Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive49

Quick question

Can a protected article be promoted up the assessment ladder? I'm looking at an article for GAN, it has been experiencing IP edit warring and had to be semi-protected. The question has been asked at WT:GAN but we don't seem to have a solid answer so far. I can't find a guideline on it, perhaps experienced reviewers here might know the answer. Cheers and Merry Christmas. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If it is a clear cut issue of IP vandalism, I see no impediment, IP vandalism is just one of those things. If it is tending closer to a content dispute, there may be issues of stability at GAN and comprehensiveness here (the part about taking in all major viewpoints).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Fasach Nua (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to describe the edits as POV pushing and not vandalism as such. A content RfC was involved but that has been closed. I've commented that the article needs to be stable to be considered for GAN and I think things have improved lately but the regular editors there are reluctant to have the protection lifted. Have any FACs been promoted under protection? There are protected Featured Articles out there but this may have been applied after their FAC reviews. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe Barack_Obama was (it has certainly gone through FAR as protected) & John McCain too Fasach Nua (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't want to hold the nomination up if this is the only problem, we'll see how it goes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is generally good practice to have the nomination made by all, or with the consent of all the main editors to the article, providing you can get that consent and prove the article is reasonably stable, then there should be no issues Fasach Nua (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The article has already been nominated but the review has not been opened yet, I was asked if I could review it as an independent editor but I don't see the point of even starting a formal review until things have settled, there is non-constructive IP activity on the talk page at the moment and I don't particularly want to get drawn into the fight, especially at this time of year. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions needed

The article Ring-tailed Lemur passed FAC a little more than 2 years ago, and I'm beginning the process of revamping it so that I can run it through FAR. I have two questions I need answered:

1. The article currently uses an image gallery to demonstrate various aspects of the lemur's anatomy. I may have a few more photos to add too it. What is the best way of handling this given that image galleries are frowned upon? The images show detailed anatomy, and until I get around to writing a full article on Ring-tailed Lemur anatomy, there won't be enough text for all the images to fit on the margins. However, I don't feel that that should be a reason to exclude these photos for the time being. (After an anatomy article is written, I can choose a few favorites, and put the rest on the anatomy page.)
2. The volume of literature on this species is immense. In the not-to-distant future, I hope to do what I'm trying to eventually do for the Lemur article, and write individual, detailed articles on the specific subtopics (such as Ring-tailed Lemur behavior, Ring-tailed Lemur anatomy, etc.). In the meantime, what's the best way to ensure that the article passes FAR if I'm not covering every minor point and detail thoroughly (like we normally expect of FAs)? If I did that on the article itself, I have no doubt that the article would become far too large.

Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Used properly (WP:IG) image galleries are not frowned upon. Make sure either caption or text explains the relevance of each image. A number of one or two row galleries in mid-article are often preferable to one big one at the end. Ok now I looked at the actual article I see you have a single row mid-text with excellent captions. Another row on that should be ok, or a single row somewhere else. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added the last of my anatomy pictures, and of course many more fixes, enhancements, and additions to the text are coming. If that still looks okay, then I will turn my attention to the next set of issues with the article. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 02:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think a max of 4 per row is best, for people with narrow screens, so I'd move from 5+1 to 4+2 or 3+3. Otherwise that should be fine, though the idea that galleries are BAAAAD is still fixed in some people's minds. Remember, it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it! Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• My predictions for January 1st, 2020: Every Wikipedia article will have a gallery. Every Wikipedia article will have an infobox. Every Wikipedia article will use the footnote citation style. Soon thereafter, in a coup for egalitarianists across the globe, every article will be designated as FA. Locke'sGhost 02:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oh please, that's about as likely to happen as me becoming an admin =) ResMar 03:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod: Supposedly the template I'm using automatically breaks the gallery into rows to match the width of the browser. I've tried it, and it works on Firefox. As far as I can tell, there is no way to manually force a new row with this template. Which browser and resolution are you using? – VisionHolder « talk » 03:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree about usage, I regularly chop sections headed "Gallery" which are just collections of images, but those like yours which have an obvious logic and appropriate label are just fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC on the allowance of cover images per NFC

I've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC#Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Call for basic reforms at featured sound candidates

Dear colleagues, User:Sven Manguard has proposed two reforms, concerning the minimum number of votes required (3 -> 4, still must be two-thirds majority support), and avoiding the appearance or actual conflict of interest. Your contributions would be welcome.

I do urge FAC people who have sound-file or musical experience to consider watchlisting the candidate page and participating as reviewers. It is important that we revamp this aspect of featured content, IMO.

LINK

Tony (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed, please do not modify it

Source checkers

It has come to my attention through my routine article editing that the {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}} templates are filled in by bot, and often have errors. [1] Another thing to watch for at FAC :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Frowny face at the bots. I'll add it to the list of what I check and note if I've checked pmid/dois in review for the first 5-10 times I do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just to let other checkers know, I will be unable to check sources from 20/01/2011 through to 28/02/2011. While I will finalise source reviews I've taken on between 20/01 and 27/01, I won't be conducting new reviews. No time or access due to scraps of holiday, a conference, and archival research. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this up to scratch?

Is the article List of Boeing 777 operators worthy of attention on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? It seems like the article's met all the criteria. If not, what should I do to improve it? Regards Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 08:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(1) You would nominate this list at Featured List candidates, because it's a list. (2) The best place to ask for feedback on how to improve an article or list is Peer Review, not here, as this talk page is not designed to provide that type of detailed help. Bencherlite^Talk 08:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Definately an FLC, not an FAC, and I catch two things in 20 seconds of looking. Fix your colours now- you'll never get through FLC using only colour to display information, see WP:ACCESS. Second, what on Earth is sourcing this table- that needs to be clearer. Courcelles 07:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1

Hi FAC reviewers. Would anyone be willing to give a review – quick, comprehensive, anything – for this article? I nominated it more than a month ago and have received a comprehensive, a subject matter, and two quick reviews. Many thanks for your time. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Andy. Given your in-depth review of Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes back in 2009, I'm excited to see what you have to say! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just did a 1c/2c, few fixits but it is good. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP's 10th anniversary: FAC writers and reviewers invited to contribute to Signpost coverage

Dear colleagues, the English WP's weekly journal The Signpost is keen to cover the upcoming celebrations of WP's 10th anniversary in the "In the news" section; this high-profile page typically receives 1000–2000 hits during the week. We would welcome skilled editors who would like to try their hand at contributing to the page for the next edition (published Monday UTC). More details here (there's a link to the IRC, which will be active over the weekend, and links to good places to search for the stories that will be most interesting to our readers). The Managing Editor is User:HaeB. Tony (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone should install User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js

Hi all. Just dropping by to suggest that FAC reviewers install the above script to their Monobook/Vector skin as appropriate. What is does is to highlight links to redirect pages, pages that are up for deletion and disambiguation pages by changing the colour of the displayed links from the standard blue. The last one is most useful, it identifies where a link does not go to the intended target. This is just one way to improve the quality of outbound links from our Featured Articles. I've sometimes caught these appearing on the main page and had to submit corrections at WP:ERRORS, I will be suggesting this to all editors involved in the FA and Main Page content processes. Regards. Zunaid 08:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thinking hats on please....

Okay folks, an idea I had to counter the esotericity and eruditeness of our best articles (chuckle) was to reactivate a collaboration or two. In this case I came across the Wikipedia:WikiProject United States which is being reactivated, and thought this might have a collaboration worth reactivating and a good opportunity for neophyte and experienced editors to work together. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM, and its history page at Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/History for an idea of what articles have been worked on and what happened. Ideally I am thinking that good candidate articles to work on are broad topics which have significant comprehensiveness deficits, with general knowledge bits either missing or unsourced so that there are roles for fact gathering and content addition without jumping into high end formatting and prose perfection. Thus Wall Street is an article which I see alot of this in - if anyone has come across others which might fit the bill, you're welcome to nominate or brainstorm a bit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for review

The page is stalled with 48 nominations; if we pass 50, the community should decide if stalled nominations with two supports and no major issues should be archived, or if we should let the page size grow.

Specifically, the bottom of the list has 1) at least five MilHist or ship articles that have not been engaged by reviewers, 2) another FAC that has only supports from inexperienced or involved reviewers, and 3) at least one FAC from a new nominator that has not been checked for WP:V sourcing and copyvio or plagiarism issues. I'll put off going through until tomorrow in the hopes that something gives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree; certain types of MILHIST articles suck up a lot of time (for nominators and reviewers alike) and then end without promotion. OTOH, the majority of MILHIST FACs sail through with refreshingly little drama. If anyone would like to give us some rough guidelines for how to tell the difference early on in a FAC, I believe our A-class reviewers would be open to trying to follow your lead and recommend to nominators which articles might need further polishing before FAC. In fact, I've already started doing that, but some of the persistent problems are things I don't cover, so I'll need a little help to make this work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I will read the article that needs checked for copyvios. Although I am an inexperienced reviewer, if there are any obvious problems, I may be able to catch them right away, unless it's way outside of my knowledge arena. Which article is that?

There are still major issues with the CSI effect article, and I have to find sources to show these issues, there. But, if that goes fast, I can also review one of the ship articles. Again, well aware that I am not an experienced reviewer, as I do get told that time and again with my FA comments, but the ship FAs on wikipedia tend to be well-organized to begin with, their sources are often on-line, and I grew up in a ship-building area and family, so I read and routinely edit those articles on wikipedia. Which one?

Again, in spite of being an inexperienced reviewer I have caught and corrected many problems and increased legibility and prose with FA mammal and some sports articles that have been very well read on the main page. --Kleopatra (talk)

Much appreciated, Kleopatra! I didn't want to single it out, lest the nominator be offended, but I try to make sure all new nominators get at least one FAC check for adherence to sources and close paraphrasing; that one is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windsor Castle/archive1. I'm also aware that you have outstanding concerns on CSI effect; please engage the nominator, and keep the FAC updated on your progress. Since you haven't entered an oppose, delegates need to know where it stands. On the ship articles, there are two at the bottom of list-- take your pick. The issue with MilHist and ship articles is that they frequently get no independent (uninvolved) review, so just need outside (fresh) eyes, generally for a jargon and prose check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And will someone please review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/archive1? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I should have time this weekend to do one or two reviews; more if I can. Sandy, I just went to look at Teresa Cristina and was a bit surprised to see four supports and no opposes. Isn't that consensus to promote, after a month? Of course we want to be sure that everything is properly reviewed, but are we expecting more supports now than we used to? Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue with Teresa Cristina is that all four are supports with no comments (which is rare, most reviewers can find something to complain about!), and come from editors who are rarely, if ever seen at FAC, along with possible concerns about the supports being driven by canvassing by the nominator. Sandy, please correct me if I'm wrong. Dana boomer (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I can do one, if the effort is appreciated. (It's a lot of work and you said you wanted experienced reviewers.) Have done time on the pond, but am not some naval history expert. Oh...and if any of the articles are notable (i.e hit count, regardless of topic) but still need review, steer me thataway. I know policy has to treat all the kids alike, but I prefer my time go against topics that get more readers.TCO (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

MilHist has an A-class peer review process-- those articles are typically well prepared and well sourced and comprehensive, and only need independent review for prose, "brilliance" of prose, jargon, readability, flow. Seriously, anyone can do it-- I don't know why editors avoid them. Except sometimes they can be dull, if you're not interested in body counts and don't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering why my review page for Almirante Latorre-class battleship exploded with reviews. Thanks to y'all for taking a look! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Paid editing

Regardless of Wiki policy, we need to scrutinize some types of articles more carefully at FAC for POV, peacockery, accurate representation of sources, anything likely to creep into articles that might be good targets for paid editing (bios, products, companies, school, organizations, anyone likely to pay for an article). [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm not opposed to paid editing through the Bounty board or from an education-oriented non-profit work—as long as they adhere to Wiki's policies and standards—I agree that groups like WikiExperts.us are a problem. On their website, they write: "You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Wikipedia profile to strangers—or worse, to the competition." In other words, "pay us and we'll make sure your Wiki article only says what you want it to say." With how many large corporations get fined and sued over ethical violations and illegal activity, I'm sure this is very helpful to have an army of editors ready to revert or attempt to discredit any negative publicity. Somehow I doubt they can both meet their clients' expectations and offer "Expert Wikipedia article writing, consistent with all Wikipedia standards" as they claim on their website. Very disturbing... – VisionHolder « talk » 18:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a bigger discussion that's been going on all over the Wiki, and off :) Our problem at FAC is to make sure we're scrutinizing potential paid targets for neutrality. If something reads too glowingly, a thorough literature search to make sure that less-glowing issues are included and sources are represented accurately, watch for peacockery, etc. We don't want a "paid editing" scandal on the mainpage :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling the research is going to get harder and harder to do, and that the reliability of conflicting sources will be disputed endlessly to keep material off pages. I've even had edits citing a college textbook reverted because it contradicted what a highly political advocacy organization said about itself. The editor who reverted it claimed the author—an expert in his field—was biased. No one cared to explore beyond that claim. Few people wanted to debate it, the information and source were removed, and my attempt to add a conflicting point of view was suppressed. I'm betting we can look forward to that kind of stuff in the extreme over the coming years.

A big concern that I have is that those paid editors will eventually learn to get involved in the FAC process and may ultimately come to dominate their own reviews, either as sock-puppets or by supporting their co-workers. Either way, I don't envy your job, SG. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion on how to encourage some nominators to start reviewing more

I don't follow FAC closely enough to know who reviews a lot and who doesn't, but I have seen more than a couple of comments here along the lines of "Well, I nominate a fair amount but I don't review because I'm concerned I wouldn't be a good reviewer". There have been a couple of variations -- one I sympathize with is "I contribute my time to writing the articles and don't want to review"; I think that's OK, because if you make people do things they don't want to do, they'll soon stop, and then we won't have their featured content either.

However, it occurred to me that the following might be helpful. Suppose someone who has nominated at least one or two FACs, but hasn't started reviewing, were to approach an experienced reviewer and say "If I review article X, would you look over my shoulder, and let me know if there's anything I can do to improve the review"? In return, the experienced reviewer could promise (real life permitting) to contribute a review to that nominator's next nomination. Might this encourage some folks to start reviewing more? Is there any harm in the idea? I really don't think reviewing is as hard as perhaps it seems, and if we can lower the barriers to entry it could be helpful. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and two other ideas are at Wikipedia_talk:MHC#WT:Featured article_candidates#Requests_for_review. I'm going to start reviewing a broader range of AmEng history articles. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I spend a fair amount of time thinking about this issue and in the end, I don't think we're ever going to encourage people to review who aren't otherwise inclined. We can remind good reviewers that their services are needed, but that doesn't always work either. People aren't reviewing because they're wrapped up in other projects or RL things. I've had informal conversations with many people who have "left" FAC and their reasons are as highly varied as they are for any other area of WP: burnout, boredom, dispute, etc. The recent kerfuffle over copyvio didn't help, where many reviewers were made to feel that they "let articles through FAC" that had problems. If the people won't bend, then the system has to bend, which is what Sandy is alluding to above. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, 1) we let the page size grown unbearably long, or 2) we archive more aggressively. I don't know-- I've been afraid to look today, since as of yesterday there were only one or two I could close, and no one yet has offered feedback between those two alternatives, in the absence of reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My answer would to archive rather than let the page grow longer. Not doing so is further encouragement not to review; at least the knowledge that a long page will cause a nominator's languishing FAC to get archived is some reason for that nominator to review other articles. After all, the fewer articles there are on the page, the more likely it is that the next reviewer will pick your article to review. By the way, Sandy, can you comment on whether it takes more review input to promote a FAC these days than it did two or three years ago? Something I saw made me wonder if that were the case, and I would think you'd be the one who would know. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Continued at WT:FAC#Review input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll support whichever way you and Andy and Karanacs want to go with that, Sandy. We'll find a way to make it work. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support more aggressive archiving. When the list gets too long, I think that it starts to see like an insurmountable task, and so we actually get less reviews. Plus, archiving more will hopefully encourage more nominators to review in the hopes of getting more people to review their nominations, rather than seeing them drop off the page for lack of interest. Dana boomer (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I think you're right about people who will never review much, but I think there are some who would like to review if they knew their efforts would be valued. It's those people I'd like to encourage. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I just recently performed my first FAC nomination and have never reviewed an article before; but having been through my first peer review process lately, I'd be willing to help if I can. I have just been hesitant so far due to a lack of experience with the FAC process. Much of my work has been about adding details to articles, especially relating to geography; but I think I have a pretty firm grasp of the MOS, so how would you all suggest I begin? Omnedon (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You're American, you're interested in history, and you're up on MOS issues ... music to my ears. Per Mike's suggestion above, I'll be happy to work with you. If you do a MOS review on an AmEng history article, I'll be happy to give feedback if you want it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Good place to post this: anyone can review for something! Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(ecs with Dank and Sandy): Pick whichever article at WP:FAC you'd be most comfortable with/interested in/expert on, and read it. If you're confident that you have useful things to say, even if they're short of a full review, add your comments to the FAC. If you're not confident about a comment, pick an reviewer here that you've interacted with (or me, if you like) and post to their talk page asking if your comments are valid. I can assure you that you will have the gratitude of whichever nominator benefits from your review; we all like to get reviews and it's a conversation, not an adversarial relationship. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask this: How can we make reviews easier on the reviewer.? I cut and paste and format manually and flip back and forth between windows in my reviews and it is a pain in the neck. If there was an easy way to review, say click and a little window opens up and you make a comment, then click again at another point in the text, etc, it would be a lot easier. Many people are more familiar with the how to of the wiki than I am, where it comes to the nuts and bolts. Frankly, I would be likely to review more if there was an easy way to manage it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If we can't come up with a solution to the above that I posted, than I would suggest that: if after you nom an article for FAC, you do three reviews, you are exempt from the two-week waiting period if your own nomination fails. if it appears that only pro-forma reviews are being done, a delegate can step in.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I used to keep two tabs open-- don't know how else to do it. Or, sometimes, I just kept a handwritten list of notes, then posted them all at once. I think one thing that would make FACs easier to edit would be for more reviewers to make use of the talk page associated with the FAC for long commentary, and link to it from the FAC. The length of FACs is not only hard on nominators and reviewers-- they are hard for delegates to get through. When I sit down to read FAC, I have to set aside the entire day, and a lot of it is resolved commentary more suited to a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the last discussion of that idea; no conclusion was reached but I'd be in favour of encouraging reviewers to put the details on the FAC talk page. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, this may not be the sort of aid you were thinking of, but I always work with at least two monitors these days. As an editor I find it invaluable, and I think it would help even more when reviewing an article and taking notes on it. You can get USB VGA adapters pretty cheaply, so even if your computer doesn't have built-in dual-monitor support, you can still do it. Omnedon (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Grow or die.

1. Come up with some more rationale than processing dull articles through the queue (brainstorm some more reasons) for reviewers to help. I can think of a bunch. Make it a little more upbeat than "duty calls".

2. I know it's a little work, but outreach to FA successful editors (probably after they get through) would probably swell your ranks. You could write a little blurb and just have it saved on how they can "pay it forward". And drop it on their page. Make it a part of your close routine. Don't do some officious textbox thing though. Extra credit, if you can find some connection to personalize it (like, hey Wehwalt you just got a play FAed, now please review one of the two movies in the queue, using your insights on FA of dramas.) This is a very "journal editor" function and since you have your finger on the pulse is something you can do. And it's not some clerical task, but requires a little bit of judgment and interaction.

