Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive82

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


FAC Laura Harrier is currently in a standstill. One editor supported the promotion to FA status but the current editor believes the article is too short to be a Featured Article. Could anyone assist with this article or quickly look over it for a review, or if not interested in reviewing it, let me know if it is indeed too short please? Factfanatic1 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The article itself isn't too short for an FAC (we have significantly shorter FAs.) Personally, I'd probably oppose on the lede being so small, and not covering any of her modelling or activision. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: I added significantly to the lede, adding her modeling and activism. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Factfanatic1 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

FAC is not peer review. This amount of work during a FAC, and a FAC considerably longer than a very short article are indications the first reviewers should have suggested withdrawal. Both FAC and FAR are short on resources, and this FAC was a poor use of them. This very short article has been extensively re-worked during its FAC, and neither the reviewers who did this nor the Coords who allowed this to happen do the process any favors. Why did no reviewers suggest withdrawal, and why did Coords not intervene earlier and suggest it? From the extensive re-working noted from the get-go on this FAC, reviewers should have stated that the FAC should have been withdrawn and reworked off FAC. An excessive amount of resources have gone into a short article that was simply not FAC ready. Aoba47, I have seen many concerning supports from you at FAC, and ask you to take greater care before supporting. The ill-preparedness of this FAC is apparent from the very first review, where sources were not reliable. @FAC coordinators: More prompt removaL of ill-prepared articles will benefit the process. What will it take to get this to start happening? I happened upon this because I checked to see if Tony the Tiger is still active, since he has an article at FAR ... to find him reviewing this FAC and not fixing his FA nom at FAR. Odd. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I've now witnessed a few FACs using the process as a PR. I plead guilty for encouraging one of them, the 1999 FA Cup Final, but some are simply nowhere near ready. Worse, I see some which I am currently reviewing being supported by those who are claiming not to have enough time for a proper review. Two issues: (a) FAC is not PR and I call on the FAC co-ordinators to take a harder line on these nominations and (b) reviewers who can't allocate the time required and admitting such should not be supporting articles for promotion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
TRM, I feel FAC has reached a level that is is time to start highlighting deficient reviews. The Coords do not seem willing to do it (I used to go have a talk with poor reviewers), so FAC participants may need to start asking reviewers who support early and support often to please have a look at all the problems that were revealed after their support. And Coords need to be empowered to disregard supports from weak reviewers. Coords, when a FAC is clearly not prepared, intervene and say so! We could use more reviewer resources over at FAR, but these resources are being squandered at FAC. Please intervene more often. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to do so. I usually only review at FAC upon request, but I have seen a few lately which simply needed to be closed down. We also need to question FAC reviewers who give a freebie support when they simply can't be bothered or aren't able to perform a proper review. I will be more than happy to highlight the issues I have uncovered subsequent to other reviewers' supporting. If nothing else, perhaps it would be instructive, like a ready reckoner on things to look for. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
There's also another way of doing it, that reviewers who aren't commensurate with the areas of subject matter they're reviewing can declare the elements of WP:WIAFA that they are happy with. For instance, Fowler&fowler supported the History of the Wales national football team (1876–1976) FAC but it's self-evident that their review (which they conceded was time-limited) was wholly inadequate for this process. I have taken two runs at early stages of the article and found myriad issues. Maybe identifying the clauses of WIAFA they "think" they have covered is a way ahead, because when I was pinged to review this one as a latecomer, I was profoundly shocked to see supports for it. We'll get there with it but it seriously seems to indicate that we need to start reviewing the reviews. I'm sure the co-ords do it, but when it comes to "established" reviewers, we need to take extra care, especially when it's evident they are commenting on material without sufficient background. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Since I have apparently done so "many concerning supports", I will no longer do any reviews of any kind. I agree that I should have suggested a withdrawal from the start, but I was just genuinely trying to help the editor with their article. It would have been far more productive to approach me individually to discuss why my supports are "concerning" and how I could improve as a reviewer rather than throwing in this rather snide comment in a post here. Aoba47 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
FWIW none of my comments were levelled at anything you've done here. Rather I see a bit of a problem in general with reviews at FAC being PR-esque. Nothing personal. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I did not take anything you said personally, but I appreciate the clarification and message. Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it. I'm also more than willing to help with any specific articles, reviews, etc that might need some general oversight. As I noted, I believe we should clearly admit where we have no expertise, but some of the professional writing aspects of FAC are agnostic in that sense. Ping me if you need anything. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand the wish to help, Aoba47, but it does not ... it encourages poor work, drains resources, adds to the FAC backlog, nominators learn nothing, off-FAC networks for preparing articles are not developed, and other reviewers become discouraged at the size of the page and the deficient articles being dealt with. I look at the page and the number of deficient supports already lodged by the time I come to a FAC, and decide to move on. So rather than going off upset, I hope you will just take the advice on board. And you are by no means the only reviewer doing this (and I am more bugged about TTT doing this instead of tuning up his nom at FAR). Nominators need to know their articles need to be FAC ready. We no longer tell them that. I get requests all the time on my talk to have a look for others pre-FAC; encourage others To work that way, to develop networks of copyeditors etc, rather than taking resources at FAC. No wonder peer review is dead ... it became unnecessary when FAC turned into the place to turn a not-even-GA into a supposed FA. Oppose early, oppose often is the fastest way to the bronze star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Post ec, re “snide comment” ... an open statement about the quality of your supports because I already brought this to your attention earlier this year. It seemed a more forceful approach might be needed and hopefully heeded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I would prefer a clearer approach not a "forceful approach". Again, I think it would have been far more productive to have a one-on-one conversation with me on my talk page to really break down how I need to be better as reviewer. I simply do not see the value of your statement here. Yes, you brought this up to me earlier this year, but it was very brief. You never followed-up to really talk to me about this in any substantial way since then. So, yes, I view your comment as "snide" because rather than encouraging reviewers to grow and better themselves, you are tagging them as "concerning". It reminds me how I said that I would stop doing FAC reviews earlier this year, and you "thanked me" for that edit. It rubbed me the wrong way then, and this kind of thing does the same thing. I respect your opinion that reviewers need to be better, but I just wish the approach was better. And that's an "open statement" on my end. Aoba47 (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on with you Aoba47 and Sandy and FAC etc, but I think my suggestion above is a reasonable one, we all approach FAC in different ways, I'm certainly all about the prose and the MOS, others are about images, others are about sources. Maybe to make it plainer we need to shake up the FAC review process to make it very clear which criteria we're all commenting on. Then the co-ordinators can get a sense of where reviews for a nomination are short and where we need more, maybe better experienced, eyes. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Aoba47, I think your criticism of my approach is fair, and I apologize for not handling it more directly, and on your talk, both last time and this time. Most particularly since it is not only you, but the way the process has turned. I apologize sincerely.
Also we need the Coords to be more active in this realm ... the first thing reviewers should do— as soon as a nom comes up, if possible— is give a look to see if it is even worth diving in to prose fixes, and suggest withdrawal if one spots sourcing issues as well as prose, MOS and other issues. Too often, reviewers start nitpicking prose on an ill-prepared article, and that’s how we get sucked in. We used to have reviewers who gave brief samples, refused to be sucked in to line-by-line, and said, come back when article is ready ... FACs were closed in a few days. If you have to type more than a page, you should be instead saying, peer review is that-a-way. We can reinvigorate peer review if we stop doing it here for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Your comments are also very valid, and I apologize for having such a knee jerk response when I should have handled the situation with more care. You are absolutely correct with how I handled the Harrier FAC and a larger discussion on opposing early is very important. In the future, I will approach you on how to improve as a reviewer. I still intended to take a break from it, but I would like to grow in that area.
And I agree with The Rambling Man. Apologies for hijacking this discussion. I think this is a valuable discussion so the focus should be on that instead. Apologies again, and I hope you both are staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man. I've seen a bit of the silly caviling in your review. It has taken the lifeblood out of his writing style. He has an exceptional style. I don't say that about nominations that often. And really FAC is being used as PR? How many times have I said that and how many times have The Ramblng Man and his cohorts countered it by offering perfunctory supports or sanctimonious encouragement to precisely such submissions. It's making our cats laugh. The problem is not the first-time submissions such as Laura Harrier, for which slack should be cut and encouragement offered as Aoba47 has been doing, but the cookie-cutter submissions that superficially meet the FAC criteria. The relentless X round A, Y semi-final, Z final. And, TRM, please don't ping me. I'm on vacation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry but the perfunctory "support" of an article which clearly needs a lot of work, engagement with SMEs and fixes to a non-encyclopedic writing style with errors both in fact and grammar, is highly detrimental to this process. And yes, in many cases, FAC is being used as a substitute for PR, albeit without malice, that is obvious. Thankfully for you I won't take your personal attacks seriously and urge you to thoroughly enjoy your break and to make it as long as you can. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, I personalized this discussion unnecessarily out of sheer frustration at seeing this happen over and over. And I see it happen to anyone who mentions the problems. My apologies. Again. Now let’s ALL stop personalizing and start acknowledging and addressing the problems. We need good reviewers. We need to teach reviewers to be good reviewers. We used to do that. We don’t any more. Why not get back to oppose early, oppose often, send ill-prepared FAC nominators to peer review, and promise to meet them there instead of here? Tough love combined with support and encouragement to build off-FAC networks. I do not believe I have ever seen a worthy promotion in one of these pulled-through-by-the-skin-of-their-Teeth noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • My article on NERVA was rejected because it had a substantial overlap with another article, so it seems that the coordinators may have indeed decided that Laura Harrier is too short, despite there being shorter FACs in the past. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Well no, the reason I expect to archive Laura Harrier shortly is because it is, as has been pointed out above, looking more like PR than FAC and also because someone's put their money where their mouth is and recommended withdrawal. We'd all like to see underprepared noms closed quickly, and that's what the "recommend withdrawal" button is for. I actually search for the word "withdraw" in WP:FAC every couple of days, and all the coords generally act promptly on these suggestions. We also remove or archive clearly out-of-process noms early in the piece, e.g. because the nominators haven't contributed majorly, or because they've violated the two-week rule after their previous nom was archived. Personally I do not generally take it upon myself to review a new nom, decide it's premature, and archive it (IOW be judge, jury and executioner). I archive early because it's out of process, or I take off my coord hat, make some points, and recommend withdrawal, leaving it to my fellow coords to action. The bottom line is that if you think a nom is premature, call it out with a withdrawal recommendation and you can expect that to grab the coords' attention. To coin a phrase, we're all in this together. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Should this article go to peer review, or come back to FAC, the first order of business should be to check ALL sources. There may be BLP issues because the sources are that poor. Not all sources are what they say they are (faulty publishers listed), some are unreliable, and some are even commercial. Sourcing should be the first check, because without good sourcing, no point in working on prose. Thanks for the quick attention, Ian. It should not take three weeks at FAC For issues this basic to be mentioned by a reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Gee Ian, who the heck might that be, who had the brainwave about "withdrawal?" Someone who rides roughshod over a submission "prosifying" with a six-shooter or someone who tries a more sensitive approach of talking to a first-time nominator on their talk page: User_talk:Factfanatic1#Your_FAC? Thanks for being oh so patronizing both to the nominator and to me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Diversity in FA/FAC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been watching FAC now with dismay for six months. I have been wondering aloud if for the last ten years it has not veered toward becoming the entrenched preserve of the male Anglosphere. I don't mean the nominators, but the topics being nominated and promoted. By now I have heard all the rationalizations and denials, but I'm now asking more serious questions about whether in a time of such remarkable upheaval WP's time and resources should be spent in the aid of such an unremarkably narrow world view. I'm also asking if the vain characterizations of "WP's best work" can be applied unambiguously to a process whose standards and methods of upholding them bear much closer examination than they are currently receiving. I am taking the next three months off, but I have the data, and I'll be asking experts about it. Please don't consider this a threat of any sort, just a sad statement of fact. It's not like I did not give it a shot. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That's nice. Choess (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I couldn't agree more, but I have no idea how to fix it. I'm sure you've read this excellent essay, but if not, do. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 03:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
TCO made some good points, but messed up the main point and big picture, and that which his actions began, when joined by socks, led directly to the sorry state FAC is in today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Enjoy your time away!!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I'd certainly be interested in reading a rebuttal, perhaps you can write one. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
That would require more than an essay: it would take a book to describe the combination of well meaning and malintended efforts that undermined what was once the best functioning area of Wikipedia. And since the damage cannot be undone, I do not see the point in stirring up old baggage. Briefly, people write on topics that interest them, and the undoing of FAC that began with TCO’s misguided interpretations of semi-valid analyses, and continued with sockmaster and other well meaning but misguided efforts to remove the FA director, left us with a chopped up disjointed rudderless process (in terms of the three pages— FAC, FAR, TFA needing to work together), which was taken over by mutually supportive groups promoting each other’s work with little regard for the big picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

People write about the subjects that interest them. We're all volunteers. This kind of complaint is petty and non-actionable other than for the OP to do something about it themselves by improving so-called "vital" articles or working on some niche topics "in this age of George Floyd". In the mean time, stop trying to bully the rest of us. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

So there you have it: The Rambling Man has suggested three possible solutions to the problem:
  1. Find more people who are interested in the subjects;
  2. Provide some incentives for volunteers to work on them
  3. Hire some editors to write them.
NB: The problem is not ten years old, it's 15 years old. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
And while you're at it, don't try to bully and berate editors who write about things that others may personally find disinteresting. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I would say that these solutions are too simplistic. For them to work, the articles you write have to be reviewed by someone. That someone should be trusted as a FAC reviewer, in my understanding. You cannot become trusted as a FAC reviewer by reviewing articles no one will nominate because no trusted FAC reviewers will review them. See what I mean? E.g. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deseret alphabet/archive1. So, I think that the system itself is in need of reform. What kind of reform, I do not know. As you say, it is a seemingly intractable, fifteen year old problem. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 08:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I find it somewhat embarrising that we are suggesting certain items can't be wikipedias best work, because they aren't diverse enough. The OP has done nothing to actually solve this "issue", other than complain at the system. I have zero idea how this pertains to George Floyd, unless you are suggesting we all now write articles on minority subjects. Most editors write articles on subjects that interest them. If you are suggesting that FACs can only be awarded to articles within a certain scope, then we cutoff at the knees 95% of anyone interested in writing an FAC. You might not find sports to be interesting, for example, but the idea we shouldn't be promoting these articles is somewhat humiliating. We are all working towards an "encylopedia" with no bias, so suggesting we should only write high quality articles on certain subjects kills all diversity in my opinion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much what TRM said. I do try from time to time - tried to find interesting things from Africa to write about such as secretarybird - but is hard. Are astronomical, paleontological and biological articles counted as male Anglosphere? I have tried incentives in the past and when I get some free time will most likely run the Core Contest again too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, I've not so enamoured of User:TCO/Improving Wikipedia's important articles as I was - I still think it's important but there are alternate views - is it just as important to cover esoteric topics that are covered comprehensively nowhere else as covering broad articles that get covered in lots of places? Who knows....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, just so I understand this thread: Fowler&fowler, who is about to embark on a three-month-break, has just accused others of vanity by daring to write about subjects that interest them and ones that are not on the woke spectrum. He then distantly opines that as a result of this shocking display of vanity, FA is knowingly sticking two fingers up at diversity and political correctness which has resulted in it becoming all rather bigoted and insular. Don't worry though, he does offer a caveat by saying that this is all to do with the topics and not the actual writers - rather odd bearing in mind that these vacuous articles don't write themselves. Great, thanks. Enjoy your time away, Fowler. CassiantoTalk 08:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "It's not like I did not give it a shot." Erm, but yet again, you have done absolutely nothing to rectify the situation yourself. It is quite an unfortunate pattern, which will lead people to ignore such otherwise fair observations. In recent years, we have had several nominations about the ancient Middle East, African politicians, Islamic figures, Indian popular culture, etc., often written by non-Westerners. The best we can do is to encourage these writers by reviewing their articles so they can move on to write new ones. And most of us FAC regulars are already doing that, so you could help by joining us in that endeavour rather than just complaining, Fowler. There a multiple articles about non-Western or minority subjects at the FAC page right now that await your review. To name a few: Evelyn Mase, Portraits of Odaenathus, Al-Hafiz, Regine Velasquez, Ismail I of Granada, Manzanar, Anton Chekhov, Boshin War, Siamosaurus, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's the kicker: the ways to improve FA-level coverage of more diverse topics are to develop FA levels on such topics and/or contribute to reviews of those which are nominated (including at the GA and A-class level given that this is the best pathway to FACs). I'm sure that many of us, myself included, can do better on both fronts, but the post starting this thread isn't helpful. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
"It's not like I did not give it a shot." Wut. In a still-open thread (^^^) an editor wants to bring a 19th-century Indian poet to FAC, and you shoot them down with the unreasoning that I just don't see enough scholarly [sources] of the kind that are readily visible on the internet (but see WP:Offline sources) and sources that are accessible to the reviewer are generally a must (but see WP:SOURCEACCESS).
Also see WP:VOLUNTEER for the general paucity of your opening argument (such as it is). ——Serial # 09:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, Yeah, wow, those aren't good reasons at all. If there's doubt about the sources, Gazal world can also send photos of pages over email. I've done this before when there was doubt about a book I cited only available in the Philippines. Not cool Fowler&fowler. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 09:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
None of this is cool. I would advocate the thread be closed and archived to prevent any further time being wasted on it. After all, we've all got some cookie cutting to do. Apart from those of us who don't. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, this thread helped me realise that our range isn't as bad as I thought (or was claimed), by just skimming the current FA page for subjects outside the "male Anglosphere". If anything, we're getting better. FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Cool, so now that's done, let's close it and get on to actually productive things. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I made a post. I then went to bed. Upon waking up, I am finding that I have been pinged, not once but twice, misinterpreted, one small aspect of my post blown out of proportion, and the main point unaddressed; I'm being accused as before of hypocrisy, and the topic has been dismissed as unactionable. I'm afraid there is a process to these discussions. I've been a part of dozens, very likely hundreds. It involves some back and forth. Discussions need time before they can be closed. I have not been given a chance to reply. I am therefore removing the premature closing tag.
  • In reference to @Casliber:'s comment, I'm sorry I should have more specific, but I chose not to as it was a short overall summary. I did not mean that every single article falls within my descriptive heading. Obviously, your articles Horologium (constellation) or Rigel, which are excellent, and which I enjoyed reviewing, do not fall within this rubric. There are even entire subject areas, in biology, medicine, the sciences, that do not; however, there are more implicit ways in which even they slant the presentation of FAs.
  • By "giving it a shot," I did not mean "writing FAs," but reviewing at FAC-review and generally giving an airing to issues I think are significant. Obviously, it must have had some effect, as already there is a change in the broad presentation of topics currently under review as contrasted from the time I began to take part in November of last year. But outstanding issues remain:
  • For independent, third-party, reviewers, who do not have submissions of their own, and are indeed volunteering, there is the very relevant issue of nominator fatigue. It has nothing to do with shaming anyone but is coupled very strongly with driving away independent reviewers and:
  • creating a buddy system in which the nominators are reviewing each other's works based on the conceit that only they know what the FA standards are. It creates conflicts of interest that are so commonly accepted that new nominators are told how to ingratiate themselves into the brotherhood.
  • creating informal templates of compliance, which wall out a large number of articles that otherwise would easily become FAs. They also make possible cookie-cutter submissions that in turn cause nominator fatigue, and perpetuates a vicious circle cycle.
  • The disastrous lack of diversity is not a cause, obviously; it is the result of this buddy system. Saying that we are all volunteering is not an excuse for creating WP:UNDUE presentation of what is being advertised as WP's best work, and is being paid for by donors a large number of whom are not a part of the system.
  • As for Gazal's prospective submission, please do not distort. There are two issues here: (a) I was trying to help him for I know what the reality here is: his FAC would have been summarily dismissed as underprepared and removed or languished here and eventually archived (b) calling for more diversity is not compatible with a lowering of standards. I was trying to make sure he understands his presentation of the sources needs to be transparent. I say this as someone who knows more about that general topic that the sum total of reviewers at FAC. Most would not know what a Ghazal is, a picture of a rendition of which in Gujarati appears on the page. Removed per Ealdgyth's caution; besides, I don't really know that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I will check in here tomorrow around the same time, but after that, I will have to go away. I will have more when I return after the summer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I do wish people would stop trying to silence F&f. I do not always agree with them or their approach, but there are valid issues being swept under the rug. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Guys, I've seen this. I'll try to get something together on my thoughts but I'm fighting a head cold and feel like utter crap today and I've got to take care of some stuff outside wikipedia that likely means... it'll be a few days. Can ya'll try to NOT prick and poke each other and discuss the content of the posts and not who made the post, please? --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm absolutely sick and tired of it being implied that somehow I am inferior to F&F in every regard, every post in which he mentions me is loaded and derogatory. It would be very helpful if it stopped. I know this isn't the venue to make such a request, and ANI is always there, but hey, it would be great if they could just pack it in. At least I get the summer off being personally and creatively assassinated and being accused of some kind of buddying up and some kind of way of getting "cheap" FAs. Enough is enough. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
"I am complaining about the lack of mainenance of the henhouse without actually doing anything about it myself. Here is my daily fox I throw in, tomorrow I will take a look again, have to go now!1!!".... F&F - you can fold and fuck off with your lazy BS. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
So much for that: [1]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I've read TCO's analysis. I tend to agree with SG's summary, even though I don't know the history. As I've stated before, "We like writing about topics that interest us," is certainly an excellent rationale for making an individual choice, i.e. writing an article, but it is not an excellent rationale for absolving oneself of the collective result of those individual choices.
Anyway, let me suggest two simple things. 1) Let us interpret the FA criteria with respect to the scale of the presentation. If the scale if broad, we should need only the highest quality broadscale sources for most of the article. We should not need JSTOR or other narrow-scale sources until we get to the Aftermath or somesuch section. Similarly, for narrow-scale sources, we should need only the highest-quality narrow-scale sources except in the Background or Context section where some broadscale sources will be needed. And for popular sources (movies, videos) the highest-quality of available sources should be used 2) But let us not cut slack for inaccurately identifying and paraphrasing the sources that are being used, down to the precise page number. No matter how many bronze stars there might be twinkling in a nominator's firmament, they should not be able to offer the conceit that they can't be bothered with the details. That is the primary reason for the easy passes. You double down on 1) and 2), the diversity problem will resolve by itself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This has literally nothing to do with George Floyd or the Anglosphere. What is the purpose of this thread? Especially as the OP has noted he will not be returning for three months? It is just to create another timesink? I certainly don't see any possible useful outcome here. Is this about topic selection? Is this about gaming the FAC system? Is this about the selection of sources? Is this about requiring people to write about things they have little interest or ability in writing about? Is this about enforcing limitations on topics nominated at FAC? In short, this is a bugger's muddle and the original closure of this was perfectly apposite. When F&F gets back from holiday in a few months, they should start a properly formed RFC to debate the best way to reform FAC if indeed that's required. To drop this in and run for three months is inappropriate, not to mention the personal attacks and snide swipes en route. I'm embarrassed to be writing under a section heading which name-checks a black victim of police hostility. What is the purpose of this? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no way to change the makeup of FACs without requiring people to write about things they have little interest or ability in writing about, or bringing in new people with those interests. I wish Fowler and Fowler took an active lead at practicing what they preach in that regard instead of haranguing people on the talk page. I don't care about battleships; other people don't care about films; that's totally fine. Expecting things to change if no new editors show up is foolhardy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia - I don't think people are trying to shut down Fowler&Fowler, but it's quite an ask to expect them to respond constructively and civilly when he sees no need to do so himself. His approach is uncollaborative and unconstructive and, whatever valid points he may attempt to make, they are lost in the sound and fury, and length, of his own responses. I appreciate this is another comment on the singer not the song, but they can't be disentangled. That's really my point. KJP1 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This should be closed until the OP returns. There's a clear consensus that the OP is reiterating perennial issues. There's little point in continuing this discussion if the OP has opted to drop this in and then go on vacation for three months. Revisit in September (or October/November perhaps) once the OP is available to actually explain the objections in an actionable sense. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the worse it becomes. George Floyd's name should not be used in this section heading: despicable clickbait and completely unhelpful, worse, counterproductive. Imagine if George Floyd's family saw this mess and his name, in any way, associated with it? Disgusting, misleading, inappropriate. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the heading. Of all the crass and inappropriate points I've seen plastered by a small number of people at FAC, this is the most egregious and tasteless. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks SchroCat, much appreciated. It was truly despicable. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Break

