Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1

PBS commentary, moved from main page

The person who nominated this page for an FAC did not attempt to seek a consensus for the move on the talk page before doing so. There is an ongoing dispute over the content of this article to which the nominator is a very active party. This has included but is not restricted to repeated breaches of the 3RR. Some editors have commented on the talk page of the article about the nominators alleged ownership of this article. With comments as those expressed by PoD:

"When writing articles I tend to weight the subject in the same manner as the sources used."

does nothing to contradict those opinions.

Pod (the nominator) claims above that "They do that because today, the day is little more than an opportunity to watch fireworks and a bonfire. Most people have little or no inkling of the history of Gunpowder Treason Day." That is his opinion, and while it may be true, it is not sourced and is the type of thing that ought to be documented in far more detail in a contemporary section of the article.

Another claim made by POD above to justify not having more on contemporary events is "there really isn't anything noteworthy about the modern celebration, which is fast being replaced by Halloween." Where does he get that from? and how does he know it is true in all the places where Bonfire night (aka Guy Fawkes Night) is celebrated?

There are sources supplied on the talk page of the article that discuss the fact that "Bonfire Night", "Fireworks Night" and "Guy Fawkes Night" are used interchangeably, These have been provided in retort to to Malleus Fatuorum claim that "Guy Fawkes night is not a contemporary event. The contemporary event is Bonfire Night, mostly nothing to do with Fawkes at all" . Clearly it depends on the country and the reason for the bonfires. But in England and commonwealth countries where Guy Fawkes Night is celebrated an alternative name for the event is Bonfire Night.

SandyGeorgia as to your comments on canvassing. I mealy told two other editors who have recently contributed to the talk page and have made it clear that they do not agree with the nominator on the article structure that this FAC has been put forward. If PoD had been interested in consensual development of the page he would have discussed this nomination on the talk page of the article before making it, to see if there were any out sanding issues.

SandyGeorgia do you not see that given that PoD has been willing to breach 3RR to defend the current structure of the article, this nomination can be seen as an attempt to cement his preferred version by seeking protection of a FAC. Thanks to this premature move he has put any editor who expresses an opinion on the suitability of this article for FA status in the position of taking sides in an ongoing dispute on the talk page over the content of the article. Given the concerns of ownership by the nominator raised on the talk page, this FA shoudl be closed with no consensus until the issues on the article talk page have been resolved and if it is nominated future it should be by a party who is not involved in an ongoing dispute on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you didn't inform those who expressed support for the article's current structure of this FAC. That's what makes your actions canvassing - you only notified one "side". As PoD is the major contributor on this article there is no requirement that he discuss before nominating the article, per the FAC instructions. Furthermore, AFAICT all who might be considered major contributors were involved in the discussion on talk, so there's no one "uninvolved" left to nominate (and that's not required anyways). Now, you're welcome to oppose the article's promotion if you have concerns about it meeting the FA criteria - but you can't canvass, and your extensive commentary on the nominator's behaviour should probably be moved to either review talk or user talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's getting close to RfC time for you now PBS, with the longer-term view of having you desysopped, something that ought to have been done ages ago. Malleus Fatuorum 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back on track

I've issued now several warnings here, which are among the sternest I've ever had to deliver at FAC. Message is-- get this thing back on track. I don't close FACs for disruption, nor do I promote them with unaddressed issues, so all of the personalization, opinion, and bickering without supplying examples and sources is likely to result in nothing but a waste of time or an eventual restart of the FAC so it can focus on actionable items. Canvassing will not be tolerated, and has already gotten this FAC off on the wrong foot. Further issues are being introduced by unactionable and non-specific comments and opposes. Nominators cannot fix items unless they are specific, actionable, with examples and sources supplied. And when a FAC is disrupted, it's unreasonable to expect subsequent reviewers or delegates to follow lengthy diatribes on talk. Please focus on keeping commentary on the main FAC page focused on specific examples and sources needed to bring the article to FA standard-- any other verbosity being added here will only lead to a likely restart so that the page can refocus on issues of concern, without the personalization and opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

subheaders

Note: the use of H3 headers is messing up how this nom appears on the FAC page. Per the instructions, "Please do not split FAC review pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings)." María (habla conmigo) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it (it was level 3 when it should have been level 4, so was messing up the page). I will address the issue of sub-headers when I have more time (clearly, I have always allowed sub-headers on difficult and lengthy FACs, and this has been covered many times in archives-- anyone could have fixed it, the instructions are still accurate IMO since they are rarely needed, but they are needed on this FAC, which is off to a rough start). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary moved from main page (subsection Carcharoth)

It appears that Nikkimaria is referring to Carcharoth here on the Talk:Guy Fawkes Night page as the source of "a comment at the FAC review, which suggested that those two sentences would be better suited to Bonfire Night." Until recently, the Bonfire Night page was a disambiguation page, pointing to the various kinds of Bonfire Night connected with different traditions, and it still carries out that function. (See Talk:Bonfire Night.) While Ghmyrtle, PBS and I have commented on this page above that the treatment of the contemporary event in the GFN article is seriously inadequate, it seems that Carcharoth's comments are looked on by Nikkimaria as a justification for the turning of the disambiguation page into a cross between a disambiguation page an an article, supposedly dealing with Guy Fawkes Night without Guy Fawkes, perhaps seeking to suggest that the present-day Bonfire Night in Great Britain on or about 5 November has lost its connection with the Guy Fawkes tradition. If that is so, I see no evidence for it. I wish to repeat my view that the GFN article is deficient and is becoming more so, in Nikkimaria's assertion as a result of this FA review. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain to you how this works: you read the FA criteria and you comment based on those criteria. If you believe that the article fails to meet the criteria then you either offer comments to address what you perceive to be its deficiences or you oppose its promotion explaining why. So far you have failed to do either of those things. Malleus ::Fatuorum 20:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above moved from main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant criterion is surely lack of completeness. Moonraker (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the final sentence of your comment, maybe - the rest is more relevant to Talk:Bonfire Night, certainly not to the main review page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

It would be helpful if someone would review Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Logarithm/archive1#Summary, and do the same here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (without spotchecks) by Nikkimaria. Images by Nikkimaria. No outstanding issues from either review.

Spotchecks done: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Truthkeeper88 (talk · contribs)
Guerillero (talk · contribs)
SilkTork (talk · contribs)
Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) (with resolved cmts)
Ceranthor (talk · contribs)
Cirt (talk · contribs)
Carcharoth (talk · contribs) (some comments outstanding?)
Ceoil (talk · contribs)
Johnbod (talk · contribs)

Oppose

Implied oppose

Comments

Iridia (talk · contribs)

Ceoil 17:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it looks like some of my comments are unresolved (i.e. not struck through) is that I left them unstruck so others could read them (one of the things I dislike about striking things out is that it makes things less readable). But this matter of struck-out comments is always superseded by any support or oppose I enter at the end of my comments (or beginning in this case). Entering a support or oppose tends to be the last thing I do, after at least three complete readings of the article, and a few rounds of responses to comments. If I need to make things clearer, please let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine but that its unclear to all but the most deeply interested scholars of the history of this FAC should be resolved. Ceoil 02:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will add "all comments below resolved" (or something similar) to the support comment that I added after the discussion concluded. That should make things clearer. See here. I would prefer to collapse my comments once I've moved to support or oppose, but that is discouraged. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]