Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Metroid Prime 3: Corruption/archive1
From main page
[edit]- You have at least four nominations running, and they are all taking large amounts of FAC reviewer resources: please choose two to withdraw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I only have Facebook and this one open. There are two that were nominated by others and then I was invited to co-nominate them. I am a secondary contributor to those articles, and had chosen to just help out; if I was not involved, those articles would have still been nominated. Gary King (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please choose two to withdraw. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- What if I dedicate the rest of my time to review current FACs to help alleviate the backlog? I'm sure that can be of some help. Gary King (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your co-nom hasn't returned since the FAC was initiated or edited the article, the four FACs are taking enormous resources and overextending reviewers, and you haven't shown you can manage four FACs at once. Please choose; FAC is not peer review and it's not fair to reviewers to treat it like peer review. Perhaps you can manage two FACs at once, but even that isn't in accordance with the instructions at WP:FAC, and you haven't demonstrated that you can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are implying here, but the co-nominator asked ME if I wanted to nominate the article, not the other way around. I don't understand why you say I am not capable of handling two FACs at once—the FAC for Facebook has been quiet for a few days now without any new issues raised, and my past two FACs have been promoted. I also disagree that I am overextending reviewers, when the following statistics clearly show that my nominations are smaller in size than nominations that are newer than them, when combined: 1. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is 46 k, Preity Zinta is 102 k; 2. Facebook is 16 k, Roman Catholic Church is 67 k; 3. Half-Life 2: Episode One is 8 k, Gardens of Versailles is 4 k; 4. Metroid Prime 3: Corruption is 3 k, Marriott School of Management is 1 k. Gary King (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Upon further inspection, here is some more information: 1. a) 17 unique editors b) 29 unique editors; 2. a) 10 b) 21; 3. a) 8 b) 9; 4. a) 2 b) 1 Gary King (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- In addition, some of the FACs that I have submitted or will be submitting have gone through recent Peer Reviews; Facebook has gone through two in the past two months, Half-Life 2: Episode One failed a recent FAC (unrelated to me, but has useful commentary that was applied), and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption had a PR a few weeks ago AND was listed as a GA a few weeks before that. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Gary, I can attest that you are, in fact, overextending reviewers. I love reviewing FACs - that's why I'm here. However, your nominations (or pseudo-nominations in the case of Half-Life 2: Episode One) are simply exhausting to work on because they are far, far from ready when you bring them here. I have commented in some of your other FACs that you are bringing articles here that require significant attention from non-gamers and quite a bit of work to get them up to par. As Sandy said, it is not the job of FAC reviews to find laundry lists of problems and have them fixed here. Those should be done before ever coming here. This particular nominations shows that you have largely disregarded these comments and brought yet another article on which you have been a major editor but that has not undergone proper scrutiny against FA criteria. I realize you have made some effort to get peer reviews and the like, but if you were truly taking my comments to heart you would have sought the review you know is needed before bringing it here. --Laser brain (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- This article has already gone through a Peer Review less than a month ago, with comments by Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs), The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), and Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs), and I have gone through the entire article, taking your comments on the other FACs in consideration. For me, the bottom line is that Facebook is the only other FAC besides this one that I have running right now; the other two, as I said, are co-noms. If I were to withdraw either one, I would be withdrawing someone ELSE'S nomination, not my own. I am only primarily responsible for the Facebook FAC; if it fails, then that is completely my fault. If I were not involved in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2: Episode One, then their respective nominators may be more active in the FACs—or they may be as active as they are now and instead we have two FACs that are in greater risk of failing than if I did not invest my time to improve them. I feel as though I am being actively discouraged to help fellow editors when they ask me for help on an FAC that they submitted, not me. Gary King (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Gary, I can attest that you are, in fact, overextending reviewers. I love reviewing FACs - that's why I'm here. However, your nominations (or pseudo-nominations in the case of Half-Life 2: Episode One) are simply exhausting to work on because they are far, far from ready when you bring them here. I have commented in some of your other FACs that you are bringing articles here that require significant attention from non-gamers and quite a bit of work to get them up to par. As Sandy said, it is not the job of FAC reviews to find laundry lists of problems and have them fixed here. Those should be done before ever coming here. This particular nominations shows that you have largely disregarded these comments and brought yet another article on which you have been a major editor but that has not undergone proper scrutiny against FA criteria. I realize you have made some effort to get peer reviews and the like, but if you were truly taking my comments to heart you would have sought the review you know is needed before bringing it here. --Laser brain (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your co-nom hasn't returned since the FAC was initiated or edited the article, the four FACs are taking enormous resources and overextending reviewers, and you haven't shown you can manage four FACs at once. Please choose; FAC is not peer review and it's not fair to reviewers to treat it like peer review. Perhaps you can manage two FACs at once, but even that isn't in accordance with the instructions at WP:FAC, and you haven't demonstrated that you can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- What if I dedicate the rest of my time to review current FACs to help alleviate the backlog? I'm sure that can be of some help. Gary King (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please choose two to withdraw. