Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) |
→Good prose: Reply to Ottava Rima |
||
Line 463: | Line 463: | ||
:::::*OK. I won't bother with more comments then. —[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
:::::*OK. I won't bother with more comments then. —[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::*Mattisse - I made my feelings clear about that RFC on you. I don't appreciate double standards in any kind of regard, especially when they harm people. However, I do feel that it dealt more with off FAC matters than not. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
::::*Mattisse - I made my feelings clear about that RFC on you. I don't appreciate double standards in any kind of regard, especially when they harm people. However, I do feel that it dealt more with off FAC matters than not. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::*(Reply to Ottava Rima) That is not true. I had thought that you had read through the RFC, as my other defenders there did, and so were defending me on substantive reasons. There were non issues introduced to confuse, such as edits I made in 2006. The issue was FAC, issues related to my perceived treatment of FAC editors, like Calisber and his attempt to get me blocked. Nothing off FAC and related matters were substantive, relevant, and/or more recent than over a year ago. The only conceivable reason for bring it was to ban me from FAC. I will say no more on this issue. But it does point out the substantial dangers of daring to review at FAC, and while reviewing FACs is so unappealing that there are more nominators than reviewers! —[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 15:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::(Reply to Raul654) I don't think anyone is saying that a reviewer's suggestions should be implemented one and all by the nominators; I am certainly not. Neither am I saying that everyone should conform to my stylistic preferences. (I have read enough English prose—from Fielding, Defoe, and Swift to Naipaul, Philip Roth, and Raymond Carver (for example)—to know that there are vastly different styles in the corpus.) However, in an encyclopedia a kind of lucid precision is a must for effective communication. A featured article in Wikipedia is not the same thing as a feature article in the New York Times. An author of the latter is allowed to take liberties with language that a regular "hard news" correspondent presumably is not, although correspondents too have different styles of writing. |
:::(Reply to Raul654) I don't think anyone is saying that a reviewer's suggestions should be implemented one and all by the nominators; I am certainly not. Neither am I saying that everyone should conform to my stylistic preferences. (I have read enough English prose—from Fielding, Defoe, and Swift to Naipaul, Philip Roth, and Raymond Carver (for example)—to know that there are vastly different styles in the corpus.) However, in an encyclopedia a kind of lucid precision is a must for effective communication. A featured article in Wikipedia is not the same thing as a feature article in the New York Times. An author of the latter is allowed to take liberties with language that a regular "hard news" correspondent presumably is not, although correspondents too have different styles of writing. |
Revision as of 15:03, 14 March 2009
- For a Table-of-Contents only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list
FACs needing feedback view • | |
---|---|
MLS Cup 2022 | Review it now |
Fountain Fire | Review it now |
1973 FA Charity Shield | Review it now |
![]() Archives | |
---|---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, April Fools 2005, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Short FAs, 32 Short FAs cont., 33, 34 Context and notability, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 |
1(f) "well-researched" added to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- 1(f) added to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as follows:
- (f) well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive survey of literature on the topic, and relies primarily on sources representing the most stringent quality standards available in the industry or field.
- And I have just removed it again. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. The Land (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Land. You are very clearly in a weak minority position. reversion is not an act of consensus. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- And unilaterally adding something isn't either. Have you discussed this addition? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. Need more eyes before deciding what to do. BuddingJournalist 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please keep the discussion in one place (over there, in this case). There should be no need for hurry to add a new criteria that hasn't yet been widely discussed and gained broad consensus from many FA, FAC and FAR regulars (I don't recall ever seeing WIAFA destabilized before). Since it's not clear to me that the proposal will change any current practice, it won't hurt to take the time to develop broader consensus with a wider and longer discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- In this particular case, surely the people you are gathering for the "FAC–Science Symposium" might want a word to say, instead of having FA criteria changed under their noses… Physchim62 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I left a note at WT:FAR, as well as WP Tropical cyclones, WP MILHIST, and WP Video games. Anywhere else? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- In this particular case, surely the people you are gathering for the "FAC–Science Symposium" might want a word to say, instead of having FA criteria changed under their noses… Physchim62 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please keep the discussion in one place (over there, in this case). There should be no need for hurry to add a new criteria that hasn't yet been widely discussed and gained broad consensus from many FA, FAC and FAR regulars (I don't recall ever seeing WIAFA destabilized before). Since it's not clear to me that the proposal will change any current practice, it won't hurt to take the time to develop broader consensus with a wider and longer discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. Need more eyes before deciding what to do. BuddingJournalist 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- And unilaterally adding something isn't either. Have you discussed this addition? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Land. You are very clearly in a weak minority position. reversion is not an act of consensus. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with SandyGeorgia please comment there. Let's close the discussion here and resolve there. (My reading does not show consensus for this important change; so it should be resolved first). Arnoutf (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Eyes needed
Most of the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore has (again) verged off-topic relative to WIAFA and FAC; would an uninvolved admin be interested in refactoring the page to talk and encouraging parties to keep discussion focused on WP:WIAFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Image checks needed
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/DeinosuchusWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jupiter TrojanWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Idlewild and Soak ZoneWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexander Cameron RutherfordWikipedia:Featured article candidates/KylfingsWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bride of Frankenstein
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi should be added. Nominator claims image issues outstanding from the last FAC have been resolved, but there hasn't been an image review in this candidacy. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom DerrickWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Osteochondritis dissecansWikipedia:Featured article candidates/National War Memorial (South Australia)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
referencing headache
I have a Talk:Amanita_muscaria#Referencing_headache for discussion, which i would like to sort out before making alot of changes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've always followed the pattern of listing the author in whatever way they list themselves on the work. Thus if the author is Nicholas Brooks on one work, but N. P. Brooks on another, I list it how it's done on the source. And I use templates for the formatting... so it always puts in a comma for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, well the books generally use the author's name on the cover, so that is easy :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- If I'm making major changes to an article, I convert everything to Pubmed style, on the grounds that any unnecessary punctuation is just eye clutter in a long list of refs. Looie496 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- So you ditch all teh first names of primary authors? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it doesn't matter ultimately, as long as the usage is consistent. Speaking as a matter of style/preference/taste, I would use the style that seems relevant to the article's topic (e.g., PubMed style for med articles or related ones). But as far as rules go, AFAIK only consistency is mandatory. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- So you ditch all teh first names of primary authors? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- If I'm making major changes to an article, I convert everything to Pubmed style, on the grounds that any unnecessary punctuation is just eye clutter in a long list of refs. Looie496 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, well the books generally use the author's name on the cover, so that is easy :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yet more featured crud
Yesterday's TFA contained a hanging participle in its very first paragraph: however, it wasn't present in the FAC version, so it would be unfair to suggest that the corresponding sentence was even worse in the version passed by FAC reviewers… Today's featured article was promoted in September 2007, and that is no doubt the reason why it has entire paragraphs which are unreferenced, something that would get it thrown out of FAC these days. Still, it's on the main page as "representing Wikipedia's very best work", so surely it must be good. Physchim62 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well I agree that TFAs should be at modern standard, however, last year I complained about a 2006 FA with little refs and evryone either supported and Raul didn't care... and he chooses them, not anyone here. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I guess as Raul's selections on TFA/R aren't overturnable, the obvious way would be to nominate them for FAR before he schedules the out of date ones, correct? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt anything we will do short of deleting FAC will address Physchim62's complaints. He'll continue to find problems in any FA he chooses, modern or not. No piece of prose is perfect, not articles, peer-reviewed journals, or printed media. Physchim62, I sincerely believe you are acting in good faith and are interested in improving the quality of articles we place on the main page, but I have to question your motivation for posting this kind of message in here. Open an RfC. --Laser brain (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather hope that it it doesn't come to an RFC, but in the meantime you can hardly blame me for pointing out the obvious deficiencies in the current Process. If you can come up with a way of ensuring that TFA represents Wikipedia's best work without abolishing FAC, please let me know and I'd be happy to hear from you. Physchim62 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- We need more reviewers. Many FACs get one person reviewing the sources, one person reviewing the images, and 2-3 prose reviews if they're lucky. If the article is long, or boring, or on a pop culture topic, they're lucky to get one substantive prose review. What if that prose reviewer misses things? And we do miss things, as you point out. Subject matter expert reviews are far too rare. We need to coordinate with WikiProjects so their members know when an article is up for review. This happens for medical topics I've seen and we do get SME reviews. The answer is NOT to give over control of TFA to WikiProjects. We need centralized review and control of featured content to make sure standards are consistently applied. You may argue that they're not being applied correctly now, but you can't seriously argue that the situation would improve under direct control of WikiProjects. --Laser brain (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- To state the obvious, this is a volunteer effort and the project hasn't, for various reasons, reached a critical mass yet of involved editors to ensure that every issue or forum, including FAC, is addressed adequately. So, we'll do the best we can. For some reason, inane admin discussions get more participation than the FAC and GA