3. Also, FA thing seems to have a bit of a clubby feel (despite even being open to drive by review, which I'm not sure is so great either). And I don't have some NYB-satisfying RFA case on that and I know it rankles you to hear it. But it's an impression.

Good luck and I know you bust your ass on the work, so hope you get what you need.TCO (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Clubby doesn't rankle, because all areas of Wiki are like that, and I don't know what else we can do about it. On the outreach, Karanacs did a lot of that when she was first delegated, and I'm unconvinced it helped. I've been reluctant to do that after every promotion, because once you start, you can't leave anyone off, or it could look like favoritism, and it already takes hours to get through FAC. If someone else wants to take up that task, I'd be grateful. For a long time, we also gave out reviewing awards, but I think that may have been the most time-intensive thing I've ever done on Wiki-- it took me three days at the end of each month to sort through the archives and build a spreadsheet to see who our top ten monthly reviewers were. I'm open to ideas, but any of them would need to be picked up by the community, and time is something no one has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A post above reminded me of something; one thing that might help with reviews is that if nominators would take on the responsibility of thanking editors who reviewed-- a bit of gratitude might go a long way for our overworked reviewers, and it's easier for the nominators to take on this task than for the delegates to do it for all FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I will generally say thank you on the FAC page. I am reluctant to visit reviewers' talk page to leave thanks, for appearance's sake. However, I gladly will if people think it would not look funny. As for the clubby bit, true, but it is not an exclusive club, anyone can join. When I try to bring along talented editors, I urge them to do a review or two at FAC, to get a better sense of the page, and to get their names known.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Review input

Re Mike: "By the way, Sandy, can you comment on whether it takes more review input to promote a FAC these days than it did two or three years ago?"

I'm not sure if you're asking (as you originally did earlier on the page) if it takes more Support, or just more review.

Compared to two or three years ago, we do have more issues to review: we're aware of plagiarism now, paid editing, and we have more stringent sourcing requirements. Also, many years ago, we didn't have rigorous image reviews (in fact, we often had none), and we had no routine sourcing reviews. So a separate problem, but related to page size, is that FACs have grown VERY long as it has moved away from straightforward declarations of Support with little review. The reviewing burden has become more difficult, but I hope that has resulted in better FAs (I judge by the number of articles I've promoted that have been demoted, which is negligible so far-- 4 out of 1,265 and I think one of those was a hasty demotion, three warranted).

On the other question, no, I don't think it takes more support relative to the past to get an article promoted: for example, my own FA (TS) got more than 20 supports, and that used to be routine. Now we're forced to promote sometimes only on three. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Things were certainly different back in 2006 or 2007, though I don't think that 20 supports was exactly routine. What strikes me, looking back at a few old FAC from that time, is the heterogeneous nature of the pages. Thus, in May 2007, Borat was promoted with 3 supports and an unstruck oppose; a month earlier, Halo 2 had been promoted with 14 supports and seven unstruck opposes. Earlier still, Ian Thorpe got through with 7 supports, and unresolved opposes from no less than Tony1 and someone called "Sandy" (!). My own first FA success, a little later (February 2008) was promoted with 4 supports and no image review. I also noted that there is typically a lot more detailed reviewing now than there was then. The culture has changed quite a bit, but generally for the better; I am sure that the standard of FAs has risen appreciably during the last four years. I know I have to work a lot harder than I did three years ago to get articls through. Brianboulton (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Many of the opposes at Halo were resolved (back then, folks weren't as good about revisiting and striking). Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1 is the one I remember most from my reviewer days; it had 17 supports !!!! before I reviewed it. And then it got at least seven more after my review, and with POV concerns (when was the last time we saw serious POV at FAC?) We used to be swimming against a sea of fan support-- now that's rare, and we generally get serious reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Borat, my first FA, I studied at the feet of Lenin & McCarthy, who trained me in the ways of the FAC. As for POV, I think we learn over time what is likely to get unfavorable comment as possible POV, and avoid it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I like to think that there is a good balance of expertise, in general, amongst reviewers. I'd also like to think that the FA standard has pulled upwards the standard of GAs. I was thinking, apart from the fact that MILHIST's A Class reviews are very stringent, comparatively, the fact that MILHIST transcludes FACs to a project review page may explain some of the "inside circle" behaviour there? It may be possible to negotiate with MILHIST's coordinators for them to transclude one non MILHIST FAC per fortnight etc.? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I'd like to make a comment, if you don't mind. I believe that the number of "supports" is less important that what is being supported. In my time as FA nominator, I've grown quite worried of the possibility that most editors who support an article have actually read a part of the text, not all. It's more and more common to see some reviewers sticking to a small issue in the article ("I didn't like where the picture is located!" or "I want to see this in the article!") and once his personal taste has been dealt with (because it's always that: personal taste or a very particular interpretation of Wikipedia's policy) he'll support the article. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Question re criteria

The Writer 2.0 and I have been licking our wounds and fixing History of the New York Jets and are considering nomming it following Sunday's game (we will update the article to cover the 2010 season whether the Jets win or lose). Of course, if they win, that means that the article would again have to be updated in two week's time, after Super Bowl Sunday. The FA criteria states that articles must be stable from day to day. I read that as precluding articles that are constantly changing, rather than one that will receive a single update reporting the outcome of a game. Are there thoughts? If editors feel that it will not be considered stable from day to day, we'll wait until the Jets complete their season.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think stability would be a problem in this case. There will be the typical mad rush to update the main Jets article and the season article, but I'm guessing "History of" will be calm. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree-- if summary style is correctly employed, any unforeseen controversy (wardrobe malfunction?) that might destabilize the main article shouldn't affect the History article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I dream of a IAR TFA for the day of the victory parade :) ... --Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentence Spacing

Sentence spacing is a FA and fairly controversial (lots of people think two spaces should come after every period, even though experts say there is no need to do so). Right now the article is being edited by a couple of established users and an IP user who do not seem to always appreciate WP:WIAFA. Any assistance with dispute resolution or feedback on the talk page would be appreciated, if you have the time and inclination. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

First review

I am currently putting together a review on Adenanthos cuneatus, which hasn't yet gotten much attention and which I found interesting. Per Mike Christie's comment above, I'll go ahead and post my review later this afternoon, but since it is my first review, I thought I'd call attention to it here in case anyone wishes to check what I've done. I want to learn the process and am open to suggestions. Thanks! Omnedon (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read through your review. I see Dank already commented in line at the FAC, which is fine, but I think would annoy the nominator if too many of us did it. So I'll just comment here: it's a perfectly fine review. Dank pointed out a couple of things he might disagree with but to be honest that won't change after your thirtieth review; there's always room for debate, particularly with commas. My main feedback would be that it's purely a prose/text/grammar/punctuation review. Some reviewers limit themselves to those areas, but it's worth considering if you have other comments to make -- did the article follow a logical organization? Were the ideas or facts presented in a coherent flow, so that readers don't find themselves jumping back and forth? Are there any MOS issues that you could spot? (You can't possibly check for all MOS issues, but it's helpful to mention any you see.) Is there any material you would expect to see that isn't there? Often there's nothing to say on these areas but it helps to remember to think about them. But your review was fine; please do more! Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback; it will help me improve on this. I was aware, as I was doing it, that the focus seemed to be primarily on relatively trivial issues like punctuation; but the fact is that those were the things that caught my attention, and beyond the issues I identified, I didn't really see any MOS problems -- it seemed pretty clean, and it seemed to flow well. That's not to say that I might not have missed some things, naturally. Anyway, I appreciate your welcoming attitude. I'll find another article to review, and will try to keep these pointers in mind. Thanks! Omnedon (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC concerning non-free media in articles on genres and other broad topics

In Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, there is currently an RfC asking, How should the potential replaceability of non-free by free material be assessed when media of both types is available for an article? The RfC was launched in response to the latest eruption of a long-running dispute centered on the Featured Article punk rock. The issue affects many articles covering artistic genres as well as those covering other broad topics where much of the applicable media content with significant encyclopedic value is under copyright.—DCGeist (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Image reviews needed

There are a couple of nominations that are becoming more mature but lack image reviews:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Action of 1 January 1800/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stark Raving Dad/archive3
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-6 (Michigan highway)/archive1

If a knowledgeable person could run through them, I'd appreciate it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I did a review on Action of 1 January 1800 and Stark Raving Dad. There's one small issue on the former article, but I wouldn't hold up the article over it. The latter article is fine. Imzadi 1979 → 06:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

M-6 is good as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Dougald McLachlan/archive1 could use one too -- all PD but should be verified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, and cleared. Imzadi 1979 → 04:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt attention, Imzadi -- could you also sign your comment on the FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Looks like I got one to many tildes on that. Imzadi 1979 → 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Two week rule

Does this apply to all FAC, or only to unsuccessful ones? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just unsuccessful ones. Dana boomer (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

...though I hold the unpopular view that it should apply to all. This would increase the proportion of articles that come to FAC fully prepared, and by slowing the input would lessen the strain on the scarce reviewing resource. But absolutely nobody else in the entire project agrees with me, and I'm probably wrong anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not that isolated; I'd be willing to try it if others thought it would work. But I think the problem is not solvable. However, I thought that about the TFA request queue, which was similarly resource-greedy, and a fairly good solution was found there, so perhaps we should not give up hope. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I could live with a two-week rule applying to all -- but then I decided against participating in WikiCup the year, so time isn't such a big deal to me now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see how it would increase the number of articles that come to FAC fully prepared, but it might reduce the apparent length of the FAC queue at the expense of making articles take two weeks longer to process. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film

There is a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film. The relevance to this project is that the discussion is questioning how FAC would treat sections such as this? Would experienced FAC reviewers accept a mention from a change of a plot point from novel to film if the only reference was primary. I would expect that reviewers would demand a secondary source to determine the importance of a difference? I would be shocked if you would advocate an entire section of unreferenced trivia. It would be helpful if one or more experienced FAC reviewers could provide their perspective here, please. You people are probably the definitive guardians of WP:RS and WP:NOR. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviews: You have them; we want them

There are several nominations languishing here that are in dire need of reviews (what else is new?). The FAC urgents report is a good start, but pretty much the whole list needs attention. Many of them are very good articles, and we're going to be forced to decide whether to let the backlog grow or just archive for lack of reviews. We're seeing the customary increase in activity with the WikiCup starting, but fewer people are reviewing than ever before. We've gotten pretty good at consistent image and sourcing reviews (huge thanks to those folks) but substantive prose reviews are somewhat lacking. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Request re sources reviews

I am always delighted when general reviewers include sourcing matters in their reviews - one less for me to do. But could I ask, please, that reviewers indicate clearly when they have covered sources issues, particularly if this is done in the course of a long review? Otherwise I am likely to duplicate work already done, which is a waste of time. Thanks. (I am a little in arrears at the moment due to pressing work, but I will be back on the case shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, helpful for delegates as well when we don't have to ask for source reviews that may have already been done. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on FAC talk page

In this archived thread, about halfway down, there was a discussion about putting some detailed FAC comments on the talk page of the FAC, to make FAC easier to navigate and assess. I hope to be able to do two or three reviews over the next few days, and I propose to put the details of my comments on the FAC nomination talk page, with a link from that FAC, and a note to the nominator saying if they'd prefer to see the comments on the main nomination page let me know and I'll move them back. If this proves to be beneficial in terms of understanding the status of the FAC then we might look at making a habit of it; if not, no harm done -- though if anyone can think of a good reason not to even try it, please say so here. Sandy did comment at the thread linked above that the current lengthy reviews are hard on the delegates, so I'd like to try this. Incidentally, where is Sandy? Is her current absence planned or alarming? Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this and setting a good example, Mike. It is quite time-consuming to go through the whole FAC list and determine what is going on for each one. Having detailed or lengthy comments on the FAC talk page would be a great help, provided the content was clearly linked from the project page. Nominators and reviewers will have to manage this, I think. As for Sandy, she mentioned she was leaving for a while but not exactly when she would be returning. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try to catch up today! (Can my absence be both planned and alarming?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can I ask why, if the FAC-closers like this, not just employ the comment cap system used at FLC? If anything the comments are MORE readily accessible than this way, and things are just as clear to read. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Conversion question

When citing a source for, say, a distance expressed by a source in miles, it seems logical to express this distance in the article by using miles as the primary unit. It might look like this: 10 miles (16 km). Is it OK to turn this around and express it as 16 kilometres (10 mi) in order to maintain metric units as primary throughout an entire article? I seem to remember someone objecting in an FAC to using anything but the source's primary. Is it a falsification to flip the source's primary; i.e. to claim that X says 16 kilometers when X actually says 10 miles? If so, is there a neat way to avoid forcing the reader to flip back and forth between expressions like 25 kilograms (55 lb) and 200 feet (61 m), where the primary is inconsistent? Or is the back-and-forthness not a problem? Finetooth (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If the values are equivalent, there shouldn't be a problem expressing the number in a unit not originally specified by the source. One has to pay attention to the number of sig figs implied by the source though, and ensure they are the same in the converted output. Sasata (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would give the miles first in such a context. It's what the source says, so we should report it; the value in parentheses is just a convenience for readers not familiar with the source's unit. Ucucha 23:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Flipping the source's primary becomes a problem when (1) converting back the second, converted and rounded value back into the original unit rounds to a number different from the original, or when (2) the conversion is three-way, and the value rounds to a different number in the third unit. Example for the first: 50 miles per hour (43 kn; 80 km/h) vs. 43 knots (49 mph; 80 km/h), example for the second: 51 miles per hour (44 kn; 82 km/h) vs. 44 knots (51 mph; 81 km/h). --Rontombontom (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all who commented. I'm convinced by Rontombontom's reasoning. A quantitative distortion is worse than a stylistic flip-flop. Rontombontom has given a more detailed and helpful explanation, with links to relevant guidelines, on the talk page of S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald. Finetooth (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS assistance

Would someone be willing to check out Warren County, Indiana with a specific focus on MOS issues? SandyGeorgia and LaserBrain, in spot-checking the article, identified some remaining issues involving missing non-breaking spaces, spaced em-dashes, hyphen usage, and the like; and while I fixed those and haven't found any more myself, there could still be more, and an independent editor is needed to check. If someone would have the time to do that, or have suggestions on how to get such assistance, it would be greatly appreciated; thanks. Omnedon (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to Sasata and Finetooth for helping with this. Omnedon (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A case for Rinaldo (opera)

User:Brianboulton has achieved nothing less than a miracle taking Rinaldo (opera) from a start-class article on January 29 to a very well written FAC that currently has 9 supports. He has done this with the hope/desire of it appearing on the main page on Feb. 24, the 300th anniversary of its premiere in London. Raul has already scheduled through Feb. 19. By my guestimation, this article will need to be promoted by about Thursday or Friday at the latest for it to have any chance at being nominated and scheduled in time for Feb. 24. If the directors here are satisfied with the level of review the article has gone through, I urge them to promote the article so that the miracle tranformation of this article can be complete. Either way, excellent work Brian! --SkotyWA^T_C 06:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I will look in later today, unless Laser gets there first (the last time I looked in, I saw good reviews and support, but it had only been up a few days)-- has there been an image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes [3]. DrKiernan (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, DrK. Wiki is glitching for me this morning, and I see a lot of FACs maturing towards promotion, so I'll try to get through again later today. Does anyone have time to update the Urgents template and check those that are maturing for image reviews? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Laser! If you get to promoting before I do, I'll be busy most of the day, and will peek in again later tonight. Don't want to hold up Raul on this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

PS, WP:TFAR has a heavily supported article up for 24 Feb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that we have that rare event, a centenary and a tercentenary occurring on the same date, 24 February. Normally, having worked hard to get Rinaldo to featured status (assuming it gets there of course!) I would fight hard to claim the TFA slot. In this case, however, I feel that since the rival article is the nominator's first pitch at TFA, it should have the honour. If/when Rinaldo is promoted, I intend to ask Raul if he will give it a TFA date as soon as possible after 24 Feb, still within the anniversary of the opera's initial London run. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As UTC-based days don't line up particularly well with most of the world's local daytime, perhaps it could be scheduled immediately before or after, thus still being on the "right" day for some part of the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Raul will act creatively on this (the article is now promoted btw). Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

is logarithm accessible?

I'm looking for somebody who has no or little training in science, especially maths, but is willing to check logarithm as for its accessibility for the "general public". This is part of the FA candidacy preparations. Any comments welcome (there also was a peer review, but it generated little feedback). Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have taken a look, and am leaving a few comments on the peer review page. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Foreign-language sources and 1c

Could I get some opinions on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy XIII/archive1? Specifically, two opposes have been lodged over the notion that select foreign-language sources have not been used. The reviewers consider these to be important sources. Has there been a consensus about how actionable such opposes are? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Without looking specifically at that example, sometimes foreign-language sources will be the most reliable and should be consulted (my work in Spanish-language articles comes to mind), and WP:NONENG (policy page) addresses this with "... provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available" (they aren't always). So, when a thorough survey of the relevant literature includes non-English sources for info that isn't available in English, it could be actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is, the opposer who raised this question says "We don't exactly know what is in these [Japanese] books". In other words, the books may or may not contain useful information. Is such a speculative opinion really grounds for opposing on 1a/1c grounds? Should the nominator be required to go through the process of acquiring and translating these sources, perhaps to find they add nothing? I'd say that in such cases it is for the opposer to demonstrate that the missing sources do indeed cover significant information not otherwise reliably sourced. Brianboulton (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think if you are covering a foreign topic and the English language coverage is sparse (tactical example Kohei Uchimura), then it's incumbent on the article writer to do the scholarship and actually verify that there's nothing significant in Japanese. OTOH, if you are covering superconductivity and there's a heck of a lot written in English and someone brings up some odd Russian paper (and the opposer does not even know what's in it or what subtopic it adresses) then I would say balance of proof is on the opposer). We should think about it from the standpoint of scholarship and what's the right thing to do for our readers. Not some find a policy and cite it.TCO (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Regarding the Warren County, Indiana FAC process, thanks to everyone who provided input and assistance, including Finetooth, Brianboulton, Huwmanbeing, NortyNort, Niagara, Wehwalt, JKBrooks85, Jappalang, Sasata, Hurricanehink, Tony1, and of course SandyGeorgia and LaserBrain. (Hopefully I didn't miss anyone.) The article was greatly improved by all of this, for which I'm grateful. The first time through this process was particularly challenging, and I had a lot to learn, but it was worth it and I feel I learned a lot which I can apply to other articles. Omnedon (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

ODNB online source

I have just noticed that it is possible to reach ODNB biographies direct, without subscriptions and without visiting your local library. Just go to http://www.oxforddnb.com/, enter your subject's name, click and there you go. There are 58,000 of them! I don't know how long this has been going on, but it looks like no more (subscription required) for this source. If only Grove Music Online would do the same... Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful, I'll switch over Nev immediately.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still seeing the plain old "log in or use your library card" thing... perhaps it's only in the UK? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Odd, it worked for me this morning when I tried it after reading this posting, but now I get a username/logon screen... guess they're onto us... Sasata (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I missed this until now, and I was just going to hop on and see if I could get some material for one of my articles. Oh well... Anyone have access normally and capable of doing a search for me? – VisionHolder « talk » 22:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you just get x free goes, maybe per month. Don't waste 'em! Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even get a single free go. Nothing - the same old subscription screen ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Visiting your local library? You should be able to use your library card number to log in - that's how it works for me. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bloody infierno, I'm back to the same login screen. Oh well, off to restore the "subscription required" tag for Nev. But it was great while it lasted.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure this was a glitch with OUP's authentication. I tried playing around with it earlier, logging out and refreshing, but it kept silently logging me back in. It's stopped doing this now, and is asking for a logon. Shimgray | talk | 23:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, to have got everybody excited. I'm back on the login, too. It was obviously a temporary glitch that got me a little excited, and it was good while it lasted. At least I didn't remove any subscription tags. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I got real interested after seeing there was an article on Abraham Thornton, of Ashford v Thornton fame. They didn't have as much info as I already had in the article, and I spotted a couple of questionable statements. Oh well. Easy come, easy go.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to have a subscription to search their index. If I know that a subscription-only service has something that is clearly of interest to a reader of an article, I stick it in the external links or further reading section, and let someone else deal with it later. For people who featured in the DNB, you can go look at the entry on wikisource and see if that is any good or not (the quality can vary). Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

for that matter, I have a sub to the ODNB, and am willing to look up articles for folks. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ealdgyth, I may impose on you at some point. But to look at a point raised by Carcharoth, are we supposed to do an external link to a subscription required site?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you also have access to the Who's Who, Ealdgyth? (There's a link on the login page.) If so, let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, just the ODNB. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can get to Who's Who. I think. Drop a note on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer portfolio

One way of reviewers being able to improve or be mentored to improve (and hence encouraged to participate more) would be if they had a portfolio of a kind. I'm not talking here about people who do lots and lots of reviews, but those who might do one a month or so. Is there an easy way to list all the reviews that someone has participated in? I have a partial list of the reviews I participated in, but it only goes up to about 2 years ago, and I'm hoping to update it by some method other than dumping all my contribs into a spreadsheet and filtering them by page name. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We are (or were, the tool isn't looking so functional atm) able to get a dynamic list of RfAs a given user has participated in, so I guess doing the same for FACs would be pretty easy. Here's another, slightly more ambitious way of doing it... Juliancolton (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Doh! I should have thought of that. Thanks. I get "1–20 of 31", which is slightly less than you! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, 184! But now we need a userbox to proclaim our wasted hours. Johnbod (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wasted hours? Reviewing the very best content for the world's largest and most popular information source doesn't seem wasted to me. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

April Fools!