Anyone who wants to change the consensus about how FAC does or should work should expect it to be hard, not because we're all stubborn, but because we've thought a lot about it over the years. Trolls should be ignored, but I don't think Fowler&fowler is a troll; I just think he is wrong, which is not a hanging offense. I had a conversation with Fowler&fowler a couple of weeks ago on my talk page, in which I think I disagreed with every substantive suggestion they made, but we made it to the end of the conversation civilly. So it can be done. I don't think these conversations need to be this fraught. None of us are scared of changing our minds; we'll change them when we see good arguments, and if we don't end up all agreeing, that's what WP:CONSENSUS is for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • "but reviewing at FAC-review and generally giving an airing to issues I think are significant. Obviously, it must have had some effect, as already there is a change in the broad presentation of topics currently under review as contrasted from the time I began to take part in November of last year." This is completely delusional self-aggrandisement. I haven't seen you review even one of the non-western or minority subject articles I've reviewed the last seven or so years. This is a bad case of white saviour complex; non Anglosphere/Western editors have found Wikipedia, written articles, and nominated them FAC at their own accord, not because Fowler paved the way for them somehow. I presented Fowler a long list of current FAC/R articles about non-Western/minority subjects he could review to help rather than just complain, but he just ignores it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is it that people in this forum are unable to disagree with F&f without name calling and hyperbole? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Because Fowler himself is insinuating a lot of things about the rest of us without doing anything useful about the issue himself. He is somehow unable to walk the walk. But still he has no problem with taking the credit for non-Western people nominating articles, even though he doesn't even review them or interact with these editors in an encouraging way. And I'm saying this as one of the few editors here of Middle Eastern descent; Fowler's approach (which amounts to shaming other editors for their interests) isn't helpful and hasn't helped any of the actual editors he claims to champion. He should go and review some articles instead. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I guess where we differ is that I see value in pointing out issues even when one des not personally fix them. And wonder why so many people in this forum are so prone to gross incivility. Is it akin to entitlement? I ask because one tires of selflessly reviewing the work of others if it is only to produce a diva mentality among those who flaunt their contributions. Hopefully everyone here is secure enough in their accomplishments to entertain criticism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Is it "flaunting" anything to state that other people are actually already doing the work Fowler doesn't care to do himself, and to point out that, yes, reviewing the type of articles in question and encouraging those who write them is the only approach that will work, not shaming other editors for writing about what they like? As for "entitlement", did you just miss the part where Fowler ridiculously claims credit for other people writing about minority issues? That's entitlement of the worst kind. Minorities are apparently unable to write Wikipedia articles unless Fowler paves their way by shaming other editors on a talk page. Even though I can name many editors of non-Western origin who have been nominating articles for longer than Fowler has been on this crusade, and who he has never one interacted with. FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia - But you choose to overlook F&F's name calling and hyperbole. Why? KJP1 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Example? Maybe I am less thin-skinned, but I think vigorous criticism benefits the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Because he uses snide personal attacks to insinuate that current FAC nominations are "cookie cutters" or that reviews are given by people who are "buddying up" to somehow game the system. Fowler makes this place a much worse place to be. His attitude to us is of contempt, like somehow the FACs he works on are "more valuable" than the rest of us. It's disingenuous at best, and downright insulting and ostracising at worst. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I don’t see that, but you can always ignore him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia - Sandy, that's pretty hopeless. You know perfectly well the very many examples, as does anyone else reviewing this discussion. KJP1 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia Wow, I'm just getting to the point where your suggestions here are just so blind that it's pointless continuing. Thanks for trying, but if you can't see F&F's sniping, then all I can assume is that you're backing his position. No worries, I will just ignore it all, unless it's detrimental to one of my FAC reviews. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@KJP1, You do not need to ping me to this discussion. (See top of my user talk.) And no I do not “know perfectly well” that which you claim. On this page, I see gross misbehavior from multiple parties (including personalization in a prior thread from moi) and no evidence of anything inappropriate from F&f. struck per Choess and example given. Now perhaps I missed something since I am struggling to type on iPad, which is why I ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Sandy, just read all of this page. Not just this section. But I'm not clear what your role here is anyway? F&F is making snide personal attacks, casting aspersions on people's motivations etc, but doing it in such a way as to run clear of ANI. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Sandy - Nothing problematic in F&F's behaviour, but everyone else is behaving appallingly. We're just going to have to disagree on that. KJP1 (talk)
Thanks for not pinging ... if someone gives me as example, I will approach F&f just as I did others. I do not see it here, and if it is on an individual FAC, pls point me to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
It's all above in the preceding sections. I've seen a bit of the silly caviling in your review and how many times have The Ramblng Man (sic) and his cohorts countered it by offering perfunctory supports or sanctimonious encouragement , the cookie-cutter submissions that superficially meet the FAC criteria. The relentless X round A, Y semi-final, Z final. What I've actually been doing is reviewing a FAC properly, rather than giving a support as F&F did from the get-go. All seems a little odd. THese are just personal examples, but there are far more from FACs that I've reviewed or just looked at with similar issues. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@TRM OK, I see that now. What FAC is referenced? I would like to have the whole picture before approaching F&f. But do you see that you personalized first, before he named you, in the “petty” post? On this page, did you see where I personalized unnecessarily, and I sincerely apologized, and both of us simmered down instantly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Nope, this isn't about this thread, this about the history of F&F personalising issues, and needs a broader perspective. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Sandy, it's not working. The examples are legion and obvious to all, except to those who won't see them. KJP1 (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In part because he's breaking one of the cardinal, if unwritten, rules of Wikipedia work: if you can't convince other editors that your viewpoint is correct, either by reference to policy or by demonstration of editorial practice, you need to be able to swallow your conviction that they are all wrong and you are right and accept the status quo under protest, or walk away. More specifically, Wikipedia is at the intersection of academic or scholarly practice and open culture, especially that springing from open source software creation. F&F has repeatedly argued for something like "completionism"--that the encyclopedia has to stay balanced in terms of what it covers as it grows. Unbalanced growth represents a collective moral failure that must be positively checked. In academia, this might be a perfectly reasonable viewpoint: if I publish a book entitled "A political history of the British Isles" and 90% of it is about the Stuart Restoration, most people would find that incredible and unacceptable on my part. This works, in part, because the topic at hand is reasonably commensurable. But we draw heavily on the open source tradition, and practice "eventualism". The space of possible useful software, for instance, is essentially uncommensurable. So if the FSF sets out to write open-source software to benefit users and in practice winds up mostly creating infrastructural software (compilers, webservers, etc.) rather than consumer apps, this is seen as unremarkable and natural. It would seem very strange to insist that the compiler team down tools and work on an app to locate food banks to redress a lack of diversity in their software offerings. The praxis of Wikipedia has always been eventualist: while we would like it to grow in as many directions as possible, we don't feel the need to redistribute resources from the parts that aren't growing.
    F&F has repeatedly pressed the completionist viewpoint, without getting much traction *within* the community, and largely by appealing to a supposed need to emulate academia, or the Red Cross, or some other model that neglects the open-source "scratch your own itch" part of our tradition. Having failed to present a good policy justification or win people to his side, he started it up again with this thread, under a header which, intentionally or not, insinuated that people who fail to share his viewpoints are dangerously bigoted. There is definitely useful and well-presented material to be discussed in his comments here, but he has chosen to compensate for his lack of persuasion on a key point by inflaming emotion. It would be good if people responded more calmly, but name-calling and hyperbole reflect the tone of debate that he chose in initiating this thread. I strongly disagree that there is "no evidence of anything inappropriate"; I think that's a lapse of judgment on your part, Sandy. Tossing an emotional grenade to back up a failing argument and running away for three months is irresponsible and inappropriate for an editor who aspires to be a serious, rather than a strident, critic of how the FAC process runs. Choess (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Certainly the latter point, the "here's a shit sandwich, I'm going to adopt the high ground and then I'll be back in three months to see how the minions have eaten it"-approach is deeply offensive and allowing it to continue is utterly shambolic. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Choess; I now see the problematic parts. I do still wonder why others cannot give a dispassionate analysis without gross incivility and personal attack, which is more likely to hit the mark, as yours did. The behavior of many others on this page is on par with what F&f Is charged with, if not worse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
There you go, that's why we haven't bothered you with it Sandy. If you think our defence is somehow worse than F&F's attacks, little hope. Please don't bother me with anything related to this again as you clearly have a different version of civility from me. Stick with F&F, he's clearly making waves and improving the encyclopedia while the rest of us are just buddying up, faking FAs, accentuating white power etc. Jesus, when I started here in 2005 I never thought this bullshit would be tolerated by anyone. Who knew? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
And under the cover of a long response, you've let Sandy escape responsibility for her statements on F&F. As has happened so many times with F&F himself. The lesson is - less is more! KJP1 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Read Mike Christie’s less-is-more post at the top of this break section for similar, then. Perhaps others will hear him, if not me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Sandy - not the point, at all. KJP1 (talk)
Honestly, this is literally incredible. Literally. Never mind, four legs good, two legs bad. The firmament are closing in to protect each other, let the minions die, bollocks etc. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that acknowledgment, Sandy—I do have a lot of respect for your judgment and your work to keep FA high-quality, so it surprised me to see "no evidence". ("That's nice" was my *second* response to the initial comment--the first was less pleasant.) Unfortunately, there's a simple and shameful answer to your question—I'm busy, scatterbrained, and don't generally contribute a tuppeny-ha'penny damn to the FA process, except as an occasional source of institutional memory. F&F has been rubbing the nerves of more active people raw for a while. e.g., my loose impression of the issues at James Humphreys (pornographer) is that F&F is intelligent and thorough in critique, but doesn't recognize the extent to which his interpretation of FA criteria are idiosyncratic and not shared by others. Having people like that around can be good for breaking up groupthink and mediocrity--but it can also mean that they're trying to apply standards that do not result in improvement, as judged by the community. Good critics can be unpleasant, but unpleasantness does not entail good criticism.
I'll try to be less longwinded, but I'd say that useful criticism of FAC takes the form of "This is a problem with FAC. How shall we solve it?" The prerequisites to doing so are a) demonstrating that "this is a problem" and b) demonstrating that "this is a problem with FAC". There are some things like cliqueishness or lower standards for the "right" people that potentially meet both criteria. But some of the things F&F keeps putting forth are either not agreed to be problems, or appear to me to be problems with article production in general, so that tampering with FAC criteria downstream aren't likely to fix them. Raising them over and over again makes it more difficult to keep discussion on things that are actionable. Choess (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again, Choess; this discussion was too heated for me to be following from a tablet, but your lengthy analysis was well put, and demonstrated that is is possible to discuss differences without the extreme incivility and personalization that this page has taken on recently. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Lets quickly hold the "how to improve FAC" RfC in the three months that Fowler&fowler is away and lead it with one very simple question: "Should Fowler&fowler be banned from FAC for good?" CassiantoTalk 23:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Alternatively Cass, avoid personalising the situation by being ignorant and insulting all editors by calling FAC "a vanity show" and "the entrenched preserve of the male Anglosphere" then say that "the buddy system" is used on "cookie-cutter submissions". Only then, Cass, will you have someone coming to defend you while harping on about "the good ol' days" while they view things through cracked rose-tinted spectacles. Still, bemoaning about the decline in FA production while defending a troll who is driving productive people away from that process takes a questionable stance I can't quite get my head round. – SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Break 2

This is very strange. I did not return here. I was pinged in the section before. I was pinged gratuitously, about an FAC submission that I supported but with qualification, and that later Mike Christie supported as well. That led me to the post about the Anglosphere. The community here is on the defensive. It would be surprising if it weren't. I mean on the on hand I have just received an email from the president of a major American university about how they are attempting to make changes in various forms of bias (not necessarily all overtly racist) in light of George Floyd. On the other hand, we have Wikipedia FAs where the evidence for the Anglosphere bias is far more glaring than anything in that university, but people are attacking for raising it. Princeton can remove Woodrow Wilson's name from its school of public policy from which relatives of mine (female no less) have received degrees, but a section name on a talk page can't survive with George Floyd's name on Wikipedia?