forums. See, for example, the recent ANI debate and RfAR spill-over on "secret" user pages. Anyway, I haven't been doing my part with FAC and have committed to myself to review at least two articles the next time I nominate a FAC. Otherwise, the A-class forum with MILHIST is backlogged enough to occupy much of my spare time. Cla68 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- You bring up a great point though: effective checkpoints along the pipeline definitely help. MILHIST sends some of the best-prepared articles to FAC, so clearly your time with the A-class process is well-spent. --Laser brain (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- To state the obvious, this is a volunteer effort and the project hasn't, for various reasons, reached a critical mass yet of involved editors to ensure that every issue or forum, including FAC, is addressed adequately. So, we'll do the best we can. For some reason, inane admin discussions get more participation than the FAC and GA forums. See, for example, the recent ANI debate and RfAR spill-over on "secret" user pages. Anyway, I haven't been doing my part with FAC and have committed to myself to review at least two articles the next time I nominate a FAC. Otherwise, the A-class forum with MILHIST is backlogged enough to occupy much of my spare time. Cla68 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- We need more reviewers. Many FACs get one person reviewing the sources, one person reviewing the images, and 2-3 prose reviews if they're lucky. If the article is long, or boring, or on a pop culture topic, they're lucky to get one substantive prose review. What if that prose reviewer misses things? And we do miss things, as you point out. Subject matter expert reviews are far too rare. We need to coordinate with WikiProjects so their members know when an article is up for review. This happens for medical topics I've seen and we do get SME reviews. The answer is NOT to give over control of TFA to WikiProjects. We need centralized review and control of featured content to make sure standards are consistently applied. You may argue that they're not being applied correctly now, but you can't seriously argue that the situation would improve under direct control of WikiProjects. --Laser brain (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather hope that it it doesn't come to an RFC, but in the meantime you can hardly blame me for pointing out the obvious deficiencies in the current Process. If you can come up with a way of ensuring that TFA represents Wikipedia's best work without abolishing FAC, please let me know and I'd be happy to hear from you. Physchim62 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt anything we will do short of deleting FAC will address Physchim62's complaints. He'll continue to find problems in any FA he chooses, modern or not. No piece of prose is perfect, not articles, peer-reviewed journals, or printed media. Physchim62, I sincerely believe you are acting in good faith and are interested in improving the quality of articles we place on the main page, but I have to question your motivation for posting this kind of message in here. Open an RfC. --Laser brain (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I guess as Raul's selections on TFA/R aren't overturnable, the obvious way would be to nominate them for FAR before he schedules the out of date ones, correct? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well I agree that TFAs should be at modern standard, however, last year I complained about a 2006 FA with little refs and evryone either supported and Raul didn't care... and he chooses them, not anyone here. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Physchim62, we know featured articles are inherently crap. We should just delete the whole process. No need to tell us every few days. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the hanging participle doesn't even create any real ambiguity, it's much of a muchness. Perhaps you should start reading the daily corrections columns that they publish in your least favourite newspaper as a way of getting your schadenfreude. Besides, we all know what FAC's problem is—it's reaching a high capacity with a lack of reviewers. Devolving powers to WikiProjects is silly because only two or three could feasibly meet current demands, I know that at my previous FAC that three heads-up postings to Projects resulted in zero comments. Judging things on a human scale, the Projects could not manage running their quota, just as Texas currently would not run itself as well if it were given national status. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced
This discussion is misplaced and should be at Talk:Main Page or WT:TFA. FAC exists to check that an article is Featured quality at a certain point in time. FAR exists to periodically review the worth of the article and do maintenance or remove its status. The Main Page selection process people should ensure it's up to scratch before appearing there. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to a new working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial coordinators together so that projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. We are also planning a better coordinatopn among all projects and centralizing.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepTalk on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Trial reactivation of Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive
Hi all, given discussion on esoteric nature of some FAs and GAs, I thought reactivating this might be worthwhile. My take would be the best candidates are large, general articles which are reasonably comprehensive, non-controversial and might not be too far off GA or FA. I thought barley but feel free to discuss or think of others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Correlation between FA promotions, peer review, GA class and A-class
Given recent discussion about FA process, thought i'd make some enquiries about suggesting peer review (and/or GA class) as a requirement before FA nomination, as I thought this would make things more efficient for everyone. I reviewed Jan 2009 FA noms to see what evidence there was to support such a change but found different results to what I expected:
106 noms in January: 48 promoted, 58 unsuccessful. About 40% of both promotions and unsuccessful noms had completed a recent peer review (within two months of nomination). I was surprised it was that low and that it was a similar proportion for both promoted and unsuccessful. About three quarters of both successful and unsuccessful nominations were already either GA class or A-class. Again, surprised it was a similar level for both promoted and not. The only significant correlation I found was that, of the 13 A-class articles (12 milhist, 1 chess) nominated, 11 were promoted, confirming the view that a formal A-class review is a good stepping stone to FA promotion. Tom B (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nice approach, however I think you have not completely interpreted this to best potential.
- To get these stats right, it is probably more interesting to analyse slightly different. I.e. what is the success rate/percentage of promotion for Recently reviewed articles; for A articles; for GA articles, and for none reviewed B or worse articles.
- Also I think you cannot conclude from your survey that A class is a good stepping stone, as your sample is most likely not representative for the whole of Wikipedia (12 out of 13 A classes is Milhist project). With that sample you could as easily conclude that falling within Wikiproject Milhist is a good stepping stone for FA promotion (correlation is not causation). Arnoutf (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think what you're showing is that success at FAC does not correlate with any of the other quality assessment schemes on Wikipedia, with the one exception of A-class review at WP:MILHIST which is FAC-like in its procedures and criteria. Physchim62 (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems that way, but that conclusion is confounded by the nominated articles, of which 75% seems A or GA. As of all articles on Wikipedia (that are not FA already) far, far fewer than 75% are A or GA; the nomination process attracts more than its share of otherwise rated high quality articles. I.e. the chance of an article being nominated AND promoted is much, much higher for an A or GA article compared to a non rated-Stub-Start-C-B class article being both nominated AND promoted. The selection seems to be in the nomination, more than in the promotion though; which means low quality articles are self selected for non-nomination. Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- That would be normal and quite banal as a result. However what is interesting is that not being A-class or GA seems to have no impact on the success at FAC. It's hard to tell for sure because of the small sample size. It does point out that FAC could cut its workload by one-quarter by making A-class or GA a requirement for nomination at FAC. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Poor, backlogged GA. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure it would not cut it by a quarter as most people who wanted to nominate would still nominate, they would just go through the other hurdle first. It would increase workload at GA, as Awadewit highlights. This increase might be about 20 GA nominations per month, though about half of those should sail through, on current evidence, with little work. Overall workload might be slightly reduced as there would be less comment/work on premature FA nominations i.e. work would be transferred from FA to GA and compacted. Tom B (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- That would be normal and quite banal as a result. However what is interesting is that not being A-class or GA seems to have no impact on the success at FAC. It's hard to tell for sure because of the small sample size. It does point out that FAC could cut its workload by one-quarter by making A-class or GA a requirement for nomination at FAC. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. I should have been slightly less categoric on the A-class point, but it does provide positive evidence regarding that class, particularly milhist. On looking at the way Arnoutf suggests, i've already posted the a-class results, the other results are naturally about 45% given this is the overall success rate for that month and the proportions of successful/non-successful noms that are peer reviewed, GA or B are the same, as stated above. Tom B (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- The backlogs at GA and WP A-class reviews are already substantial, requiring those would just increase their burdens, leading to lesser-quality reviews and no net positive result. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- We cannot know about what would happen with a requirement change i.e. that is a counterfactual assertion. It seems unlikely it would result only in an increase in workload at GA without any reduction in workload at FA. Tom B (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- The backlogs at GA and WP A-class reviews are already substantial, requiring those would just increase their burdens, leading to lesser-quality reviews and no net positive result. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems that way, but that conclusion is confounded by the nominated articles, of which 75% seems A or GA. As of all articles on Wikipedia (that are not FA already) far, far fewer than 75% are A or GA; the nomination process attracts more than its share of otherwise rated high quality articles. I.e. the chance of an article being nominated AND promoted is much, much higher for an A or GA article compared to a non rated-Stub-Start-C-B class article being both nominated AND promoted. The selection seems to be in the nomination, more than in the promotion though; which means low quality articles are self selected for non-nomination. Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think what you're showing is that success at FAC does not correlate with any of the other quality assessment schemes on Wikipedia, with the one exception of A-class review at WP:MILHIST which is FAC-like in its procedures and criteria. Physchim62 (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to play devil's advocate here—I strongly oppose the suggestion that there should be any requirements before coming to FAC, especially GAN. In my experience reviewing FACs, the GA process more often than not falsely emboldens authors to bring articles here. "I'm nominating this because it just passed GA" and so on. The quality gap between what passes for a GA and an FA is considerable, and due to the subjective and singular nature of GA reviews, the quality gap between individual GAs is also considerable. Some GAs are ready for FAC and the author seemingly went through the process just to get more feedback or because they were under a false impression of requirement. Some GAs arrive here so far away from meeting WIAFA that I would barely rate them B-class. Some editors consider GA a waste of time if the overall goal is FA. Overall, I think putting this requirement in place will be a net negative as we plant the suggestion that GA is the "final step" on your way to FA.