Just as a reminder there is only about a month and a half until April Fools Day. Some nominations have been compiled Here, but like always there are only a few that are even possibly doable. Quehanna Wild Area is the only nomination that is already a FA, while Pigeon photographer and William Windsor (goat) are both good articles that could possibly be expanded.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not concerned about the discussion on that page; unlike previous years, we have plenty of potential candidates, including Quehanna, and won't need to rush one through this year, although new possibilites are always of interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#April 1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment gadget oddity

I have the user preference gadget turned on that gives the article assessment at the top of the page; normally this shows "currently a featured article candidate" at the top of an article that's at FAC, but it's not working for Planet Stories. I was wondering if this means I've made some book-keeping mistake in setting up the FAC; I don't want to screw up GimmeBot, so if anyone can see an error in the FAC setup, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's showing correctly with my assessment gadget-- try clearing your cache or something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes you just need to reload the page so that the gadget refreshes the status of an article. I've reassessed an article, or nominated it at GAN, and when I view the article again, it hasn't updated. A quick click on the reload button, and it's fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been persistent over multiple days and reloads, but if others are seeing it OK then I won't worry about it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Could be a browser problem? I'm on IE8-- you might ask at Village Pump Technical. I'll check my other browsers for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Shows up for me on Firefox and Safari-- could be a pop-up blocker or something in your firewall? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried it in Chrome, and it worked fine there; but Firefox won't show it, though I do see the header for other FAC articles. I'm on the beta, version 4, so perhaps it's an issue with Firefox. Yes, VPT is probably a good place to ask; thanks for the suggestion. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed similar problems with the assessment gadget before. This might sound silly, but have you tried purging/reloading the talkpage as well as the article? I think Firefox might be a little idiosyncratic in how it deals with this sort of situation, and the script may be merrily reading the cached version of the talkpage with the old assessment/FAC/GAN status; purging both often solves it for me. Shimgray | talk | 16:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed since the 1.17 update that the assessment gadget seems to get more firmly stuck on old ratings, at least for a few days. --PresN 01:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease FAC

I'm commenting here because the review has become very long, and I doubt that the monitors are following all the developments. My assessment, which I believe is shared by Garrondo, the article's nominator and principle contributor, is that all of the reviewers but one favor promotion at this time, and that single opposed editor raises a continual stream of objections that other reviewers see as minor and/or doubtful, and gives no indication of ever switching to support. It is clear that Garrondo, in spite of patience that I can only see as admirable, is becoming frustrated. Is there any way of setting some endpoint to the process here? Looie496 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I do not know when a FAC delegate will evaluate consensus. These things are sometimes judgment calls, and sometimes a bit tricky as well. As for additional reviews, if I have time, I will be happy to review it soon. – Peacock.Lane 02:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• In addition to User Peacock's issues there are two users who are currently expressing that the the article is not at FA. If User Garrondo is becoming frustrated, then I think that some of his replies to issues raised during the FAC may be reflecting this. If true, I think such frustration could adversely affect the final stages of the article. When I suspected a possible change in User Garrondo's comments, I become less hopeful that the article would pass FA. I think that the article was in a bad state when it came to FA discussion and I think that it is a credit to numerous conciousness and patient reviewers who have spent time raising issues to improve the article. I think, partly because this is a medical article, that ensuring that issues are discussed properly in the final stages of the FA review is better than an early close that may be made owing to the possibility that one of the editors getting frustrated. For a better outcome, I suggest that user User Garrondo does continue with patience towards the final stages of the FA discussion. It would be useful to know if User Gerrondo would like a wikibreak, or if he can continue commenting with patience. Snowman (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Copy/pasting from my talk page, as it seems relevant here: "My !vote is already a Support. However, the changes that Snowmanradio are making are based on the content rather than format etc., and appear to be substantive. If a domain expert can show/argue that SR's changes are invalid, then that is the end of the story. If they are valid, however, then the process probably should continue.... Don't feel too bad about this. FACs are tense affairs sometimes." – Peacock.Lane 13:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some frustration: yes of course. Specially when I feel that no matter my reasonings, unless something is done as Snomanradio thinks should be done is a problem. For example last few comments from this reviewer have been to ask for some content that do appears in a source (and is therefore interesting) but is not in main article, however sources also show that is greatly specific and its place is not the main page (examples of this would be diagnosis of depression or alcohol and diagnosis of essential tremor. It is greatly irritating when you feel that a reviewer is ordering instead of proposing or that a reviewer sees everything as black or white, but never debatable. In this sense, independently of the outcome I have to say that Snowmanradio has been quite discouraging and I would recommend him for further reviews to take more into account others opinions. Similarly I believe it will be easier to interact with him if he included from time to time (and believed in the words) sentences like "I think", "I believe", "in my opinion".

Regarding stress: I have also noticed pretty strong sentences in FAC by Snowmanradio: everybody is free to feel stress but that neither helps to the climax in FAC

That said: I plan to continue addressing SnowmanRadio or any other reviewers comments as I have time. When I feel stressed I try to leave it for the next day, which is reason why it might be going a bit slowly.

Regarding the wikibreak: I did not plan this FAC to go on for so long, so next Saturday (11th) and for a week I will be away since I had a holiday week planned. I intended to say it along this week. Nevertheless it is no issue for this FAC to continue since as soon as I come back I will continue with the article.--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I want nevertheless to thank Snowmanradio for some of the copy edits he has performed these last days, which in spite of introducing some minor mistakes have overall improved the clarity of language of the article without generally changing content.--Garrondo (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have changed some content. It is almost done. Snowman (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looie, if by "the monitors" you mean FAC delegates, then we are following the progress as closely as we are able with 50+ active nominations. I have already commented on the page that it would be useful for Snowman to strike or move resolved requests, and he has been doing so. With so many nominations, we cannot follow every word of every nomination on a daily basis; however, when a delegate goes to make a final decision about promoting or archiving, everything in the nomination will be read and considered. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Snowmanradio has stated that he is willing to support soon. Maybe when he does we could collapse all comments that have been produced in his review. This would make page look much cleaner and easy to check.--Garrondo (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote the above comment he actually supported the article, as did EdJonston. At this point there are 11 supports (Looie496, JFW, DrKierman, Leevanjackson, Graham Colm, Casliber, Tony1, RJH, PeacockLane, Snowmanradio and Edjonston), no opposes, and only one editor who seems to still continue reviewing the article and making (minor) comments (Axl).--Garrondo (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This sort of pressure may not be helpful. There has been about 80 edits made to the article within the last 22 hours (appox.) as well as a lot of edits to the FA review page and people need to consider these properly. Today's edits include the subdivision of one section into three sections, and substantial reorganisation. Surely, a period of stability is required. I have had some time to think and look at the FA review page. My support is conditional on a few issues (about half a dozen or so) being sorted out. I regard the omission of lead-pipe rigidity as quite serious. I have put a strike through all the issues that I raised that have been resolved, and I decline to put any edits in collapsible boxes, which is not a recommendation of guidelines. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Announcements template

Please see discussion at Template talk:Announcements/New featured content#Proposal: Redirect to WP:GO. Jujutacular ^talk 23:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Image reviews needed

Regular image reviewers haven't been active—several older nominations are lacking an image review. Could anyone step in on these? All I can offer is a dram of a wonderful new Irish pure pot still whiskey I've discovered, the Redbreast 12 year. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eduard Streltsov/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Malmö FF/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mantra-Rock Dance/archive1 Done. If there are any remaining tonight, I'll take a look at them. Send whiskey.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Charles_Holden/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herbie Hewett/archive1

  I'll do a couple (or all) working from the bottom of the list upwards. If anyone else is doing some, please leave a note here (though two independent image reviews won't hurt, of course). Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Done. Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Many thanks, Carcharoth and Wehwalt. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please do an image check for Me and Juliet? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked em' and they look good.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Alt text

While doing some of these image reviews, I noticed that the alt text link is still in the tool box on each FAC, but the requirement was commented out of the FA criteria in March 2010 (there were some long discussions around that time). What was the final decision on that? The criterion remains commented out today, but I'm unclear if there is no requirement for any alt text, or whether it just has to be there in some form or other? Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether it has it or not and whatever it says (barring that it might say a picture of an apple is an orange), it should be left alone for the purposes of a FAC/FAR.陣内_Jinnai 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've struck my comment in the review where I mentioned it wasn't present, but I left in place my praise of the alt text used in another article, noting that it is no longer a requirement. However, the presence of the link in the toolbox (without an explanatory note) may confuse some people who still use the FAC toolbox without checking any changes to the criteria. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Credo accounts

There are more Credo accounts available, and we've been asked to draw up a list of names and criteria to make sure the accounts go to content contributors. I've opened a discussion about parameters here, which I'm hoping won't get too bogged down. Any input about whether these are reasonable would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Warrior

I would ask that I be allowed to have an exception for the 2 week period be waved as I am trying to get one of the two articles, Dragon Quest or Dragon Warrior, through before the 25th anniversay in early may to appear as a TFA. Since Dragon Warrior has never appeared here I would not know what really needs to be addressed and which article (assuming I cannot get enough support to make it through on the first try), needs to be addressed in time for either article to be renominated in April with time to go through the TFA process since this month is almost over.陣内_Jinnai 20:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you get it in, let me know and I'll help out with a review as quickly as I may (although that does not mean instant!)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Template for linking to FACs

SandyGeorgia mentioned that I should let everyone here know about a template I created for linking to FACs. It's nothing fancy, but to use it, simply type this: {{subst:FAClink|Name of article|Archive number}}. Typing that would produce a piped link that looks like this: FAC for Article. I'm not sure if someone already came up with this before me, but I couldn't find it. Hopefully others will find this useful!-RHM22 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts from an FA-newbie

Hi... As some of you may know, I have just completed my first FA nomination, which resulted in the promotion of rhodocene to FA status. Firstly, thanks to those who commented on the nomination, I believe that the article is stronger for the development it underwent... though the process is fairly grueling. After asking Andy (Laser brain), I've decided to offer a couple of thoughts for your consideration.

It took me a while to decide whether to nominate the article. Whether fair or not, I believe that FA has a scary reputation and I was certainly concerned about my work being seen as unworthy. There are lots of guides provided for editors to read, and those provide plenty of useful comments. One area that I think is lacking, however, is on the actual FA process. Some of the things I wondered about during the nomination included:

• Was it going to be made clear who of the delegates was "in charge" of the nomination? Would he or she pop in early in the piece, or monitor and advise the nominator? Would she or he only become clear late in the piece - and in fact, is the person only chosen late in the nomination?
• How long do things take to get going? I know that the instructions note that most of the comments will be critical (hopefully constructively so) but is it typical for no actual statements of support to appear early? How much support is actually needed? How are comments that just focus on a single issue (say no dablinks, or broken external links) taken? Just in general, how does the process go and what can the nominator expect?
• What if comments appear that are more about meta-FA issues than about the actual article? In my case, I got "I am tired of FAs on the main page that leave me fighting to figure out what it is, or tell me that it's something it isn't (at least this article might not have the latter problem). I will repeat this comment, possibly, when the gobbly goop is on the main page, and I expect to be ignored then also." I tried to respond, but was wondering how this would be seen, whether I should have done something else, whether these comments would count against the nomination in some way. In the case of a newbie nominator, maybe if a delegate were chosen early and specifically invited the nominator to ask questions about how the process works?
• As an observation, some editors made encouraging comments (like not ready to support yet, but the article is close, or good work on the changes so far, etc). These may not be useful for some editors but I certainly found them helpful. Particularly for neophytes, I would encourage experienced reviewers to consider including such comments when they seem warranted. They do help for us insecure newcomers.
• How much scope is there to disagree with the suggestions of a reviewer? If a nominator does disagree, do others jump in and comment, or is this just inviting an automatic oppose?
• NB: I'm not actually asking these questions (well, not most of them, anyway)... just indicating some of what I might have liked to know as a new nominator.

Another issue that came up and is a meta-issue for FA consideration is the requirement that: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic". Yes, I know it is a policy quote. But, it's also essentially impossible in some advanced areas. In this particular case, the topic area is not studied below the third year of university-level study of chemistry. And, this is not a compound that you'd encounter at the start of the topic (ferrocene is, but not rhodocene). To explain everything in plain terms "that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field" (emphasis added) – in other words, to explain through a couple of years of college-level chemistry in a couple of paragraphs – is just unrealistic. Further, packing in lots of explanatory details helps to make the article more stand-alone, but when applied to every article in the area is going to generate huge redundancy. If you look at the rhodocene talk page, you can see comments that pick up on this point. I have added historical material that I consider background information that really belongs in other articles. I did this because this is what FA requires. However, I think it is something to be considered here because FA is supposed to set the "gold standard" yet the standard applied everywhere would, it seems to me, produce an unnecessary and repetitive content. Maybe the problem is just poor writing on my part and there is an easy solution here – in which case, please point me in the right direction.

I invite any thoughts / commments anyone may wish to offer on either of the issues I've raised. EdChem (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think we need to keep the "understood by any literate reader" language, even though it may not be possible to achieve that goal in every article... Some of your explanatory remarks in the FAC were more clear than the article. Perhaps you didn't add them because they would be difficult to source..? Locke'sGhost 13:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that trying to make the article understandable to the general public, particularly for advance academic topics, is one of the biggest challenges in the FAC process. I've written about this topic several times on this talk page. In fact, the policy contradicts the FA requirement to be comprehensive, particularly with advanced topics. Admittedly, in some cases there are ways to explain things simply, but both individual understanding and technical sources make it hard to step back. In other cases, the sources make too many assumptions of the reader's level of understanding, leaving you the choice of following the source or introducing uncited information that is considered common knowledge in the field in order to explain. To make matters worse, when experts review an article, many will prefer the more precise technical terms and/or complain that the layman translation is imprecise. Some advanced, technical words are synonymous with everyday words, while most others have no equal or otherwise require a full sentence or paragraph to explain. (This is particularly fun when listing multiple advanced terms within a sentence.) If anything, explain the term upon first use or provide a synonym or very short definition in parentheses after the first mention in the article. Make sure that the lead is as understandable as possible, because that's what people read when they visit an article. (From my experiences talking to people, most simply read a long article's lead and then look at the pictures, and finally move on.) I just wish we had a system for visibly rating an article's reading level for our visitors. I certainly don't want the visitors to dictate the reading level democratically because the people outside of a specific field will always grossly outnumber the people in a specific field. The masses will generally demand that articles be dumbed-down, while the professionals will want the full details since Wiki is supposed to be a repository for all knowledge in their field. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The various arguments for and against assigning "reading levels" and other disclaimers can be found in the talk archives pages linked from the talk page of WP:NODISCLAIMER. The argument I like best is: the time spent arguing about the proper level of an article would be more productively spent writing another article. Links to more basic articles, either in hatnotes or in the text, have generally been sufficient. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that so long as you can demonstrate to reviewers that you have made the lead as comprehensible to non-specialists as accuracy allows, this should and will be accepted. I didn't follow this nom (ok, I was lost by the 3rd sentence), but I imagine this is what happened. As far as the other points go, there has been a growing tendency from reviewers not to give early supports, unless they have already been involved with the article at peer review, say. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but I think your point about the helpfulness of "hints", especially to newcomers, is a good one. Unfortunately some FAs just do get hung up as "test cases" on wider FA issues that aren't just specific to the particular article, or to really very minor points. But I think the delegates can recognise this and exercise their judgement. There have been many cases of nominators vigorously disagreeing with reviewers' point on all sorts of grounds, though I suspect many also accept changes that they don't think improve the article. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your terrific comments, Ed. Personally, I plan to take them on board when acting as delegate with a newbie nominator. It's crossed my mind more than once that the FAC page lists who the FA director and delegates are, but doesn't explain much what their role is beyond determining consensus. Delegates actually do quite a bit more. There is a nice FAQ about FAC, and there are some informal "guides to FAC" floating around—it would probably be prudent to consolidate some of this information into a concise "newbie guide" for nominators such as you.

Regarding the requirement that things be accessible: I really think we need to display flexibility and judgement on this. There are many great technical articles out there that don't spend too much time with basic explanations. See Rotavirus for example. There is no "Virus 101" material there—the reader should recognize if the article is above their head and go read Introduction to viruses. I could see the value of a hatnote reading, "For introductory information on the topic of x, see y" but not further. Ed, in my experience, the comment you quoted is atypical. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for framing those questions. As an FA-newbie myself, I have wondered about some of those issues, and about how the process works. Some of it is documented, and I've learned a lot so far from my first FAC nomination; but sometimes I have found myself not quite knowing what to do, how to respond, or what to expect. Omnedon (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the first FA is the hardest. (in my case it was the third, but that's another story). Seriously, though, a FA on a non-basic topic cannot stop to explain basic terms. Not every article is on the 101 level. I think Laser Brain put it well. You do your best to make your articles accessible to all, but there are limits to what you can do.