Some of those that are not attacking me are still denying that anything is that matter. Some of those that are acknowledging that something might be the matter are still denying that they are doing anything that they don't fully have the right to do. The male Anglosphere bias has been a persistent problem on Wikipedia. I am not the first to raise this topic. I am suggesting that it is being perpetuated at FAC in part because small groups of nominators have created circles of focus and mutual affirmation. This has happened in Science as much as it has in other areas. In Science, it may not have overtly led to an Anglosphere bias in Science FAs, but it has very likely contributed to the Anglosphere bias overall by producing a history of misdirection of attention at FAC in which articles that stand outside the fold are not being promoted in the same proportion relative to those being submitted. My Real Life is not important for the purposes of arguments in discussions, or content, nor should it be, but motivations should not be imputed to me where they do not exist. I've taught at major American universities, and at the last only graduate (masters and Ph.D.) students. I'm confident in what I know and what I don't know. I am not here to gain affirmation from the Wikipedia community, nor am I put off by outbursts of impatience from it. That is because Wikipedians are not my self-objects. I see WP and its FAs as a service to a wider community. A lack of bias is important there. That is why I have never contributed to my subject areas. It would create conflicts of interest. That is also why I recently made an investment of time and effort in the lead of 2020 Delhi riots. It is only a C-class article that will never make it to FAC, but there are major WP values at stake there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the excessive pinging is as frustrating as the gross incivility, but you did return here-- multiple times-- after announcing you were on break, which I am finding equally frustrating. And it is odd to lob a grenade when unavailable to talk about it. I have promised to have a word with you, but I don't know if you're on break or not and whether I should initiate a talk page conversation with you now or in three months. The diversity thing is a dead horse-- people write about what they enjoy and we can't legislate that-- but what is more frustrating to me is that every time I look in here with the intent to propose substantive change to get things moving again, I find We Are Still Talking About The Wrong Things. You, Fowler, are spot-on correct in several of your analyses of the many problems plaguing the FA pages, but incorrect in your proposed solutions and in the way you present those problems and solutions. I hope you'll think about that during the three months you are gone, and come back with a new approach to the problems and potential solutions. Meanwhile, if some of the incivility in here isn't cleaned up, it will be a whole 'nother thing in here in three months anyway because, as I said above, this page exemplifies why the WMF wants to institute a code of conduct. If you are in fact not yet gone, I suggest reviewing your post at 23:12, 29 June 2020 and striking the personalization. I issued three warnings to others in here about their personal attacks, and hatted several comments, to no avail and those three continue; perhaps you will rise above the rest here and strike the unnecessary personalization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I've scratched the comments. I had made the first of those as a result of being pinged, my suspicion at that time being that the pinging was gratuitous. Without it, I would not have returned. I agree I should not have lost my cool, nor interpreted the pinging to be deliberate. If you'd like to collapse them, please do. The code of conduct planned by WMF both at FAC and WT:FAC would be a good thing. Unfortunately, I will now really be gone. I will be editing two articles now and then, and only those two, as I say on my user page, but I've promised my wife that I will otherwise stay away from WP. Let's talk in three months if you'd like. I wish you a happy summer SandyG. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
PS I wanted to clarify that in TRM had pinged me in this post of 22:16 29 June 2020 and made some observations about my (and others') wholly inadequate reviewing. I have annotated the first few sentences of TRM's corrections in User:Fowler&fowler/Wales national. You will understand why I became exasperated. But regardless, I have apologized for my tone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
You supported an article with poor readability and factual errors. Enough said. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict with SG) It's sad that it's apparently impossible to discuss possible reforms to FAC because personal animosities get in the way of every attempt to do so. Featured Articles are supposed to be role models in that they exemplify best practices and thereby set a standard for the whole project. If only the way we deal with each other here did the same. I think everyone gets it: there's mutual dislike between TRM and F&F and each of you two thinks very little of the other's contributions. Additionally, a lot of people here are annoyed by F&F. F&F, you said that you don't care what people think of you and that's probably the right attitude. It really doesn't matter who likes whom, at least I don't care. Improving the project shouldn't be contingent on people liking each other, but the mutual disdain has gotten in the way of improving anything here. I'd suggest the following: everyone has had their chance to express their views on F&F so there's no point in repeating them every time he says something. F&F, even if you don't care what people think of you, you have to admit that your way of communicating is getting in the way of you getting your point across or changing anything here. That should make you rethink the way you advance your views, if for no other reason than that it's ineffective. Conversely, even if we accept the premise that F&F has been wrong about a lot of things and that he doesn't practice what he preaches, that doesn't invalidate what he says. When he points out a deficiency in the current state of FAC, saying that he hasn't done anything to address it doesn't strike me as a particularly relevant response. Could we agree on those points and move forward? It might make sense to agree on what's wrong with the current state of FAC and then discuss what reforms could address those problems.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
There are half a dozen things I'd like to be talking about in terms of the process, ideas, proposals, concerns. When people are ready to consider that, no matter our views likes and dislikes, FA production has declined considerably, TFA pageviews have declined (and that could be related to the alarming lack of diversity that Fowler mentions-- see the pageviews for June TFAs compared to historical levels, and see the rundown of what was offered at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2020), FAR throughput has picked up considerably but not enough to deal with the number of deficient FAs, what to do about source reviews, how to better train up more reviewers, how to better allocate resources, the Old FACs bot marker on the FAc page ... so many things ... and it behooves us all to address these problems before the community starts to ask why we are taking so much real estate on the mainpage in a dying process. We have fallen flat on the mainpage this year, with the exception of the 25th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and the 75th anniversary of the Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945), which gave respectable-- but not amazing-- pageviews. If Fowler's point is that the process isn't providing what readers want, that may be correct. That doesn't mean we can fix this, but we can talk about it civilly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
"Could we agree on those points and move forward?" Everyone agrees, and have agreed for years, nothing Fowler points out hasn't been discussed to death already. The only way to rectify the situation is to 1: nominate such articles for FAC 2: encourage other editors to nominate such articles 3: review such articles when they are at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd just be happy if there was evidence that F&F practised what they preach. Until they do, I see no reason to engage with this regular carping about FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There's ~6K words in this thread; Pacemaker67 has just summed the issue up in less than 30. ——Serial # 06:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. "Do as I say, not as I do" covers the current approach. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

So, will anyone object if we ask Mike Christie to hat this now? I am happy to see Fowler strike and apologize, and it looks like everyone has had their say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to be seen as wearing a hatting hat, if you'll pardon the phrase, but since F&f is not going to be able to reply here for a while I agree someone might want to close this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FAC reviewing statistics for June 2020

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for June 2020. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Reviewers for June 2020
# reviews Type of review
Reviewer Image Source Content Access Total
Nikkimaria 22 5 3 30
Gog the Mild 2 1 9 12
Mike Christie 1 9 10
Buidhe 4 3 2 9
Wehwalt 1 1 7 9
Peacemaker67 1 2 5 8
Therapyisgood 8 8
Dudley Miles 7 7
Fowler&fowler 3 4 7
Casliber 2 5 7
Truflip99 1 1 4 6
HJ Mitchell 1 5 6
Ian Rose 2 3 5
Serial Number 54129 3 2 5
Aoba47 5 5
Sarastro1 1 4 5
Harrias 3 2 5
Hawkeye7 1 1 3 5
Lee Vilenski 4 4
FunkMonk 1 3 4
The Rambling Man 4 4
Epicgenius 1 3 4
Jens Lallensack 4 4
Guerillero 2 2 4
Aza24 2 1 3
SandyGeorgia 3 3
Graham Beards 3 3
KJP1 3 3
HaEr48 3 3
WA8MTWAYC 1 1 1 3
Mujinga 3 3
Sainsf 1 2 3
Ceoil 1 2 3
Kaiser matias 2 2
Chidgk1 2 2
Cassianto 2 2
T8612 2 2
Jimfbleak 2 2
John M Wolfson 2 2
Srnec 1 1 2
Jo-Jo Eumerus 2 2
Thatoneweirdwikier 1 1 2
Giants2008 2 2
RexxS 1 1 2
Mattximus 2 2
The Squirrel Conspiracy 1 1
Nick-D 1 1
HueSatLum 1 1
Kalbbes 1 1
Indopug 1 1
Dweller 1 1
Theramin 1 1
Montanabw 1 1
Enwebb 1 1
Moisejp 1 1
Sam-2727 1 1
AustralianRupert 1 1
DAP389 1 1
Vanamonde93 1 1
Just gonna edit a bit 1 1
TonyTheTiger 1 1
Hchc2009 1 1
Ealdgyth 1 1
Bibliomaniac15 1 1
Smerus 1 1
Kober 1 1
Encyclopaedius 1 1
Kosack 1 1
SnowFire 1 1
Shearonink 1 1
RegentsPark 1 1
216.221.36.92 1 1
DrKay 1 1
Historical Perspective 2 1 1
Zwerg Nase 1 1
Philroc 1 1
Attar-Aram syria 1 1
Juliancolton 1 1
Wugapodes 1 1
Gen. Quon 1 1
Carabinieri 1 1
Grand Total 37 42 180 1 260
Supports and opposes for June 2020
# declarations Declaration
Editor Oppose Support None Oppose converted to support Grand Total
Nikkimaria 1 29 30
Gog the Mild 2 4 6 12
Mike Christie 1 7 2 10
Wehwalt 7 2 9
Buidhe 3 6 9
Peacemaker67 5 3 8
Therapyisgood 2 1 5 8
Dudley Miles 4 3 7
Fowler&fowler 1 2 4 7
Casliber 4 3 7
Truflip99 3 3 6
HJ Mitchell 3 3 6
Ian Rose 2 3 5
Serial Number 54129 5 5
Hawkeye7 3 2 5
Sarastro1 1 2 1 1 5
Harrias 1 4 5
Aoba47 1 3 1 5
Lee Vilenski 3 1 4
FunkMonk 3 1 4
The Rambling Man 1 3 4
Jens Lallensack 4 4
Epicgenius 3 1 4
Guerillero 4 4
SandyGeorgia 2 1 3
Graham Beards 2 1 3
WA8MTWAYC 3 3
HaEr48 2 1 3
KJP1 2 1 3
Sainsf 2 1 3
Mujinga 3 3
Aza24 1 2 3
Ceoil 2 1 3
Mattximus 2 2
John M Wolfson 2 2
Chidgk1 1 1 2
T8612 2 2
Jimfbleak 2 2
Jo-Jo Eumerus 2 2
RexxS 2 2
Thatoneweirdwikier 1 1 2
Cassianto 1 1 2
Kaiser matias 2 2
Giants2008 1 1 2
Srnec 2 2
AustralianRupert 1 1
Montanabw 1 1
DAP389 1 1
SnowFire 1 1
Vanamonde93 1 1
Sam-2727 1 1
Attar-Aram syria 1 1
Zwerg Nase 1 1
Indopug 1 1
Nick-D 1 1
DrKay 1 1
Kosack 1 1
216.221.36.92 1 1
Enwebb 1 1
Shearonink 1 1
Philroc 1 1
Moisejp 1 1
Just gonna edit a bit 1 1
Historical Perspective 2 1 1
Ealdgyth 1 1
TonyTheTiger 1 1
Encyclopaedius 1 1
Gen. Quon 1 1
The Squirrel Conspiracy 1 1
Juliancolton 1 1
Kober 1 1
RegentsPark 1 1
Bibliomaniac15 1 1
Hchc2009 1 1
Smerus 1 1
Theramin 1 1
Wugapodes 1 1
Kalbbes 1 1
Dweller 1 1
HueSatLum 1 1
Carabinieri 1 1
Grand Total 16 109 134 1 260

Alternative to the "Done" and "Not done" graphics:

I think we can use stuff like "✓ Done" and "x Not done", it's less laggy than stuff like the "Done" and "Not done" graphics. I,,.iasO 07:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@I'm Aya Syameiraru: per the instructions, we do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives.
Incidentally, your signature is actually unreadable and as such is in breach of WP:SIG. Please change it immediately. Many thanks, ——Serial # 08:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I changed my sig. ias 09:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Now I did it again, which one is better. i'm_aya_syameimaru! 09:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. Also, perhaps I refrain from using "✓ Done" and "x Not done"? i'm_aya_syameimaru! 09:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'll refrain from using "✓ Done" and "x Not done". By the way, I also changed my sig yet again. This one's better? ias:postb□x 09:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
This one sig's my newest. ias:postb□x 10:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Clean one. ias:postb□x 11:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. ias:postb□x 11:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Or, we could just type "done" or "not done". So long as it meets the signature requirements, we don't care which one looks better.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
We'll go ahead and type "done" or "not done". I'm glad I finalized my signature. ias:postb□x 11:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Asking for a second opinion...

...about whether Laguna del Maule (volcano) is FAC-ready. I've been planning to send it here this summer and did some prep work with Sandy, but I'd like a second opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo I am making the long drive to the cabin, iPhone typing only, can dig back in tomorrow when settled. Another look from someone else would be good ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Citation format looks inconsistent to me, I can't tell why some sources are cited in bibliography and others in footnotes. (t · c) buidhe 04:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I've made some copy edits to the article and noted image alt-text problems on the talk page. The article also needs dup link removal.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Qp10qp's Anton Chekhov

Anton Chekhov is at WP:FAR; perhaps someone who remembers Qp10qp's work will pick it up for an update. It has good bones, and Qp was an amazing contributor-- now long gone-- a pity to see this article defeatured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

FAC header on article talk page

I nominated Battle of Cape Hermaeum on 4 July and it has attracted several reviews. I have just noticed that the normal FAC header on the article's talk page is missing. Should I worry about this? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed this for you. Let me know if there is anything else that's fishy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
On further investigation, looks like the bot removed the template, as the page wasn't created in time. Looks like the nom was fine, and that just needed to be reverted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought that I had been reasonably speedy. Clearly not. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
This has happened to me as well ... Hawkeye7 FACBOT is not allowing enough time to finish creating FAC pages. Could the time be lengthened a bit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Update on Featured article reviews: how you can help!

Featured article review

Talk notices given
  1. Diocletianic Persecution 2020-05-03
  2. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky 2020-05-22
  3. Underwater diving 2020-09-15
  4. Józef Piłsudski 2020-09-25, 2021-08-07
  5. Supernatural (season 1) 2020-11-02
  6. Supernatural (season 2) 2020-11-02
  7. Kahaani 2020-11-18 2023-02-25
  8. Major depressive disorder 2020-11-20 2022-08-18
  9. India 2020-11-29 and 2023-11-28
  10. 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash 2020-11-30
  11. Tumbler Ridge 2020-12-26
  12. Glacier National Park (U.S.) 2020-12-30
  13. Ivan Bagramyan 2021-02-21
  14. Bird 2021-02-21
  15. Hamilton, Ontario 2021-02-22
  16. Comet Hyakutake 2021-02-22
  17. Mary Wollstonecraft 2021-03-03
  18. Postage stamps of Ireland 2021-03-11, 2023-03-25
  19. The Joy of Sect 2021-04-08
  20. The World Ends with You 2021-04-23
  21. Defense of the Ancients 2021-06-10
  22. Dwarf planet 2021-08-14
  23. Robert Garran 2021-10-09
  24. Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna
    of Russia     2021-11-27
  25. Hurricane Edith (1971) 2021-12-04
  26. Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne 2021-12-05
  27. Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon 2021-12-05
  28. Hurricane Dean 2021-12-05
  29. Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma 2021-12-05
  30. Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan 2021-12-05
  31. Effects of Hurricane Ivan
    in the Lesser Antilles
    and South America     2021-12-05
  32. Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004) 2021-12-05
  33. Tropical Storm Henri (2003) 2021-12-05
  34. Tropical Storm Edouard (2002) 2021-12-05
  35. Hurricane Fabian 2021-12-05
  36. Effects of Hurricane Isabel in
    Maryland and Washington, D.C.     2021-12-06
  37. Hurricane Erika (1997) 2021-12-06
  38. Hurricane Isabel 2021-12-06
  39. Hurricane Kenna 2021-12-06
  40. Typhoon Pongsona 2021-12-07
  41. Hubble Space Telescope 2022-01-08
  42. Dürer's Rhinoceros 2022-02-04
  43. Io (moon) 2022-02-13
  44. Solar eclipse 2022-04-30
  45. Manchester 2022-05-12
  46. Transformers (film) 2022-06-05
  47. Slate industry in Wales 2022-07-05
    Working [2]
  48. Schizophrenia 2022-08-18
  49. Amanita muscaria 2022-08-26
  50. Battle of Corydon 2022-10-10
  51. White Deer Hole Creek 2022-10-22
    Work ongoing December 2022
  52. Mayan languages 2022-11-19
  53. Sentence spacing 2022-11-19
  54. Indigenous people of the Everglades region 2022-11-21
  55. First-move advantage in chess 2022-11-21
  56. King Arthur 2022-11-22
  57. Stephen Crane 2022-11-22
  58. Mark Kerry 2022-12-01
  59. California Gold Rush 2022-12-02
  60. Harry McNish Noticed 2022-12-03
  61. History of Lithuania (1219–1295) 2022-12-03
  62. Władysław II Jagiełło 2022-12-03
  63. David I of Scotland 2022-12-03
  64. Coeliac disease 2022-12-03
  65. Metabolism 2022-12-03
  66. Northern bald ibis 2022-12-09
  67. Hippocampus 2022-12-09
  68. Cane toad 2022-12-09
  69. Boeing 777 2022-12-09
  70. Second Crusade 2022-12-09
  71. Delichon 2022-12-10
  72. Rock martin 2022-12-10
  73. Lion 2022-12-10
  74. Victoria Cross for New Zealand 2023-01-01
    Work ongoing January 2023
  75. Bengali language movement 2023-01-15
  76. USS New Jersey (BB-62) 2023-01-23
  77. West Wycombe Park 2023-01-25
  78. Holkham Hall 2023-01-25
  79. Redshift 2023-01-26
  80. Angkor Wat 2023-01-28
  81. Jack Sheppard 2023-02-02
  82. Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia 2023-02-12
  83. Guy Fawkes Night 2023-02-14
  84. Marcus Trescothick 2023-02-22
  85. Moe Berg 2023-03-10
  86. Falaise Pocket 2023-03-29
  87. James Nesbitt 2023-03-29
  88. Johnstown Inclined Plane 2023-04-23
  89. Dengue fever 2023-04-30
  90. Wood Badge 2023-05-15
  91. Hurricane Claudette (2003) 2023-05-16
  92. Cleveland 2023-05-16
  93. Buildings and architecture of Bristol 2023-05-20
  94. Oregon State Capitol 2023-06-02
  95. Surrender of Japan 2023-06-30
  96. Felice Beato 2023-08-04
  97. Augustus 2023-08-08
  98. Caspar David Friedrich 2023-08-13
  99. Jocelin of Glasgow 2023-11-01
  100. Hydrogen 2023-11-01
  101. Ancient Egypt 2023-11-18
  102. Acetic acid 2023-12-8
  103. Eric Brewer (ice hockey) 2024-01-02
  104. White dwarf 2024-01-26
  105. Adelaide Anne Procter 2024-01-30
  106. Boston 2024-04-15
  107. Borscht 2024-06-15
  108. Khan Noonien Singh 2024-07-03
  109. Taylor Swift 2024-08-02
  110. Nahuatl 2024-08-04
  111. Carnivàle 2024-08-09
  112. Your Power 2024-08-16
  113. Washington, D.C. 2024-08-27
  114. George Washington (inventor) 2024-08-30
  115. Tasha Yar 2024-10-20
  116. Alien vs. Predator (film) 2024-10-26
  117. Mom and Dad (1945 film) 2024-10-26
  118. A Cure for Pokeritis 2024-10-26
  119. Zombie Nightmare 2024-10-26
  120. Gertie the Dinosaur 2024-11-1
  121. Characters of God of War 2024-11-3
Find more: Unreviewed featured articles
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive79#Proposal to reduce restrictions on FAR submissions
Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive
Wikipedia:Featured article statistics
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Dispatches

Back in January, following several long discussions about re-invigorating the FA process, we increased the number of WP:Featured article reviews (FARs) one editor could nominate at a time, and decreased the wait time between notifying article talk of problems with FA status and nominating to FAR. The idea was to deal with the problem that FAR has been moribund for about five years, and there are hundreds to ?? thousands of FAs that are very old, not maintained, and out of compliance with FA standards.

