank the editors of Casu marzu for a truly nauseating read. EyeSerenetalk 08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a dispatch sounds like a good way to recruit editors who might be interested. Excellent ideas all around. Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
EyeSerene, I'm fairly sure there was an (undoubtedly incomplete) list of "wacky articles" somewhere in Wikipedia - the shortcut was WP:ODD, I believe. I'd bet the first two would be considered odd, though I'm not sure about the third one - there are plenty of obscure subjects that are terrifyingly boring. Anyways, I'm digressing from the main topic, so I should just repeat what others have already said: I like the idea of the unusual article dispatch, though how will we choose which article to feature on April Fools' Day? Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Odwalla

  • Editors/Wikiproject(s) involved: User:Intothewoods29
  • This would be suitable for the FA-team because it meets all the requirements (I have "little-to- no FA experience", it has pretty much all the research it needs, and I'm super keen on getting it to FA. I started working on it sometime near the beginning of August and I've never want to write about smoothies again... but first I want to get it to FA status. It's at WP:GAN and WP:PR right now and I need all the help I can get. Thanks! Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Deadline(s): September 31st, because there are a bunch of dates that could be anniversaries so it can get on the main page (see my userpage if you want to know specifics.)
UPDATE: It passed GAN with the advice of several very patient reviewers, so I'll be submitting it for FAC when I get to it... :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Support Awadewit (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Support; I recently assessed this for GA no I didn't, I peer-reviewed it. Tch! EyeSerenetalk 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC), and would be happy to try and help take it further. As a 'corporate' article, it's also something a little different. EyeSerenetalk 12:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Featured_articles/FA-Team/Mission_Proposals/Archive_1&oldid=1180429740"