FAC is an intimidating process. I try to be kind to editors that I see are serious but haven't quite raised their writing or research to the required high level yet, because I believe this is a worthy endeavor and the more help we have the better. I don't want to drive off newbies, and it is too easy for them to get discouraged.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• I like Andy's hatnote idea very much. I don't know why we haven't done this. We assume folks know which little blue link to click, but it would be better to hand it to them on a little cookie plate....Locke'sGhost 02:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. The more solid information newbies have handed to them (and I assume a lace doily under the cookie?) the better.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong -- generally, the best way to learn something is to do it, and the first time through is naturally going to be difficult, but overall it has been a positive experience and I've enjoyed it (as with the peer review). It was difficult to take that first step knowing full well that the article would be subjected to intense scrutiny; but once the process started, in practice I found it engaging, and I found myself wanting people to comment and hoping for the next review -- and every review improved the article that much more. With that in mind I've done several reviews of other FACs, and though I'm clearly not experienced at it, and though my reviews are not as deep as some I've seen, I hope it helps at least a bit; I know that all of the other nominators are also waiting for input, just as I am, and I've also learned from the reviews I've performed. So, I think the most difficult part is the waiting, combined with some degree of ignorance about what it takes for an article to be promoted (or not). I realize this is subjective and will vary somewhat from article to article and so can't be tightly defined; but at present my FAC has six supports and no opposes, and after having (I believe) addressed every concern that has been raised, I don't know what's next -- should I be trying to identify more improvements on my own as I wait, or should I leave well enough alone in the absence of further comments, so that other reviewers don't have a moving target? I know the process is somewhat fluid; I'm just not sure what I should be doing with the article during this quiet period (if anything). In any event, this is a challenging process (and of course it must be) but I haven't felt intimidated by it and I'm glad I finally took the plunge. Omnedon (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have to mildly disagree with Dank – I think time spent arguing about simplifying an article, so long as the interlocutors are doing so productively, is time well spent. The reason I think we should retain the "comprehensible" wording (even though we know that goal is not always attainable) is because the process of reaching for the goal very often improves the article. Domain experts are accustomed to information that has not been unpacked to any degree at all, so much so that they have forgotten the process of learning and discovery that they went through in order to attain their expertise. On the other hand, some topics simply can't be unpacked all the way back to a college freshman course in the field. There is an inherent tension there, but striving to meet both goals at the same time leads to an article that is superior to one that does not so strive. Locke'sGhost 05:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The "inherent tension" arises because WP has lost any concept of who the "reader" is, which is an essential concept for any publishing venture. We used to aim articles at the "general reader" and indeed we still have a policy at WP:NOT that forbids writing articles that are "presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field." IMO this necessarily restricts what WP should cover to any depth and rather than being in conflict with the "comprehensive" requirement of FA is a necessary constraint on it (for, otherwise, how would one know when to stop digging). The "sum of all human knowledge" mantra seems to have overtaken the concept that an encyclopaedia is a summary of the knowledge in a field aimed at a particular readership. Writers know that condensing material, eliminating certain details or side-topics say, often makes it stronger. Publishers know that producing inaccessible material neither helps the readers nor the business. What use is the "sum of all human knowledge" if one needs a degree in organic chemistry to be able to read an article on petrol (we don't by the way). Colin°^Talk 11:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Colin, that is a really discouraging comment to read. Is all my work worthless just because my chosen topic is beyond the high school education of many readers? Do we want to dump from the 'pedia all the science and medicine and technology articles whose concepts are advanced? No articles on disease processes, on quantum mechanics, on Fourier analysis, on artificial intelligence computing, on the applications of game theory to modelling markets, etc? Maybe I am not understanding your point, but to me the "sum of all human knowledge" goes well beyond the knowledge immediately comprehensible to someone with a high school education. EdChem (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• As for VisionHolder's suggestion of rating the difficulty of an article, well, WikiProjects (didn't I see some yammerhead valued editor trying to get rid of that term... did the effort succeed?) can do any durn thing they like along those lines. Why not? And put it in a special hatnote, with a link to the kiddie pool article in the field.. why not? But that is not for FA or FAC to do or to be greatly involved in. Locke'sGhost 12:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I was prepared to say that you didn't understand me, Locke, but now I see I didn't express myself very well. I agree with your position that discussing the "level" of an article can be time well spent; most of my wiki-time is spent editing and making suggestions about other people's articles. My point was that this question of whether to add disclaimers to articles isn't a new one; in fact, it's been done to death, with a lot of good arguments made both ways in pages linked from the talk page of WP:NODISCLAIMER. In the end, we got a consensus against disclaimers of any kind (including "Don't read this article unless you're familiar with X, Y and Z") that has persisted. Hatnotes and links are generally sufficient, and arguments about "disclaimers" of various kinds were judged to suck up time without producing a lot of value. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

EdChem, I don't want to discourage you, but perhaps I wish you'd used your talents in a different way. I didn't review the article for FAC and obviously people thought it was a fine article. But nobody is reading it. I don't know whether that's just down to the obscurity of the subject, the inherent difficulty of the material, or aspects of the article. The quote people take from Jimbo is "It is my intention to get a copy of Wikipedia to every single person on the planet in their own language....Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." This quote is over-used IMO and I think the "sum of all" is taken too literally and conflicts with the existence of WP:NOT as a basic policy. But I wish we took the "in their own language" and "access to" parts of this quote more seriously. If I need a degree in the subject to be able to read the lead paragraph, then it might was well be in French, and I certainly don't have "access to" the knowledge. -- Colin°^Talk 14:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not surprised that relatively few people read the rhodocene article. The subject is advanced, and many of us will not grasp or need some (or much) of what it contains. Relatively few readers would ever specifically search for that article, but those familiar with advanced chemistry would find it interesting and useful. Perhaps working on other sorts of articles would impact more readers; but for me (and, I assume, for lots of editors) editing Wikipedia is a hobby, and one will naturally work on articles that hold one's interest. That this is a specialized article doesn't mean it has limited value -- just specialized value, which is not the same thing. Omnedon (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well put Omnedon. The specialized articles are needed as well. The FAs I have worked on get page hits ranging from about twenty (Murray Chotiner) to seven or eight thousand a day (Statue of Liberty). None are less worthy for lack of major public interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec with Wehwalt): Colin, I think you're in error here. Take an article like Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, which is about as abstruse a topic as can exist; Keith Devlin said it took him two weeks of focused study just to get prepared to write a popularization of it, and I certainly don't understand more than a fraction of it myself. But I am willing to assert that we need to have an article on it that will be useful to someone who does understand that topic. It's flatly impossible to make that article accessible to someone without a huge amount of mathematical knowledge, so you are right that such an article doesn't give you "access" to that knowledge, but Wikipedia does give you access to other articles, which, if brought to FA level, would allow you to acquire that knowledge. Not all prerequisite knowledge for a topic needs to be in the article for a topic; we should make things as accessible as we can, but not compromise on comprehensiveness or accuracy. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well this is really a matter of opinion rather than something someone can be "in error" about. Most publications have a very clear idea of who their audience is and it is my opinion that Wikipedia is weaker for not having one. It is my opinion that Wikipedia's mission is best served by aiming articles at the general reader in terms of accessibility. There's no example I can think of from traditional publishing where a newspaper, magazine or book contains a mix of the accessible and the impenetrable. I'm not saying these advanced articles aren't valuable, that would be like saying some specialist maths journal or chemistry textbook isn't valuable and the material in them not worthy. They are immensely valuable and important and could be served by a Wiki model of writing and publication. Has Wikipedia's huge success meant it is trying to be all publications in one? As a hobby, one can of course write about any obscure subject. But does "our very best work" include articles that 99.99% of our readers can't actually read? -- Colin°^Talk 16:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a matter of opinion; but we're not talking about a newpaper or magazine. When I was young we had a 20-something volume set of the Encyclopedia Britannica from the 1940s, and I used to enjoy paging through it even though it was very out-of-date; I didn't understand everything in it, and probably wouldn't even today -- sometimes the Britannica went into great detail about rather abstruse subjects. But surely that's what an encyclopedia should do. It was not just a book; it was a collection of knowledge about all kinds of subjects that was useful to a wide variety of readers. Not all of it was useful to all readers. As a matter of fact, I don't think the Britannica had anything as advanced as the rhodocene article, although it did have articles involving chemistry that included chemical structure diagrams which many readers would not have found meaningful. In my opinion, the "Wikipedia is not paper" argument is the critical issue; we can include more detail than the printed encyclopedia could. Omnedon (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER is careful to note that "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done", and this distinction is part of the purpose of WP:NOT. And there's a whole lot of information we don't include because it is hard to verify, hasn't been previously published, or would give undue weight to a topic, etc. Editorial restraint helps the reader; it isn't just done to save trees. Colin°^Talk 17:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree that Wikipedia can't include everything for many reasons, and I never suggested it was about saving trees. I'm simply saying that it's an encyclopedia and includes some information that is not valuable to all, or even most, readers -- and that this has always been true of encyclopedias to some extent. In the case of the rhodocene article, it's all verifiable. Omnedon (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So, Colin, you appear to be saying that it's not that my work is worthless, it's just that I have violated the first of the 5 pillars, (WP:NOT), and written something that does not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. Perhaps the rhodocene article should just be deleted, thereby improving the encyclopedia in your worldview? To say I feel discouraged and disappointed would be an understatement. EdChem (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I vehemently disagree with Colin's position here. It is indeed an opinion, one that you will find support for but one that you will also find opposition to. We need more digging deep, not less. Yes, anyone should be able to come here and read about Chem 101, and one of the complaints floated every now and again is that we have some very good specific and technical articles, but no one wants to work on chemistry. However, we're an army of volunteers—you worked on rhodocene because you know the subject and you were motivated to write it. We need people like you to do that, so the person who floats in wanting to read about rhodocene, can do so. There is a harm in not having chemistry up to snuff, but there is no harm in having an excellent rhodocene. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy, but it is hard not to be upset when I thought I had achieved something in getting the article to FA, made a tangible contribution to the project, and even one of the FA delegates is critical of my work. People at the chemistry WikiProjects are critical. I started this thread to offer what I believed was some constructive feedback on my FAC experience, trying to smooth the path for other FAC neophytes, and I'm now feeling like my presence here is simply a nuisance, that what I chose to offer was and is sub-standard. I realise my response is emotional, and likely coloured by the many stresses presently in my life, but I really do wonder why I contribute to Wikipedia when it can leave me feeling as I am now.  :( EdChem (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I'm very sorry to hear that you feel that way; I sympathize, both in terms of the effect that Wikipedia can have, and the real-life issues you must be dealing with right now. The fact that the interactions here are conducted in a virtual environment certainly doesn't make them any less real; I also have been in situations where I didn't feel too great about this environment, going all the way back to some of my very first edits years ago. I've always concluded, though, that the work here was worthwhile, and I hope this experience won't turn you off to it entirely. The questions you posed earlier were ones with which I could identify, and I was glad to read what you wrote; thank you for that. If I can help, please let me know. Omnedon (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed, obviously my comment below was too oblique/cryptic. Let me rephrase it bluntly: If you worry about every single possible opinion, whether it reflects consensus or not, you will go crazy. So don't. Do what consensus suggests, and let the people who take hardline positions do so without burdening yourself by being affected by them. Locke'sGhost 07:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think... how can I say this? That there are as many opinions as there are editors, and while all these opinions vary, the consensus is 1) we should try to make the articles approachable, at least as much as possible, but 2) that isn't always possible. Take a step back and just admire the vast scope of opinions we have. Think of it as the Grand Canyon. Bask in its sheer vastness, but don't try to personalize it all. In other words, take it all with a grain of salt. Locke'sGhost 05:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I too am sorry that the timing of this discussion has made an example of your article just after its promotion. You must appreciate that I think an post-grad-level 4,000-word article on rhodocene is not "sub-standard" or "worthless". I am simply arguing that it is in the wrong publication. I needed to speak up because what happens at FAC affects Wikipedia. See below. -- Colin°^Talk 10:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How FA influences WP

From April 2005 to April 2010, Wikipedia had a content guideline Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. This stated "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience." Throughout this time, you would hear people repeat "Wikipedia articles are written for the general reader" just as often as "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" or any other well-known widely accepted rule. This guideline has an equivalent in policy at WP:NOT which (since July 2008) has said

A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.

Then, in April 2010, the guideline was demoted to an essay without prior discussion. The reason for that demotion given here was that because we had some "highly technical articles that are pretty tough going for the non-expert" (i.e., impenetrable to the general reader) and "some of these are even Featured Articles", and a Mos guideline is "mandatory for FAs to follow", this conflict should be resolved by eliminating the guideline. So now, Wikipedia has no official guideline as to its audience level. And all because we promoted some articles to FA that clearly broke the guideline.

We now have an FA with a lead that is actually less accessible than a university textbook. At the FAC, the WP:NOT policy was dismissed as "unrealistic given most college students study for at least two years before encountering organometallic chemistry". (Note I reject the idea suggested above that readers can use the rest of Wikipedia to learn enough to be able to understand an article. It is not Wikipedia's goal to be a textbook, there's a different project for that, and it is just impossible to learn university-level maths or chemistry, say, from an encyclopaedia). We also now have the folk at Wikiproject Mathematics admitting that they regard Wikipedia as a reference for "practicing mathematicians", and that that's the only audience they value. So how long before someone removes the audience accessibility requirement from WP:NOT because it inconveniences FAC?

Why does this matter? It doesn't really matter that rhodocene is impenetrable without two years of a chemistry degree. What matters is that it is an FA, regarded as Wikipedia's "very best work", and so an example for others to follow. So when editors are writing an article that should and can be accessible, like petrol or epilepsy, say, and which would greatly benefit from attracting experts, those experts will say that it is OK for them to write at a level suitable only for industrial chemists or practising neurologists. They will say Wikipedia has no audience in mind and there are plenty examples of FAs that are unreadable too. They will reject attempts to make the writing accessible because that might make it less "comprehensive" and deny them the chance of an FA star. And our readers will complain they can't learn anything slightly scientific on Wikipedia any more. And it started at FA. -- Colin°^Talk 10:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Dear Colin, I do feel for you. Sincerely. I am not being sarcastic. You are standing up for your convictions. However, you seem to be standing completely alone here – and you're standing in a forum filled with people who have been around FA longer than any others on Wikipedia. This might be a juncture for you to recalibrate the inputs into your personal version of reality. Why is it that no one is standing with you? Is it an evil plot, financed by tobacco companies, the military-industrial complex, and a cartel seeking to corner the Rhodocene market? It seems unlikely. Is it because we have a personal stake in articles such as Rhodocene? That seems unlikely too. Now... what other reasons could there be? Could it be that we, deep down inside, recognize that we should put up an array of articles that appeals to the broadest spectrum of readers possible? I personally find Tokyo Mew Mew to be execrable pablum. But hey, some folks read it and like it. So God bless them. Live and let live – and let as many people as possible find something on Wikipedia that appeals to them, within whatever few legal guidelines we must follow. Locke'sGhost 10:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My first post on this topic, I've only had time to follow it intermittently. Just to respond to your last para, Colin... I'm not sure why one would expect rhodocene especially to be someone's guide, expert or not, on improving more general topics such as petrol or epilepsy. I specialise in military biography and when I was considering my first FAC, I looked at the existing military bio FAs as my style and detail guides -- there weren't many then but they were enough. Perhaps your concern with the influence a more specialised article like rhodocene will have on the direction of WP is misplaced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As I said, the existence of post-grad-level 4,000-word article on some chemical doesn't bother me. There's plenty of material on Wikipedia that breaks policies and doesn't do much harm. It doesn't bother me that the subject is so obscure that nobody is reading it. At least Wehwalt's obscure politician article is readable. What bothers me is that we have knowingly promoted a policy-breaking, inappropriately-targeted article that is unreadable to 99.99% of our readers as an example of our best work. It bothers me that because we have done so in the past we have subsequently removed any uncomfortable guidelines so we don't feel so bad about it. Guidelines that the rest of Wikipedia were happy to follow. We have a policy against writing material only appropriate for a science journal's audience. That means the rest of Wikipedia think you are wrong. Perhaps it is time for FAC regulars to recalibrate what on earth they are celebrating. Do the readers no longer matter? Do we just admire the technical brilliance of the writing, even if we can't actually read it? How is FAC to actually judge an article that we can't read or hope to understand? Because this path does not produce "an array of articles that appeals to the broadest spectrum of readers possible". Not only have we lost any idea of who our reader is, but it seems the reader no longer matters. This is not healthy for Wikipedia at all. Colin°^Talk 11:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I think the difference between you and everyone else in this forum is that the consensus of editors firmly believe this case falls under WP:COMMON, which is very explicitly an escape clause to WP:NOT. Locke'sGhost 11:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I do hope that you realize COMMON is merely an essay, and NOT is a widely supported policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Not only is it an essay with no meaning whatsoever to FAC (while FAs must exemplify our best work, and uphold WP:NOT, which is policy), but "the difference between you and everyone else in this forum" is from the same editor who earlier claimed that Colin stood alone on this issue. Reading comprehension, pls ... next time, I'll recuse as delegate and review, but I am opposed to articles whose lead and content do not conform to WP:LEAD, WP:NOT and WP:WIAFA. This is also why I try to insist on layperson review before promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • (e.c.) Colin, I have some serious serious objections to your argument, including:
      • Your user page indicates an interest in the tuberous sclerosis article. The first sentence after the lede of this article is "The physical manifestations of tuberous sclerosis are due to the formation of hamartia (malformed tissue such as the cortical tubers), hamartomas (benign growths such as facial angiofibroma and subependymal nodules) and, very rarely, cancerous hamartoblastomas." I would be interested to know how you reconcile a sentence like that with WP:NOT's requirement that "initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field". Just for contrast's sake, the first sentence after the lede in the rhodocene article is "Discoveries in organometallic chemistry have led to important insights into chemical bonding".
      • You quoted my statement about WP:NOT being unrealistic in its "without any knowledge" requirement, juxtaposing it with a talk page comment that was not made until after the FAC closed and characterising it as a dismissal. I find this a highly biased spin on the FAC. Look at it in its entirety:
        • My nomination statement included "I recognise that my writing is overly technical at time, and welcome advice on areas needing further explanation / clarification" so I raised the issue of clarity and technical language myself.
        • Every suggestion about clarifying language, either in the lede or in the body of the text, was discussed and addressed in the FAC. Extensive revisions were made to the article. I can't speak for the reviewers but I think I was flexible and responsive to their concerns.
        • The context of the quotation you describe as a dismissal included a preamble: "I have started reworking the lede in hopes of making it more accesible" and was followed by the sentence "I am willing to work on improvements but this is a specialised area." My comment was expressing a willingness to continue to make improvements, and indicating work had begun, but also expressing a reservation about an impossible goal. I think my comments point to a desire to comply with policy requirements (as an ideal, at least) not a disdain for them.
        • Regarding TCO's commet at talk:Rhodocene, I have not actioned it because I feel constrained somewhat by the article just having received FA status. Some of the comments TCO made I agree with, but the suggestions directly oppose changes made in response to FAC suggestions. I don't know what I can do, it's why I left TCO a note pointing to this discussion.
        • I object to the characterisation that the article remains "impenetrable without two years of a chemistry degree". I believe it is mostly understandable without that level of background, although the nuances would be lost on less educated readers. Maybe your disdain for my work is causing you to view it through a distorted lens. EdChem (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Regarding WP:NOT PAPERS which you describe as "We have a policy against writing material only appropriate for a science journal's audience": If you think the rhodocene article is equivalent to a journal article, then I suggest you take the word of someone who has written journal articles that you are wrong. If you think that the audience of a science journal is the education level needed to understand the rhodocene article, then you seriously underestimate the education of readers of science journals. If you think the lede and introductory content is anything like the level that would be found in a review article on rhodocene, then your conception of the scientific literature is significantly inaccurate. EdChem (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
          • EdChem, tuberous sclerosis is a rather poor article that I've utterly neglected for the last four years. It needs rewritten. Completely. A more representative example of my efforts would be the rewrite of Angiomyolipoma. Previously, its lead sentence was: "Angiomyolipoma is a benign renal neoplasm previously considered to be a hamartoma or choristoma, but now known to be benign." The current text is still very rough and I didn't find it at all easy to read the source material never mind write. It still needs work to help the general reader, but I hope you agree it is a big improvement. EdChem, rather than both of us pick holes in each other articles or the precise wording in each other's arguments, can we at least agree that we have an FA that is not compliant with WP:NOT PAPERS. Either this doesn't matter (the WP:IAR invoked above), is a good thing (an article that specifically appeals to organic chemists), or a matter of concern. I'd rather debate that issue than what may or may not have happened during FAC, or analyse one article in detail. Colin°^Talk 15:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC) The issue of the loss of the "general reader" as a target to aim for has been brewing in several places for some time now. We have a whole wikiproject that only wants to write articles for experts. Your article may not be the best example of this kind of issue. Please try not to take this personally. It is the discussion at FAC which caused me to speak up, not a reaction to reading the article. Colin°^Talk 15:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Colin to some degree. We need to hold the hard science artilces to the same standards of writabliity that we'd hold a history or psycology article to. I could easily write my bishops in such a way that only someone with an advanced knowledge of medieval history could understand them, but rightly I'm not allowed to do that. Why is a "hard science" topic held to a different standard at FA? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are held to a different standard, and you're right that they should not be. A reader who doesn't know what an atom is can't understand all of rhodocene no matter how it's written; a reader who doesn't know what a bishop is can't understand one of your articles. The various arguments above sound to me as though the options were (a) make everything comprehensible to someone with only a tenth grade education; or (b) write for the expert. I think there is a middle ground -- make the article useful to the expert, but as comprehensible as possible given that other readers will be missing (in varying degrees) some of the background. That's the target I understood EdChem to be aiming at, and I think he's right. (I haven't read rhodocene so I don't know if he achieved his goal.) Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mike. I try hardest to make the lead understandable, since that's what most non-experts read before getting bored and following the next link. But I should also note that this is not just a problem for the hard sciences. I've encountered FACs for articles pertaining to the arts that I couldn't follow. Anything that's studied academically, whether it falls under the sciences or not, has the potential to run aground here. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, by no means is Colin standing alone on this matter (to whomever said such a silly thing); I will weigh in later as time allows, and thank Colin for highlighting what happened at that Guideline page, which was, and remains, quite wrong (I was unaware it had happened, since I long ago gave up on the utter and complete mess that MOS has become, and am more troubled that a few editors at MOS are driving the direction of Wikipedia articles). Has anyone read the RFC which supposedly concluded the page should be demoted to an essay? As usual, Colin is spot on. I'll reply more later as time allows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand: you said Colin is right, but then said WP:NOT should be demoted to a guideline, which implies... that Colin is wrong. Please do explain further. Locke'sGhost 15:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I believe Sandy's talking about Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable , (it being aligned with WP:NOT#PAPERS) --MASEM (t) 15:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful to put together a forum on this issue, out of which we could possibly extract a consensus on whether the aforementioned "essay" should be a guideline again and proper part of the MoS. I wonder if the fundamental disagreement might really be over the rhetorical solution to the problem of a reader running into an article they can't make heads or tails of, given a base level of intelligence, education, and comprehension. I don't think anyone is arguing "Just leave it—too bad for them if they don't understand it." I didn't feel any more confused about rhodocene than I did the first time I read a cricket article. I had to spend some time clicking off to subarticles to get the requisite level of introductory knowledge, but then I was fine. Can this problem be addressed (note, not solved) by linking and hatnotes, as I suggested above? "This article is about an advanced topic in chemistry. For requisite background information, see x and y." --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out Colin on my talk page, I strongly recommended that that guideline-now-essay become the equivalent of Writing about Fiction for highly technical articles - an explanation of why tech articles need to address rudimentary points before it moves onto advanced topics, and examples and MOS-like guides for how to do this effectively. In the case of the above rhodocene, I'm familiar enough with the chemistry to know that most of this article is written in too advanced a style to be understood, and there needs to be more written to a lower level at least in the lead. Maybe this is a point where we verge from WP:LEAD a bit in that the lead is where one can include non-summary information that is necessary for the general reader to appreciate but that wouldn't be in the body - eg in this case, why is rhodocene an important chemical? --MASEM (t) 16:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Masem's right. The lead is far too comprehensive, and contains far too much technical detail for readability. Per WP:MOSINTRO "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction", and "Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked". The present lead is clearly failing that. A start would be to go through the lead and ask: Is the specific name of each different molecule being referenced here really needed, or for the purposes of the lead, is it enough to say that there is a molecule that does [particular thing], leaving its specific identification and naming to the main body of the article. Jheald (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Catching up, multiple points in no particular order:

1. EdChem, I am sorry to hear that some real life stresses may be impacting upon you right now, and hope things improve. We must always strive to remember the real people behind our work here, and the pride one feels in an article achieving FA status; that this discussion happened right after your article was promoted should not detract from your pride or enjoyment in the article.

   However, I believe some of your posts above border on whining and martydom-- at no point has either Colin or me said or implied the things you seem to read between the lines, and your tone reminds me of why I found your input back during the DYK plagiarism issue unhelpful. Shooting the messenger, "woe is me", miscontruing comments intended to be helpful are behaviors that don't advance rational argument, and I recall a lot of that aimed at me during the DYK plagiarism problem, which is why I intentionally avoided reviewing rhodocene, as much as I wanted to (yes, I feel the lead needs improvement, and note that opposition came from laypeople, while most support came from those knowledgeable of the topic). That there is a general problem with accessibility in some areas of Wikipedia should, hopefully, not become a personal matter to you, and I hope you can avoid taking such things personally, particularly at a time when something may be troubling you in real life.

2. On the general issue, it is incorrect to say what you said based on my post to Colin's talk page. Regardless of the incorrect demotion of a guideline to an essay by a few editors who follow MOS and an inconclusive RFC which shows that reinstating the guideline post-haste would be in order, we still have the policy of WP:NOT (adequately quoted and explained by Colin), as well as something that is far too often overlooked at FAC, and is really overlooked in this discussion-- WP:LEAD. With or without that guideline page, which was incorrectly demoted, we still have WP:NOT policy. I wasn't criticizing you or your work, but FAs must conform with policy (or at least the consensus version of what our policies mean), and NOT is policy. A lead should explain the article in a way that an intelligent reader at least knows what the article is about, why it's important, and entice them to want to read more. If a lead is not accessible to at least any educated person, we are in violation of WP:NOT and WP:LEAD. On that matter, this discussion has gone much too far afield; increasing levels of technical info can be worked into the article at later sections, or linked to in sub-articles, but the lead and earlier sections must be accessible to most general and educated readers, and as Kleopatra pointed out on the FAC, must give us some indication of why we care about the article. This is not only policy and guideline; it's just general good writing. The reason college textbooks are understandable while Wikipedia articles sometimes are not is that good writing goes in to making them digestible to someone who is learning the material.
3. I agree with those who say this problem is not only in science articles (I, too, struggle with cricket articles, just as I understand those who don't know baseball struggle with baseball articles), but as a math undergrad and engineering grad, my particular interest has always been how poorly written most of our math and physics articles are. The issue in those articles has never been that advanced knowledge is required to follow them-- it has simply been poor prose and organization in many of those that have appeared at FAR. The Math Wikiproject has repeatedly demonstrated a global problem with command and clarity of prose. And yes, this happens in many other articles, which are written as if one MUST click on links to understand the article, which contravenes both policy and guideline.

In summary, personalizing this issue when we have a clear policy and guidelines that still govern this matter shouldn't be part of this discussion. I hope that whatever is impacting you IRL will improve, and you will take pride in your accomplishment, but work on the lead over time, hopefully before it eventually appears on the main page, so that you don't receive similar criticism on "your day". I am more troubled that MOS is driving Wikipedia writing than FACs effect on future articles, but OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the fact that there is some disagreement over this particular FA does not overrule the governing policies and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a demand for a discussion on restoring Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable to guideline status. The rump of that former guideline can be found at WP:JARGON in the MoS. But possibly a better approach would be to create a new guideline such as WP:Manual of Style (audience) to address the wider issue of Wikipedia's target audience, how to write for them, and how to deal with topics that could be difficult for most of that audience. It seems there are principles that aren't just "technical" but apply to articles on bishops and cricket too. WP:AUDIENCE seems an appropriate shortcut and although taken isn't used much and the essay section it points to covers the same ground. I assume it wouldn't be correct to begin a stub at WP:Manual of Style (audience) because that would be presumptuous, but could we start at something like WP:Wikipedia's audience and move it later? Knowing one's audience is the first step of any writing process. The "general reader" is such an important concept for an encyclopaedia that it deserves to be a nutshell that people quote once more. Your thoughts one how to take this forward and where are welcome. -- Colin°^Talk 19:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, it is interesting that you see my contributions as unhelpful; I felt the same about your comments at DYK. The really unfortunate aspect of this is that we agree on both the need to eliminate plagiarism and that copyvio's are a serious problem, and we are disagreeing about approach and style. I know you feel that your comments were met with a 'shoot the messenger' response; from my perspective, that was a persona you adopted as a defensive mechanism because you didn't want to accept that the hostility you provoked was partially justified. In my view, your position at DYK was lecturing us on how crap the DYK project is, and provoking an angry response was predictable. Had you approached us as equals for a discussion of how things might be improved, I suspect that your reception would have been better and a productive and collaborative discussion might have been possible. To be clear, this was not entirely your fault: we were stressed and hurting at the time and weren't as receptive as we might have been. If you look at the way I began this thread, I tried not be lecturing on what could be different / better at FAC, I simply offered some thoughts. Yes, I ultimately became defensive because I felt that my work was being unfairly criticised (and that is exactly what declaring the article to be non-compliant with a wiki-pillar is, and that is exactly what you and Colin have done). Can we not get back to interacting in a more collaborative way? We don't have to like each other to work together, and this is especially so when our goals are aligned. I am interested in practical ways to improve the DYK process. I am interested in improvements to the rhodocene article, and would certainly welcome thoughts on whether acting on TCO's rhodocene talk page suggestions is reasonable given it would revamp a lede section only just endorsed at FAC. I am interested in sharing my FAC experience for the benefit of other FA-newbies. I suggest that if you and Colin want to discuss a meta-issue about accessability and technical FA's, start a new discussion and de-personalise it by discussing the general issue rather than devoting attention to rhodocene. Colin might well have been advised to start such a discussion about WP:NOT – water under the bridge now, unfortunately. In any event, Sandy, can we find some common ground from which to move forward? EdChem (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

EdChem, What provoked the discussion here was your comment at FAC that "I think the WP:NOT goal of "can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field" is unrealistic" and then you bringing the subject up again here in relation to the FAC. I can fully understand why you are defensive but please don't blame other people as though they are the ones who personalised it. You admitted in the FAC it wasn't compliant with policy and that you felt such compliance was "unrealistic" so you can't argue that criticism on this point is "unfair". I agree we should move on from discussing that article and it is clear that WP's audience is an issue that needs highlighting more than a paragraph in WP:NOT and a few sentences in among the commas and full stops at MoS. Colin°^Talk 12:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, what provoked the tone in my response was EdChem's martyr-ish unhelpful response of "Perhaps the rhodocene article should just be deleted, thereby improving the encyclopedia in your worldview?" and similar comments and misrepresentations of the discussion here and on Colin's talk (on Colin's talk, I specifically addressed similar problems in math/physics articles, which sparked my interest). As to DYK, I had no issue with how I was received there by anyone except EdChem, so I suggest any reaction to responses to criticism is not my problem. The answer to your meta question on whether you should work on the lead is that 1) it was not endorsed in the FAC (it was accepted by three reviewers who already understood the topic and opposed by others), and 2) no article is ever finished or perfect, so you should always consider acting upon commentary, even post-FAC. If you don't, you're opening yourself up to a rough time on the main page. I think the article needs work on some sections of the body, but particularly the lead, and one of the reasons we can't set up "standard" rules for how FAC works is that some articles will need layperson review as well as content expert review-- every FAC is different, but layperson review is most helpful on highly technical articles. On that note, I'd be most appreciative if another editor would work on the prose at an otherwise excellent medical article, Parkinson's disease, before I get in there to review it-- I see prose problems that I can't fix myself, but the article is well researched and organized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• If WP really is to live up to its long-term goal of hosting the sum of all human knowledge, there is no point in complaining about technicality in highly focused articles on highly technical topics. The very structure of knowledge in WP into articles interrelated through a tree-like arrangement of daughter/parent articles of ever narrower/broader scope is even more important, more fundamental, than that of the categories and wikilinking. What the authors of that original "Make technical articles accessible" page probably had in mind was need to cover the whole gamut of knowledge on the uppermost summary level without undue technicality. That is a good idea, but should not be allowed to inhibit the need for specialists to burrow down into ever finer levels of detail. If a non-specialist arrives at an article that is too technical for their current level of understanding, it is very easy to work up the chain of related articles until the right entry-point is reached. This might indeed be the prescription for self-education: the transition from the least to the most technical (i.e., the broadest to the narrowest scope) should be smooth enough, logical enough, supported well enough by navigational and definitional tools, to allow us all to educate ourselves in ways that were previously the domain of the professional classes. Wikis are ideal for this: it is a work in progress. Tony (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia never had the goal of hosting the "sum of all human knowledge". That was just a soundbite in part of an interview that also noted the knowledge to has to be accessible and in the reader's own language. Far too much emphasis has been placed on that grand-sounding goal but it is a lie and it is harming the project. Every single one of our policies has a restrictive effect on the "knowledge" we can contain. Only a fraction of human knowledge has been reliably published already. Only a fraction of human knowledge is accepted as valid by our sources. Only a fraction of human knowledge in encyclopeadic in nature.
  • It is naive to think that in general WP's articles have different grades where one can start easy and work up. Is rotavirus an advanced article or for beginners? Or because angiomyolipoma has a barely pronouncable name, perhaps it is an advanced article where we should ignore the general reader. The former is the most common cause of severe diarrhoea among infants and young children and the latter is the most common benign tumour of the kidney. It would be too easy for expert editors to just ignore the general reader and write only for experts. They could fill those articles with the most obscure information (the sum of all knowledge) and make them impenetrable for anyone else. We only have a tiny handful of "Introduction to" articles and they aren't a model that can be adapted generally. It is naive to think that Wikipedia can be used for "self education" (as opposed to just learning some facts). There is a reason why school and university books are different to references books. You can't get an education from a reference book. The Internet is big enough to host a general encyclopeadia, specialist advanced-level encyclopeadias, and textbooks, all perhaps developed with the wiki model, but combining them into one is not the answer. If our readers stumble because they are unable to even read the article on the Main Page, we have failed them. Colin°^Talk 12:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Even highly technical articles should have a well written lead and engaging prose; often when technical articles appear not to be digestible, it's not the content, it's the prose. As a "prose person", I imagine Tony recognizes that. The rhodocene article is not too technical; the lead is not engaging or compelling or a good summary of the topic. And any article at a textbook level is written so that someone who wants to learn about the topic can digest it-- I don't think that's too much to ask. By the way, Tony, can you explain why you unilaterally demoted that guideline with no discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, I have generally found that people who go about quoting "the sum of all human knowledge" are trying to force inclusion of their favorite summands, rather than merely the sum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I do that - with no ill intentions! Perhaps, one (or both) of us needs to get out more. :) Geometry guy 23:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting numbers on it

I have (finally) finished reading this long discussion, and have decided to inflict another comment on other patient readers:

I share the concerns raised by Sandy and Colin and Ealdgyth and others. Fundamentally, I do not believe that it is possible for an article to be simultaneously incomprehensible to 99.99% of our readers and an example of our best work.

Such an article may be A-class. It may be worth multiple barnstars. The editors may deserve laurels on their heads, and (perhaps more valuably) respect and even deference as subject-matter experts. Such an article may be an editor's best work. But such an article is not Wikipedia's best work. IMO, our best work is always accessible to at least 2% of our readers.

This means, by the way, that I believe some subjects simply do not qualify for FA status. I consider this to be as non-insulting as my conviction that some subjects do not qualify for a stand-alone article. It's a fact that says more about our overall encyclopedic aim than about the true importance of the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on this last point. It is not the case that everything in an article has to be understood by all readers. For advanced scientific topics, to be encyclopedic-complete, we have to talk about the topic in a manner that requires advanced knowledge, for certain. But at the same time, the introduction (lead and opening paragraphs) need to be laid out in a manner that it makes it easy for someone with only basic understanding to know what the importance of the topic is. Once we have done that job, then we can transition the article to the advanced topic, with sufficient written cues to make sure the reader understandings "this ends the simple summary", after which we don't need to worry 100% about the basic-knowledge reader. When we can do that with an article, that's FA quality. How to make that progression from simple to detailed discussion is critical in every article, moreso in these advanced topics.

Taking the example of rhodocene which is going to be a poster child in this discussion, by the end of the second para in the lead, I would have expected to know why is rhodocene is an important molecule - but we don't get this to even the 4th para of the lead and even then, that's a confusing paragraph. While I don't disagree that the lead as written follows the advice for WP:LEAD as stated (it is summarizing the article), it simply just gets too deep without warning. I'd rather sacrifice detailed explanations in the lead in exchange for simpler language to hit the high points at the basic level. If you did that in the lead alone, I probably wouldn't have an issue with the rest of the article as to allow that to be an FA. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. Some people say that any article that can an survive an AfD could be an FA. They are clearly talking rubbish. For example, our policies such as WP:V restrain what we can say on some subjects to such a degree that certain topics would never be developed enough. I think the same is true of some highly technical subjects. Wikipedia might tolerate them even when they do break policy, but they don't really serve the vast majority of our readers, who are expecting a general encyclopaedia where they can follow a link to nearly any article and get something from it if they want to. And at FA, they should not only get something from it but actually enjoy reading it through. And yes, the lead has to capture the reader so it has to be rather special and particularly accessible. I think it is possible to write an FA that includes portions that are impenetrable to the general reader, but they would have to be included with great skill so that the reader knew what they could skip and what they should persevere with. And the remainder would have to be comprehensive, engaging, professional and accessible to the 99.99% of readers who will skip those bits. But I don't think this is possible for every topic in "human knowledge". And attempting to allow it to be so, by removing guidelines say, harms the 99% of Wikipedia that can and must be made accessible and engaging for our general readers.

On a more practical level, I don't believe that our understaffed FAC reviewer panel has the resources to be able to judge the quality or accuracy of an article where they can just about get the gist of the lead but little else. This might be overcome by inviting an independent named external expert to judge, but that's not part of the process today. Should "accessible", or some similar wording, be added to WAIFA? Colin°^Talk 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to strongly disagree again. The goal of WP is to have every non-navigational mainspace article Featured; our policies and guidelines are set to drive towards that. If we start along a path that an article can't be featured but can exist because it will be useful to a subset of readers, we're going to create walled gardens of material that "meet" core policies but never need to be understood by a small subset of readers.