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I only have Facebook and this one open. There are two that were nominated by others and then I was invited to co-nominate them. I am a secondary contributor to those articles, and had chosen to just help out; if I was not involved, those articles would have still been nominated. Gary King (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- (<--)Mate, I don't have an objection to this FAC, but I would concur with some of the above that a slight slow down in FAC nominations would work some wonders...it does overwhelm sometimes, and just makes it a bit frustrating for everyone. My thoughts. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, Gary. I'm only really focusing on vg articles at FAC, but the plethora of them at one time makes it hard to focus on reviewing on well. Just take some the pages off WP:FAC and then when the others pass/what have you, relist. It won't take that much time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, it's clear that you are the major responder on the Twilight Princess and Half Life FACs, regardless of who came along and transcluded the nomination. To continue arguing the fine point is ridiculous. I urge you to honor Sandy's request. --Laser brain (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, Gary. I'm only really focusing on vg articles at FAC, but the plethora of them at one time makes it hard to focus on reviewing on well. Just take some the pages off WP:FAC and then when the others pass/what have you, relist. It won't take that much time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that being proactive on FACs where I'd like to help out has had a negative impact. I have notified the nominators of the two FACs that I did not nominate, at User talk:Igordebraga and User talk:Qjuad, and I will take a secondary role in those FACs and only focus on those that are under my name. I still do not think it is fair for me to remove someone else's FAC; SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) can do that for me if she thinks she is forced to do so. Gary King (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Though Sandy is right to take it one FA at a time, and that generally should be followed, it does seem weird to penalize him for working on FA's that aren't his, he's just helping out, and it's not like he's ignoring his own nominations. I would say he should wait till all the current ones clear and then go one at a time from then on. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- So far, the FACs I've submitted have been without any co-nominators, but that will begin to change because I have pumped life into several WikiProjects that I joined a while back but they have never had much activity, including WikiProject Economics. I started a Featured Article drive over there. This will be a collaboration among half a dozen to a dozen editors, so hopefully if I were penalized then WP:ECON will not have to suffer? Gary King (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Though Sandy is right to take it one FA at a time, and that generally should be followed, it does seem weird to penalize him for working on FA's that aren't his, he's just helping out, and it's not like he's ignoring his own nominations. I would say he should wait till all the current ones clear and then go one at a time from then on. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that being proactive on FACs where I'd like to help out has had a negative impact. I have notified the nominators of the two FACs that I did not nominate, at User talk:Igordebraga and User talk:Qjuad, and I will take a secondary role in those FACs and only focus on those that are under my name. I still do not think it is fair for me to remove someone else's FAC; SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) can do that for me if she thinks she is forced to do so. Gary King (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
From my read here, I'm not the only one concerned that FAC is being overrun by ill-prepared nominations, and reviewer resources are being stretched thin. Gary King, it is no fun for reviewers to have to puuuullllll these ill-prepared nominations through the process by providing line by line advice on how to bring them to standard; reviewers are not obligated to write FAs for the nominators, and that kind of work can be better done at Peer review, utilizing the kind of advice given in WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. Once again, please respect the FAC instructions and make the decision so I don't have to make it for you; do you want to go forward with FaceBook or with this one, and why are you adding yourself as co-nom on multiple other FACs when you have your own FACs to attend to and they are not being quickly or easily addressed? I suggest if you want to run multiple noms through FAC, you will need to locate an exceptional copyeditor to help bring them to standard, and not rely on FAC reviewers to pull them through. I am equally concerned about the premature Supports that are being added to nominations on which other reviewers subsequently identify significant deficiencies, making it appear that some of these Supporters aren't engaging WP:WIAFA; if this trend continues, we may need to address the issue at the level of the FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Query What's the status on these? Are some being pulled or what? I need to have an idea of what FACs to check sources on. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Twilight Princess was archived, so I have been relieved of one FAC. I plan on copyediting Metroid Prime 3 further tomorrow and responding back to the FAC after that. Gary King (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)