The number of FAR nominations has picked up as better tracking of notices given via the template has allowed for easier checking on improvements after notice is given that an article is out of compliance. There has been a pretty clear trend: most of the FAs nominated are more than a decade old, and most of them have absent original nominators-- that is, no one watching and maintaining the article. And worse, no one willing or able to take on improvements or the work to bring the article back to standard. In the cases where someone is willing, and does the work, the star is usually saved.

In the six months past (January to June 2020), 28 articles have been reviewed. Of those, 6 retained FA status, and 22 were demoted. This is lower than the historical save rate at FAR of almost 50%, and a likely reflection of three factors:

  1. limited participation at FAR and willingness to pitch in and help save old stars,
  2. the extreme age of most of the nominations, meaning that updating them is hard work, and
  3. those that are easily fixed are repaired after notice is given on article talk, and don't ever appear at FAR (hooray-- a win).

While there has been good progress in working through these older, abandoned FAs, the rate is not high enough to deal with the number of out-of-compliance and very old FAs. Some have suggested decreasing (again) the wait time between notifying talk and nominating at FAR, or allowing more nominations per editor at FAR, but increasing the number of FARs will not be successful if there aren't people actually reviewing those FARs. What would really be helpful is just more participation-- and that's not hard.

You can help maintain the overall status of your bronze star-- deficient FAs devalue the process. And participation in restoring old stars led to a comaraderie and a sense of accomplishment in the past. Here are some ideas:

  • Add the FAR notices given template to your user space and keep an eye on it.
  • If you know of older FAs that are out of compliance, give notice on talk (see WP:FAR instructions) and add the article to the template. Even if you don't have the time or inclination to nominate at FAR, someone else may. But they need to know that notice has been given and that an article is out of compliance. Even better-- someone may improve the article, so that a FAR isn't needed at all.
  • Nominate at FAR one of the articles listed in the Notices given template. Since any nominator can only have four on the page at a time, more nominators can help speed up the process.
  • Watch the FAR page (or the list of FARs transcluded here to the FAC page), and pitch in where you can. That can mean, either to help save the star, to identify issues with the article, or to enter a declaration to Keep or Remove the star, if the article moves to the FARC (Featured article removal candidate) phase.
  • But most significantly, just like FAC, the page is backlogged. Browse the FARCs weekly, and enter a Keep or Remove. It is MUCH easier than the work at FAC, because generally by the time an article goes to FARC, either someone has engaged to update the article, or they haven't. But the Coords can't close a FARC if they have no declarations.

I hope to see more of you at FAR: a decade ago, many FAC regulars contributed equally at FAR, and the "saves" were found to be quite rewarding. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello all. Two question regarding FAC:

(1) Is it necessary to cover the summary of all the sections of article in the lead ?
(2) Is it necessary that the lead should be written in a chronological order with respect to article ?

Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Short answer: no and no. I am sure that longer and/or different responses are also available. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Longer answer: a) Only if all of the sections need to be mentioned to fulfill the guidelines at WP:LEAD. For example, in medical articles, they sometimes are, sometimes are not. b) No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The second part is quite easy - because there are many ways for a lede to be written. It could be chronological, but also in terms of the most notable things, or thematically. Ledes should generally cover all of the most important details, but not everything will be suitable. Things like "personal life" sections are quite often omitted for example. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. And it has already passed its image review. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Manilal Dwivedi

I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manilal Dwivedi/archive1. A first-time FACer has shed sweat, tears and possibly blood to get their prized article up to FA standard. DoI: I looked at this pre-GAN for GoCE and chipped in a couple of comments at PR. They have, I think got it there or thereabouts in FAC terms. It is about a wonderfully esoteric 19th-century Indian philosopher-writer and, IMO, an entertaining and educational read. Yet in two weeks it has only attracted an image review. Come on, we can do better than this. Anyone care give it a once over? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm on vacation, but the onceoverer might want to read the previous discussion first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone here had success in getting a copyright infringement taken down? Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) has already been published in a predatory journal. I am preparing documents at User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat, in case anyone has any advice, which can be added there on talk. Is it worth it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's probably a matter of philosophy. I don't go out of my way to find folks who copied my articles, but I'd try to write a detailed comparison of the article's history with that of the plagiarism to make it clear that the plagiarism came later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. The one paragraph sample at User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat#Samples_from_DLB_text took me two hours to diff and build; do you all think that would be clear to non-Wikipedians, eg, if a DCMA is needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I received advice from various people here, but never got around to doing what they suggested. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
In this case, one author is using at least four Wikipedia medical FAs. Since I wrote almost 90% of dementia with Lewy bodies, it could be a productive one to pursue. Or should I just drop it, since I am unlikely to make a difference? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: My strong advice is: talk to a qualified (IP) lawyer first, decide on a plan after. A first consultation costs you whatever their hourly rate is, but it can save you from a lot of grief later on. And you never ever want to make a legal threat ("…or I'll sue!") unless you've consulted with a lawyer first. If whatever motivates you isn't enough to justify that, then I would advice gritting your teeth and dropping it rather than proceed without. PS. keep in mind that WP:BEANS applies here. --Xover (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: Yep ... I am on that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
One portion of well-baked beans coming right up! :) --Xover (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
SandyG: I'd implement what DocJames says here and then post on his user talk page. I lost interest after he said in that same thread that ABC-CLIO is not a serious publisher, implying that I should bother only if the publisher is reputable (e.g. OUP).
I'm on vacation, so this is about all I can sneak in.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I have done that, and Doc James no longer edits. Perhaps you missed the arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

RC

Can I just RC my own comments after I review an article? Therapyisgood (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Therapyisgood: apologies for being dense, but what is RC short for? ——Serial 05:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Resolved comments with Template:Resolved comments. I will say that I'm neutral. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I learn something new everyday! Thanks. Off the top of my head (and to suggest an answer to your question rather thn to waste your time rquesting definitions!) it seems pretty harmless for you to do so. ——Serial 05:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Except, avoid the use of templates at FAC, that cause transclusion limit issues in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for July 2020

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for July 2020. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Reviewers for July 2020
# reviews Type of review
Reviewer Image Source Content Total
Nikkimaria 19 11 3 33
Buidhe 17 5 2 24
Gog the Mild 3 2 8 13
Harrias 5 4 9
Mike Christie 1 6 7
SandyGeorgia 7 7
Hawkeye7 1 2 2 5
Aoba47 4 4
CPA-5 4 4
Peacemaker67 4 4
MaranoFan 4 4
FunkMonk 3 3
Aza24 1 2 3
Therapyisgood 3 3
Nick-D 3 3
SNUGGUMS 2 1 3
Lee Vilenski 3 3
Airborne84 3 3
Epicgenius 3 3
AustralianRupert 3 3
Spicy 2 2
Betty Logan 1 1 2
Carabinieri 2 2
Cartoon network freak 2 2
HJ Mitchell 2 2
Coolmarc 1 1 2
Hurricanehink 2 2
Jens Lallensack 2 2
KJP1 1 1 2
WA8MTWAYC 2 2
Damien Linnane 2 2
Wehwalt 2 2
Ceoil 2 2
Kaiser matias 2 2
Cassianto 2 2
Ruhrfisch 1 1
Teratix 1 1
Piotrus 1 1
Enwebb 1 1
CAPTAIN MEDUSA 1 1
Dweller 1 1
Brigade Piron 1 1
The Rambling Man 1 1
Dudley Miles 1 1
David Fuchs 1 1
Heartfox 1 1
Johnbod 1 1
Theramin 1 1
Oldelpaso 1 1
Rodney Baggins 1 1
Chipmunkdavis 1 1
Factotem 1 1
Dunkleosteus77 1 1
Kailash29792 1 1
Casliber 1 1
Ealdgyth 1 1
Calidum 1 1
Ergo Sum 1 1
Gerda Arendt 1 1
Lizzy150 1 1
The Squirrel Conspiracy 1 1
Homeostasis07 1 1
Eddie891 1 1
Ichthyovenator 1 1
Naypta 1 1
Kosack 1 1
BennyOnTheLoose 1 1
Armbrust 1 1
GamerPro64 1 1
Eisfbnore 1 1
SnowFIre 1 1
KIENGIR 1 1
Indrian 1 1
Gonzo fan2007 1 1
JavaHurricane 1 1
Shshshsh 1 1
Fowler&fowler 1 1
Paparazzzi 1 1
Ian Rose 1 1
Coffeeandcrumbs 1 1
Jimfbleak 1 1
Factfanatic1 1 1
Jasper Deng 1 1
Aven13 1 1
Cplakidas 1 1
SilkTork 1 1
Borsoka 1 1
Iridescent 1 1
Kohlrabi Pickle 1 1
HaEr48 1 1
Beatpoet 1 1
Mark83 1 1
JennyOz 1 1
Hurricane Noah 1 1
Namcokid47 1 1
Grand Total 43 34 154 231
Supports and opposes for July 2020
# declarations Declaration
Editor Oppose Support None Struck oppose Grand Total
Nikkimaria 2 30 1 33
Buidhe 1 1 22 24
Gog the Mild 2 6 5 13
Harrias 2 1 5 1 9
Mike Christie 6 1 7
SandyGeorgia 1 1 4 1 7
Hawkeye7 2 3 5
Aoba47 2 2 4
CPA-5 3 1 4
Peacemaker67 3 1 4
MaranoFan 4 4
Airborne84 3 3
SNUGGUMS 1 2 3
Aza24 2 1 3
Nick-D 1 2 3
FunkMonk 3 3
Lee Vilenski 2 1 3
Epicgenius 3 3
Therapyisgood 1 2 3
AustralianRupert 3 3
Spicy 1 1 2
Betty Logan 1 1 2
Ceoil 1 1 2
Wehwalt 2 2
Cartoon network freak 2 2
Coolmarc 1 1 2
Hurricanehink 2 2
HJ Mitchell 2 2
Carabinieri 2 2
WA8MTWAYC 2 2
Damien Linnane 2 2
Jens Lallensack 2 2
Kaiser matias 2 2
Cassianto 1 1 2
KJP1 1 1 2
Ruhrfisch 1 1
Teratix 1 1
Piotrus 1 1
The Rambling Man 1 1
CAPTAIN MEDUSA 1 1
Ealdgyth 1 1
Brigade Piron 1 1
Theramin 1 1
Enwebb 1 1
David Fuchs 1 1
Heartfox 1 1
Johnbod 1 1
Dweller 1 1
Oldelpaso 1 1
Rodney Baggins 1 1
Chipmunkdavis 1 1
Factotem 1 1
Dunkleosteus77 1 1
Kailash29792 1 1
HaEr48 1 1
Ian Rose 1 1
Calidum 1 1
Ergo Sum 1 1
Gerda Arendt 1 1
Lizzy150 1 1
Fowler&fowler 1 1
Homeostasis07 1 1
Eddie891 1 1
Ichthyovenator 1 1
Naypta 1 1
Dudley Miles 1 1
BennyOnTheLoose 1 1
Armbrust 1 1
GamerPro64 1 1
Eisfbnore 1 1
Casliber 1 1
KIENGIR 1 1
Indrian 1 1
Gonzo fan2007 1 1
JavaHurricane 1 1
Shshshsh 1 1
The Squirrel Conspiracy 1 1
Paparazzzi 1 1
SnowFIre 1 1
Coffeeandcrumbs 1 1
Jimfbleak 1 1
Factfanatic1 1 1
Jasper Deng 1 1
Aven13 1 1
Cplakidas 1 1
SilkTork 1 1
Borsoka 1 1
Iridescent 1 1
Kohlrabi Pickle 1 1
Kosack 1 1
Beatpoet 1 1
Mark83 1 1
JennyOz 1 1
Hurricane Noah 1 1
Namcokid47 1 1
Grand Total 15 107 106 3 231

FAC and hurricanes...

Given the rather large dislocations of power on the US East Coast, I'll be a bit more lenient with archiving for the next week or two. I hope to do a pass tomorrow after I get this project for a client out the door. I haven't forgotten about everyone here! --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

FACs needing feedback – query for the coordinators

I nominated Skegness for FAC just over a month ago and, as yet, it has had only an image review; it's now the twelfth-oldest nomination, and I am wondering whether I can request the coordinators to place it in the "FACs needing feedback" box on this page to draw some attention to it? While I have nominated here before, it was a few years ago and I've usually not struggled to attract reviewers, so I apologise if I'm seem impatient – it's simply that not up to speed with how these things work and can't see any guidance about how the "needing feedback" box works. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC).

FARs needing reviewers

There are a number of FAR nominations that would benefit from some more eyes from experienced reviewers and/or people able to jump in to correct issues. We'd appreciate anyone who's willing to help out. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for August 2020

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for August 2020. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. Note that "<none>" is a marker meaning "No one reviewed this FAC". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Reviewers for August 2020
# reviews Type of review
Reviewer Image Source Content Total
Buidhe 17 7 1 25
Nikkimaria 5 10 2 17
Gog the Mild 6 6
Hawkeye7 1 3 4
Wehwalt 1 3 4
Aoba47 4 4
CPA-5 3 3
HĐ 3 3
Kosack 3 3
Harrias 1 2 3
Hog Farm 1 2 3
HaEr48 3 3
Nick-D 3 3
DrKay 1 1 1 3
SandyGeorgia 1 1 2
WereSpielChequers 2 2
Airborne84 2 2
Balon Greyjoy 2 2
FunkMonk 2 2
Mike Christie 2 2
Ian Rose 2 2
<none> 2 2
Girth Summit 2 2
The Rambling Man 2 2
T8612 2 2
Jens Lallensack 2 2
Peacemaker67 2 2
Therapyisgood 2 2
JennyOz 2 2
A. Parrot 1 1
IJReid 1 1
HornetMike 1 1
Hurricanehink 1 1
Chiswick Chap 1 1
Dudley Miles 1 1
Kyle Peake 1 1
Ceoil 1 1
Noswall59 1 1
Carabinieri 1 1
WA8MTWAYC 1 1
Hurricane Noah 1 1
Oldelpaso 1 1
Damien Linnane 1 1
Jarodalien 1 1
Mark83 1 1
Andrzejbanas 1 1
ComplexRational 1 1
Aza24 1 1
45.37.115.31 1 1
Paul 012 1 1
DePiep 1 1
Spinningspark 1 1
Lee Vilenski 1 1
Sainsf 1 1
Guerillero 1 1
Chidgk1 1 1
Surtsicna 1 1
SNUGGUMS 1 1
Hasteur 1 1
Attar-Aram syria 1 1
Moisejp 1 1
R8R 1 1
Jimfbleak 1 1
MaranoFan 1 1
J Milburn 1 1
Naypta 1 1
HJ Mitchell 1 1
Grand Total 24 25 103 152
Supports and opposes for August 2020
# declarations Declaration
Editor Oppose Support None Struck oppose Grand Total
Buidhe 25 25
Nikkimaria 1 1 14 1 17
Gog the Mild 6 6
Aoba47 1 3 4
Wehwalt 3 1 4
Hawkeye7 2 2 4
Nick-D 2 1 3
Hog Farm 1 2 3
CPA-5 3 3
DrKay 1 2 3
HĐ 1 1 1 3
Harrias 2 1 3
HaEr48 3 3
Kosack 3 3
WereSpielChequers 2 2
Balon Greyjoy 1 1 2
SandyGeorgia 1 1 2
Jens Lallensack 2 2
<none> 2 2
Therapyisgood 2 2
Peacemaker67 2 2
Ian Rose 1 1 2
Girth Summit 2 2
Airborne84 2 2
T8612 2 2
Mike Christie 2 2
The Rambling Man 2 2
FunkMonk 2 2
JennyOz 1 1 2
A. Parrot 1 1
IJReid 1 1
HornetMike 1 1
Hurricanehink 1 1
Chiswick Chap 1 1
Lee Vilenski 1 1
Kyle Peake 1 1
Ceoil 1 1
Noswall59 1 1
Carabinieri 1 1
WA8MTWAYC 1 1
Hurricane Noah 1 1
Oldelpaso 1 1
Damien Linnane 1 1
Jarodalien 1 1
Mark83 1 1
Andrzejbanas 1 1
ComplexRational 1 1
HJ Mitchell 1 1
45.37.115.31 1 1
Paul 012 1 1
DePiep 1 1
Spinningspark 1 1
Jimfbleak 1 1
Sainsf 1 1
Guerillero 1 1
Chidgk1 1 1
Surtsicna 1 1
SNUGGUMS 1 1
Hasteur 1 1
Attar-Aram syria 1 1
Moisejp 1 1
R8R 1 1
Aza24 1 1
MaranoFan 1 1
J Milburn 1 1
Naypta 1 1
Dudley Miles 1 1
Grand Total 7 70 71 4 152

FAC Toolbox

A number of the Toolbox links appear to no longer be working - are there replacement links available? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response Nikkimaria, but someone pointed me towards this page which includes some of them. Harrias talk 08:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I considered changing the template to use the links in the IP address form, but hoped that they would be fixed. Hasn't happened though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow

Now, whoever archive d “Let’s Fall in Love for the Night” is a real jerk. Waited months for this and it gets archived. Hours of my life wasted for something I wanted so bad, but I won’t be able to do ever again. If it’s going to be that way, fine. Goodbye. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I support the archive at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Let's Fall in Love for the Night/archive3. I'm sorry you are so disappointed, but the idea that you "won't be able to do ever again" is incorrect; you can re-nominate within two weeks. The page is badly stalled, articles are passing on scanty and improper review, and the best way forward with a nomination that hasn't received adequate review is to engage more reviewers via peer review or collaboration with editors outside of your content area (eg, review more FACs), and to re-nominate once any issues are addressed. That includes contemplating the reasons that FACs are not engaging reviewers, and "no issues raised" does not always mean "no issues observed". Also, no FAC Coord relishes *ever* archiving a nomination, so calling them a "jerk" isn't really helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Adding, The Ultimate Boss, it is also important that reviewers fully engage the criteria, to avoid stalling the page. This is not an appropriate FAC review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Please don't flounce at us. The reasons for archival is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Let's Fall in Love for the Night/archive3. You are welcome to renominate once the 14 days cool down is over but I would get a copyedit and comb through the article with the responses you've had through the three FAC reviews. I had a quick scan through the article and saw some MOS issues, an over-reliance on quotes and some things that a copy-edit would fix. Pinging Laser brain as closing coordinator. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

user:Lee Vilenski and user:SandyGeorgia, the problem is I just started school and I’m a busy person. I wanted to at least see how the FAC would go, but if it always get archived by the coordinators I will never be able to find out! There is no use in trying to do this anymore. When I put Everything I Wanted up for FAC, it was recommended that I put it up for peer review and a copy edit. I had to wait more than 2 months for that to completed, and by then I was back at school. I think it’s time to move on from this, it has been nothing but a disappointment for me. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi The Ultimate Boss. Just like you, I am also a first time FAC nominator. My article also got archived. But what I have done is: I found help from mentor, who guided me in improving the article, and currently I am working on the same article to make it FAcable. I asked many people for help without any hesitation. You should do the same. You should ask expert editors for mentoring. You should expand the article, make it clean and polished in presentation. Do hard work, and your article will get promoted. Best luck. --Gazal world (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • FA is hard and articles that feel like they are almost there need more work than one might imagine. This is how much The Minute Man changed between GA and FA. You got a number of very good comments from your reviewers. I would action those edits and then renominate in a month or two --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Opinion needed: first-time nominator