Again, it's not that the entire article has to be understood, only the lead and introductory sections that set up the article to define what the topic is in layman's terms and provide relative meaning for why this topic has an article. After that is done, delving into details that require technical knowledge is perfectly acceptable for FA. It makes no sense to gimp articles that are highly technical to have to explain all principles to a basic English level, only that they tell up front what they are about and then move on. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well we may have different thresholds about where the impenetrable stuff begins and whether it can dominate the body or not but the common ground is surely that a general reader coming across such an article (perhaps on the main page or perhaps via a link) should be able to get some of this fabulous "human knowledge" from it. What if all they get is the disappointment in their own inability to even get past the lead paragraph, or the realisation that the writers of this article paid them no regard. Worse if they think that Wikipedia believes that is an example of the best it can do.

As for the "Wikipedia should contain articles on all human knowledge; all articles can be featured", I wonder if I can kill any other sacred cows. These goals sound great but they are harmful when people elevate them above policy and start using them to remove useful guidelines or to ignore policies they find inconvenient. Nobody seriously challenges WP:V with the argument that it is restricting the coverage of human knowledge. Do they? As EdChem pointed out, if I think that rhodocene is hard going, I should read the science journals it draws from. Does anyone seriously think we should host all the knowledge in those science journals? Perhaps we should take a dump from PubMed of all the medical research that has ever been conducted? No, we rightly exercise editorial restraint because our readers would not thank us. Knowing one's audience, its strengths and limitations, is just as important for an apparently unbounded encyclopaedia as it is for a 1000-page one. Colin°^Talk 21:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Masem, could you tell me how you got from "at least 2% of readers" to "all readers"? I'm pretty good with arithmetic, and I believe there's a 98% gap between the two points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

By starting from the fact that articles do not have to be 100% accessible to all readers; as long as a reasonable amount (primarily the lead and maybe the first intro paragraphs) of the content is accessible and understandable to 100% of our readers, that meets the goals that we need. And all this primarily means is writing leads and intro sections in a less technical manner. The result: the article still serves everyone, including those looking for detailed technical information. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it, in your opinion, possible for an article to be "an example of our best work" while it contains one or more sections that are accessible and understandable solely to the single editor who wrote them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, clearly not. But I'm curious to see where this logic is going. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So, if "an example of our best work" cannot contain sections that are understandable solely to their author, would you agree that it is necessary for at least one reader (not counting its author) to be able to understand every part of any given FA article, and that if zero readers (again, not counting its authors) can understand every section, it is not properly considered "an example of our best work"? Do I have that right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that as well - if the article in its entirety cannot be expected to be understood by anyone outside of its author, it cannot be "our best work". --MASEM (t) 00:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So at least one reader (not counting the author) must be able to understand the entire article. Is just one reader enough?

If I write an article, and fifty thousand people read it this year, and 49,999 of them say that they understood either none or only parts of it, but one person says that s/he understood the whole thing, is that enough? Is that an example of our best work?

If one person isn't enough, then how many readers are enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not "one", and I wouldn't be able to give you a number or percent either, nor would I want to. But it has to do with balance of all the information. I would not be critical of an article where 5% of it is written for only 5% of the readership to understand as long as the other 95% is written for wider comprehension. On the other hand, if 50% is written for only 5%, that's likely a problem. The advice of "writing one level below" on the writing tech articles guideline helps to prevent this - you can go detailed if its appropriate but keeps the overall style in a wider appreciation. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for sticking my nose in here, but I think the answer is also dependent on the topic. An accurate and complete article on Andrew Wiles' solution to Fermat's Last Theorem would be unlikely to be understood fully by more than a few thousand people, if that. In the first year after that proof was published I recall one mathematician estimating that less than a hundred people truly understood it (it may have been less than ten, rather than less than a hundred; I don't recall the details). If we'd had an article at that time, it would have similarly been understood only by that many people. The trouble with "widest possible audience" is that if one means "those who, with sufficient application, have enough intelligence to understand" then the audience includes people missing huge chunks of background information. Some restriction is necessary, though I admit I have no formulation to hand that I would trust. Mike Christie (talk – library) 04:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(←) Well, no. We are a tertiary source. We wouldn't describe out the entire proof of Wiles' solution - what would only be understood by few - but instead highlight key points of the proof. That type of highlighted summary can be written towards a larger audience - not 100% of course, but certainly wider than the limited audience that would appreciate the entire proof in whole. That's what external links and references serve to do for us being a tertiary source - help the more advanced readers find more detailed information. --MASEM (t) 05:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Masem is right here: A sufficiently accurate and sufficiently complete article (one that is as accurate and as complete as befits an encyclopedia article, rather than a book or a scholarly journal) on a complex subject can sometimes be written at a quite simple and accessible level.

Masem, I hear you when you say that you don't want to put numbers on it. The standard you describe above is actually quite a bit higher than mine. IMO an article that is 95% understood by 95% of its readers is a true work of art. I appreciate the benefits of your two-factor analysis, considering not only the number of readers who understand everything, but the proportion of the article that is understood by those who didn't understand all of it.

However, as a simpler standard, I am willing—at the very outside limit—to have an entire article be impenetrable to 98% of its actual readers (a range that includes readers deliberately seeking out the article through readers who clicked on Special:Random): even such an opaque article could IMO be "an example of our best work", assuming it is otherwise well done. But when not even 1 in 50 readers can understand the whole page, then I think that is no longer an example of our best work, even if it is actually impossible to write it more clearly.

I believe it would be possible to survey readers on this point. WP:USPP has been crowdsourcing their article assessments, and we could do something similar with FAs. It might be worth asking two questions: 'How much of the article did you read?' and 'How much of what you read did you understand?' WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I worry about playing any numbers game on WP because people looooove the game the process.

What we should be doing is telling reviews at FA/GA to speak up if they don't understand something. I know people complain on poor sentence structure, confusing phrasing and the like, but I've noticed that reviewers are sometimes too polity to say "this reads fine but I don't understand it". There's nothing wrong in saying that and there's nothing wrong in debating this understanding. I know we've had past suggestions about having at least one expert in the field review an article for technical correctness, but I would almost rather see this expert to come in to say if they understand what's being talked about or if the article should be brought down a bit. Even if this doesn't happen, we just need to encourage people to not be afraid to sound stupid or condensing in criticizing the understanding of an article. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Would just be careful of looking at the hardest cases (high level math) for guidance. If we find some of those articles that really are ball-busters to ever get clear to other people, then we give up on a lot of biology for instance that really CAN be explained. And there is a long, pre-wiki, literature on biology (medicine is even worse) being needlessly techie. Even when they write to each other. TCO (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the rationale for including readers who click on Special:Random among those who should understand an article in its entirity? Indeed why should we expect anyone reading an article to understand it in its entirity, rather than only in part, or partially? Geometry guy 00:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If nobody (except the author) understands a given thing (whether it is an article, section, paragraph, or sentence), then having that piece (at all) isn't consistent with our educational mission. Zero comprehension = not educational. Consequently, somebody needs to be able to understand each given piece of material.

IMO if only a very tiny proportion of readers understands a given thing, then we aren't showing off Wikipedia at its best. We're instead showing (inadvertently) the vast majority of our readers that either (1) they're too stupid to understand stuff on Wikipedia or (2) we're too {stupid/lazy/arrogant/reader's choice} to explain it properly. (The choice between the two reactions is doubtless consistent with the reader's basic personality, with people who have relatively low self-esteem tending to choose the first.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that the article in question could be a little kinder and explicit to the non-expert in the lead. Tony (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Most of the comment dismissive of simplicity here is revenge of the nerds bunkum. An encyclopaedia article must start with a presumption of no subject matter expertise by readers, and therefore offer a damned fine plain-English summary of what the rest of the article is about before departing into technicalities. Nerdish arrogance about knowing your field (I would classify myself as a nerd) has no place in an encyclopaedia. Besides, if you can't communicate what quantum mechanics is about to a high school student, you ain't a subject matter expert. The answer to the original question is that if I came across a highly technical article that did not include a summary I could understand, I'd slap a notice on it seeking demotion/improvement/editing until the summary was addressed. What I would never do is go looking for examples just to question them. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

FAC process

Much earlier in this thread, EdChem raised several questions, that I don't really understand.

The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, and Laser brain—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

• actionable objections have not been resolved;
• consensus for promotion has not been reached;
• insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
• a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

  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.

It is my belief that this is clear; please let me know what it lacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Copied from above and numbered for response:

1. Was it going to be made clear who of the delegates was "in charge" of the nomination? Would he or she pop in early in the piece, or monitor and advise the nominator? Would she or he only become clear late in the piece - and in fact, is the person only chosen late in the nomination?
2. How long do things take to get going? I know that the instructions note that most of the comments will be critical (hopefully constructively so) but is it typical for no actual statements of support to appear early? How much support is actually needed? How are comments that just focus on a single issue (say no dablinks, or broken external links) taken? Just in general, how does the process go and what can the nominator expect?
3. What if comments appear that are more about meta-FA issues than about the actual article? In my case, I got "I am tired of FAs on the main page that leave me fighting to figure out what it is, or tell me that it's something it isn't (at least this article might not have the latter problem). I will repeat this comment, possibly, when the gobbly goop is on the main page, and I expect to be ignored then also." I tried to respond, but was wondering how this would be seen, whether I should have done something else, whether these comments would count against the nomination in some way. In the case of a newbie nominator, maybe if a delegate were chosen early and specifically invited the nominator to ask questions about how the process works?
4. As an observation, some editors made encouraging comments (like not ready to support yet, but the article is close, or good work on the changes so far, etc). These may not be useful for some editors but I certainly found them helpful. Particularly for neophytes, I would encourage experienced reviewers to consider including such comments when they seem warranted. They do help for us insecure newcomers.
5. How much scope is there to disagree with the suggestions of a reviewer? If a nominator does disagree, do others jump in and comment, or is this just inviting an automatic oppose?

1. Why should it be? Does that happen in any other part of Wikipedia? Do admins specify in advance who will be closing an AFD? Do crats specify in advance who will be closing an RFA? Do they weigh in as the processes evolve, or do they stay out and let the community speak so they can weigh consensus? The person is not "chosen" any more than any other Wiki process, and it's unclear to me why FAC needs to operate differently than other processes on this matter. We do specify to other delegates when we have recused, but other than that, I see no concern here.
2. Each FAC is different; there are no set answers to these questions, just as they are no set answers for any other of Wiki (except that RFA is always seven days). The delegates' job is to determine when consensus if present that the article meets criteria, and there are many variables in that decision. The only generalities as of today (and they can always change) is that we almost never promote on less than three supports or less than six days. All comments are considered; at times, a comment may be a stronger oppose than an oppose, and I've even seen Supports that actually amounted to oppposes. It's not possible to generalize here.
3. We don't choose delegates early on; that would prejudice the process unnecessarily and is not needed (see above). If a nominator has questions, they can post them to WT:FAC. Discussion should never be limited by one person's idea of what matters; all comments are considered. If a particular discussion is running very far afield of the WP:WIAFA, delegates sometimes move it to talk.
4. Agree.
5. You don't have to agree with all reviewer comments, reviewers are often wrong, but if you do, do so respectfully, or you will quickly find your FACs ignored or derailed. Other reviewers frequently weigh in, which is preferable to delegates having to intervene.

I hope this answers your questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry. It was not clear to me that "The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, and Laser brain—determines the timing of the process for each nomination" means that one of these editors will determine consensus and close the discussion as would occur at the end of (say) an AfD, and will (frequently) not be seen prior to this point. The (obviously erroneous) impression I had was that the chosen delegate would be involved from early in the nomination process. I accept that FAC operates as it does, I just was not clear what the standard processes are.
2. Even the limited generalities you are able provide would be useful for newbies in a 'guide to a "typical" FA'.
3. I considered posting at WT:FAC, but was concerned that it might appear I was trying to push for things to happen when I was only looking for information. Perhaps my reticence is atypical, but I certainly would have liked to have had someone to ask questions without fearing that it could be misconstrued.
4. Glad you agree.
5. I certainly agree that any disagreement should be collegial and polite, but my point was that it isn't easy for a newbie to judge what are acceptable standards, even after looking at some of the existing nominations at FAC. Some guidance would have been appreciated and helpful; that's all I am saying.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I hope you will consider the idea of some additional guidance for newbie editors. EdChem (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since there is confusion on this point, perhaps we could add "No particular delegate is responsible for any specific article; delegates review all FAC discussions regularly and evaluate whether consensus has been reached. A delegate may choose to review an article, in which case the director or another delegate will eventually promote or archive the article."--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that would amount to instruction creep and is already clear (and our instructions are already quite long); does every other Wikipedia process need to explain who will close the discussion? The best way to learn FAC is by following FAC-- many editors who first come to FAC realize that they should familiarize themselves with any process before engaging it, and explaining the obvious in lengthy instructions doesn't seem to me to be a helpful step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the disagreement with reviewers: Yes you can, but put a well-reasoned response. The reviewer will most likely either give in or engage you further. It is rare that a reviewer will, met with rational disagreement, forthwith jump into the oppose column, and if that happens a delegate will decide if the oppose is "actionable".--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto to above-- you can disagree with anyone anywhere on the Wikipedia, but if you do it with an inappropriate tone, you often pay-- we don't need more instructions here for what is common to most Wikipedia prcesses. Same to EdChem's general question about a post to WT:FAC-- what is common to all Wikipedia processes is to avoid CANVASSing-- no further explanation is necessary, and you can always post to a talk page. I'm sorry, but I suspect that EdChem is just much too sensitive about this particular FAC, because of the prose and lead issues, and I see no need to expand instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I will add one more thing: reputation does matter at FAC. A rookie may not be able to go as far in opposing a reviewer as an experienced, well-known FA writer, not because it's a clique here but because the latter has built a reputation that the reviewer will consider in deciding whether to press his point.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm very happy for delegates to pop in and make comments. They have a record of doing so in a way that is not at all a threat to their need to be seen as impartial. Tony (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Laser Brain's comments at the recent History of the New York Jets FAC helped move the process along nicely.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I think your reticence about seeming to push at WT:FAC is honorable. Even though you merely wanted information, it might not have been received that way, because of the number of people in this and other forums that use "just asking for information" as a cover for being pushy. I have, in similar circumstances, found that a message on a user talk page (or even e-mail) to a specific person who seems to be active in the area is an effective way to elicit information, and perhaps to have the "I didn't want to ask at ____ because I worried that it might seem like I was pushing for immediate action, rather than just trying to figure out this complicated process" statement be believed. You might consider that approach if it comes up again in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing - I have learned from this that Andy / Laser Brain would be an appropriate person to approach in future if I needed help, in the event I ever decide to return to FAC. EdChem (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I share some of Ed's questions/comments on the process. It's not a no-brainer that the way things are being done is the only way to do them or the best way. And other wiki processes are not the only model to consider. Journal process of review is another model (where there is a designated editor for the piece and he is involved along the way with the reviews, not just picked at the end to close...and provides value at times, over a pure reviewer-author interaction. And at times, I've heard what makes FA better is that it's NOT too much like some of the other wiki processes. Even with other wikiprocesses, you can look at FAR or FLC and they seem to function better when a delegate is involved as things are moving along, not just deus ex machina.

But in any case, even if everything stays as is (and I'm not really arguing for a change per se, just the "why wouldn't it be this way", I have to push back on), I don't think it's completely clear how things work. Like is the "three supports" thing written down somewhere? You could have a caveat or the like if you wanted to cover exceptions, but I honestly had no idea of this "three supports". I had just heard all the "this is not a vote" and figured the delegate would close without trying for some number of supports.TCO (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The "three supports" thing is just a useful guide for when we will start looking at a nomination as a serious candidate for promotion. You shouldn't latch onto it as any sort of indicator of whether the nomination will pass, which is precisely why it's not published anywhere. There are a great number of factors at play. Some of these factors are the strength of the support (how substantive is it? did the reviewer appear to apply WP:WIAFA or is it a drive-by support? etc.), the strength of any outstanding opposition or comments, the level of attention from editors familiar with the subject, the source/image/plagiarism review, and so on. Even if a nomination has strong support, we still examine the article to determine if more review is needed. It is not a numbers game at all. Something with three supports and one opposition that points out fundamental problems would not be promoted until the problems were resolved. There's no way I would promote a ship article with three supports but zero attention from anyone at the MILHIST project. My point is, for every scenario that fits the model, there are ten that don't.--Andy Walsh (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind inaccessible... what about bad writing?

I've just seen this thread, having been at the article and left a message at Talk:Rhodocene#Lead_difficulty. I gave up after reading the first paragraph. It's not just written inaccessibly, it's worse than that, if the rest of it is like the first paragraph, it's written badly. I'm genuinely shocked it's passed FAC. And I don't think I've ever said that before. --Dweller (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We are lacking in reviewers; this is a big problem, and in particular, highly specialized topics should receive review by laypersons. Where were our reviewers? I do recall that Kleopatra gave up on FAC, stating that she was often ignored; why were her comments not acted upon? I took a wiki travelbreak for several weeks, so I don't know if the article was ever added to the Urgents list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've neglected reviewing for a long time. So much to do, in RL and onwiki. One thing that puts me off is the feeling I need to see an FAC through completely - I put a lot of time and energy into doing a complete and thorough copyedit. Incidentally, my comments above are not aimed at detracting from the author or the delegates - it's squarely the reviewers. Including me. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was in the urgents list, for more than two weeks from Jan 21 through Feb 8. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's all about love

As an antidote to this to-and-fro about "what is the encyclopedia for?" and "who is the audience?", I recommend a hearty dose of Pillar One ("Wikipedia... incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers") washed down with the warming tonic of Wikipedia:Many things to many people, a *beautiful essay*.

Our audience is the entire world, because we write and publish (under GFDL) for everyone: Wikipedia is freely available to anyone with an internet connection, and free to copy and distribute to those without (Wikipedia is not, primarily, a publisher).

Yet we don't exclude material which cannot be explained in pictures to those who do not understand English, nor do we exclude material because it makes sense only to those with an educated English language culture. We don't exclude material because it requires prior knowledge, or a willingness to learn, from history, popular culture, or science, to understand it fully.

What we do is strive to make each part of every article as accessible as possible to the widest possible audience of readers who might be interested in that material. We provide links to other articles which explain the terms we use, and to resources, such as textbooks, which teach the background needed to understand what the reader wants to learn.

In short, we love the reader, no matter their background: we do not say "this is too advanced to tell you about, so we won't" any more than we say "the following is only understandable by smart people"; instead we say "here's a rough explanation; if you want to know more, learn about this" and "for those who (now) know more, here are some more details". And, ideally, we keep going, so that everyone has the opportunity to become as expertly informed about any topic which interests them as they want to be. That is what those who talk about "the sum of human knowledge" mean.

Articles which do this deserve to be considered as our best work, even if the learning curve is steep and the likely readership is tiny. We demonstrate that Wikipedia is about knowledge, not popularity or familiarity, and present our readership (the world) with an opportunity to learn. That is love.