- Why there should be no requirements at all: If you are an experienced FA writer who works hard to get an article ready and meet WIAFA, why should you have to jump through hoops? Some nominators here are so consistent in bringing high-quality content that I would hate for them to have hassles and backlogs to deal with en route. --Laser brain (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to echo this. My impression is that articles which come to FAC within a few days of passing GA often don't do well here. I would be interested to know what the numbers say. Is there any difference in the FA rate for an article which starts FAC within 1 week of going through GA, vs. one that starts 1-2 months after going through GA vs. one that has had one failed FAC? Gimmetrow 20:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- As the criteria for GA and FA are significantly different, it should hardly be a surprise to anyone if articles taken to FAC straight after GAN rarely faired well. That's not to say that such articles aren't worthy though, just that although they meet the GA criteria they dont meet the FA criteria. I sincerely hope this topic isn't going to degenerate into another GA bashing vehicle, 'cos if it is I'm out of here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't mean to impugn GA. It has its place. Its place just isn't as a required (or nearby) stepping stone to FA. --Laser brain (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree, and I have never supported this idea of FAC prerequisites. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't mean to impugn GA. It has its place. Its place just isn't as a required (or nearby) stepping stone to FA. --Laser brain (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow, I had a look but it's quite hard to define what with repeated noms and also some are nominated 1-4 weeks after being listed as GA, Tom B (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- As the criteria for GA and FA are significantly different, it should hardly be a surprise to anyone if articles taken to FAC straight after GAN rarely faired well. That's not to say that such articles aren't worthy though, just that although they meet the GA criteria they dont meet the FA criteria. I sincerely hope this topic isn't going to degenerate into another GA bashing vehicle, 'cos if it is I'm out of here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to echo this. My impression is that articles which come to FAC within a few days of passing GA often don't do well here. I would be interested to know what the numbers say. Is there any difference in the FA rate for an article which starts FAC within 1 week of going through GA, vs. one that starts 1-2 months after going through GA vs. one that has had one failed FAC? Gimmetrow 20:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Most A-class reviewed articles come to FAC, and most pass. Hence, why bother with A-class? I would do away with an extraneous step and bring articles straight here. DrKiernan (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. A seems redundant with GA and FA around. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Need the eyes of someone involved with FAC/FLC/FAR/etc....
A discussion on the assesment scale is currently taking place at.[1]. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
April Fools
Time is running out to get something submitted to FAC in time for April Fools.
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-02-08/Dispatches
- Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article#Suggestions
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I like Nishkid64's suggestion. Seems like as good a choice as anything else. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion several months ago was Rings of Uranus. Because bwahahahah!!! About the only article on the suggestion list I might be inclined to work on feverishly is the Museum of Bad Art. I've been fascinated with this establishment for years. --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Or Moons of Uranus. :) Ceranthor 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nishkid's will almost certainly take too long. Durova's article is obscure, so it can be short and sweet. Help would be appreciated! Then there's always Lake Titicaca or Extraterrestrial real estate, which I've started work on. Ceranthor 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Will almost certainly take too long" isn't a concern when we have a whole group of editors collaborating on it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Two more, for Moni, since she primarily works on LGBT articles, Gay bomb, and Raining animals. We need to decide by today or tomorrow. Ceranthor 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I like the idea of Lake Titicaca and might be able to find a photo of a diesel powered reed boat that took me to the isle of the sun. But there are some interesting candidates on the suggestion page. What do people think of Louis of England and the French invasion of England? WereSpielChequers 16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Two more, for Moni, since she primarily works on LGBT articles, Gay bomb, and Raining animals. We need to decide by today or tomorrow. Ceranthor 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Will almost certainly take too long" isn't a concern when we have a whole group of editors collaborating on it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Someone has to take the lead on various possibilities, as Karanacs did last year, before time runs out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- A while back, Risker and I were discussed the Rhinoceros Party of Canada. Think of the blurb that could be written! However, I don't have enough time to take the lead, I'm already committed to several projects. -- Scorpion0422 16:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sandy, I can do Museum of Bad Art in about a week, but I would need assistance with copy editing and image concerns. --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Moni's sense of humor and April Fools ... now there's a winning combo! You might call in Ceoil and his arts crowd, and even try to entice Outriggr. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here, and contacted Ceoil. --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did... :o Ceranthor 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
FA cleanup listing
Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing is frightful. I hope editors will:
- submit the worst of the bunch to FAR,
- cleanup small issues that anyone can address, and
- leave notes on article talk pages and WikiProject talk pages encouraging other editors to clean these up.
It's not encouraging that we have so many deteriorated FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've submitted one to FAR, but that means I've now got two nominations currently on the FAR page. I would submit one or two more but I'm not sure if that's allowed (I'm not likely to disappear and never come back!). D.M.N. (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- They won't bite, Nishkid put up 3 in one hit once. Other times, I put up once every ten days and have them in teh pipeline. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Useful list! Can someone explain what "Articles containing potentially dated statements from xxxx" mean ? For example Giant Otter is listed as, "Articles containing potentially dated statements from 1997", but I didn't see any visible maintenance tags on the article page. Abecedare (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I see: The article uses {{As of|1997}}. (Ignore my question above.) Abecedare (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Useful list! Can someone explain what "Articles containing potentially dated statements from xxxx" mean ? For example Giant Otter is listed as, "Articles containing potentially dated statements from 1997", but I didn't see any visible maintenance tags on the article page. Abecedare (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- They won't bite, Nishkid put up 3 in one hit once. Other times, I put up once every ten days and have them in teh pipeline. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrary limit on noms
RE: "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" ... Any limit on the number of noms is stifling to the production of quality content and contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia; which is the creation of quality content. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- That precept was introduced because it had turned out to be needed. Having no limit on the simultaneous number of nominations from a single user is stifling to quality, as it tends to encourage inexperienced users to nominate spectacularly un-ready articles, thus stretching the already thin reviewing resources even thinner. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
- Since when was the "creation of quality content" the purpose of an encyclopedia? Isn't that just a little-teeny-weeny-bit self-serving to the so-called "FA-writers"? Physchim62 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Any limit on the number of noms is stifling to the production of quality content and contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia" Eh? How exactly does limiting the number of simultaneous nominations prohibit people from creating/writing/expanding/editing articles? The FAC process exists merely to judge whether nominated articles meet the FA criteria.
- There are a number of reasons why the limit is there.
- Because reviewers are lacking, it prevents resources from being stretched too thin. FACs deserve to be reviewed by multiple editors. Lifting the limitation would only increase the backlog at FAC; many nominations already languish with little to no reviews.
- It prevents nominators from over-burdening themselves. Some FACs are quite involved; the less burnout the better.