Hi All. I have worked on an article Raja Harishchandra, the first full-length Indian feature film, for quite some time. It is currently GA and was planning to get it to FAC. I know that FAC guidelines are very strict but I don't have any prior experience with FAC. I tried opening a PR but it got very lukewarm to no response. Before I take it to FAC, I would appreciate if experienced editors can take a look at the article and comment whether the article would stand any chance at FAC or opening PR again would be beneficial. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Give it a nom Vivvt. I can't tell you if it will pass, but certainly worth trying the process. I think the cast list is a bit odd. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
As usual, I would advise engaging here as a reviewer first, seeing what other reviewers are saying. This will give you a better understanding of the process and standards. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod, and always recommend that new nominators spend several months engaging FAC before nominating, to help avoid an unpleasant process or outcome. Have a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches, and the links at the bottom of that page; diving in to FAC is the best way to understand the criteria and understand how FAC works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all for your feedback. I will wait any of the film related article is listed at FAC. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Editnotice

Query about a template I found whilst cleaning out the general purpose editnotices. Template:Featured article candidates/editintro is an old template which states it's the editnotice when editing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Although, it's not actually used for the editnotice there (this is), or anywhere else, at present. Wondering if you folks want to keep/use that template in some way, or should it just be deleted / marked as obsolete? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I believe that's the editnotice that shows up when you create a new featured article nomination. You can see it by going partway through the featured article nomination process, and clicking on the link on the article talk page that says "Initiate nomination". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Mike Christie, ah, thanks! I've updated the template's doc to that effect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion re moving the bronze star

This discussion relevant to moving the bronze star from the upper right to next to the article name is ongoing and seems to be getting support. I did not see many FAC regulars there so I thought I would mention it here and provide a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What is reliable source?

Hello all. I don't know whether this is right place for this question. But, since my question is directly related to my FA nomination, I am asking this here.

My question is: If the source has been published by Oxford University Press, we can consider that it is a reliable source regardless of its author. Right ? --Gazal world (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Reliability in specific contexts for examples. An OUP published book by an author about themselves would be an obvious prime example. But, generally speaking, yes, OUP books would probably be reliable. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It is also worth adding that the Featured article criteria require "high-quality reliable sources", not just simply reliable sources. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Harrias; I could dig up medical examples from Oxford University Press that are decidedly bad for any article, much less an FA. (Menstrual psychosis, not a thing, redirected to Ian Brockington.) Context-dependent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, If you're referring to The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing, that is a Cambridge UP, not Oxford UP, book.[4] (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I was referring to Brockington IF (1996). Motherhood and Mental Health. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0192629357. It's not clear to me why Brockington was able to get these crazy ideas published. It's a one-man show. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Some would say it depends on which bit of OUP too - the American branch is perhaps not quite the guarantee of quality the English one is, & some of the output of OUP India reflects local standards & prejudices. Then again lots of stuff more than say 50 years old will be unreliable, from all branches. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for mentor

I guess I should ask for a mentor as Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey would be my first attempt at a FA, and I don't understand why my attempt a while ago to get another article approved as a featured list failed (perhaps it just ran out of time). No subject knowledge is needed as I would like it to be easily understandable by a high school graduate if possible. Also I wonder if it could become a model for anyone else who wishes to improve the more important Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time for a mentorship at the moment, but I see a number of issues remaining after the recent peer review. I realize this is a strange request, since you just had a poorly attended peer review, but if you will open another peer review (and remember to ping me to it, and pester me if I forget), I can weigh in with notes as I have time, and perhaps others will as well. A peer review provides a structured place for multiple editors to work through an article pre-FAC, and is a sadly unused process of late! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please join in! I will weigh in later at Wikipedia:Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive2, which allows for multiple-mentorship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Heads up...

I'm moving into a crunch period with the gaming company I do work for. I'll be pretty dang busy for most of October and into early November. I had already warned my fellow coordinators, but figured I should warn ya'll. Expect this pretty much every late-September through early-November. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Good luck, don't work too hard! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Good luck! Don't get too stressed! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for September 2020

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for September 2020. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. Note that "<none>" is a marker meaning "No one reviewed this FAC". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Reviewers for September 2020
# reviews Type of review
Reviewer Image Source Content Total
Nikkimaria 19 10 1 30
Buidhe 14 3 7 24
Hog Farm 2 6 8
Gog the Mild 1 2 5 8
Lee Vilenski 1 5 6
SandyGeorgia 1 5 6
Wehwalt 1 4 5
Aza24 4 1 5
Ceoil 1 4 5
FunkMonk 5 5
HĐ 4 4
Coffeeandcrumbs 3 1 4
Dudley Miles 4 4
Harrias 4 4
Aoba47 1 3 4
WA8MTWAYC 4 4
Spicy 1 2 3
Hawkeye7 3 3
Graham Beards 3 3
The Ultimate Boss 2 2
Laser brain 1 1 2
Tom (LT) 2 2
JennyOz 2 2
BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 2
WereSpielChequers 2 2
Kosack 2 2
Peacemaker67 2 2
Ergo Sum 2 2
Jens Lallensack 2 2
Jonesey95 2 2
Nick-D 2 2
Rodney Baggins 1 1 2
Kaiser matias 2 2
Vanamonde93 2 2
SNUGGUMS 2 2
Isento 1 1
Trappist the monk 1 1
<none> 1 1
No Great Shaker 1 1
Casliber 1 1
Noswall59 1 1
Zmbro 1 1
Pendright 1 1
Epicgenius 1 1
T8612 1 1
ThedancingMOONpolice 1 1
Haukur 1 1
Hahnchen 1 1
Cplakidas 1 1
Cassianto 1 1
JavaHurricane 1 1
Cartoon network freak 1 1
Pseud 14 1 1
J Milburn 1 1
Homeostasis07 1 1
Kingsif 1 1
Ntox 1 1
Brigade Piron 1 1
Mike Christie 1 1
Damien Linnane 1 1
Jfdwolff 1 1
Lizzy150 1 1
Colin 1 1
Argento Surfer 1 1
RexxS 1 1
Borsoka 1 1
Hurricane Noah 1 1
Serial Number 54129 1 1
Jarodalien 1 1
ChrisTheDude 1 1
WhatamIdoing 1 1
SilverTiger12 1 1
Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 1
Dweller 1 1
Piotrus 1 1
The Squirrel Conspiracy 1 1
100cellsman 1 1
Giants2008 1 1
Chipmunkdavis 1 1
Ceranthor 1 1
R8R 1 1
RetiredDuke 1 1
Eddie891 1 1
LOVI33 1 1
Tagishsimon 1 1
Ajmint 1 1
Venicescapes 1 1
Status 1 1
Gerda Arendt 1 1
Mattximus 1 1
The ed17 1 1
Sturmvogel 66 1 1
Amakuru 1 1
Grand Total 38 32 155 225
Supports and opposes for September 2020
# declarations Declaration
Editor Oppose Support None Struck oppose Oppose converted to support Grand Total
Nikkimaria 29 1 30
Buidhe 1 23 24
Gog the Mild 5 3 8
Hog Farm 6 2 8
SandyGeorgia 4 2 6
Lee Vilenski 5 1 6
Wehwalt 3 2 5
Aza24 1 4 5
FunkMonk 5 5
Ceoil 3 1 1 5
HĐ 1 1 2 4
Coffeeandcrumbs 1 3 4
Aoba47 3 1 4
Dudley Miles 4 4
Harrias 2 2 4
WA8MTWAYC 4 4
Spicy 1 2 3
Hawkeye7 2 1 3
Graham Beards 1 1 1 3
The Ultimate Boss 2 2
Laser brain 1 1 2
Tom (LT) 1 1 2
JennyOz 2 2
BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 2
WereSpielChequers 1 1 2
Nick-D 1 1 2
Kosack 2 2
Ergo Sum 2 2
Jens Lallensack 2 2
Jonesey95 2 2
Peacemaker67 1 1 2
Rodney Baggins 1 1 2
Kaiser matias 2 2
Vanamonde93 2 2
SNUGGUMS 2 2
Isento 1 1
Trappist the monk 1 1
<none> 1 1
No Great Shaker 1 1
Casliber 1 1
Noswall59 1 1
Zmbro 1 1
Pendright 1 1
Epicgenius 1 1
T8612 1 1
ThedancingMOONpolice 1 1
Haukur 1 1
Hahnchen 1 1
Cplakidas 1 1
Cassianto 1 1
JavaHurricane 1 1
Cartoon network freak 1 1
Pseud 14 1 1
J Milburn 1 1
Homeostasis07 1 1
Kingsif 1 1
Ntox 1 1
Brigade Piron 1 1
Mike Christie 1 1
Damien Linnane 1 1
Jfdwolff 1 1
Lizzy150 1 1
Colin 1 1
Argento Surfer 1 1
RexxS 1 1
Borsoka 1 1
Hurricane Noah 1 1
Serial Number 54129 1 1
Jarodalien 1 1
ChrisTheDude 1 1
WhatamIdoing 1 1
SilverTiger12 1 1
Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 1
Dweller 1 1
Piotrus 1 1
The Squirrel Conspiracy 1 1
100cellsman 1 1
Giants2008 1 1
Chipmunkdavis 1 1
Ceranthor 1 1
R8R 1 1
RetiredDuke 1 1
Eddie891 1 1
LOVI33 1 1
Tagishsimon 1 1
Ajmint 1 1
Venicescapes 1 1
Status 1 1
Gerda Arendt 1 1
Mattximus 1 1
The ed17 1 1
Sturmvogel 66 1 1
Amakuru 1 1
Grand Total 4 106 113 1 1 225
SarahSV spotted a mistake in the oppose count, so I've updated the table; there were four opposes last month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikicup

This is no longer likely to achieve anything

So, what became of the requirement to disclose Wikicup participation? We have a lot of nominations up that have no declaration that the nominators are Wikicup participants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Disqualify the whole lot of 'em! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you have an example of a review that doesn't specify the cup participation? I always try to get it on there (I even use a boilerplate message to do so). Bare in mind Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring only mentions reviews as requiring declaration, and not nominations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not talking about reviews: I'm talking about nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, if there is any requirement for the nominators of an FAC to declare at any point that if it were to be promoted points may be gained in the WikiCup then we WikiCup competitors are collectively oblivious to it. Could you point it out for the hard of thinking? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I thought that was the idea when we discussed it way back when ... that Wikicup participation should be declared at FAC. I did not interpret that we were restricting it to reviews, and thought that all Wikicup participation was always declared historically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It's certainly not part of the current ruleset. I'm not really sure what it really changes to be honest - are we suggesting that the FA noms by those in the cup are to be reviewed/treated differently? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. A FAC is a FAC whether it's for a competition or not. It should be dealt with in exactly the same way regardless. What possible interest is there in a FAC nominator having to state that a nomination may or may not be part of WikiCup? This looks like a trivially frivolous issue, if an issue at all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Back in 2011, the rules stated that "You must declare your WikiCup participation in any FAC nomination statement or if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC." The following year, this was removed, but that was a note that: "A bot will now make explicit that you're in the WikiCup when nominating something at FAC." From 2012 to 2017 (inclusive) the rules only stated that "You must declare your WikiCup participation if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC." Now it is only stated that a declaration should be made when reviewing an article: "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review.". Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
So, if I am understanding correctly, because a bot stopped working (or never worked), we ended up relaxing a long-standing convention at FAC, where ALL potential conflicts or prior involvement are expected to be declared at FAC (eg, I was involved at the peer review, I was involved at the GAN, I am the second highest editor on this article, I am involved in a reward contest, whatever)? And that quid pro quo reviewing was eschewed and discouraged? That has always been the expectation to my knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
A reviewer can review every article at FAC if they want to, whereas a nominator can nominate at most two articles at a time. The Wikicup comes into play only if you wish to influence when a FAC nomination is processed so it appears in a round when you need the points. I'm sure the coordinator would oblige by delaying the promotion of an article, but I'm yet to see that occur. NB: I don't know what bot adds a note about the nomination. It isn't the FACBot. If the coordinators wish, I can have the FACBot add an appropriate template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I am saying that as first time competitor I have stuck to the rules as they are written and that I dislike the implication that by not being aware of a rule that has, for whatever reason, not in been in effect this year I may have somehow gained an unfair advantage. I would thank you to reread and rethink your previous comment.
I would also suggest that the WikiCup talk page would be a better venue for a discussion of its rules, or perceived lack thereof. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
What Gog said, but also: this is a waste of time. FAC nominators are trying to make FAs. Worrying about their motives to do so is a waste of time if the review process is functional. FAC nominators have no control over what happens next. Next perennial/trivial issue please. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Gog, I regret that you feel that I have implied anything; please read what I have written, not what you may think I have written, and please don't put a shoe on if it doesn't fit. The question/concern is, has the long-standing convention of giving the Coords certain disclaimers been discontinued at FAC. In the interest of the integrity of FAC, the Coords need to have full information about any involvement on any nomination. It is up to them how they choose to weigh that information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Bizarre. I have a few FACs and it just happens that I'm in the WikiCup. There's no special dispensation required. I expect no special treatment. I want my FAs to be FAs, regardless of any parallel endeavours. How does a WikiCup FAC nomination jeopardise the integrity of FAC if all checks and measures usually applied are in place? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
More or less what TRM said. I believe the reasoning behind asking reviewers to acknowledge their participation is that it's quite possible for editors to conduct slapdash reviews in a search for quick points. FAC coords and other reviewers may therefore need information about Wikicup participation. However, the FAC process itself is supposed to be a check against nominated articles being thrown together in a hurry, and if the nominator acknowledging their participatin is going to change the scrutiny that their nomination receives, that does not strike me as a positive thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Not you Vanamonde, but I've long suspected that editors have all too often nominated slapdash, cookie-cutter, articles at FAC in order to win their points at Wikicup in a timely fashion. I have also long suspected that they expect the community to do for them by way of timely actionable comments what they should have done in the first place. If they acknowledged this upfront, someone like me would be doubly cagey in approaching such an article, and, all things being equal, be more likely than before to walk away. If others felt the same way, these nominations would—by a collective lack of interest—receive an automatic grade. Life would become much simpler for the reviewers; for those who have made the rushing and pressing demands, an object lesson will await. All too often though it is the other way round. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
No-one's rushing anyone. The candidates are just following their natural course, WikiCup or nay. This is a fruitless conversation and seemingly an opportunity to just bandwagon with sly digs. Completely unproductive. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Inconvenient is not fruitless. Reviewers have a duty of care (in a figurative sense) to all articles, the hackneyed, and the commonly overlooked. When the hackneyed abound, making a rolling stop at FAC en route to Wikicup, they crowd out overlooked, they drive out the faltering, even the uncommonly original. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't follow that at all. If you think there are FACs which should be failed, then you should do something about it. Attempting to curtail people from nominating FACs simply because the subject matter doesn't appeal to you personally is nonsensical, crass and spiteful. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nonsense. I have never known nominations from Wikicup participants get anywhere close to "crowd(ing) out". Most often there has only been one or two at a time. When I was a co-ordinator, such declarations never affected my judgement, one way or the other. Graham Beards (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Quite frankly fowler&fowler, I have seen a significant amount of comments from you suggesting that some FACs are less worthy than others, merely because the subject matter doesn't suit you. Commonly suggesting that articles that have a similarity to them are "cookie-cutter" and thus, somehow inferior to those on different topics. Somehow certain topics should never be deemed some of Wikipedia's best work because of the subject matter - and in this case that someone participating in a competition to improve content should have that content significantly more critiqued. I've heard a lot about what the coordinators should feel, but I'd rather hear from our actual coordinators on the topic.
However, this is not currently a part of the rules for the wikicup (we don't have anything like this for GAs, etc), so we should really have this conversation at the wikicup rules talk. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Rather than arguing endlessly about this, it would appear to make sense to just reinstate the rule that was agreed upon - for WikiCup noms as well as reviews to explicitly declare themselves. And Lee Vilenski with all due respect this is not a matter of WikiCup rules but FAC rules, and the problems that might arise from editors coming here with motivations other than the pure desire to see featured content on the project. Thus it's correct to have the conversation here. While I've no doubt that everyone is behaving honourably in practice, it is theoretically possible say for a few WikiCup participants to "gang up" on other contestants by one nominating an article while others provide cheap and less-than-thorough reviews. So as a courtesy to regulars at FAC who don't do WikiCup, just declare your participation when you make such a nom or review, over and done with in 10 seconds, and we can move on from this rather pointless argument.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    I think Fowler&fowler has somewhat derailed the original discussion. Of course people could (and should) note WikiCup nominations if that's a rule, but the corollary claims by the aforementioned are unnecessary, offensive and untrue. Suggest this is closed with the conclusion that "rules are rules" no matter what and should be adhered to. Giving the other aspect of this "discussion" any more oxygen is utterly pointless. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, and incidentally I just re-read F&F's points above after posting my comment and was about to follow up with a WP:TROUT of my own, because the attitude that WikiCup nominations are somehow inferior to others and should be ignored is clearly bogus as well. I'm not sure what's meant by "cookie-cutter articles", but if that's a reference to the ongoing effort to bring all the play-off final articles - which of course all follow broadly the same format as each other - then that's very wrong, because getting those articles whipped into shape is a very worthwhile project.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    And Lee's snooker articles as well are no doubt held in equal disdain (or perhaps not quite so as it's by far the gentleman's sport I suppose). The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • >>"Attempting to curtail people from nominating FACs simply because the subject matter doesn't appeal to you personally is nonsensical, crass and spiteful." Huh? Who is saying that? I am saying only: lay your cards on the table in order to help me make a more informed decision—on whether or not to ignore the article at FAC—in the least amount of time. Cookie-cutter is not slapdash, otherwise, two adjectives would not be needed, but the cookie cutters do diminish diversity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Based on what SandyGeorgia said above: "we ended up relaxing a long-standing convention at FAC, where ALL potential conflicts or prior involvement are expected to be declared at FAC", and the comment by Amakuru I would suggest that if there is consensus for declarations of interest to be made, we should implement a FAC rule, not convention, stating something along the lines of:

All potential conflicts of interest, by both nominators and reviewers, are expected to be declared at FAC.