Excluding information because it requires prior understanding of other information is not only unencyclopedic, it is unloving. Geometry guy 23:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy wiki-Valentine's day. You wrote what I wanted to say, but the prose wouldn't have been as good. Sasata (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That goes double for me. :) I can't imagine a more eloquent distillation of our good faith and best practice as Wikipedians. Willow (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(wipes tear from eye). I wish we did do those things you say. But somebody removed the guideline that said we had to "strive to make each part of every article as accessible as possible to the widest possible audience". They did it because we have inaccessible featured articles. We no longer have guideline advice that editors should start with a "rough explanation" that general readers can follow and move onto more advanced stuff. I agree that we don't have a hatnote saying "the following is only understandable by smart people" but it will dawn on the reader soon enough. A reader can't become as "informed... as they want to be" because editors are now free to write for whatever audience they care to. An editor can decide "this is an advanced topic, clearly of only interested to people with a degree in X" and then write just for those people. And they do. They can sprinkle some wikilinks over the big words and expect the reader to jump off all over Wikipedia in a desperate attempt to parse a single sentence in the lead. Part of being a general encyclopaedia (with specialist topics, not topics only readable by specialists) is the appreciation that readers come to articles in subjects that they are not experts in. It isn't about how smart the reader is. It is about respecting (loving) the reader enough to say "I know you are smart but this is probably all new to you so I'll take you gently through it". It is about loving the reader (the 99% of readers we actually have) enough to say "This bit is so advanced and obscure that only specialists care about it so I'll give you an overview and you can skip that section". And it is about showing some editorial restraint where required, but it seems that is a bad word here. I thought Wikipedia was about making knowledge accessible to all people. -- Colin°^Talk 08:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki is not therapy, and I agree with Colin that if we're spreading around Wikilove in the spirit of Valentine's Day, it should be to our readers. But on the subject of "tough love", this may be a good time to once again try to impress upon EdChem that when a FAC is the subject of this much controversy, and when the FAC review mentioned the very problems subsequently raised, it doesn't bode well for an easy time on the mainpage. This article most likely will appear on the mainpage, as it's our only non-TFA chemistry article, and our readers' reception is likely to be "What the heck?", exactly as we've seen here. FA folk tend to protect their own, as a mainpage day debacle reflects poorly upon all of us and on the process; I strongly urge EdChem to make the necessary adjustments-- as raised in the article's FAC by at least Kleopatra and several others here and on article talk-- so that he can have an enjoyable and productive mainpage day that will highlight his knowledge and work while not reflecting negatively upon FAC. Ending up at FAR as a result of mainpage day is not pleasant, as many experienced FA writers can share. On the subject of "love", we all want what's best for the article and its author-- a pleasant mainpage day that reflects Wiki's best work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed Wikipedia is not therapy, not for me anyway :) and my above comment refers quite specifically to our readers ("In short, we love the reader"). However, Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so it is important to articulate aspirations and ideals, even if they are not always achieved, as that motivates contributors to continue contributing. There's a place for cynicism and outrage too, but Wikipedia is not a professional wrestling match: too much weight being thrown around, even according to the script, may lead to unnecessary clashes and regrettable fall-outs. I will therefore be glad if my above comments help those who champion accessibility and those who defend specialist content to understand each other better: these goals are perfectly compatible.

The disagreements can be matters of language. I would say Wikipedia is more than a general encyclopedia, but also that specialist encyclopedias are not only for specialists. When we talk about "the reader", "our readers", "99% of readers", what do we mean? In my reference above to the "widest possible audience of readers who might be interested in that material" the last clause cannot be omitted, nor can "might be" be replaced by "are". Such fine distinctions are easily lost, but they are crucial. Advanced topics account for at most 1% of our articles, and FAC may see a disproportionate number, just as it sees a disproportionate number of obscure or niche topics. These are not the articles most readers meet. We have to credit that the reader of an article on an advanced topic is motivated, but not assume that they already have all the background knowledge.

I'm encouraged by the dialog at WT:MTAA. It is fortunate that one of Wikipedia's most level-headed editors, CBM, is contributing in depth to the discussion. Guidelines exist to reflect consensus on good practice, not dictate it. Let us ensure this one reflects our common goals. Geometry guy 00:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was vaguely aware that a big discussion had blown up about this, and I've read most of what was said above (there were some very interesting points made), but I think it is best if I comment at the WT:MTAA page instead of here, or at the rhodocene talk page. FWIW, I am one of those that agree with what Colin was saying, and raised my eyebrows a bit when someone claimed he was the only one taking that stance. Any writer who has any real experience of writing (and having their writing accepted and rejected by editors) knows that you have to have some idea of what audience you are writing for, even if (as some have suggested) that the level you write to can change during the article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• I can't speak to the rhodocene example that started this all, though I do know that our science articles have a technical touch to them (the great Lemur article was my first introduction to dentition and it's odd semi-math language). I write almost exclusively baseball articles so I'll speak in that language. Many of the articles I've worked on include the term home run, which is wikilinked (to hopefully provide the reader with further information if so needed/desired), but the only time I've ever explained what a home run is was at List of Major League Baseball home run champions (where it's obviously more directly pertinent). The issue I have with your argument/suggestion is that MOS:CLEAR runs both ways. Specifically it reads "Writing should be clear and concise." (emphasis added) Technical language and style exists for a reason, it works to better and succinctly explain complex topics. Again I realize it's not the science-style topics you were discussing, but take that home run champion list (so not even the prose length of an article) I mentioned. It at least explains a home run, but a long list of other more technical/involved subtopics (What are the positions? What is baseball? What is MLB? What's the Hall of Fame? etc, etc) are all unexplained and left packed into single, wikilinked terms. The more you expand language to satisfy the clarity requirement of MOS:CLEAR you bump into the conciseness issue. It must be a balancing test, not merely one or the other. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Guideline: Make technical articles understandable

I've restored guideline status to Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and included some of Geometry guy's wording as the nutshell. There are problably some loose ends and guideline naming issues wrt the MoS as there seems to have been a rebranding exercise since this page was turned into an essay. Any help in this regard would be useful. Colin°^Talk 10:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony has reverted the guideline change. Apparently every sentence has to be perfect before it can join the precious Mos. Could someone with some common sense please make that page a Content Guidline outside of Mos. It is more important that where the semicolons go and we can work on fixing the odd sentence. None of our policies and guidelines are perfect; they are all a work in progress. Colin°^Talk 08:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispatch?

I think the gist of the answers to the original questions should be put into a dispatch (Wikipedia:Featured content dispatch workshop) and that dispatch be linked somewhere in the instructions on the FAC page. This way newbies to FACs have some extra instructions/suggestions that they can rely to. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A recommendation

I've had time to review several articles this weekend, and I thought I'd mention here how much I've just enjoyed reading HMS Speedy (1782). I haven't reviewed many ship articles, and I have heard a couple of times here that they're not always the most exciting articles to review, so I wanted to let folks know that this is the first FAC I've ever reviewed that made me laugh out loud. The article overall is well-written, and I was finding it easy going, but when I got to Thomas Cochrane's capture of the Gamo it put a grin on my face for the rest of the article. It sounds like fiction, and I wasn't at all surprised to discover that some of the events had been used in the plot of Master and Commander. The article is also a bit short of reviews, so if you are looking for something enjoyable to read which will allow you to check off your weekly quota of FAC reviewing, I recommend that you take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. And btw, we're happy to take requests at WT:MIL on what kinds of articles interest you guys. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Mike! I reviewed the article, but I didn't have much to recommend since it is already so well written.-RHM22 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My general request would be to develop topics that have high Google ranking. Sure, do what interests you, combat recentism, etc. But if you have a choice, serve the market. An FA on the Battle of the Bulge is going to do more for the world than some obscure ship or aircraft from Jane's.

This is kind of a wacky one and actually has a bit of an element of "art" to it, not properly military, really (maybe get the Hoxne hoard types involved). But I would love to see an FA on the Nazi batons that the field marshalls had. I hate Hitler and all, but those guys had some styling uniforms! You gotta admit people are drawn to that whole era (look at all the wargames and how people always want to play as the Germans).TCO (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

400 free Credo Reference accounts available

Another 400 free Credo Reference accounts have been made available for Wikipedians, kindly donated by the company and arranged by Erik Möller of the Wikimedia Foundation. We've drawn up some eligibility criteria to direct the accounts to content contributors, and after that it's first-come, first-served. The list will open on Wednesday, March 23 at 22:00 UTC, and will remain open for seven days. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts.

Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the 400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible, and good luck! SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Neat! Do you have any information on there about coins, such as histories or legislation? That's what I would be most interested in.-RHM22 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo reference list TCO (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Found some, not sure if it has the detail you want. You will require an account to see Banking growth and The fed and the 1950s. It's from this/this book. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be most interested in legislation and the annual report from the Director of the Mint, because those are sometimes very hard to find in full.-RHM22 (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but does anyone know where I can find access to Harper's Weekly back issues from the 19th century? I know there's a website, but it apparently costs a lot to gain access and only some libraries have it.-RHM22 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There are parts available on Google Books. See here, for example. The best thing is to do a search for the words you're looking for, or the topic, plus Harper's. Some pages show up that way that wouldn't show otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that! For some reason, I can find most of the Harper's Magazine (monthly), but Weekly is much harder to find except for clips here and there. Weekly is the one that has the most useful stuff, especially cartoons.-RHM22 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just commenting here in general, to say that I initially signed up for this the first time round, then withdrew when I realised I could access similar reference works by joining a local library (which I did). I've also found that such resources are only useful as a first pass, and most often useful for initial work on an article. For more in-depth work, you invariably need paid-access to journals or to borrow or buy books on the subjects. My view is that this sort of thing is useful for certain types of fact-checking and overall balance on higher-level articles, but less so for obscure articles. Carcharoth (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

April 1^st

To let everyone know it's at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#April 1. — Dispenser 04:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pigeon photographer has been proposed for this purpose, but it would need to go through FAC first. I am going to make some changes based on the peer review, and I think after that it's ready. But it would be my first FAC and I don't want to piss off any of the regulars by proposing an article that is not actually ready. Comments are welcome. Hans Adler 10:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is March 24th ... there is little practical possibility of an article passing FAC in less than a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What a pity. I just finished implementing the feedback from peer review. I guess if it looks as if it's ready I had best propose it shortly after the magic date to make sure nobody feels under pressure? Hans Adler 12:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)

This article went through a PR and failed to pass FA. Now back in PR. What was the reason for it not passing? (I'm not contesting the not pass, I just can't tell from the "not promoted" what was wrong with it. Or from the rest of the reviews, since there were no opposes and review comments seem to have been adressed.)TCO (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears as though there were too few supports. I remember reading somewhere that the delegates won't promote an article unless it has at least three supports, but that could be wrong. I'm sure someone will answer with more authority.-RHM22 (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an incorrect assumption—I think I answered someone about that way above somewhere. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Link? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It didn't really sound right, but I thought it might be since it said that somewhere. Here's a link to the FAC for Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song), if that's what you wanted the link to.-RHM22 (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

revisiting revisiting

• I saw a thread on Sandy's talk (thread was about dashes) which veered off into the topic of trying to give only a few examples on a page that is full of poor prose (or some other problem), but the nominator then fixes your two or three examples and asks you to revisit. In that sort of situation I always explicitly state in my comments, "Please do not fix these few examples and ask me to revisit this nom. I won't. I will not change my !vote until after this nom has been withdrawn and extensively copy edited (or whatever)." In other words, 1) Just say no, and 2) just say no before you ever even press Save... [BTW: This trick works for long-winded phone callers too. Tell them you only have two minutes as soon as you recognize their voice. ;-)]. People may think you're being a bit hard-nosed, but then, well, you are. And should be.  – Ling.Nut 12:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just say something like "sorry, I don't believe that this is ready for FA yet. I would suggest you remove the nomination and give the article a thorough copyedit. Here are a few suggestions, however..." That way, it's not likely to discourage. Almost all of the articles that come up on FAC (at least that I've noticed) are pretty good quality to begin with, so it's not a good idea to be overly stern unless it's obviously a joke nomination or something.-RHM22 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As a thought, perhaps we could inspire people to remove unready nomination by saying that any nomination withdrawn within, say 48 hours does not subject the nominators to the two-week disqualification. I'd also like to see us reassess that rule at some point.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt in regards to that rule, and it is an excellent idea to help encourage nominators to voluntarily withdraw hopeless nominations. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the current promotion rate? (Trying to get some feel for how much savings is made if we fail something earlier...the lower the promotion rate, the more benefit from failing early. Given Parkinson (sorry) passed eventually it could be more an argument for trying to fix things. Also, I would think reviewers can pretty much disengage with something hopeless voluntarily, so I really wonder the dynamis of what time-savings is envisioned. The major investment is the initial review. So unless, you stop that somehow, you're not saving much.TCO (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure an exact number, anecdotally, I think about half of the reviews fail. Just looking at last month though, 26 pass to 21 fail. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've sometimes cut off an initial review and advised the nominator to withdraw and do more work on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

RHM22's thoughtful wording is almost guaranteed to elicit a response of "Thanks, but I'll just go forward" and a general digging in of heels. Wehwalt's suggestion seems to be headed in a good direction and might help alleviate that problem, but I would suggest that the initial 48 hour deadline is a bit unworkable. Sometimes noms might not get any really painstaking crits within 48 hours. We could say, "Oh just withdraw any time, and if you withdraw then there's no waiting period", but then people would really start gaming the system and treating FAC as a substitute for PR. Just off the top of my head, I don't know of any way to pursue the two goals of crafting a system that constitutes a) a rapid but gentle ejector seat for noms that aren't even close to being ready, but b) a foolproof way to prevent gaming the system and using FAC as PR. Are the goals mutually exclusive? I hope not. – Ling.Nut 00:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they decide to keep the nomination open, then just oppose it with reasoning, and I'm sure others will do the same. Personally, I would heavily discourage any overly negative language unless the nominators is abusing the system or adding obvious joke articles.-RHM22 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To get around the issue of no commentary within the initial 48 hour period - perhaps have no penalty for a withdrawal within 48 hours of a reviewer suggesting the article be withdrawn? Not trying to increase anyone's workload, or make things more complicated, just trying to make both things work. Canada Hky (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "I decline to revisit" is overly negative. Oh and BTW, in my first post I forgot to say that this particular statement would never be used except when a) the nom is really a mess from top to bottom, and b) I !vote Oppose... Canada Hky's idea is an idea... • Ling.Nut (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How about within 24 hours after the first comment which speaks to whether or not the article should be promoted? Doesn't have to be a support of oppose particularly.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, noms occasionally get immediate fan-club !votes. Please see ref: gaming the system. I know it sounds negative, but it would have to be 24 or 48 hours after the first request that a nom be withdrawn... or after the first Oppose, I suppose, but that seems less well targeted to the issue. ..All of these rules seem a bit twiddly, though... And besides, it might take them 2 weeks to get the thing in presentable shape! I dunno... • Ling.Nut (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nominators should be able to state how long they think it will take them to get an article into shape. If it will be two weeks or less (or more), then withdrawing early is good and should be encouraged. Hardly any reviewer time will have been wasted. Anything after 24-48 hours is too late, IMO. Or maybe 24-48 hours after the first oppose? The issue of a second submission that is also withdrawn within 24-48 hours is a bit more problematic. This should only apply to first submissions. Someone who submits a second time should really be ready at that point. Carcharoth (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) To avoid gaming, I suspect the best answer is a hard time limit, based on filing. I think 48 hours after the nom is fair and easy to implement. We seem to at least be getting source reviews during that time, and if there is a long list of problems, the nom needs to decide whether to take his chance or withdraw.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Make it 72. Plus I'll have to start watching the top of the list rather than the bottom. • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the idea is to reduce the strain on the delegates, by weeding out some articles before they have to act on them. Of course, they can always take unilateral action to remove an article, but this should eliminate some of that need. And an article only gets this chance once.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what everyone else says. And it still seems a bit twiddly, but... maybe it will help cut down the number of (needlessly) marathon FACs. • Ling.Nut (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if this would completely stop an editor from withdrawing, "fix[ing] your two or three examples" and then just renominating without the old comments still present. Gaming the system as Ling.nut pointed out. It could be a cycle for some but I think it would increase the chances for improvement and less problem-FACs making it further down the list though. I don't think there is a full-proof way of solving the problem aside from reviewers being truculent.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, no one has ever tried to change my mind when I posted my "truculent" and "overly negative" (just quoting posts above) approach, as discussed above. It has worked quite well for me.• Ling.Nut (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think people gaming the system by withdrawing and renominating is a significant problem. I've never seen it happen. At the most, it is very rare. --Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible that a shorter turn around would encourage that? I have only worked in this project a few months but get that feeling. Also, I am not supporting really aggressive "biting" reviewers; there is always a fine line between encouragement and streamlining a reviewing process. I agree that encouragement to withdraw from a few editors during that 48-72 hour period would be helpful for an editor to return rather then ditch their FAC.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. Particularly useful for prose issues where there isn't a MOS or a policy to point to, and if a new FAC nominator doesn't "get" prose style they very likely won't "get it" in a few days of heated FAC debate. The Land (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rules, rules, rules ... all gameable, and all restrict delegate discretion. Easier solution-- more reviewers oppose and suggest withdrawal of ill-prepared noms, delegates can close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And do so firmly. Like I said... the rules are twiddly and gameable. They all kinda sound good when you're talking about them, but... screw it. Just say "I will not revisit". Be firm. Firmness is not rudeness. • Ling.Nut (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case it is. What if they do fix the article quickly? Some people can make quick work of something like that.-RHM22 (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• No. It isn't. And they can't, else I wouldn't. • Ling.Nut (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what kind of nomination it is. Like I said, if it's an obvious joke or something then there's no need to take a softer approach.-RHM22 (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We need more reviews like what Ling.Nut has mentioned when an article is not ready. Speaking as someone who's been a nominator, a reviewer, and a delegate, I think we should be looking for solutions that ease the burden on everyone. But, I'm most concerned about reviewers, who are surely the most overtaxed of the three. I don't think making more rules is the answer—I think more consensus-building is needed. For example, I've seen Nikkimaria go in at the start of a nomination and oppose over prose or sourcing issues. If that is the only comment for days on end, as a delegate I can only sit on it and see what happens, unless the article is egregiously unprepared. However, if other reviewers chime in and we have additional substantive opposition, the nominator may be compelled to withdraw or a delegate may have enough consensus to archive early. The two-week rule was imposed to examine and act on feedback before bringing things back, but it hasn't been completely effective. I still see nominators wait two weeks and re-post a nom without any substantive work being done. For those who blitz it for 4 or 5 days and want to bring it back, they can easily ask a delegate for an exception. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just cannot see the benefit of using negative language in reviews, other than something like "this is not ready for featured status" or something like that. Something like "I will not revisit this" is unnecessary, when something more softly worded can get across the same message. I wouldn't be personally offended by it, because it seems ridiculous to get offended by anything on the internet, but I'd bet a lot of people would be. Of course, it's just an opinion. What seems negative to me might seem merely honest to others.-RHM22 (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on negative language. It's normally sufficient to say the article is not ready and leave sample issues. Delegates are paying attention and understand why a laundry list has not been left. However, speaking to Ling's point, try leaving feedback like that on 5–10 nominations and see how many nominators are satisfied with your not enumerating everything that's wrong with the article. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Human nature being what it is, I'm a bit concerned that Ling Nut's method (though I get where he's coming from!) would cause people to dig in their heels.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Of course, not even lighter language will satisfy all or even most of the nominators if you were to tell them that their FAC is not ready. Still, I think it's the best approach to avoid offending any of the thin skinned individuals. I think the best way would be to point out a few of the bigger issues, oppose the nomination and recommend that they withdraw it and put it through PR or have someone give it a good looking through.-RHM22 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki editors tend to be an ornery bunch. I know I am:)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. FACs go on and on simply because people continue adding kilobytes of text. If you don't add anything, you don't prolong the process. Let's say I spot a large number of egregious errors on a FAC, point out four or five, then say "Oppose, I will not revisit." I have accomplished four things: a) I have registered a +O on that FAC nom. b) Crucially, I have stopped adding text to the page, doing my bit to starve the FAC of input. c) I have sent a signal to the nominator that he or she needs to recalibrate his or her expectations about the level of quality required before nomming an article for FAC. d) I have sent a signal to other reviewers that (in my opinion at least) they should do the same as I did. Along comes Reviewer B. He or she sees my (+O no R) and is now alert to the possibility that he or she may wanna do the same. If, oh rapturous day, he or she does the same as I did, then we have 2 +Os, and (crucially, again) two people no longer contributing... If nominators drag stuff into FAC that is so far from FA that it would make me say "I will not revisit", then they do certainly need to be informed of that fact. They need to be apprised of reality (or at the very least, my personal version of reality, which may very well be shared by other reviewers). To be honest, they probably didn't even know it was so bad. They will now recalibrate their expectations, and their subsequent noms will be in better shape. That is known as "learning". Any way it goes, it's a win for FAC. • Ling.Nut (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I still can't understand why it's a good idea to add as little as possible to the FAC. It seems to me that we should endeavor to do the opposite. Simply saying "oppose, I will not revisit" is excessively harsh and is not likely to encourage more contributions from that person. Most of the nominations that I've seen at least have some potential, and scaring away a good or even passable content contributor is never a good idea. By simply rewording "oppose, will not revisit" to something a little more softly worded will really cut down on that possibility. Frankly, I don't understand the rejection of such a simple concept. Now, like I said, if there is an editor that is consistently nominating the same bad article or articles without paying any attention to the reviews, harsher language is called for, but not in the case of a person that is trying their best and is willing to listen to reviewers.-RHM22 (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• If you want to be nice, then keep a textfile on your computer desktop that has verbiage like this (this is written on the fly; you can improve it):

Oppose. I wanna tell you that I appreciate your hard work in bringing this interesting article about [BLANK HERE] to WP:FAC. Because of your fascinating article, I learned that [BLANK HERE], which I thought was a [BLANK HERE] tidbit of information. However, I regret to say that not only do I Oppose this nom at this time, I think it needs such extensive revisions that I will not revisit this nom until after it has been withdrawn for extensive revision. Here are some examples (list examples). Thank you, and have a nice day.