- What Bishonen said: "It tends to encourage inexperienced users to nominate [multiple] spectacularly un-ready articles." The limit gives the FAC coordinator a handy way to deal with these typo of nominations; no longer must the FAC process be tied up by a flood of nominations by inexperienced editors, crowding out the nominations that deserve a good look from reviewers. BuddingJournalist 00:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since when was the "creation of quality content" the purpose of an encyclopedia? Isn't that just a little-teeny-weeny-bit self-serving to the so-called "FA-writers"? Physchim62 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- FA status =/= "quality content". I could point to many articles I firmly believe to be "quality content" that will in all probability never come to FAC. And even to some FAs that I believe are not quality content. FAC is a review process, not an arbitor of quality, however you choose to define that term. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The argument of lack of reviewers is lame-now THAT is self serving; and as for having of goal to impede new contribors - that's what speedy removals are for. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- If that was in reply to me, I really don't understand what you're saying. FAC is not the arbitor of quality; it is the arbitor of whether or not an article meets the FA criteria. The two things tend to converge, but they are not the same. Would yoy have the same concerns if FAC didn't have the ability to award litle gold stars? I somehow doubt it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The argument of lack of reviewers is lame-now THAT is self serving; and as for having of goal to impede new contribors - that's what speedy removals are for. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, it was considered improper to nominate one's own articles for FAC. Then there was the invasion of the Socks, and it was seen that such proprieties were useless as a defense against the Vanglorious. Your current Bard was around then, but noticed too late the risks. I rang the Clarion Bell when the number of registered users was approaching the number of articles! I believe that the nomination restriction dates from that period, not that things have gotten any better since. Alas, we now have more than three times as many "users" as we have articles! Sometimes, it shows! Physchim62 (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- My comment here is relevant to this thread, as well. What we need is common sense, not an arbitrary limit. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- An arbitrary limit is easier to enforce than common sense (one editor's common sense is another's...etc.). Common sense (and fairness) would dictate that editors hold off on adding multiple noms when the list is quite long and reviewers are lacking for the other FA candidates already there, but when we relied on common sense in the past, it didn't work. What's the pressing need to nominate multiple articles anyway? Is waiting for the first one to finish such a horrible thing? Quality content is quality content, irrespective of a bronze star. BuddingJournalist 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with the one-nom-per-editor rule. Common sense is relative, unfortunately. Editors have individual views of the function of FAC or their own abilities, and I can see "use common sense" to be construed abusively. What about nominators who resist every suggestion, not overcoming by changing the article, but by arguing? What if that editor decided to nominate 5, 8, 12 at a time? Because the editor had a much different perspective on his own abilities, the role of FAC, and quite honestly, what his fellow editors are willing to tolerate? Is there any reason not to wait? We do not seem to be bound by time constraints. --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree to the rule also. Unfortunately, it's one of those rules that had to be made because a small number of individuals did not recognize "one at a time" as the common sense action. --Laser brain (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is one of those rules that should be observed by most, but I've seen Sandy relax it for a couple experienced FA editors who are usually well-prepared. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with the abritrary rule' there are enough nominations already. I have at least one article I want to take to FAC, but see no point at the moment given the backlog. Allowing editors to nom multiple articles will just make that worse. There's still GAN and ACR, and Peer-Review. Skinny87 (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing prohibits editors from creating quality content outside of FA. We need to restrict nominations here because of the severe lack of reviewers. We can always raise the number once we have more reviewers. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with the abritrary rule' there are enough nominations already. I have at least one article I want to take to FAC, but see no point at the moment given the backlog. Allowing editors to nom multiple articles will just make that worse. There's still GAN and ACR, and Peer-Review. Skinny87 (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is one of those rules that should be observed by most, but I've seen Sandy relax it for a couple experienced FA editors who are usually well-prepared. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree to the rule also. Unfortunately, it's one of those rules that had to be made because a small number of individuals did not recognize "one at a time" as the common sense action. --Laser brain (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Why so few reviewers?
Why so few reviewers? A question that's a hardy perennial on this page; Awadewit speaks of the "severe lack of reviewers" just above. I suggest an answer: because reviewing is frustrating in so many ways. For instance, for once I assuaged my conscience by writing up a FAC review, on The Lucy poems; but when I came to paste it in just now, it turned out no more comments on The Lucy poems are wanted at present. I think both the unexpected moratorium—meaning wasted effort—and Ottawa Rima's embattled responses, are the kinds of things that totally put off reviewers. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC).
- I think it is more likely that people realise the whole FA process and its reviews is fatally flawed. People spend months of their lives writing a page, others come along and make puerile comments, then it may or may not pass FAC. Then a few months later it goes to FARC nominated by some idiot who either was not born when the page was promoted, or does not understand it or cannot be bothered to try and find a few footnotes (if they must have them) or as often happens one particular discontented troublesome editor who has a personal axe to grind. The page is then demoted and sinks into the mire and abyss of shit that pages become when abandoned. No, writing and reviewing FACs is a complete waste of energy and time. Giano (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- You guys are better than Prozac. --Moni3 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Giano can always be counted on to turn everything into a hitlist for editors just because someone nominated his previous star at FAR. And as such, the topic veers wildly from actual process discussions into pointless drivel! ...To the more germane point, perhaps shortly before closing the delegates can leave a mention for a sort of "last call"? That it abruptly archives isn't my issue so much as when that abrupt process takes place is arbitrary to everyone else. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I for one will appreciate seeing Bishonen (talk · contribs) review of The Lucy poems when it's posted...it can use a fresh voice..Modernist (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just a note, FAC isn't the only process with a "depression" of reviewers. FLC also lacks many reviewers, although its less stressful to review.--₮RUCӨ 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I for one will appreciate seeing Bishonen (talk · contribs) review of The Lucy poems when it's posted...it can use a fresh voice..Modernist (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Lucy poems is a poor example as it is the exception rather than the rule. I didn't read into it that further reviews were unwanted, only that the bickering parties agreed to take a break. At any rate, I maintain that almost everyone operating at FAC is doing so in good faith. The nominators believe their content meets WIAFA and the reviewers either agree or try helping them get there. FAC is certainly different from what it was a year ago or longer, but that shouldn't devalue the time and effort of its current participants. --Laser brain (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be clear about the Lucy review; it was becoming entrenched and heated in one area, so we hoped that a cool down time might be helpful. Thats not at all to say that other reviewers are unwelcome, least of all editors with the ability of the likes of Bishonen. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- (echoing Ceoil, Modernist and Lazer Brain) I believe all that was meant was that some of the more heated parties were taking a breather. I think further comments are welcome. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be clear about the Lucy review; it was becoming entrenched and heated in one area, so we hoped that a cool down time might be helpful. Thats not at all to say that other reviewers are unwelcome, least of all editors with the ability of the likes of Bishonen. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- In order to get more reviewers an incentive may help. We give out baubles for those who nominate an article, why not give out awards for reviewing them too? Otherwise it's just a thankless, tedious job. Will Beback talk 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- FLC had a contest (but it was mainly about nominating lists, but maybe FAC can turn it around to get more reviews)--₮RUCӨ 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't GA holding something similar? I'm not sure whether a contest for reviewing is necessary; besides the time wasted in organizing one, it may not promote quality reviews, which is more important than receiving a lot of reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm strongly against any sort of competition. The occasional barnstar, verbal recognition, and the satisfaction of seeing articles you helped review or fix earning FA statues are pretty good incentives, in my opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Giving prizes as incentives to review; cheapens the whole process. It is a voluntary project; and should stay that way...Modernist (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm strongly against any sort of competition. The occasional barnstar, verbal recognition, and the satisfaction of seeing articles you helped review or fix earning FA statues are pretty good incentives, in my opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't GA holding something similar? I'm not sure whether a contest for reviewing is necessary; besides the time wasted in organizing one, it may not promote quality reviews, which is more important than receiving a lot of reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is doing nothing an option? If not, then something needs to be done. Management books on "creating change" typically divide strategies into two categories, decreasing resistance to the desired change and encouraging it - and most say that no amount of encouragement (or pressure) will work if the main reasons for resistance are not minimised first. I think you need to do a bit of market research to discover what the main reasons for resistance are. Besides regular reviewers, I think you need to ask reviewers who have dropped out, and any who have been invited to review but have declined. --Philcha (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps everyone just needs to be a little bit nicer to one another? DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Now your talkin'...good idea...Modernist (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I tend to generally avoid FAC like the plague because I don't have time to nitpick articles anal-retentively down to every little minute detail. I generally tend to prefer reviewing GAs, because the criteria are pretty reasonable without being overly nitpicky, and you don't have to worry about really fine details,... As someone who can be considered "expert level" in the chemical, biological, and health sciences, I will occasionally try and review those for scientific accuracy,... but even then, I don't like being very nit-picky about minute things like commas and non-breaking spaces between units of measurement. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think many people have the temperament to be that nit-picky, but that shouldn't keep you away from FAC. You could certainly come in and provide general comments on whether you believe the article meets the criteria of comprehensiveness and sourcing. I also think it's reasonable to say you believe the prose meets 1a having read the article. Most reviewers I've seen who are inclined to notice MoS issues will either just fix them or make a general comment that the article needs work to meet MoS. We need reviewers who will approach the reviews from different angles, not just MoS wonks (although they are needed as well). You can certainly write "The prose is brilliant and compelling, but someone needs to check it through for MoS issues because I spotted some things along the way." I'll give you a cookie if you do it. --Laser brain (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- What'll I get if I write "Support this flawless embodiment of MoS, prettiest non-breaking spaces I've ever seen, P.S, the prose blows"? Bishonen | talk 21:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
- Probably ignored, but I can't say for sure. I would probably ignore you, at least. (Non-breaking spaces are pretty??) But what do I know, I just do sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some scratchers. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- What'll I get if I write "Support this flawless embodiment of MoS, prettiest non-breaking spaces I've ever seen, P.S, the prose blows"? Bishonen | talk 21:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
Needing image review
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Um, I did note in my support statement that all of the images meet our policy requirements. Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, thanks! (I haven't read the full FAC yet, just scanned to see which pieces are done, and I typically encounter a separate image review.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did an image review though haven't done one before so someone should check, thanks Tom B (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll double check it. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3 Images
Does the main section of an article require mutiple images under 3 Images of the criteria? - which isn't specific. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Technically, it doesn't have to have any number of images, it's just preferred. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll make 3 Images _clear_ WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some articles must have images (The Swimming Hole, for example). Some do not. There's no hard and fast rule for this. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean???
