Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Great Fire of London/archive2

Article stats

FAC Nominator User:Bishonen

Authorship stats

1. Bishonen 55.5%
2. Nikkimaria 12.1%
3. Dilidor 2.7%

Top editor stats

1. Bishonen · 446 (58.7%)
2. Nikkimaria · 55 (7.2%)
3. Bunchofgrapes · 54 (7.1%)

Stats excerpted as of 11 December, 2021, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Article stats at FAR close

Authorship stats

1. Bishonen 41.7%
2. Nikkimaria 32%
3. Dilidor 2%

Top editor stats

1. Bishonen · 446 (54.2%)
2. Nikkimaria · 95 (11.5%)
3. Bunchofgrapes · 54 (6.6%)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

FASA nominations

Please set up separate sections for each nomination.

FASA nomination Nikkimaria

It is with great pleasure that I nominate Nikkimaria for a Featured Article Save Award for Great Fire of London. (@DrKay and Casliber: to watchlist because Nikkimaria can't close this nomination at WP:FASA herself.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion Nikkimaria

1. Support. Nikkimaria now accounts for a third of the authorship of this 2006 FA, having gotten hold of a new book recommended by the original FAC nominator (Bishonen) to methodically work through (lengthy) concerns raised by the FAR nominator. Her fine work is worthy to display the star associated with this article in her userspace. Thanks, Nikkimaria ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Nikkimaria responded to FAR concerns and added important information to the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
3. Support, really great user, they definitely deserve an award for an article like this. Good Job! Panini! • 🥪 13:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Support - I nominated it for FAR, and unfortunately I was unable to participate in the editing since late December. I am very grateful for the work Nikkimaria has done, dealing with the (at times frustrating, I presume) issues I had raised. Especially since my departure was so sudden. Renerpho (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Is this discussion still open? Renerpho (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not technically; Nikkimaria received the award, but that doesn't mean comments can't be entered. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, good! Renerpho (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Moved from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Fire of London/archive2

Will whomever is adding "done" checkmarks to the page please remove them? They are discouraged at FAC and FAR because of the problems they cause with WP:Template limits. They also mean nothing when unsigned. Entering a comment like Done, with a signature, is more effective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really understand which direction this FAR is trying to go. For an example of how FAR can work see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Menstrual cycle/archive2 and how the work proceeded on talk, starting at Talk:Menstrual cycle/Archive 3.

Is the point to write reams on this page to tear down the article, or is the objective to rework it by using the very source that Bish recommended?

If the point is to tear down the article, that point has been made.

If the point is to use the newer source to rework the article, then much effort that could be spent actually working on the article, and using the article talk page to discuss work needed, is being mis-spent in writing on this page.

If the intent is to rework, we hold in FAR, and work can proceed on talk; we don't need the length here. If the intent is to prove that this article is unsalvageable and no one is willing to work on it, then we Move to FARC. That doesn't seem to be the case, as work is clearly happening. The two-week mark is approaching, and some declarations of which way this FAR is going might help result in less misspent effort on this page, as opposed to on the article's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the comments. Maybe this would better fit on my own talk page, but I'll reply here. The checkmarks were mine; I removed them. As I mentioned earlier, I have little experience with FAR nominations, so I apologize if things I do look stupid or unorthodox.

Regarding the 2nd point: If my goal was to get the article torn down then I'd nominate it for deletion, not FAR. I am genuinely trying to improve it. I am working on this page to collect the problems I find and am unsure how to resolve myself. If there is a better place to list them then by all means, I'll be happy to do it there! This page seemed to be the obvious place.

Your suggestion to spend time on the article rather than this page is nice. Unfortunately, my ability to actually work on the article itself is limited at the moment, because many of the necessary sources are inaccessible for me (including the book that Bishonen suggested). The options I have are either proofreading the article and collecting all the points I find need to be addressed, or work on other articles. I have spent quite a large fraction of my "Wikipedia time" over the past week on the former, because I find this article worth spending time on. I am sorry if that is not appreciated, but I'm grateful for suggestions how to do it in a more productive way. I'll start with giving the example FAR you pointed to a read when I return later. Renerpho (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Thanks for stepping up to work on this article. Editors here are happy to help with the FAR process; this is a very collaborative process so please ask any questions you have. If you are committed to bringing the article back to FA standards, please post a comment below with "Hold FAR" in bold. (This will help FAR co-ords see the hold and prevent it from being delisted). Then, keep working on the article and when it's ready for another review, please post on this page indicating so (and if you ping me I will take a look). If the article requires too much work, causing a "hold" to be open for months, then please post "Move to FARC" in bold below so we can continue the delisting process. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Renerpho; that makes it easier to understand the activity on this page. As Z explained, we are at a point where it would be helpful to know which way we’re heading. That said, there are no hard deadlines at FAR, so if that is not yet clear, we typically continue to hold in FAR.

Does someone have access to the new source and is someone working to incorporate it? Because if not, we may be spinning our wheels here. Thanks for the effort so far! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)