• The problem with this approach is that if you are nice in this manner, an orange band will flare across your screen within 24 hours, and the nominator will say, "Oh thank you for your kind words. You are such a kind person, unlike that evil Ling.Nut! I know you said you wouldn't look again, but please note my large round innocent eyes and general timid demeanor. Please revisit. Oh pretty please." At that point you are in a no-win situation: If you say yes, then you feed the marathon FAC. If you say No, then (ironically) it makes you look even more cruel than if you said no sharply to begin with! Trust me, I speak from experience. • Ling.Nut (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• And that praise and three bucks gets me a cup of coffee at Starbucks (exclusive provider of virtual coffee to the WIki). I would say instead that I don't think the article's faults can be fixed within FAC time and that I would prefer not to be asked to revisit it unless it is the only thing standing in the way of promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• You just said what I said. Great minds think alike, and so do ours. • Ling.Nut (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you all are trying to streamline the process rather than improve the product too much. There is nothing "special" about a short review page. That's back office stuff. If anything that is more a sign of processes where people "vote", rather than engage and dig. Look at the chipped in "supports" on RFA. If we are really trying to make good documents and people are engaging with them heavily, the comments will be long. This happens in academia. It happens in the work world when going over a PowerPoint deck or a prospectus. A lot of the "too long" is just a false expectation of what a review should look like as well as the all on one page system (and the delegate's not assigning articles from the beginning as journals do to subeditors). For the long reviews, just put them on the talk. Obviously reviewers should be encouraged to throw out an oppose when they want to, or when they are frustrated that the article is too far away. But even very GOOD articles that pass, can still be expected to have long review pages. That's just a part of where things have gone in terms of the seriousness of the engagement with the articles.TCO (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think some folks are confusing FAC with Peer Review, though. When an article comes to FAC it shouldn't NEED lots of fiddling and changes. Granted, sometimes this will happen, but ideally you bring something close to ready to FAC, and there shouldn't need to be long extended discussions. The "engaging and digging" should be done before reaching this point. This isn't an academic peer review journal/paper process, and trying to assume it is will just lead to reviewer burn out. And I say this having been involved with FAC for quite a while, and having shepherded quite a few through. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It might not be Wikipedia peer review (which from the discussion does not exist anyhow). But it IS kissing cousins with normal academic peer review...the system journals use. None of us are professionals. We're fellow wiki article writers examining each other's work product. TCO (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Peer Review... sure looks like a peer review system is there. And it usually works okay too. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You're so funny. I wasn't saying that the page did not exist. I was referring to the earlier comment on this thread that input into articles at PR was not sufficient. Also, you're getting way to wrapped around the names of words rather than the meaning. WE do "reviews" here...and they are by "peers". And I could care less about WP having some page called "peer review" when I've experienced the real thing and can taste it when I eat it and know its benefits. P.s. Do you really think that cause something has gone through PR, it does not ever fall into the bucket of "problem children" FA submissions? Do you really think it's such a strong check?TCO (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually think Wikipedia Peer Review is FARTHER from the meaning of peer review than this place. Look, you only have one person go over it. The intention is a brushup before submission. It's like pre-submission vetting.TCO (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's just not true. Take a look at this peer review for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a PR in terms of depth and number. I looked at 10 PRs and saw none that detailed and very few with more than one respondent. You wouldn't be trying to make a general argument off of an unrepresentative sample would you, Mall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

No, that would be you, when you said "Look, you only have one person go over it". I don't take much part in PR except when I'm specifically asked, and I'd agree that they can be patchy depending on who turns up, or even if anyone does. To be honest though, looking at the comments and contributors to the PR I linked to it's pretty much like an FAC anyway, so I'm really not sure it saved FAC anything. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I still maintain that what we do here is (and should be) a lower case peer review. You Wikians are so taken by the "title" peer review for that page over there, which is really more of a pre-submission brush up, before you submit thing, that you lose track that what we are doing here is review by peers for "publication" (in the sense of the star, front page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

What we do here is in no sense a "review by peers"; it's simply an assessment of whether or not an article meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In theory you're right, but I think we all know that in practice FAC is invariably another reviewing process. Not since its initial stages in 2004 has FAC been a matter of "support" or "oppose", but now we have nomination pages exceeding 5,000 words, often the result of only two or three reviews. I'm not saying this is ideal – I'd love a more rigorous pre-FAC scrutinizing process – but unfortunately that's just how I see it. Juliancolton (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Less often if its been through PR than if it comes to FAC without PR. I'm not saying that we shouldn't review hard at FAC, I'm also saying that nominators shouldn't expect FAC reviewers to bring an article up to FA standards. It should be really close to those standards before ever reaching the FAC stage. I certainly felt like I contributed quite a lot to John of England when I reviewed - i did a number of copyedits as well as bringing issues to the FAC page, but the article was close to standard. When something is far outside the standard, it's kinder and easier to just state that, rather than spending time I'd be better off spending on other candidates. It might be instructive to look at some of the older FACs - I'm thinking of Ralph Bakshi, which has had (probably a record) 9 FACs, and still hasn't made it to FA status. While the vast majority of FACs are close to the FA standard, there are enough that come to FAC unprepared that reviewers should be able to state that the article is so far from standard that it needs to be withdrawn and come back after extensive work. We shouldn't let FACs that are below standard keep reviewers from candidates that are close to passing. THat's pretty much what everyone is stating here, quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree. I haven't seen as many articles as you, so I appreciate the perspective on what the real stinkers are, the close ones, the no-brainer passes (if we had three buckets). I do worry about cutting off in depth discussion of the ones in the fair and good buckets. As someone upthread said, it is a normal process to engage with a work, to go over it thoroughly. Maybe some examples of clear stinkers, that should have been gotten rid of earlier? Then we can discuss how to stop that (if it is the reviewers or delegates who should act).TCO (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The one example I've heard was Parkinson. And that's an interesting example since it DID eventually pass. But I guess the argument is it should have done its progressing outside the sytem? That might be inefficient (although perhaps the work would be the same if it happened on some other page and not FAC), but is not as dispiriting as examples where lots of work is done on stuff that fails, no? Those you would want to cut earlier if able to recognize them.TCO (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I must say, after reading through Ling's comments, I still cannot understand his or her apparent distaste for my suggestion of simply toning down the caustic "I will not revisit" statement. Firstly, I would never recommend a template for anything other than vandalism warnings, but if I was going to rubber stamp FACs, it would look more like this: "Oppose Sorry, but I don't believe that this article is of high enough quality to be upgraded to featured status. For example, <reason>, <reason>, though there are more issues as well. I suggest you remove this nomination and put the article up for peer review or request a thorough copyediting. Until then, I do not believe that it meets the FA criteria." That's plainly spoken, gets to the point and suggests alternatives without biting the newbies. Ling's proposal is basically to tell reviewers that the article sucks and that he will not reconsider the suckiness of the article. In other words, your time spent adding to the article has been useless and there are no suggestions as to how it can be improved. It's not difficult to see how that might upset a first time nominator. I shouldn't have to say this, but it will undoubtedly be pointed out if I don't: this nicely worded message (or a like one) would not be given to people abusing the system or continually nominating the same article without fixing anything. There's a clear distinction (in my mind) between people who may be new to the process and do not have a clear grasp of everything that's involved and people who are just messing around adding stuff.-RHM22 (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems I have is that the way I review it is easy to find something wrong with every article that arrives at FAC (whether the problems rise to the level of opposing is something I've never been able to work out satisfactorily in such a way that I can be consistent, and I tend to avoid articles that are clearly not ready for FAC unless no-one else has already pointed out the problems). So I have to choose between opposing every FAC (with reasons, of course), or bringing out the perceived problems during my review and seeing if the nominator agrees that they are problems that need fixing. In essence, my approach is "shake hard - if article doesn't fall apart, it is probably OK" (and yes, I'm simplifying somewhat here). Of course, this may be the wrong way to approach FAC, and shaking an article hard may not be appreciated by some nominators, but part of the reason FACs need to involve some length is to see how the article and its editors stand up to the pressures of a thorough review. If I thought an article was poor enough that it couldn't be remedied at FAC, I would either oppose and state why, or not bother reviewing it. Actually, that's not true. The foregoing is more an ideal. At the moment, I read the candidates that look interesting, and I haven't found any interesting ones that had severe problems. But that gives me an idea (see below). Carcharoth (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

From the above, I have a question. Is the best approach to look down the entire FAC list, scan through all the articles and read them briefly, and then pick out the stragglers that you judge are not ready, oppose those, and only then move on to review the ones that have potential? If that is a good approach, I'd be happy to do that. The only problem is that once you start reading an article, you notice points that need making in a review, and get sucked in before you can even look at the others on the list. And even a brief oppose takes time. Maybe all regular reviewers should stifle that impulse and look at every nomination (that they think they can usefully opine on) and give initial thoughts, and then return a week later and do a fuller review if it is still there. If its not still there, it will probably have been withdrawn or archived. I'm sure the idea of 'initial' views is not new, so presumably there is a problem with this approach? Carcharoth (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this thread so I'll be brief. I agree with RHM that the "I will not revisit" formula is unnecessarily harsh and indeed arrogant. It reflects a master-and-servant relationship between nominator and reviewer that ought not to exist. Even when an article has obviously been nominated prematurely, there are generally politer and more positive ways of making this clear. However, not all long FAC discussions arise from unpreparedness; sometimes genuine differences of view arise among nominators and reviewers about the content and/or presentation of an article, and it is entirely appropriate that these be worked out at the FAC. I am a little dismayed by TCO's rather contemptuous dismissal of the WP PR process. We all know it's not intended as an academic peer review; suggestions are made from time to time that the name should be changed accordingly. I agree that WP peer review could be a lot more effective than it is, but only if many more reviewers were prepared to commit themselves to regular work there. At present PR rests on the goodwill of a very small number of editors, so consequently relatively few articles get thorough reviews (though some do; see the current WP:PR page). But generally, if reviewers won't participate in the peer review process, nominators won't bother with it either, and unprepared articles will continue to arrive at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There have been some geniune disagreements arise that do get quite wordy. A long discussion should not automatically = poor nomination to the person deciding if they should weigh in or if it should be promoted or not. I think that does happen at times though.

As for PR, it has been my experience they cannot help with any article of near GA quality or above except for points here and there. There is a geninune relucantance on the part of those at PR to even touch anything that is a GA article, sometimes even B-class because their is real apprehension that they feel the articles are too perfect for any major changes and they usually don't know the material well enough to say yes/no. This imo is why those like Carcharoth always feel that every FAC has some noticeable flaw.陣内_Jinnai 02:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Interjecting here: there is no "they" or "those" at Peer Review. As many editors as are willing can review at PR, and can make of it what they will. The limits on PR arise not from the reasons you suggest, but because not enough editors are pepared to review there. But I have made this point before, several times. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Brian, I have noticed you disagreeing with me again and again and again. We need to back up quite a bit and decide what we are actually discussing here. Forgive me, please, I know this is tedious, but... but I have to go all the way back to "What is Wikipedia?" as the first question at hand. I have recently come to the conclusion that much of my behavior at FAC at WT:FAC in the past has been misplaced (and inappropriate, but wait before you gloat). My behavior was completely appropriate if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a product, and its quality must be guarded. The quality of the product is more important than the feelings of its massed contributors (both good faith and non-GF). However, the key point is this: Larry Sanger is absolutely correct. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an online community that happens to create an online encyclopedia (which is often-but-not-always second rate). Who was it that used to have the user page that read: "Say it with me again... it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA"? That quote used to be popular. It is entirely wrong. The truth is this: "Say it with me again... it's an ONLINE COMMUNITY". Folks who wanna have it both ways say it's both ("a community and an encyclopedia"... that's wishy-washy and meaningless, though it is feel-good) are deluding themselves. Wikipedia is its contributors; the encyclopedia that serves as our interface is just a product that we put out. Steven King is not his novels, etc.
• Therefore much of my behavior was excessive. I owe a few people apologies (but probably not as many as you would think). But...
• But even within the understanding that Wikipedia is a community rather than an encyclopedia, there are areas in which firmness and even harshness are warranted. And content review is in some ways different than editing.... Our volunteer community operates in an editing environment in which anyone can revert, anyone can delete. Some also work in a content review process in which anyone can review, and anyone can stop reviewing at a point when it is clear that further review reaps diminishing returns. And more to the point, content review such as FAC is a meta-process; it is a REVIEW. You open your efforts up to criticism and correction when you voluntarily enter the forum of this meta-process. "Meta" here means "talking about what has been done". Entering a forum of Content review (as a meta-process) involves an underlying contract which we accept as reviewers and nominators: we agree to temporarily elevate the product to a relatively higher degree of importance than the editor. There's even a further constraint that is specific to our current situation: we operate in an environment of scarce of reviewer/delegate inputs that must be allocated among a large-ish number of current noms. Do you want reviewers to always and only say only nice things, or even neutral things? Not possible. Nominators need to receive some sort of signal from reviewers when (at least in that reviewer's opinion) a nom is so far from FA-worthy that its nom is a drain on the system, and a drain on our scarce reviewing resources. Telling people that their nom is a drain on the system and should be withdrawn is firm. It is not an instance of slavery (wow, that's an overwrought description!). It is not even harsh. It is a legitimate move in a legitimate meta-process. • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think the essence of the argument is that you are saying "it is not harsh to say this". Others are saying "Yes it is harsh and there are better ways to handle it". Obviously the whole thing is how your comment is perceived by other people. The acid test, in this discussion, is that your comment is being perceived as harsh. Perhaps it would be wise to accept that. After all, we have no reason to lie to you about how it is perceived by us.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, not really. What I am saying, instead, is that there is an array of "goods", and we need to choose among them. When we maximize one, we sometimes reduce the quantity of another. It is not a zero-sum game in which one wins/one loses, but neither is win-win-win possible across all aspects of pleasure and reward that one can derive from this online community. When you enter a CR process, you voluntarily surrender at least some degree or portion of the "good" of being bathed in praise, light and barnstars (to exaggerate a little). You sacrifice it in order to promote not one but two "goods": first (and perhaps less emotionally appealing), you promote the "good" of creating an article that is (hopefully) distinct from the rest of Wikipedia by being a (hopefully) superior product. You do so willingly. You know your work is being judged. You know there is the possibility that you will be bathed in praise, love and barnstars, but there is also the possibility that your work is mildly substandard – as well as the unpleasant possibility that it is well outside the bounds of what is considered acceptable. You know that you will be informed clearly regarding which area of that spectrum your work falls in. Second, and perhaps more importantly, you sacrifice the "good" of being praised in the short-run for the long-run "good" of having the social benefits of the bronze star attached to your name... Going to FAC is like going on a diet and starting an exercise regime! Suffer now; win later. If you are really out of shape, then the early suffering can be relatively more acute. Video of me huffing and puffing around the perimeter of our university is available upon request. • Ling.Nut (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Ling, I wasn't aware that I disagreed with you over everything, and have certainly never doubted your good intentions. In this matter, however, your approach ("be cruel to be kind") reminded me of my headmaster, circa 1970 (God rot him), who used to say more or less the same thing. Yes, I am that old, which is perhaps part of the problem here. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if "headmaster" refers to elementary school, high school or even college; if it's the first, then we are almost of an age, as they say. And no, aside from pulling a serious face and meting out seemingly-serious punishment that actually isn't, I don't believe in too much tough-love for kiddos. And finally, I think I am probably more gentle than I seem to have painted myself here. I just think people should be told – very plainly, in unadorned language – when they are so far from the goal that they need to regroup and come back another day. And if that involves saying that I won't spend more time in this forum helping them (though I would be happy to do so outside this forum, assuming I have time – which I often don't), then that's OK with me. That's all. • Ling.Nut (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The problem isn't as much what you say as how you say it. Simply telling others that their contributions are not up to your standards and you will not reconsider may be honest, but it is also rude. Regardless of whether or not your intentions are good and if you would consider revisiting it later, people are going to think what you have said is rude, and they will be right. The alternate methods I explained earlier convey the same message, so I still cannot understand why you would disregard them in favor of your own. I personally do not believe that rudeness inspires quality work any more than gentler wording, and in fact I would argue that there is a good chance that it actually diminishes the quality of the nominator's future work, when he or she becomes disillusioned or offended. It's fairly universal that people don't like being told that their work is not up to standards, and that there is no way that they can get it to standards. Though it might not offend you and I, I'm afraid that we're in the minority when it comes to Wikipedia.-RHM22 (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said there was no way they could ever get the article up to standards. I said there was no way they could get the article up to standards in a reasonable time frame; moreover, FAC is not (or should not be) the place to do so! [Perhaps a side-track here, not sure]... I am not among those who think that monstrous multi-nom articles such as Roman Catholicism should never have been dragged into FAC. They are a special case, because they are so monstrously huge and complex. There really isn't any other forum for hashing things out as well as this one (well, the the quality of the feedback on that article was sometimes debatable but...). But the point is, those monster articles are exceptions to the general rule. Generally speaking 1) FAC should not be used as PR, 2) people should be told when they need to go back and work more. • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that Ling's suggested wording is less than optimal. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)