"doesn't add clarity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria&diff=276627392&oldid=276627157 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
No one cares about accuracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria&curid=4715286&diff=276629478&oldid=276628554 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Does nobody visit this talk page or something?? .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 00:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what the heck you're talking about, thus I haven't replied. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are funny. You don't know how to click on links? And you can't read?
- Dicussion over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#3_Images —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's not in the criteria because for some topics, it may be necessary to have an image; it's up to reviewers to decide. Please do not attack editors here, as well. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hey. Be respectful. If you want a discussion then be clear about what you want. Don't insult people. --Moni3 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- "what the heck you're talking about" is an insult. So glad you take sides already. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hey. Be respectful. If you want a discussion then be clear about what you want. Don't insult people. --Moni3 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You have not asked a clear question or made a point.Clearer: I don't understand what you are protesting or asking. What is your issue? --Moni3 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like WhatisFeelings? is trying to adjust criterion 3 to explicitly state that images are not mandatory for an article to become an FA. His/her changes were reverted and I suspect that is the cause of the apparent frustration. Эlcobbola talk 00:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Does this translate as "you want criteria 3 removed, or made clearer that it is not essential that an article include an image to reach FA status"? If so, say so; if not, then add me to the list of people who don't understand exactly what point you're trying to make. – iridescent 00:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe this is what s/he means. Note that this is a new editor. BuddingJournalist 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that "It has images ... where appropriate" is clear enough. Shouldn't this discussion be moved to the talk page about the FA criteria? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe this is what s/he means. Note that this is a new editor. BuddingJournalist 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
New FAC and FAR delegates
Marskell has been missing since last year, and Sandy has told me she's going to have less time in the future to help out on FAC. At her request and the request of others, I'm going to appoint a few new delegates for FAC and FAR.
I've asked YellowMonkey and Karanacs, and they've both said yes (although with a baby on the way, Karanacs did so hesitantly). So what I'm going to do is this -- I'll make YellowMonkey FAR delegate, and Karanacs FAC delegate. Depending on the workload and Sandy's thoughts, I might also add another FAC delegate. Raul654 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support both, without any hesitation. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Enthusiastically endorse both, and depending on how things work out with my time, suggest we revisit the possibility of yet another FAC delegate some months down the road. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- YellowMonkey has -nothing- on me. I think that the only way he should be any kind of delegate is to first bow down and worship me. But, besides my ego related stuff, he should be fine. Karanacs doesn't have to do any of the such, because... I don't know. I'm fickle. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know Karanacs at all, but since I suggested YellowMonkey to Raul, I can only endorse :) Xasodfuih (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is very spooky. I was thinking about Sandy and her arduous, and often thankless task, and having switched off my PC for the night, I decided to re-boot to suggest to Sandy that she should delegate some of her "responsibilities". My plan was to suggest that Raul or Sandy should invite and nominate other FAC delegates to take on the task of FAC pr/ar in areas were those editors have shown particular critical skills. To let nominators know what has been decided, we could add to the top of the FAC something like, "User:Karanacs will promote or archive this candidate". Just a thought, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- PS. Having said that, I must stress that IMHO Sandy has done, and will hopefully continue to do, a great service to the project. Her high standards and admirable sense of fair play are central to the success of featuring articles and in turn to the high esteem that Wikipedia is held in many countries and by millions of people. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support both candidates and the idea in general - spread the workload around. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support both. I think it will be interesting to have someone in charge of things who is not in North America (YellowMonkey), and I am doing my best to overlook the inherent arrogance all Texans possess. As long as Karanacs admits she and her kin have no abilities to drive in snow or on steep hills, I guess we're ok. Yes, I live in Florida where there are neither hills or snow, but I did live in Colorado for years and can spot a Texan driver at 1,000 ft. She edits like a mad fiend, though, and has my respect. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support both, and I also strongly support adding at least one more immediately, given that YellowMonkey will not be at FAC and Karanacs will be at FAC only intermittently. Mike Christie (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support both. Babies are funny things time-wise and very unpredictable, so I will keep my fingers crossed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes and yes. Sandy shouldn't have to shoulder the entire load at FAC, like she's been doing recently. Having at least three delegates to share the job would be ideal in my mind, but just adding Karanacs should do for now. It will also be nice to have YellowMonkey work at FAR, since he has a great deal of experience there. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support both, though ideally I'd like to see another FAC delegate, in addition to Karanacs and Sandy. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good choices, Raul. I echo some of the other comments about adding to these two - there's a lot of work to do, and much of it is unlovely. --Dweller (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support both will do an excellent job -MBK004 00:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support both, but agree with Julian and Dweller. Along with Graham, I'd like to thank Sandy; I would have never been able to do half of the work she does/did. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sensible picks and agree with Julian, but if FAC is still too arduous someone can scream uncle and we can add another delegate if needed. Damn, another editor I have to
suck up toget to know... :P --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC) - Support No reservations at all. Sandy's dedication has been admirable; I hope she continues on here for a long time to come, with the reduced FAC workload. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent choices. Good to know that SandyGeorgia will have such fine editors to work together with her on this important area. Risker (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've never been able to fathom how anyone managed this work alone for years. Glad to see the load spread out a bit, and fully support both choices. Now, if only acquiring more reviewers was so simple! Maralia (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Object to YellowMonkey. Gimmetrow 02:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Object to YellwoMonkey also. --—Mattisse (Talk) 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Karanacs I'm unfamiliar with YellowMonkey's work at FAR (or indeed anyone's work there since I rarely visit), so I can't offer my support or opposition. BuddingJournalist 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
When did this become a vote? I thought that Raul was simply making an announcement, not asking for an endorsement of his decision. I'm confident that they've both demonstrated their ability to do the job well; Raul wouldn't have chosen them otherwise. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- MF, everything is a vote on WP...we vote for breakfast, lunch and tea...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, Sandy's appointment wasn't subject to a !vote. That is, I don't think Raul asked for a !vote, though there I seem to remember multiple expressions of support. The same thing appears to me to be happening here; Raul did not ask for community approval, but people are expressing support. I'm fine with him simply appointing delegates, but if there were to be a strong expression of concern I expect Raul would reconsider. Mike Christie (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- MF, everything is a vote on WP...we vote for breakfast, lunch and tea...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Strong support for both Karanacs (talk · contribs) and YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Excellent choices by Raul654 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Ruslik (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the appointments official, so to speak. That is to say, I've added them to the FAC and FAR instructions. They're free to begin promoting/demoting/archiving noms whenever they feel up to it. Raul654 (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Most number of failed FACs for a single article
Just an idle question: Any idea what the largest number of failed FACs for one article is? (I ask this in hopes that one particular I'm working on will not break that number) Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head, Real Madrid has had eight FACs. I don't know whether that is the most ever though. If you go through a peer review first and invite comments from experienced reviewers, the article you are working on should have no problems at FAC. Woody (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain there have been articles with nine failed FAC noms, though I can't see to remember which. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Real Madrid has had 9! And Google suggests it's the only one - rst20xx (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain there have been articles with nine failed FAC noms, though I can't see to remember which. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Point violation?
I am being accused of having committed a "point violation" in my FAC review of Samuel Johnson's early life. What is a point violation and how have I committed it? I have tried to be unfailingly civil in my review (although I have been blunt). Also, why is the fact of being copy-edited by two dozen people adequate defense against further criticism (which includes a compilation of errors)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion between Ottava Rima and Fowler&fowler is taking place in multiple forums. I just responded to OR's complain on Raul's talk page. Can we get links, diffs, and examples in a central location before this turns awful because no one has a clear picture? --Moni3 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Would you like me to move my examples to some other page? Please suggest page name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let's start with this one. I just asked Ottava Rima to place his objections here as well. To both: please be clear what it is you want others to do, if anything. --Moni3 (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Would you like me to move my examples to some other page? Please suggest page name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- My only post on the matter, because Moni doesn't seem to understand what this is about. I accused the user of a WP:POINT violation which is the disruptive part of a clear WP:STALK. This is a behavioral problem dealing with disruption that needs administrative opinion in order to determine if a block or some other form of censure can be used to keep Fowler from disrupting the encyclopedia. This has nothing to do with FAC criteria, FAC process, or the rest. There were no "multiple forums". There was his actions and my statement to Raul that I intended to go to ANI and I would like him to know of that since people might be looking at the FAC process inappropriately instead of dealing with the real issue. I will not respond to this further. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
My take, as an uninvolved editor: F&F seems to have legit concerns. Ottava Rima may not agree with them, but I don't think that the oppose can be called "pointy" on those grounds. Now, whether the opposing editor has Wikistalked is a different matter entirely. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler's examples per Moni3's instructions
- Fowler&fowler FAC oppose
As I stated in the FAC review, the article has many errors of grammar, usage, clarity, and logic. Here are three examples from the lead paragraph. However, I am happy to add numerous examples from other sections of the article.