  1. Nominators should include such a declaration in their nomination statement. This includes involvement in the WP:WIKICUP.
  2. Reviewers should include the statement at the start of their review. This includes involvement in previous reviews at WP:GA or WP:PR (or other forum), significant input on the article, or involvement in the WP:WIKICUP.

Thoughts? Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW my stance on this is the same as stated by Graham Beards. A nomination or a review being for wikicup points has no bearing on how I look at it. It stands on its own merit. Yes there is a scholarly debate to be had about how gamification potentially drives undesirable behavior but this isn't the venue. The "rule" was probably made to address a historical incident of eager participants crashing into FAC with unprepared nominations. Personally I'd rather educate, if that's the case. And I'd rather reserve the cognitive energy for conflicts of interest like paid editing. --Laser brain (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It is surprising that we find ourselves in a position where this should even need to be stated, but it appears that we are. It is not necessary to entertain the hypothetical problems raised above by Hawkeye7 (timing of promotions—although timing of archives is also a concern) or Vanamonde (slapdash reviews); the number of ways Coord decisions, and the integrity of FAC, can be affected by failures to disclose any conflicts or prior involvement are numerous.
Unlike both Graham and Laser, I have experienced instances where disclosures mattered. I will give some examples (there are more) of where such occurred during my tenure, so that we can make general decisions (non-specific to WikiCup), keeping history in mind. The Coords do not ONLY decide whether to archive or promote: they also have to take timing considerations into account, and whether a given nomination has received ample independent review as compared to review by only a group that commonly reviews certain kinds of topics. Example, I would hesitate to promote a MILHIST article that hasn't been reviewed by a non-MILHIST editor .. ditto for medical, art, etc. Another example: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1. Fortunately, the editor who archived that discussion understood that one WikiProject should not be allowed to overwhelm FAC. Third example. I had to be aware of issues impacting timing during the period when FAC was overrun by nominations from the first-ever student-editing program. During those nominations, pretty much every serious FAC regular participant was over helping those student articles get promoted, for months at a time, and other FACs suffered as a result. (As an aside, it is unfortunate that not one of those students has stayed engaged with Wikipedia, and we are now seeing those FAs fall into disrepair and be demoted. This bears out my concern then that the business of FAC was being impacted by one group draining resources, as I watched other nominations suffer.) We unequivocably expected those nominations to disclose they were part of a group effort. As delegate, I was aware that I had to allow extra time for other nominations, because FAC reviewers had been disproportionately focused on those nominations.
I cannot see any reason why any good-faith nominator should be concerned about declaring prior involvement, or any other COI, either as a nominator or as a reviewer, because situations such as the three I raise do exist, and we can only guess how many other scenarios there are that could have an impact.
There are other differences between earlier (busier) years at FAC and now. The first issue is that the enormous difference here between Graham's tenure, my tenure, and now is that MOST FACs are now not getting enough reviewer engagement, and some worthy articles are being archived because of that. The Coords can only decide if a worthy nomination should not be archived due to lack of review if they can observe overall trends (which articles are getting reviews vs which are not, and what might be impacting that). The second issue is that some presumption that an article is automatically promoted on only three supports has taken hold (related to the lack of reviewer problem). If an article has not received independent review, that affects the integrity of FAC; the nomination may need to stay open longer for independent review. Third, we are short of reviewers. I won't (knowingly) review one WIKICUP nom unless I feel I have time to similarly review the other WikiCup noms on the page, because doing so would grant an either advantage or disadvantage to which one I chose to review. So I avoid them all. That some reviewers won't engage contest articles will impact integrity, some kinds of articles are easier to review than others, and could also cause some worthy nominations to be archived due to lack of review.
Harrias, thank you for bringing forward a sensible reminder. I would shorten it to:
  • Support: All potential conflicts of interest, by both nominators and reviewers, are expected to be declared at FAC, including but not limited to previous reviews at other processes like GAN or peer review, significant input on the article, or involvement in contests such as WikiCup. Nominators should include such a declaration in their nomination statement and reviewers should include a statement at the start of their review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • One thing that we used to see often—but we rarely see anymore—is "I consider myself a Wikifriend of the nominator". I think that has probably fallen by the wayside logically as the number of FA participants has dwindled. When you have 15 years working with this small group of editors, we all become Wikifriends. The other side of the coin (I have been in prior disputes with) I think is typically declared, as it is kind of a Wiki-wide practice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • What constitutes a "wikifriend"? Is that conversing amiably (e.g. I have had regular conversation over the years with RexxS but I can't recall working on anything with them)? Is it working together on multiple FACs (e.g. I like to work with Dweller with whom I share many common interests, but also with whom I have a strong sporting rivalry so it's like the inverse of a COI because we consistently check each other's neutrality)? What does that even mean? Do we thus need to confirm that we may have fallen out with people whose articles we review, just in case those reviews are considered over-critical? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with you both. I consider most of the names in this thread to be at least Wikiacquaintances (!). I think there's so few of us these days that the declaration no longer has any utility, and we're knowledgable enough and care enough about the standards that it won't affect our judgement. As TRM says, if I can cooperate with developing this distasteful moustache to FA, you're probably OK with my bias. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope, I did no such thing. Could you stop being cranky now over a simple request for a lost but now found bot? It was not my proposal, and if you want to personalize it to me, you should at least read what I wrote, not whatever shoe you decided wear. You may have the last word; I am not exposing the rest of FAC to this anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not cranky at all. You moved your own goalposts. It started with just WikiCup people stating they'd made nominations and descended into "lax reviews". It's a real shame you had to do that. You provided literally no evidence of any real problem. It's really embarrassing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Either Harrias's original, or SG's draft. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but without the word "potential". A potential COI is when you would have a COI if you were to work in a certain area. An actual COI is when you do that work, so it should read "All conflicts of interest, by both nominators and reviewers ..." SarahSV (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose<it needs to be specific. I am a serious contributor and I take FAC seriously and I am also in the WikiCup. I would certainly not believe that I had any "conflict of interest" when nominating my next FACs. I seek no special treatment, indeed, my FACs are niche and so are overlooked, hardly optimal for winning a contest that ends in two or so weeks. Harrias' wording was superior, it made it plainer what constitutes a COI. As far as I'm concerned, this is all alarmist and not an actual problem, indeed a solution looking for an actual problem, but I concede that I may be the only FAC nominator in WikiCup trying to improve Wikipedia (that's clearly not true). Still, nice to waste a whole heap of time on it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Now "potential" has gone, this is alright. I still firmly believe it's overkill but hey, YMMV. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Restoring opposition, this is unenforceable and is a huge requirement creep. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    But I think part of your point still applies. What if we made it instead ... 'Other factors and conflicts of interest ... because you are correct that participating in a contest is not a COI per se. The problem in that case could be who reviews your contest entry and how, and which other noms they don't review, but YOU don't have the COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    I also have a question relating to Preity Zinta. Does "involvement in a Wikiproject" mean a conflict of interest? I mean, this is getting seriously into creep-land. What is being declared as a COI here is somewhat subjective. We can't enforce this. And as for "who reviews my FACs", I have no control over that, but ironically we're often encouraged to get people from related WikiProjects to contribute. An inherent COI.... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think we need to go excessively CREEPy and spell that out, but let's look at a medical example, because most of us are careful to explain from what point we are reviewing (eg, as a physician, layperson, etc), which is more relevant than whether we belong to the Medicine project (I am not officially listed as a member there, because of That Other Thing). The Coords need to be assured that topic experts have had a look in the case of medicine, and we think we have that covered, intuitively. What I meant about Preity Zinta was that all the Indian editors came streaming in to pile-on support; that was verifiable then by checking the project member list. So, no, I don't think we need to declare WP membership and go so far as to spell that out. And I think the Coords know which editors are MILHIST because they are so prolific, ditto for the art cabal. There may be other areas where it is less clear, but the Coords are likely to know it when they see it ... that is, only sports editors reviewing sports articles, and then a jargon check will be needed. Perhaps someone has other examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, so it's the coords job to check this, not the reviewers' job to declare it. It's not enforceable unless the last gate checks it and that's the promoting coord. Are we going to start handing out FAC bans to people who don't declare this subjective COI? How does it work in practice unless the coord does this job? I am fully behind the idea of transparency (and that has absolutely nothing to do with WikiCup) but this should just apply to every single nominator and every single reviewer, and as such a declaration of a COI, perceived or otherwise, is really a waste of time. What you're noting here is just the regular play at FAC, most articles are niche, we don't get water or air nominated too often, so by its very nature, many people reviewing will have a COI by virtue of being interested in promoting a topic in which they are inherently interested. In my mind, this has now become too vague, too subjective, and enforceable, i.e. a waste of time. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    I don't see a problem with the list of examples included so far. I think where I stand on FAC bans is clear ... they are detrimental to FAC ... and don't think that is a factor here at all. If someone forgets a declaration, someone else adds it, no problem. The reason we don't have a problem, for example, in medical, is I do and advise others to lay out in their nomination statement which other medical editors have reviewed, as well as which laypeople have reviewed. This just saves time for the Coords. MILHIST is our biggest nominator. If they decide to do similar, they can, but I hope the Coords know when a jargon check is needed in any area, and I hope they are watching for that in all nominations. We can save them time by laying that out in the nom statement, but it's not required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    "Yes, so it's the coords job to check this, not the reviewers' job to declare it." so you're in favor of making the coord's job to check through things rather than the people who know they might have some issue declare it up front so the coords job isn't quite so hard? Gee, thanks for thinking I have unlimited time to devote to hunting for things... --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    That you are "hunting for" these things is good news! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    (ec) Well you know the irony of this, right now you're (probably) assuming good faith on the nominators and the reviewers. If each one has to declare a COI, your job gets harder because you can no longer assume good faith, you have to assume there's some kind of nefarious backdoor FAC cheating going on and scrutinise things in even more detail. It's a common issue, something I deal with in my professional life, where we deploy AI to "make lives easier" but in actuality they can easily make more work by identifying things that a human would just naturally overlook. I would never assume the coords have infinite time on their hands, but this additional level of bureaucracy just makes it harder for you. One obvious side effect of this proposed change is going to be turning off reviewers, so FAC will become even more stagnant than it already is. Sub-optimal. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed, upon reflection, to enforce this properly, coords would have to assume that every reviewer and nominator had a COI, declared or otherwise (because as Sandy notes above, there's no real way to enforce such declarations, and there are exceptions apparently, such as Wikiproject membership). Thus every reviewer's contributors and interactions with nominators would need to be checked before it could be safely assumed that the review/nomination was made in good faith and without some kind of attempt to game the system. It's either that, or we maintain the status quo where we trust coords to do their (continually fantastic) job and judge reviews and nominations on their merits. There shouldn't be a woolly in-between version because that in itself will undermine the whole FAC process and reduce engagement. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    That's a bit of hyperbole. It is the Coords' job to make sure that WIAFA is met. In that vein, they make sure that an image review has been conducted, a source review, a prose review, etc. And they have to make sure that articles are independently reviewed for things like jargon and comprehensibility to the layperson. By giving them as much info as we can up front, all we are doing is saving them time on things they have to do anyway. There is no AGF here; it's them having the info to check for the things they are required to check for. Perhaps you weren't aware they were having to do all of this work; I was, because it did for six hours a day, almost every day.
    As to "turning off reviewers"; I'm a reviewer who is turning off by seeing this slide and reviews becoming increasingly too lax, so there are two sides to that coin. The better FA integrity is perserved, the more likely we are to have reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Not really. If a reviewer said "I have a COI because I worked with this editor before", what difference does that make to the coord? What would they do differently? They'd have to take it into account. If you're saying this work is already being done, then it underpins my assertion that the requirement for a statement of COI (perceived or otherwise) is completely nugatory. And adding further bells and whistles to an already arcane process would serve to reduce membership even further. Who wants to decide if they believe they have a COI? We don't even really know what that means in this context. If a coord can assess WIAFA, it doesn't matter what the nominator or the reviewers are up to to FAC in any sense at all! And in response to "seeing this slide", seeing what slide? Where's the evidence that this is an actual issue? You've just said you've done this kind of checking forever. This changes nothing other than to add additional (uncertain) burden on reviewers, nominators and coords, with no discernible increase in FA quality. If we had a spate of FAs promoted through some kind of nefarious "boy's club" backdoor COI, I'd buy it. Do we have that? No, because our coords do a brilliant job. Adding this in just makes their job harder and reduces the likelihood of people wanting to get involved in an already overly bureaucratic and interminable process. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    There are a lot of straw men creeping into this page; why would a reviewer say "I have a COI because I worked with this editor before"? Where is that part of this proposal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    You mentioned "wikifriends" earlier, remember? Anyway, that's a red herring. It avoids the matter in hand. This is a requirement creep which would be entirely detrimental at every part of the FAC process and has absolutely no evidential improvement at all. Or at least, not one single person has provided any statistics on FAs which have been promoted prematurely as a result of overlooked COI. Bring the evidence and we can have a serious debate on the utility of such a nebulous and subjective concept. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    P.S. "reviews becoming increasingly too lax" can you demonstrate any reviews which were too lax that the coords accepted at face value? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Of course I can demonstrate lax reviews (I don't read the Coords mind as to how they interpret them, but that was never the point). That doesn't mean I will. Whether straw men, red herrings, or other aggressions on this page, the extent to which a simple question about a long-standing practice at FAC was distorted is fishy and unhelpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    You miss the point. If the coords have accepted reviews in the past which you deem inadequate, and as a result there are FAs out there which shouldn't be FAs, it's incumbent on you and others to call them out. The complete lack of evidence of malfeasance presented here is testimony to the fact that this is a solution looking for a problem and requirement creep in extremis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Graham Beards and Lazer brain. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as overreach. Originally WP:COI meant not writing about yourself, your family members, or your employer. But some people want it interpreted as broadly as possible so they can fish for personal information. My contract with my former employer explicitly stated that I was not to mention my firm or my work on any form of social media. This had nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia; the concern was about IP, insider trading and disclosures that could affect the stock price. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • NONE of the wording in these proposals links to the Wiki-construct of WP:COI and none of your concerns relate to any of this proposal. There is such a thing as general "conflict of interest" in the usual sense for most people in the real world. In this case, as in, just saying in your review that you may be too close to the material because you were the GAN reviewer. This has zero to do with the policy page at WP:COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a job for a bot. Get a bot to determine how many edits a reviewer has made to the nomination, get a bot to determine if they participated at PR or GAN. Hell, get a bot to determine how many interactions reviewers and nominator have had in the past. You're basically asking humans to make an assessment if they think they have a COI, which is plainly not functional, so let a robot decide. As COI is clearly subjective, get statistics. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the coordinators can treat reviews entirely on their own merit, this is unnecessary. If they cannot, and need to examine the reviewers' background (so to speak), then this is insufficient, and any requirement that is sufficient would be wildly excessive in terms of CREEP. I'm also not a fan of the idea that members of a Wikiproject will all review something the same way; cabals do form, to be certain, but they form in far more insidious ways than Wikicup participants banding together to support each others' nominations. Indeed, if we have a problem with such cabals, putting this requirement in place may actively make it worse, in that it may give the illusion of security without changing anything substantive. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The concern, as in examples given, has always been that it is the Coords job to be sure independent review is present, and in the case of specialist topics (like medicine, art, MILHIST), that jargon and accessibility to the layperson is addressed. To that end, the more information nominators can give Coords, the easier is their job. If "Wikicup participants [are] banding together to support each others' nominations", that goes beyond the concerns raised in this discussion (and isn't likely to be something we could detect anyway). I am more concerned with FACs that are being archived because they are not getting reviewed at all, when they appear worthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Riiight. So this has nothing to do with people being involved, it's to do with lack of independence. So it would be better for someone to declare their "neutrality" in a review rather than their possible COI? Talk about moving the goalposts. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (Added post-EC; this is directed at SG, not TRM) I understand that; I just don't think acknowledging project membership and wikicup participation does anything substantial to aid our understanding of the independence of a review. A 20-question survey determining the reviewer's opinions and experience with respect to the topic under consideration might, but that's excessive, as I've said. I agree that we have a lack of reviewers, but I do not accept the premise that the Wikicup is somehow contributing to this lack. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold on, so the pile-on support from the Wikiproject wasn't a COI? Or was it that it was just easy to detect? I don't get it. Especially in light of your "wikifriends" comment above. And again, a red herring. You've stated now that you're looking for evidence of an independent review not evidence of non-independent reviews. Which is it this is trying to solve? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. Firstly, it's clear that the community norm is to not require disclosing WikiCup participation in nominations. IIUC, the proposal would prescribe a behavior that was already prescribed years ago but never actually adopted in practice; I don't see the benefit of reviving a rule that was already tried and abandoned. Others have pointed out why the rule would not be particularly useful, and I agree with that assessment. Secondly, more rules makes it harder for people to get involved, and the disconnect between this local notion of "COI" and our project-wide definition at WP:COI makes confusion all-the-more likely. We need more reviewers, and esoteric restrictions that redefine project-wide notions will only discourage participation. Baroque and conflicting guidance which requires behavior no one actually follows is exactly what WP:CREEP counsels against because they will not be followed in practice. It already happened the last time this was tried. (edit conflict × 2)— Wug·a·po·des​ 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wugapodes just to make sure you're aware, you have misstated the case. Absolutely WikiCup participation was declared in the past. The part that got messed up is that there was a bot at some point (after I resigned, apparently) that is no longer. Also, this "rule" is something that good nominators do regularly anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a fair assessment of SG's point. The people most likely to be impacted by this change should already know the local best practices, and that's what I understood her "good reviewers" point to mean. She and others are correct that it is useful information; I just disagree with whether it should be added to the instructions as a requirement. My concern is that this will confuse newer participants or be used as a cudgel against them (likely by other relatively new participants). — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I'm what I'd consider to be a "good" reviewer and a "good" nominator yet I've never felt it necessary to submit any kind of statement on a possible COI for anything I've ever done, precisely because I'm a "good" reviewer and a "good" nominator. I nominate my best work and I review to the best of my ability anything I choose to review. To suggest that now I have to state I might have a COI because I like football or because I've interacted with the nominator or because my nomination might be part of the WikiCup is not useful in any sense to anyone, as proven above. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: Thanks for clarifying. In that case I think I would strongly prefer a bot that gives vital stats on noms over a requirement that noms provide the info themselves. Not only would it lower the bar to entry, but it is easily extensible. If coords or reviewers think knowing X would be helpful, we can just modify the bot to include X in its comment, but creating requirements to self disclose that information would be an uphill battle every time and ultimately lead to long and useless directions (or not getting the information at all). I'm rather busy in meatspace recently, so unfortunately I can't devote much time to developing a bot. If anyone knows where the legacy code might be, I can look into getting it running again though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Wugapodes: it was apparently after my time, but I found it by searching FAC archives for 2012, which was when Harrias mentioned it was added to WikiCup instructions (going by the wayside only in 2017). It was UcuchaBot. User:Ucucha was another FAC delegate, around my time. I guess he shared the concern, as he wrote the bot. Ucucha is occasionally still active; or maybe someone can email him for this code. All this "how dare you" blunderbuss (aimed at me for asking) is about something that was commonplace at FAC for many years. If you are able to get your hands on the code (or if anyone else can, for that matter), the other bot thing that has gone by the wayside is complete updating of the Template:Articlehistory on talk pages. GimmeBot used to add all the parameters. Now we have talk page clutter because some bots add some pieces, but miss others, which I have taken to fixing lately. If we don't get this feature reinstated by bot, I will take this opportunity to put in a plug to remind regulars to update their article milestones! After all the work we did (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches) to clean up Every Single Talk Page of every GA and FA a decade ago, it is disappointing now to find talk pages cluttered with templates that should be added to articlemilestones, which I have taken to doing manually as I come across them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    The FACBot should be doing this for all featured articles! Report any slip ups to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    Hawkeye7, too many to mention. FACBOT does not roll in all older event as GimmeBot did, and it does not put them in order. Just today, I fixed Talk:Biblical criticism, currently at FAC. Here is where FACBOT failed to roll in an old peer review and an old AFD. I noticed because I have been dismayed that this FAC should have been mentored, and needed a PR pre-FAC. The nominator had to point out to me that it had been peer reviewed. The talk page was a mess so I missed that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    Hopefully this will get sorted, and we all learned a lesson about dependence on bots where the owner doesn't make the source code available. --Laser brain (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    Still, I get to remind folks here to keep their talk pages in order, because it is tedious work!
