Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive4

Already?

@FAC coordinators: already off on the wrong foot. A suggestion is to proactively monitor this nomination to minimize disruption. As I'm viewing it now, there are three comments necessary for consensus towards closure: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2022; Petergans (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2022; Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC). The rest have to do with pinging and posts removed, that could be moved to talk, with a warning not to remove posts by other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've watchlisted this one. Hog Farm _Talk 14:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Another "reorganization" ...

@Petergans: - you were asked not to do moving around of others comments - but yet you did so again here - stop it. Per WP:TPO, you shouldn't mess with others comments. This isn't how things work at FAC - we don't group "supports" under their own heading or similar. Please fix this. And don't do it again or you may face editing sanctions. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ealdgyth. The result is extremely disorienting. DanCherek (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing

@Petergans: I consider your lobbying on my talk page as canvassing. Please don't do this. Graham Beards (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Sandbh, after reading the lengthy discussion at WT:FAC, I commend you for your perseverance in sticking with the work needed to bring this article to FA status, and want to suggest better or hopefully more productive ways of achieving what you and we all want (more Featured articles!!!).

The third FAC got off on the wrong foot because of canvassing, and this fourth FAC has gotten off on an even worse footing. I have never supported banning people from FAC, but am on the verge of supporting a topic ban from FAC for Petergans for the sheer disruptive effect they have had on this FAC; I suggest you have a strong word with the fans supporting this candidacy, as they are doing neither you nor the article any favors.

There was some discussion at FAC talk of the two-week wait period being insufficient to prepare this article for a repeat FAC. Like you, I write in a technical area (medical), and with 15 years of FA experience, I do not pretend to be able to prepare an article in a few weeks. Before I bring an article to FAC, I have had multiple (hopefully six) topic experts (medical) go through the article, and hopefully the same number of non-topic-expert editors, to check for comprehensibility and jargon. I would also have a MOS person go through. Two weeks is not adequate time for this to be accomplished; even with the extensive network of collaborators that I have developed over years of Wikipedia editing, I could not get a highly technical article ready for FAC in two weeks.

I wrote User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content mostly for medical editors, but the recommendations in the "Advice for FA aspirants" section works for everyone. I hope you'll consider that advice, so that we can see this article featured soon. Right now, I strongly suggest you withdraw, as your "Wikifriends" have assured this FAC is already a mess, and I believe the fastest route forwards, towards promotion, is to get moving on a collaborative peer review. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Another bit I forgot to add. Template:FAC-instructions explains (emphasis added):

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

As an example of the importance of resolving opposition, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1 had more than 20 supports by the time a serious oppose was lodged. The number of supports was considerably higher than the number of opposes, but the opposes were valid. The nomination was archived. Preity Zinta came back to FAC after six months of work and was promoted. Focusing on the number of supports in previous FACs is folly; resolving critical commentary is the focus of FAC. Articles with deficiencies are rarely promoted regardless of the number of supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)