- (Sentence 3) "His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career."
- (Grammar) The parallel structure in the sentence is faulty. The first three in the series are noun phrases, the last is not. It should be "His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, his various experiences with ..., his eventual ..., and his efforts at last to settle into a career," or other consistent formulations.
- (Usage) Which of the meanings of "dominate" applies here? (a. To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power. b. To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over c. To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in d. To overlook from a height) In other words, "dominate" is not the word that applies to all elements in the sentence. Is "marked by" or "occupied by" meant? Or does the author mean "the course of his early years was determined by ...?"
- (Clarity) What does it mean to say, "his early years were dominated by his various experiences with his family members?" How is that much different from "his early years were dominated by his various experiences of his early years?" In other words, this part of the sentence is all too vague.
- (Logic) How can "early years" be dominated by an "eventual attempt at college?" Is "sustained effort at remaining in college" meant?
- (Sentence 4) "After attending Pembroke College, Oxford for a year, Johnson was forced to leave due to lack of funds."
- (Clarity) Lack of whose funds? In any case, lack of funds is not the cause. Do you mean "non-payment of fees?"
- (Sentence 5) "He tried to work as a teacher, but he was unable to find a long lasting position."
- Was he unable to find such a position or was he unable to make a position last long (since he apparently "tried to work")? In the former case, you want to say "he was unable to find a long-term position;" in the latter, you want to say "he was unable to last long in any teaching job."
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I'll step into this buzz saw. A couple of these seem needlessly picky to me. Especially the ones about sentences four and five. If we were engaging in a debate, then perhaps the points might seem more important to me, but this is a lead paragraph and we're trying to give an overview of the content of the article. Especially with sentence three, the phrase is a well worn one "lack of funds" is a commonly used phrase. I had no difficulty understanding either sentence, nor what was intended to be stated. Sentence three, I will not judge the grammar part (I cheerfully left behind parsing sentences when I left school) but which meaning of dominate is meant is clear to me. Likewise, I see quite clearly what is meant by "dominated by his various experiences with his family members" Not everyone grows up with a family, nor does everyone's experiences with family members necessarily impinge much on your later life. I did not see it as vague at all, and quite clearly it meant that his early years were influenced by his family members. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure "lack of funds" is a common expression. You can say, "he couldn't attend college for lack of funds." Lack of funds is a condition, not an event. However, getting booted out of college is a specific event which requires a specific cause. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- (Side note, can we try to indent when you're replying to someone? It makes reading the threads much simpler). But the article doesn't say he got "Booted out of college" it says "he was forced to leave due to lack of funds." The college didn't "boot" him, he left because of a condition, the lack of funds. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you realize that you are debating one or two points. That still leaves a large number that you are not acknowledging! Well, "forced to leave" is at the very least ambiguous (since it can certainly include "booted out of college") If you don't mean he was forced to leave by external event (which is what most uses of the expression involve), then say "obliged to leave" or even "compelled to leave." A major goal of an encyclopedia is to communicate clearly. Using the expression "forced to leave" does not do so. Besides there are other problems in that sentence. There is the common error of confusing "due to" with "because of." Are you seriously defending the prose of this article as even remotely close to being "brilliant?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- (sighs) I'm not debating one or two points, I'm pointing out that some of the concerns you brought up are not concerns to others. You brought up a couple of points on the FAC from the lead and Moni asked folks uninvolved with the FAC to weigh in on whether or not some of them were nitpicky as Ottava was alleging. I weighed in that I found some of them nitpicky. (not all of them, some of them) That does not logically follow that I feel that the prose is or is not "brilliant", it was addressing the issue above whether or not Ottava's concern that some of the points raised were nitpicky. You claimed that the points you raised made the prose unclear. I disagreed with a few of those points (once again not all of them). Now, whether or not Ottava or yourself are correct or incorrect, is not something I addressed. And now I'm remembering why I said "buzz saw" before. It's important for reviewers as well as writers to realize that we are talking about the written word. English is a wonderful language in that there are many different ways of saying the same thing, and thus not everything is going to be able to be written the way the reveiwer would necessarily find good, but the reveiwer cannot just call a style of writing that differs from what the reveiwer would write as wrong. The idea of FAC isn't to make over an article to what the reveiwer would have written, it's to make sure that the writing is clear, concise and understandable to the general reader of our encyclopedia. I have one pet peeve with FAC and it's this fetish for one particular style of "concise" writing. Too many opposes on prose seem to me to boil down to "It's not a style I like so I'll oppose". There is some sort of totemish worship of pared down prose that makes any other style of writing bad and sometimes it's nice to read something that is not bare bones prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- A totemic worship of pared down prose might result, for example, in a recommendation of Jack London as vastly superior to Joseph Conrad. This, however, is a different kettle of fish. We are looking at two staccato sentences followed by an ungrammatical howler: "Samuel Johnson was an English author. Johnson was born in Lichfield, Staffordshire. His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career." How would you characterize that style? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- (sighs) I'm not debating one or two points, I'm pointing out that some of the concerns you brought up are not concerns to others. You brought up a couple of points on the FAC from the lead and Moni asked folks uninvolved with the FAC to weigh in on whether or not some of them were nitpicky as Ottava was alleging. I weighed in that I found some of them nitpicky. (not all of them, some of them) That does not logically follow that I feel that the prose is or is not "brilliant", it was addressing the issue above whether or not Ottava's concern that some of the points raised were nitpicky. You claimed that the points you raised made the prose unclear. I disagreed with a few of those points (once again not all of them). Now, whether or not Ottava or yourself are correct or incorrect, is not something I addressed. And now I'm remembering why I said "buzz saw" before. It's important for reviewers as well as writers to realize that we are talking about the written word. English is a wonderful language in that there are many different ways of saying the same thing, and thus not everything is going to be able to be written the way the reveiwer would necessarily find good, but the reveiwer cannot just call a style of writing that differs from what the reveiwer would write as wrong. The idea of FAC isn't to make over an article to what the reveiwer would have written, it's to make sure that the writing is clear, concise and understandable to the general reader of our encyclopedia. I have one pet peeve with FAC and it's this fetish for one particular style of "concise" writing. Too many opposes on prose seem to me to boil down to "It's not a style I like so I'll oppose". There is some sort of totemish worship of pared down prose that makes any other style of writing bad and sometimes it's nice to read something that is not bare bones prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you realize that you are debating one or two points. That still leaves a large number that you are not acknowledging! Well, "forced to leave" is at the very least ambiguous (since it can certainly include "booted out of college") If you don't mean he was forced to leave by external event (which is what most uses of the expression involve), then say "obliged to leave" or even "compelled to leave." A major goal of an encyclopedia is to communicate clearly. Using the expression "forced to leave" does not do so. Besides there are other problems in that sentence. There is the common error of confusing "due to" with "because of." Are you seriously defending the prose of this article as even remotely close to being "brilliant?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It's no different in the later sections:
- Examples from section 1
- (Sentence 2): "Michael was the first bookseller of "reputation" in the community, having opened a parchment factory which produced book bindings."
- What does "reputation" (within quotes) mean? Is the author quoting someone or is he being ironic? The former requires a citation; the latter is a POV.
- "was" is incorrect here. It should be, "Michael had become the first bookseller of reputation in the community, having opened ..."
- (Sentence 3) "Little is known about Michael Johnson's past, or what his background was."
- (verb ending) It should be "Little is known about Michael Johnson's past or his background."
- (usage/logic) What is the difference between "past" and "background?"
- (Sentence 4) "He and his brothers were apprenticed as booksellers, and his father, William Johnson, was called a 'yeoman' and a 'gentleman' in the Stationers' Company records, but there is little evidence to suggest that William Johnson was from nobility."