    Separately, do we have reason to think Ucuchabot's code won't be made available? We probably just have to email him.
    And separately, separately, I'm not even going to engage the rest of the aggression and misreading/misinterpretation that unfolded as a result of asking what became of a once standard feature/bot at FAC, but TRM, can we have these discussions without the unnecessary escalation? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't "escalate" anything. I asked for evidence that there was a problem. I asked for evidence of "lax reviews" which have detrimentally affected Wikipedia. I'm not clear what I "escalated" other than a request for logical reasoning with evidence. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I often recognize that a nomination is Wikicup-eligible, but it makes no difference to the way I review, and I don't think it should make any difference to the way anyone reviews. Hence I don't think the rule would benefit reviewers. Noone is arguing it would benefit nominators, so that leaves the coords. If all three say such a rule would help them I'd probably go along with their preference, but that's not what we're hearing so far. I wouldn't object to a revival of Ucuchabot marking up the FACs as being in the Wikicup, but I haven't missed it. I should also say that I am certain I've read more FACs than anyone on the planet, having reviewed each one since mid-2007, and many before that, and I have seen multiple FACs with low-quality pile-on supports, all of which were easily identifiable as such without any declaration. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Mike, while I respect your Oppose, I don't want to let this (perennial issue) pass into archives without some corrections.
  1. The issue raised is not the way any given reviewer reviews, but whether they review at all. I explained that in my reasoning. And that affects integrity.
  2. The long-standing rule does benefit reviewers, as explained by both F&F and me, even though we have dramatically different reasons.
  3. I don't think you are correctly representing the issue for Coords. WRT current Coords, we have different takes from Laser and Ealdgyth. WRT past delegates, we have different takes from Graham and me. We have the unspoken Ucucha, who created a bot to flag WikiCup noms. So, even if Ian Rose weighs in with something dramatically in one direction or another, we don't have anything close to a consensus among those who sat in the hot seat of having to decide when to archive FACs. And that is a good thing, because hopefully there is still (there once was) no backchannel coordination in terms of how each delegate approaches these decisions.
  4. For odd reasons, the discussion was entirely sidetracked onto unrelated issues, that should be clarified. The need for disclosure is related to archiving, and timing of archiving, as much as promoting. No matter the number of FACs you have read, you have to sit in the hot seat of the most vexxing decision of all to understand the number of factors that come in to play: should I shut down this FAC which has x supports at y weeks? To me at least, the decision to archive a FAC was always the hardest one, never done lightly, and you cannot discern my reasoning in every case by reading the archives, nor can you see all of the factors involved. And we have a worse position today in terms of FACs that are being archived because of no feedback. Separately, those who have sidetracked this discussion to one only about promotions (ala "an FA is an FA") could benefit from some institutional history, as this is not the case. Sometimes an article is promoted when there is nothing the Coord can do otherwise except respect consensus; one sample—there are others. No matter how much data you analyze, or how many FACs you read, there are things you can't capture-- like that I never promoted one of those FACs without having to hold my nose, and now we know why. The Coords have to take into account everything when a FAC is not getting reviewed before they make the weighty decision to archive. Whether it is WikiCup-related is one of those factors, as we have now at least two reviewers who say they don't review contest nominations, and with two very different reasons for why they don't review contest noms.
The bottom line is this discussion did not need to become acrimonious, and reinstating what has always been done by bot will solve one part of the perennial discussions about the effect WikiCup has on FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
If FA nominations by Wikicup participants are receiving lower attention because of Wikicup participation, how will flagging that participation more prominently help in any way? If you're claiming that FA nominations by Wikicup participants are reducing participation on other FACs, I have yet to see either evidence or a logical argument for that claim. And if the underlying issue is just that participation in a competition isn't welcome at FAC, that's something that should be addressed directly, and in a forum with wider participation. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I think if you will carefully re-read, you may find that is not what I am claiming. Since I have explained this multiple times, I will avoid going down that road again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
No-one has provided any evidence that any of this is problematic in any sense. Essentially this is a 60KB timesink. And as for the perennial discussions about the effect WikiCup has on FAC, if you mean more high quality submissions from editors and high quality reviewers from those who are dedicated to excellence, then I don't see a problem at all with the status quo. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
We might not have 60KB if people (errrr ... mostly you ... ) would stop reading things I didn't write. No, I never said anything about quality of submissions; I don't share F&F's concern on that score, which is well known from my past delegate statements. And since I have repeatedly stated what my concerns are, again, not following another distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not reading anything at all, that's the problem. There's no evidence to anything being suggested: lower quality nominations, lower quality reviews which have been overlooked by the Coords, lack of reviews for "non-WikiCup" entrants (although that's meaningless) etc etc. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Those are not my points. (I don't have these communication problems with Mike, and you've managed to misinterpret everything in this conversation before he has even responded.) You may have the last word. Again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll repeat it it for the third or fourth time: where is the evidence that your original point or any subsequent points is actually a problem? Because you've done a lot of moving goalposts and talking around the purported issue at hand, but I don't see anything backing it up at all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Sandy, here's my understanding of what you and F&f posted. F&f is concerned about poor quality WikiCup nominations and wants to be aware that a nomination is from a Wikicup participant so they can consider that in deciding whether to review it. Your three concerns are that a group such as MILHIST should have their nominations reviewed by a reviewer not from that group; that when a WikiProject's participants show up en masse the coord should be aware so they can take that into account; and that if something such as student editing is drawing resources to one FAC in particular the coords should be aware so they can decide to give more time to other FACs, rather than archiving as quickly as they otherwise might. Is that a fair summary?
The quality of a review is judged by the coords, so it's a benefit to them if reviewers declare a potential CoI. But the quality of a nomination is judged by the reviewers, and I think we do a reasonably impartial job of it. Of course F&f is free to avoid reviewing WikiCup nominations if they wish, but I don't think it's a benefit to FAC to make it easy for reviewers to do that; it might weaken or even balkanize our reviewing. I agree with you about the hot seat, and as I said, if the current coords (I have a lot of faith in all three of them) have a strong opinion on this I would be swayed by that. But it seems to me that if WikiCup participants are willing to drop their nominations into the FAC hopper we should judge them on their merits. I've heard that candidates for positions in major orchestras have to perform anonymously, behind screens, so that those making the hiring decision can't be swayed by a musician's reputation. If it were plausible to do it I'd rather we move in that direction, towards more anonymity, rather than less. To me a rule benefits a reviewer if it makes it easier for them to do their job. I don't think that would be the case here.
I think the common thread in your three examples is that a coordinator would benefit from fully understanding the situation in order to make the best decision. The only way that would apply to a WikiCup nomination is if there is QPQ reviewing going on, and that seems so rare this is not worth trying to enforce. (Though as I said if UcuchaBot's code can be restarted I wouldn't bother to oppose it; I just don't think it would matter much.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Mike, let's see if I can clarify and expand without having my words twisted; if they are (again), we'll have to suspend attempts.
That is not my understanding of F&f's concerns. I think (but I am guessing here) that his concerns speak to the issue that the reputation of FAC is sliding because it focuses increasingly on niche topics rather than broad topics, and he has no interest in reviewing niche topics. I could be misunderstanding him. We share a concern that the reputation of FAC is quite seriously sliding, but I suspect we may disagree about why and what can be done about it. Having read thousands and promoted hundreds of pop culture or niche articles, I am not concerned about F&f’s niche "quality" issue; it is my belief that if we raise the quality of the overall pool back to a place of prestige, more people will submit broader articles as well (we have one on the page now). And I believe we raise the overall reputation by working at FAR to remove the considerable number of poor FAs from the books. None of this has any bearing on my simple query about what happened to a long-standing practice of identifying WikiCup participants, but is the direction others took the conversation after Harrias's proposal. If I am understanding F&f's position, he is more concerned about the overall reputation of FAC (as am I), but in this discussion, when and why I started it, I was more concerned that each article at FAC gets its fair shake at promotion, without premature archival.
My own positions are ... In (the new) environment where many FACs are being archived for lack of review, we have to take greater care that worthy nominations are not being archived too quickly, simply because some reviewers will not entertain WikiCup nominations because they don't want to be drawn into a competition. I suspect, but am not sure, that my definition of worthy is quite different than F&f's; that is, I mean an article that is well prepared and deserves a fair shake, regardless if it's a niche topic or a broader one. Where F&f and I agree is that I won't knowingly review a WikiCup nomination-- not because it's niche, broad, worthy, or otherwise, but because I want nothing to do with a competition, where by reviewing an article I may be prejudicing another editor's standing in a competition. So, quality is affected because reviewers stand down. And F&f seems to be saying that means the overall pool in terms of niche v. broad is affected. I don't discount what he says, but that's not my concern wrt the long-standing practice of identifying noms that are part of a competition, and knowing which reviewers are also part of that competition. My POV differs from F&fs. And is ... If FA regulars have no interest in participating actively at FAR, the sham that is our overall pool of articles will eventually become clear to the rest of Wikipedia, as we have nothing of substance to offer the mainpage but plenty of badly dated FAs on the books, and the problem will be taken out of our hands and dealt with by the broader community.
My own concerns for the narrow question I asked that started this discussion are that: a) Coords have all the info to not archive a FAC too quickly simply because some reviewers won't engage. b) Coords not have to take their time to go over and see which noms are WikiCup (it should be no skin off of anyone's back to identify that, just as a bot did and can). I have other concerns that ARE impacting the integrity of FAC, which I will address after WikiCup closes so as not to prejudice outcomes. I think your summary of my three other concerns are side issues that fell out of this discussion, but not necessarily the initial concern that led me to raise the question, which was, take care that worthy but overlooked noms aren't archived too quickly. That this should be so hard to understand is an indication that quite a few FAC regulars may not be reading the entire FAC page. (I still process the FAC page the same way I did as delegate: I sit down and read it top to bottom to get the overall picture.) The three concerns of mine that you list are things the Coords do and should do aware of at any rate (well, at least I hope so), with or without declarations, but the declarations save them time (as Ealdgyth points out). When I nominate a medical article, and state up front which physicians and laypersons have reviewed on talk, whether it has already had a MOS review, etc ... that is the kind of information that is intended to help both Coords and other reviewers decide whether to engage, how quickly to archive/promote, etc. Yes, declarations and conflicts are something that experienced and conscientous nominators and reviewers do anyway.
On the QPQ matter, it has always been eschewed at FAC, for very good reasons, and we should hold a broader discussion about how it is taking hold once WikiCup ends, and what effect that has; I am unwilling to bow to TRM's demands for evidence at a time when open FACs could be affected by statements made here.
I'm not sure if I've cleared anything up for you, but if both reviewers and Coords don't have to be checking for which articles are contest-related, it's easier on both sets. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Sadly just flimflam and hand-wringing. Indeed it seems abundantly clear from this discussion that alerting people that a nomination might be part of the WikiCup is actually detrimental to the process overall. And sure, don't "bow" to the request for evidence to the contrary, that makes for a most ridiculous position to adopt. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mike Christie and Laser brain. I do not see a clear benefit to having a nominator disclose their WikiCup nomination as part of their FAC. I understand SandyGeorgia's statement that FACs should get more reviews from editors not familiar with that particular subject area, but I do not think this is the best course of action to address this. I just do not see how this would benefits nominators or reviewers. This is just my opinion, and this kind of thing should be left up to editors who are far more experienced than myself. This proposal just doesn't sit well with me so I thought I should speak up. Aoba47 (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I will oppose any and all measures that make things more difficult for our precious few FA editors. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed. Some individuals here are basically underlining that they are assuming bad faith, that somehow either nominators or reviewers participating in the WikiCup are somehow different in a negative sense such that they need to "expose" themselves. How anyone could even think this is a positive for FAC (which is already in the doldrums) I know not. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I see my name being mentioned. Perhaps this is a good place to clarify.
  • If by the use of "niche" is meant I don't like nominations that are narrow in scope or readership, then I disagree
  • If by the use of "broad" is meant I invariantly like nominations of an expansive scope or readership, then I also disagree.
  • So, what is my argument?
  • The problems at FAC are not so much those of a preponderance of niche articles (in scope and readership) or the absence of the broad, but the steady increase of ritual submissions, i.e. those that are repetitive and given value well within a particular subgroup.
  • It is my view that Wikicup on average promotes ritual submissions.
  • I have a right to know because collectively, though not individually, ritual submissions violate the broad principles of equity and diversity dear to WP.
  • Accordingly, I will not use that information to walk away from an individual article, but I will assign a collective limit, and it might be low. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, F&f, and my apologies for any misattribution, misunderstanding or misreading I may have contributed. The only thing I was clear on is that people's positions have been so distorted in this conversation that I didn't know for sure what your position was. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course this is nonsensical. I (for example) have a personal project running, see here. Whether I was in the WikiCup or not, I would have two FACs running simultaneously (one is always a co-nomination) until I get my project complete. If that means I miss out on your "reviews", I guess that's my cross to bear, the humanity! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Another feature of ritual acts is that their non-performance causes primary anxiety. For ordinary nominations the act of submission is the primary anxiety; for ritual ones, it is the possibility of not being allowed to submit, or complete, or be delayed. The ritualists don't tend to say, I'm withdrawing my nomination. I'll come back in a few months when better prepared.
I never said that the few I do review, I won't hold their feet to the fire. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I've never felt the slightest inclination to withdraw in any of my 30+ FACs. The quality is there. This odd thought experiment you're conducting is unhelpful and has literally nothing to do with the initial perceived issue. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
"I have a right to know because collectively, though not individually, ritual submissions violate the broad principles of equity and diversity dear to WP." - then why on earth do we have featured topics? This actively promotes expanding articles that are similar in this way. I don't get what policies Wikipedia has for an editor (or a group of editors) to not promote whatever articles they wish to work on.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Lee, it's absolute nonsense. I think the less air time we give this niche viewpoint the better. After all, you and I and several of our cookie-cutting colleagues are actively seeking to improve Wikipedia. We're not actively seeking to discourage people from doing so. I wonder which of those two approaches should be discouraged. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski thank you for asking your question and making your point without impugning, maligning, attacking, insinuating, derailing, detracting, or questioning motives of everyone else on this page; most appreciated. We hopefully are all working towards the same goal; figuring out what is ailing FAC so that we can address it before the community addresses it for us. I will continue in the next section once I get some data together. TRM, it would be most helpful if you would change your approach, to avoid turning this page into a battleground over questions posed with no malintent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Pass the violins. I'm sick of the aloof insinuations being made here. Pleased to see consensus against such a futile effort to somehow "out" good faith competitors. FAC is already a dirge without adding more barriers and assumptions of bad faith. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
And I'm sick of what you're doing to FAC (talk), and hope others will call you on it. If FAC dies, who wins? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Inserted "talk" per TRM comment below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Coord note Folks, can we start behaving and commenting on the proposal and NOT on the other editors, please? It's long since degenerated, and needs to stop. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Um, not quite, I'd like Sandy to explain precisely what she means. What am I "doing to FAC"? Submitting articles on things that I'm interested in of which I happen to have written a lot of? How offensive. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to play the "mommy" role here and say who is being "worse". I think EVERYONE needs to just drop any discussion of other editors, all across the board. We're adults. We're supposed to be able to let things drop when it's no longer productive... not do the child thing of "but they started it" or "I need to get the last word in". I don't want to start striking things because I DO think we're all adults and can behave better. Let's start now. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll start when the personal attack is retracted or explained in plain English. Please, tell me what I am "doing to FAC". The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Question. Has anyone looked at how often WikiCup reviewers oppose? One of the main problems at FAC is the lack of willingness to oppose, because doing so means you could be stuck there for weeks, checking sources and revisions. Few reviewers are willing to do it, especially at complex topics. I don't know how WikiCup and FAC reviewing interact, but WikiCup strikes me as yet another reason to want to get in and out quickly with your points, rather than be dragged into something protracted. SarahSV (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Laser_brain, could you say more about why not? If something might encourage reviewers to support to speed things up, that obviously undermines quality. Good data would help, but if people aren't declaring they're part of WikiCup, then there is no data. SarahSV (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In order to gauge the impact of WikiCup participants, it is vital to gauge how many non-participants actually oppose in order to provide a proper comparison. I seldom see opposition ever in any FAC other than those which are truly "quick-fails". And after all, a WikiCup review at FAC is practically worthless in terms of points (cf 5 points for a review vs 200 points plus bonus for an actual FA). And ultimately, if coords aren't judging the quality of every review, regardless of competition participation, they're not doing their jobs properly. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It's also worth mentioning that do give a review, you have to state your participation already, so that discussion is moot, unless we are thinking of revoking this requirement. This discussion is about if we should have to denote this on nominations as well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
There are so few opposes these days from *anyone* that I think it would be hard to show anything statistically convincing about them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Renomination of Biblical criticism

I would like to renominate Biblical criticism for featured article. It was nominated two years ago this month, [5] but I was unable to complete the process. (If you care why, just ask.) I left WP for a year and a half, but have returned.

Does this qualify as my first step? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No special action or permission is needed; you can just renominate it whenever you feel it's ready. There are some rules about nominating (see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC) but none of them apply here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
As Mike says, you can nominate anytime, but you might want to have at look at the advice section at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. For example, I see problems in the section headings with “The”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay then, 'The' is gone. To heck with the! It is now nominated--I think... Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
No, it is not. Perhaps reading my essay would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Done and appreciated. Thank you for all your help and input. If this article succeeds it will be partly due to your efforts.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Re-invigorating peer review

Aoba47 just pointed me at this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Peer review#Pre featured article reviews. I think I've engaged at least six PR recently, and think that's another path to re-invigorating FAC. (There's another PR mentioned at the top of this talk page, and I am the only one to engage :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

FAC process discussion

SarahSV (per your question above), I think that the dying use of the oppose button goes beyond, and is not necessarily related to, WikiCup in any way that I can see. And while I immensely appreciate Mike Christie's ongoing attempts to generate real data, I have three problems with his efforts. 1) I have seen in the past that some of his attempts generate data that can't tell the full story, because there are too many conflating factors, items in WIAFA that have changed over time along with adding or losing certain reviewing practices (copyvio checks and Ealdgyth's source reviews) and things that only the Coords know, re what went into certain decisions. 2) Some of his data has been used to draw conclusions which, having sat in the seat of making the decisions, I believe are faulty. 3) I would MUCH rather see Mike's efforts be spent where they can have a real impact, that is, using his skill as a reviewer. I think we have all the data we need to know there is a serious problem we should all be focused on.

Most of what we need to know is available right here, augmented by this:

Year Promoted Archived Total %
Promoted 		FAs demoted
2019 280 131 411 68.1% 14
2018 235 147 382 61.5% 29
2017 338 125 463 73.0% 12
2016 227 138 365 62.2% 11
2015 303 182 485 62.5% 51
2014 322 183 505 63.8% 24
2013 390 261 651 59.9% 29
2012 375 261 636 59.0% 39
2011 355 310 665 53.4% 47
2010 513 412 925 55.5% 115
2009 522 469 991 52.7% 157
2008 719 609 1,328 54.1% 143
2007 773 706 1,479 52.3% 192
2006 560 920 1,480 37.8% 201
2005 437 682 1,119 39.1% 61
  1. The "Oppose" has died.
  2. We are processing overall about one-fourth of what FAC used to process.
  3. We are promoting overall an increasing percentage (FAC has become PR, where articles are pulled through to standard).
  4. We pretty much no longer demote deficient and dated FAs.
  5. FAC is no longer generating 365 FAs per year, so although we still have enough built up from the past to feed TFA, the variety of topics available is increasingly limited. I don't have stats, but I am fairly certain mainpage views of TFA are declining over time, as we no longer hold the interest of even the Wikipedia community, because the diversity of topics we present on the mainpage is limited, due to our declining pool overall. Anyone up to looking at mainpage TFA views over time? (Sounds like a big chore.)
  6. Another piece of missing data is ... what is the percentage over time of MILHIST promotions? I suspect that MILHIST is the only thing still keeping FAC alive, and I suspect that if we looked over time, we'd find that the percentage of overall promotions that are MILHIST is steadily increasing, such that FAC is mostly a MILHIST rubber stamp these days. And we know the community repeatedly complains about the preponderance of MILHIST articles at TFA. We can't change that if that's the only Project still feeding FAC. Unless we figure out how to get more diversity.
  7. We are exhausting the Coordinators.

Of great concern to many long-term FA participants is that we are seeing that the broader community is noticing that FA is becoming irrelevant. When multiple respected long-term Wikipedians are calling for FA to be abolished, or merged with GA (holy shit!), we should be worried, and we should be paying attention. For everyone who is so upset about any person raising any simple question here, I want to remind you that if FA is abolished or merged away, all of those rewards, icons, prizes or anything having to do with FA also become meaningless.

My own attempts have been:

  1. Start using the Oppose button as we used to. The fastest route to a bronze star is a well-formulated oppose, withdraw and fix, come back strong.
    1. Along with that, encourage the Coords to shut down opposed FACs faster, so resources can concentrate on the worthy FACs, and nominators can get their issues address faster off-FAC, for a quicker return to FAC.
  2. Start using Peer review as we used to. That is, when you oppose early, oppose often, follow through by meeting the participants at Peer review. Encourage first-time nominators to use peer review. Go help at peer review. At Ceoil's urging, this is the approach I am taking, and I have participated in five FAC-related PRs just since I started this about a month ago.
  3. Try to help re-invigorate nominations within your own editing sphere. The Medicine project (like so many others) had signed off of the FA process for five years (I was mostly inactive), and almost all of their older FAs are in disrepair. They had decided to focus only on leads, based on some sort of data that readers rarely read beyond leads and never check citations. This is HORRIBLE, because faulty medical content was left for years in bodies of articles (and leads too). I have tried to re-invigorate FA participation in Medicine. After a five-year dearth, we had two FAs so far this year, and another is in the works. And the Anatomy project asked me to write something up about WHY medical editors should care about FA, hence User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. At least we may have three more FAs on a topic more diverse than what is in our current TFA pool, as we were out of medical topics to run TFA.
  4. Mentor, mentor, mentor. Getting one FA passed is less helpful to than getting a new FA writer on board, who will generate more than one FA. Mushroom effect.
  5. Review outside your area. Even if you don't want to tackle a medical article, review it for jargon. Even if you can barely stand to go through another ship article, do it for jargon. We need independent review (non-content expert) of every kind of topic.

I have made multiple other attempts to deal with several of the "what ails FAC" issue, but my attempts to get more regulars engaged in helping clean out our older, deficient FAs has not soared. So, as long as we have a huge percentage of deficient FAs on the books, we can expect the broader community to no longer hold the bronze star in high regard. If you aren't helping out at FAR, you aren't helping the big picture, which the community is noticing. I have attempted to back the Coords, as I have seen how frightfully nasty this page has become, and that there is little the Coords can do about it when cliques take hold and chase out significantly good reviewers, as the Coords can't take sides. (To me, this is the biggest part of what ails FAC.)

So, to conclude, what can each of us do to try to re-invigorate FAC amid community calls from respected Wikipedians to abandon the process as they see we have become increasingly irrelevant? I don't know what all we CAN do, but I know that your star will mean nothing if there is no more FAC. Regards (anyone authorized to fix any of my gazillion typos up there), SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Noting here that six of the last seven FAC nominations are MILHIST, hence, the need to re-invigorate other content areas to feed TFA diversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
So a total of 10 out of 47? Just a burp, considering how few there were before these noms. MilHist encourages FACs by way of example with our ACR process and publicizing the successful FACs in our newsletter. Much the same can be done by others if a few people can band together and revitalize their own projects.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep, WP:MED took the hint, started a newsletter, and is trying to follow the MILHIST example on this count! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

My first suggestion, in this vein, is that we used to do this: Template:FCDW-- only one example of the kinds of initiative to keep the overall process working, that came from the leader that FAC decided to fire. We should re-initiate a FA newsletter, ala Dispatches. It could be monthly, and would include Mike's reviewing stats, for example, along with overall stats and helpful tidbits for new and ongoing participants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment reduce the aloof attitude of some reviewers who casually toss around terms like "cookie cutter articles" and limit the damage they do to good faith nominators and reviewers when they start "reviewing the review" (for example). We're all here as volunteers, we're all (I assume, at least) here in good faith. Having some kind of unspoken hierarchy of reviewers is utterly damaging and drives people away forever. It's worth noting that standards required for FA have drastically increased since my first one, and a lot of it is arcane (e.g. compliance with MOS:DTT which is close to my heart). As such it asks a huge amount of any given editor to meet all the requirements. I would also suggest a checklist be compiled of "common failings" which would be trivial to knock together, and ask reviewers to at least confirm they've seen the checklist before nominating at FAC. I wrote one about 12 years ago for FLC. It speaks to the "mentor" comment noted above, but in general terms and as a really easy quick fix. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This "checklist" idea is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I say we need to revive the {{FCDW}} ala an FA newsletter; we are no longer engaging the community, and we could do exactly that sort of thing via a newsletter, which would also have the benefit of putting Mike's data in one place. Why not simply revive FCDW in the form of a newsletter? Way back when, I think both Karanacs and I gave up because we (along with Tony1) were doing all the work, and it became too much. We now have bits and pieces of FAC advice all over the place ... some at the top of this page, some in individual guides, etc. FCDW could be a central clearing house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • An admin could check back and find it (it was in my user space a long while ago), my FLC checklist would be a reasonable place to start, it included a lot of MOS stuff, some basics on reference formats, image labelling etc. Obviously it majored on technical aspects of tables etc, but that still applies to FAC, per MOS. If we had such a checklist, as I suggested we could at least ask folks to sign off that they'd gone through every step before nominating. If repeat issues or repeat offenders keep being nominated, react accordingly. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've asked for a refund so it'll be interesting to see how applicable it might be. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • So, if we have your advice, and my recent essay, and Mike's September stats, we have enough to start an October newsletter, perhaps with one other interesting feature (an interview of a first-time FACcer, or something to that effect). But I won't keep pushing the idea if no one else is interested, 'cuz last time I ended up with all the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • But I'm less interested in a FAC-101; we've various versions of that every year. I'm interested in an overall forum to re-engage the community on an ongoing basis, ala FCDW, with regular features. And too many FAC regulars (myself included) don't hold the Signpost in very high esteem, whereas WikiProject newsletters can be independent-- published on our conditions and timetable, not theirs. And no one reads the Signpost anymore. I want to restart FCDW (without the Signpost component) and make it the basis for a monthly newsletter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok, well I see literally no harm in getting Signpost to do a "thing" on it, it will only help, perhaps in a small way. I also think this checklist is a friendly version of things to consider before FLC and can be easily adapted/expanded for FAC (as I said, I wrote it a long time ago while collating more than 100 FLs, and haven't really double-checked it against the 30+ FAs I have). A newsletter is fine, but people have to be engaged beforehand to get the newsletter. FWIW I delete Signpost on sight, but I suspect many others don't. Anyway, at least we're gathering some ideas and some resources to perhaps find a way forward. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggested change to description of FAC process

The FAC page says that to voice concerns about an article, we write Oppose or Object, yet all I see to this effect in recent reviews is Comments or Comments by Ovinus. As an interested newbie to FAC, this is a bit confusing, making it look like there are no objections to articles being promoted; could we clarify the directions? Never mind, was just confused. Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have opposed at least six FACs this week, so you would need to check the archives to see the full picture, since those tend to be removed from the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Should have done that, thanks for clarifying! Ovinus (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The issues I have with saying "oppose", is that it suggests that I am fully against the article passing. If I have comments (and there should be some!) that can be resolved, I try to say "comments", before then "support" if there is no further issues. An "oppose" on an article that could be quickly brought up to code suggests the article should be closed quickly, which IMO is against improving articles. How others wish to respond is completely up to them, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
While I oppose when I think the most efficient route to eventual promotion is by engaging significant issues off-FAC, reserving more resources on-FAC for those that appeared better prepared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
There's a two-week embargo on re-nomination right now, correct? I think that's playing on the mind of some who don't outright oppose. I would seek to ditch that and just allow the nominator in good faith the opportunity to re-nominate once major issues had been addressed. Some of us are very diligent and don't need an artificial two-week hiatus imposed to address issues. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, if they have quickly addressed the issues, they can always approach a Coord, and permission is rarely denied. Since I have begun to oppose again, I have yet to see one that could be fixed in less than two weeks-- that is, if I thought it could, I wouldn't have opposed to begin with :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the "approaching a coord" might be a thing. We're all remote working (well, a lot of us) and the idea of asking someone "important" if we can please play again is off-putting. Just a thought. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I think I'd argue that there aren't all that many articles nominated for FAC that are outright not ready. Most are already GAs, or well peer reviewed B-class articles. The ones that aren't ready are usually pretty quickly archived. For me, an oppose means I don't think the nominator can fix issues that make the article not suitable for FA within a reasonable time, or the girth of fixes that would mean it would get to that point outreach the FAC process.
I think we have issues getting people to review FACs, as they feel that the review could be deemed to not be in-depth enough, or that any "support" might be met with someone later doing a deep-dive and bringing up a list of issues making it look like they haven't read the article at all. I feel that if people were encouraged to bring up issues with an FAC (that others might miss) is a more profitable use of time than finding a reason to oppose at FAC. I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't oppose articles that aren't ready, but no article is "perfect", and any help we can get to improve articles in any way should be encouraged. I tend to look for some specific things (mostly MOS related, jargon and making sure the lede is tight), whereas others might (and should) look for other things. There is quite a bit of gatekeeping that I've seen at FAC which doesn't promote users to come and review, nor nominate suitable articles.
FWIW, I'd be happy to help out any way I can to promote FAC and the process to the wider community. I think a lot of users are scared of the whole process. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
We also have people refusing to review FACs because they feel their opposes are ignored or nominators become too combative or reviewers are pulled into a long back-and-forth when they oppose and the nomination isn't archived quickly. There are many more FACs that are "outright not ready" than are currently being opposed for these very reasons (by "outright not ready", I mean by my previous definition ... when deficiencies will take at least two weeks, so are better completed off FAC or at PR where more editors could be drawn in).
Could you explain what you mean by "There is quite a bit of gatekeeping that I've seen at FAC"?
Would love to see you joining in over at Peer review; there are quite a few FA-related PRs open now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind helping out at PR actually; I just have quite the workload right now (maybe I'll take a look at the end of the month?) I think we are on the same page, just that I probably see less articles that I believe to not be fixable in the FAC process. As for gatekeeping, this is one of the examples, but I've seen further conversations regarding which articles can/cannot be FAs; which puts me off creating content. I can only imagine what users who were to write their first FAC would go through with the additional pressures that come with that. I do think something that helps users know what to look for with FACs (and reviews for that matter) is very much a good course to get out in a newsletter (I've only got 9 FAs to my name, so probably better to come from someone with more experience!). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Got it (but we need more interest before we can staff a newsletter)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Lee, on our difference regarding the two-week issue relative to Opposing, I have two current examples.
In one, we are ten days in, and just now getting our hands on the sources needed to write the (eventual) FA, after too many KB on the FAC, too much confusion, and unnecessary ill will and agida between nominator and reviewer. Had the FAC been archived after a significant oppose, we'd be positioned to be back at FAC within a week. Instead, we have a lengthy and messy FAC, and the possibility that no one will engage it now even when the issues are addressed. Oppose and withdraw would have gotten the star faster.
In another, the nomination was premature, that was as obvious as the day is long but the previous FAC had multiple supports, we are seven days in, and no one will engage the FAC. Another lengthy cleanup, and if it had been opposed and withdrawn for reworking at peer review, it would have gotten there faster.
As of now, it's unclear how long it will take to get either of these to the bronze star, they clog the page, and the faster and kinder route would have been (has always been) the use of the oppose button. When a nomination stagnates on the page because reviewers won't oppose, it doesn't help the article improve, it doesn't help FAC process efficiently, it doesn't help the nominator learn to prepare an article pre-FAC, and it doesn't encourage reviewers to be willing to engage. All it does is generate unnecessary ill will among participants and towards the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Another question

Really, just for clarification, OK? A simple question.

What is the current use of the "older nominations" marker, set automatically by FAC bot? Coords (and reviewers) could you please specifically explain how you are using this marker?

Because here's how I used it. When I was delegate, I set it manually, depending on a number of factors according to my discretion-- how many overall noms on the page, what was going on in real life that may be affecting reviewer time, things like that. I set it at a spot that said, "Anything below this line is fair game to be archived at any time if something doesn't get moving".

Best I am able to determine, the marker is now set automatically at three weeks, according to no discernible criteria, and has no bearing on whether archival is pending. So what is it being used for? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I still use it for "Anything below this line is fair game to be archived at any time if something doesn't get moving". I generally leave a "heads-up" message if some review has taken place that archiving is imminent within a week if there isn't significant movement. If something falls into the Older section and it's had no substantive prose review or no support for promotion, I'm usually going to archive it without further notice. --Laser brain (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
These "heads up" messages seem very helpful; thanks for replying. I guess we are resigned to three weeks being "routine" for stalled nominations, and six weeks not being abnormal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'd have to dig back through the archives but there were a few RFCs about the queue being too cumbersome and slow-moving. There was community support at the time for more aggressive archiving. As you've noted, in practice this happens inconsistently as a wide variety of factors comes into play including which coord is going through the list. The "heads-up" messages were designed to improve communication with nominators and reduce the sometimes bewildered messages we'd get when things were archived. I'm not sure if we solved any issues! --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, I remain convinced (in spite of attempts to change my mind) that a real problem is the ECHO system and that damn pingie thingie. Before we had the blipping "pingie thingie", nominators and reviewers came to my talk page, and we all actually talked to each other. We had and were a community. And I had scores of talk page stalkers helping answer questions and reassure nominators when their nominations were archived, so there was less pressure on me, and community was built. Now we ping each other. Meaning the Coords are having to answer alone a lot of things the rest of us don't even see-- ridiculous added pressure. So Coords don't have TPS backing them up as I did, where often before I saw a message on my talk with a nominator screaming at me for archiving their nom, six other editors had already reassured them. I think ECHO is what broke the community and the support the Coords enjoyed (along with the faulty decision to fire the director). IN this dated visualization, FAC was the Center of the Universe back then, as the large yellow dot in the middle is me, surrounded by the FA community with Jimbo having a smaller dots off to the side. [6] That's my theory, and I'm stickin' to it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC
The marker is set by the FACBot, and is always twenty days. The Bot checks it every day, shortly after midnight zulu, but of course on some days no action is required. I did suggest at one point that it be doubled to forty days, which is more realistic given the speed of reviews these days, but that proposal was not approved by the coordinators. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thx, Hawkeye7; I am concerned that it is set at a point that no longer reflects the sad reality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Well the coordinators did take some steps. The older ones no longer represent more than half the queue; at the moment there are 17 "older" nominations (out of 44), and the only five of them are older than 40 days, and just one is older than 60 days. So the situation is much better than it was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thx, Hawkeye ... it's all relative :) Thirty days woulda set me reeling :) Just trying to understand what our expectations are these days, as that impacts nominator disappointments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Bot update notice

The FACBot FAC run has recently been updated to merge AFD, ITN and OTD into the talk page Article History template. Previously it only merged GA, PR and DYK. It also now sorts the article milestones into chronological order. A testing process has been carried out in a sandbox but there is always a chance of something strange happening. Report any problems to me. Your indulgence is appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye ... do we still manually add historical? Eg, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive82&oldid=1137412510"