- (Logic) Why is the "but" there? Is there an a priori expectation of nobility in his lineage? In any case, we weren't told about it earlier.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- As for sentence 3, I think it's clear that past refers to his own past life, and the background refers to his own ancestry/family etc. For 4, yes, there might be if you say "gentleman" you imply that it is possible that he might have nobility in his background. Gentleman in the context of the times was someone from the gentry, and as the English do not have an aristocracy in the same sense as the French do, it is entirely possible for a son of a baron to be simply a "gentleman", if he was the second or younger son, he would not inherit a title and would not have a courtesy title, so gentleman can imply a noble background. Or it can imply nothing of the sort, it needs clarifying. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, you're being accused of being overly picky with this language. It in fact does seem to me that these are very fine grammar issues that are brilliant writing either way. Can you assure us, now that the objections have left the FAC, that your points are so important that should this article appear on the main page, it would be a detriment to Wikipedia? This is my bottom line on how I judge if an article should be supported. What I hoped to accomplish by centralizing the discussions that have taken place in multiple venues is an common understanding about the responsibilities of the nominator, the objector, and the FAC closer. The way contentious FACs are handled will help to establish a protocol for how regulars step in to mediate or sort through them. --Moni3 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have to go to a meeting and will reply later in more detail, but let me say just for now that user:E has picked one or two of the finer points of usage that I made and has held them up to be ones of nitpicking. Even if you ignore those,
- the faulty parallelism in "His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career."
- the verb ending in "Little is known about Michael Johnson's past, or what his background was."
- the incorrect "was" in "Michael was the first bookseller of "reputation" in the community, having opened a parchment factory which produced book bindings."
are all significant errors. They should be inexcusable on the Main page. (It would be well-nigh impossible to find them on any page in Britannica (even a stub page)). More later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Like Fowler, I have to run at the moment, I just wanted to point out the common ground here. Two people who care enough about writing to argue over individual words? Please! We need both of you! You are a rare breed on Wikipedia. Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Awadewit, your point is why I believe there is a point and possible stalk violation. Care enough? He has only shown such care on two pages, both of which I was listed on. There are dozens of FACs, yet he chose these two and made statements to suggest both needing copyediting. The fact that the Johnson page received so many copyedits by many of our finest copyeditors show that the caring is to a point that ignores reality and is detrimental as a whole. Why should he care to such an extent yet not on any other page? There is only one answer. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Agree with Awadewit. If FAC wants more conscientious reviewers to participate, then be kind to them when they do appear. Many FAC reviewers on other FACs in the past have left long lists of, what can seem to some, petty concerns. I commented to the editor of Rhyolite, Nevada that I was bothered by his use of "relies". He fixed my nit picky complaint and thanked me for noticing it. Do you want to encourage reviewers to participate or not? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- A reviewer must be civil when reviewing, which means to respect the effort, to actually review the whole page, and to not oppose unless there is a serious concern. Reviewers should also not follow certain users around and should review all pages equally. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that editors are not allowed to pick apart the lead as a example/sample of the writing in the article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you are unwilling to look at the article as a whole, then you aren't following the purpose of the FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Parallelisms are not necessary, especially not to lists. Parallelisms are found in all forms of syntax, and are found within repetitions of sentences and paragraphs. To harp on parallelisms is not an appropriate grammatical focus because this is a stylistic point and not a reflection of impropriety. Now, for tenses - "was" is necessary for background because it deals with the past only (hence "background"). The second "was" deals with the tense of the structure. This is a historical topic and "was" is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can any of the copy-editors that you claim have edited the Samuel Johnson's early life article defend any of the three sentences above or perhaps support your explanation? If so, why don't they step forward? Also, why did user:Malleus Fatuorum, who apparently is helping you, change all the sentences I objected to if there were no issues? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you want them all to respond, why don't you directly contact them yourself? This is the list. By the time Tony1 came onto the page, he was satisfied so he didn't directly participate. And Malleus did not change all of the sentences. Regardless, if he was to respond to why, I am sure he would definitely tell you 100% how he feels about your comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can any of the copy-editors that you claim have edited the Samuel Johnson's early life article defend any of the three sentences above or perhaps support your explanation? If so, why don't they step forward? Also, why did user:Malleus Fatuorum, who apparently is helping you, change all the sentences I objected to if there were no issues? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Please please please can we take this thread to (at the very least) the talk of the FAC in question? This really doesn't involve the FAC process as a whole. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Moni3: How should I proceed now? user:Malleus Fatuorum had in over dozens of edits removed many of the objections I had. Clearly, he did think there were issues, otherwise he wouldn't have made his edits. Should I now list the remaining grammatical/usage issues? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agreed with quite a few of your objections to the lead, others I went along with because I didn't see that they made much difference once way or the other. I didn't agree with your extrapolation of problems in the lead to problems with the rest of the article however, so if you can see other issues then you ought, of course, to give examples so that they can be addressed just as speedily. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Please close these pages
Could someone close the FAC pages that were archived/promoted by Raul on 11 March? The promoted articles have been updated on WP:WBFAN, but no stars show on the actual pages. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- GimmeBot goes through on Tuesdays and Saturdays (see WP:FAC/ar and {{FACClosed}}); in the meantime, anyone can add {{FAClosed|archived}}, {{FACClosed|promoted}} or {{FACClosed|withdrawn}} to the bottom of any FAC that has been moved off of the page. It is helpful if FAC regulars keep up with this sort of tedious and routine work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Noted (I am very bad at admin stuff) Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The following discussion 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.
Orchestrated?
- It seems there is a completely different twist to the entire "Samuel Johnson's early life" FAC. Please read the Johnson section on Malleus F's talk page, especially this post by Ottava Rima. Apparently, the entire hurried FAC submission on 12 March (for an article that had last been edited by user:Ottava Rima on September 5, 2008) was orchestrated to provoke me. This also explains his sudden disavowal of the Lucy FAC on 11 March (editors are not allowed to simultaneously have two FAC at one time). He then encouraged others to start an AN/I thread against me at 02:18 on 12 March 2009 (the others didn't bite). His FAC nomination was made at 18:27 on 12 March 2009, the explanation for which was provided cryptically in this post on the article's talk page. In other words, user:Ottava Rima has made a hurried and less than good-faith submission to entrap me and to make a point. If others agree with me, then I want some appropriate action taken against user:Ottava Rima by the admins usually involved with FACs: user:Moni3,
user:SandyGeorgia, user:YellowMonkey, and user:Raul654. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)- Point of order ... Sandy's not an admin. Otherwise, I've stepped into enough buzz saws today, I'm not getting involved. (I'm not an admin either) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth beat me to it. I don't know what to say, but are you sure that this is the correct place for this issue? I don't like to recommend the house of drama, but this is starting to get ridiculous... Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Palace of drama, surely. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is the talk page of the FAC. Where else would you make a post for a less than good-faith FAC, the evidence for which is in the diffs above? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth beat me to it. I don't know what to say, but are you sure that this is the correct place for this issue? I don't like to recommend the house of drama, but this is starting to get ridiculous... Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Point of order ... Sandy's not an admin. Otherwise, I've stepped into enough buzz saws today, I'm not getting involved. (I'm not an admin either) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sudden disavowel? I haven't had a major contribution to the Lucy poems page since November. It wasn't sudden in any regards. The Johnson early life page has been ready for FA since it was split from the main page. I don't put many pages up for FA because I don't care about "stars". I put this one up because I talked to people and we figured that you were specifically targetting me. We decided that since this page was already approved by so many people in its previous form, if you opposed it it would only confirm that you were targetting me to be disruptive. You did just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- F&f, fair enough it was a trap it seems; but given you took the bait, I'd let the whole thing go, and would strongly recommend Ottava does the same. What good can come of this? I'd send both of ye to opposite corners with naughty hats for 15 minutes or so. After than, water under the bridge. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Seconded...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- No doubt, this has already taken up way too much of writers' and reviewers' time. The whole thing has boiled down to little more than "I know you are, but what am I?" and "Liar liar pants on fire." Go back to writing and/or reviewing, please. --Laser brain (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Seconded...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- F&f, fair enough it was a trap it seems; but given you took the bait, I'd let the whole thing go, and would strongly recommend Ottava does the same. What good can come of this? I'd send both of ye to opposite corners with naughty hats for 15 minutes or so. After than, water under the bridge. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I got involved because I thought I could help out, and FAC is usually the last place to find drama. I had honest intentions to assist in a dispute that was quickly spiraling out of control. I intensely disliked the fallout from the FAC for Major Depressive Disorder, and I would never like to see that happen again here. Now, due to the Fowler&fowler and Ottava Rima Show, I feel like a great stupid prat. I do think this was orchestrated by both in a comedy of egos. I am ashamed and angry that it dragged uninvolved FAC regulars who also intended only to be helpful, and that I was manipulated by these two. Shame on me.
It is clear to me that neither especially care about the betterment of their articles. Instead they care about winning. So. You both win. Does it feel as wonderful as you had hoped? Dropping it as the best case scenario. I think there may be good cause to block both. What a shame, because I have lost all respect for both of you. I feel like I stepped in to build a bridge between colleagues and ended up chastising a couple of brawling 10-year-olds. I apologize to Ealdgyth, Awadewit, Sandy, Raul, Mattisse, and anyone else who tried to get involved due to my interference. As much as I would love to tell both of you to grow the fuck up, instead I'm going to urge you to find whatever respect you have for yourselves individually and figure out the right thing to do. I suggest the first thing to do is archiving the threads for today. --Moni3 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- As I told you before - it isn't about me. It was about Fowler's heavy handed approach to Ceoil's page which I had very little to do simply because I was listed on the nom. Everyone knows that I sat on the early life page for a very long time. Ceoil is a very good contributor and didn't deserve to be disrespected in the way he was. It is a shame to this whole place to have him treated in such a manner as that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is all so sad. I was looking forward to copyediting The Lucy poems this weekend along with everyone and working towards turning the FAC around. I even did some research and some consulting with a professor of mine. How appropriate that I discovered Lewis Carroll's parody of one of the Lucy poems! This entire debacle is like walking through the looking glass. Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Moni, same conclusion today.[2]. Ottava, I am able to take care of myself, though I did appreciate, very much, that you stood up for me. But, sincearly I think everything that needed to be said has been said, two or three time. Its all there, to me the timeline is very clear, but now hopefully distant. You have an FAC, foucus on that man, and just leave F&Fs objection stand. Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
A comment: When I took up my new "day job", I resolved that one of the ways I'd keep my hand in with content was doing FAC reviews, which I thought would be interesting and positive. Instead, every time I opened an ongoing FAC on a subject that intrigued me, I'd find one or more of a handful of names bickering or casting aspersions about the writers at the same time as critiquing. Well, I get more than enough of that the rest of the time, thank you; it's completely demotivated me. I've since had many others tell me that they've stopped reviewing and/or bringing articles into the FAC process for exactly this reason. While I would not wish to dictate to those who invest far more time and effort into the FAC/FAR process than I, perhaps it is time to give consideration to requesting or imposing topic bans on those whose behaviour makes the process unnecessarily stressful and divisive. I have seen plenty of editors with nasty reputations come to these pages and behave very well; there is no excuse for what is going on here. Risker (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Risker, ever wonder why I have only nominated three pages over the court of a year? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
After the bell III
- Note
- I made the following post in the section above. The post was later refactored by user:Modernist into this new section with a seemingly deprecating title. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for generosity, but what user:Ottava Rima has done is a major repudiation of the entire premise of nominating articles at FAC. If user:Ottava Rima felt that I was targeting him, they should have pointed that out to me, pointed it out to others, and complained to the appropriate official or forum, but nothing gives him the right to start an FAC to test whether I as targeting him. Besides until 5 March 2009 I was involved in the Kannada literature FAC, where I made dozens of posts. On 6 March 2009, I as involved with flushing out sockpuppetry on the Talk:British India page. On 7 March 2009 I made my first post on the Lucy FAC (and later became aware of the existence of user:Ottava Rima). On 22:33 11 March 2009, I made my first (long) post on the Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula FAC (longer than anything I made on SJ's early life). Finally, at 13 March 2009, I made my first post on the "Samuel Johnson's early life FAC." How is this targeting any one person? user:Ottava Rima says that this was a collective decision made with other editors? Who were these editors? Please identify them if you want to make that claim. user:Malleus Fatuorum was clearly unaware of this scheme as is obvious in his replies to the posts by Ottava Rima here. At the very least, if this was a trap, the FAC will need to be withdrawn, and user:Ottava Rima will need to promise to not repeat this in the future. I am not looking to get him banned or blocked, but I'd like to hear both from user:YellowMonkey and user:Raul654. As I see it, this is a major boo-boo. Why are people blaming me for this? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Enough already...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly this has gotten boring, very boring...Modernist (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Enough already...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Repeating myself and asking that these threads be transferred to the FAC/article talk page. I'm not convinced this involves the entirety of the FAC community, and as it stands now it appears to be a grudge match. Other than this I'm steering clear...--Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- How does an FAC that was started to make a spurious point not concern the entire FAC community? Every one is saying "How depressing, boring, tired, ...." But has anyone pointed out any errors in my post? Is there a Wikipedia rule that says, "Let errors stand in the interests of congeniality?" Will any one (other that user:Ottava Rima) care to say that he didn't set a trap for me and didn't violate some basic Wikipedia rules? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did, if you'd listen. You are missing the point here, in a big way. Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fowler&fowler its over: At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass...Modernist (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Who knows why any of us make FAC nominations? Masochism? Whatever the reason, the effect is to improve the encyclopedia, and that's all that should matter to any of us. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have to say I like your attitude user:Malleus Fatuorum (and you can write vigorous prose to boot). OK, I will let it go. Let me be very clear though: it is not over as some people seem to be implying. It is a flagrant violation and I can easily start an AN/I thread on this, I won't because I trust what Ceoil, Mattisse, Awadewit, Kafka Liz and you Malleus F. have said, and I trust you to keep Ottava Rima from doing such things in the future.
I am, however, very disappointed in admin Moni3, who after asking us to undertake certain tasks didn't respond either to my posts in the section above or my reply to her post on my my talk page. And when I managed to catch user:Ottava Rima red-handed, she seemed to fall apart and resort to intemperate language, such as, "As much as I would love to tell both of you to grow the fuck up," or vague statements, "I think there may be good cause to block both" (without giving a warning or providing the cause).So, I will let it go, but I want this thread to remain here, at least until user:Raul654 and user:YellowMonkey have responded. I think I can do business with Malleus F., Ceoil, Mattisse, Awadewit, and Kafka Liz, and will work with them to improve the two articles. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have to say I like your attitude user:Malleus Fatuorum (and you can write vigorous prose to boot). OK, I will let it go. Let me be very clear though: it is not over as some people seem to be implying. It is a flagrant violation and I can easily start an AN/I thread on this, I won't because I trust what Ceoil, Mattisse, Awadewit, Kafka Liz and you Malleus F. have said, and I trust you to keep Ottava Rima from doing such things in the future.
- Hopefully we're moving into a more positive arena now, less focused on individuals and more on our end product. I wouldn't blame Moni, who'd want to be an admin? It's a tough and thankless job; certainly administrators get very little thanks from me anyway. BTW, I'm often in trouble here on wikipedia, and in desperate need of character references, so I shall file your very kind comments away for future use. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I take back my comments about Moni3. I just read what she wrote on Raul654's talk page, and she's obviously both sharp and fair. I've scratched my comments above and my apologies to Moni3. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully we're moving into a more positive arena now, less focused on individuals and more on our end product. I wouldn't blame Moni, who'd want to be an admin? It's a tough and thankless job; certainly administrators get very little thanks from me anyway. BTW, I'm often in trouble here on wikipedia, and in desperate need of character references, so I shall file your very kind comments away for future use. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Good prose
I'd like to take some of the vitriol out of this discussion my reoriented it towards what appears to me to be the heart of the problem. Specifically, that what constitutes good prose is subjective, and that what might strike one person as perfectly fine writing, someone else will find something to nitpick in it. I'd like to discuss this in general, and perhaps hammer out some way of dealing with the problem of subjectivity in assessing writing. Raul654 (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and nominators shouldn't feel obligated to implement each and every suggestion made. Its ok to have differences of openion over subjective matters, over preferences; just let it stand and move on. The timing of this is ironic though, when there are now more nominators than reviewrs. O well. Ceoil (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nominators often take on board someone's seemingly picky suggestions and implement them with discretion. An example are these FAC comments by Tony1 on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rudolf Wolters, an article I had thought I had edited close to perfection![3] As always, I appreciate the opportunity to see wording from another person's point of view, and most of these suggestions were implemented by the main editor Wehwalt, even though some issues had been discussed many times before. A reward for those of us who primarily edit and review is the "fun with words" aspect, the exploration of better ways to express, no matter how well done an article is. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I feel like this will force reviewers to list grammatical errors and explain why, according to some writing handbook or other, the writing style of the article is poor. I generally like to offer suggestions in a less dictatorial way than this, but if the aforementioned list would sound less subjective, I have no problem doing this. Awadewit (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just an idle observation, Awadewit, and there is no need for you to take it seriously. I was just pointing out a situation where one reviewer is allowed to be picky, where as another is threatened with being taken to ANI for being so. An RFC was opened on me because I reviewed an article and improved it by upgrading the article myself. The environment is not positive for reviewers. Ceoil notes there are now more nominators than reviewers. I wonder why? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't even click on the link nor was I referring to a specific situation. I was articulating a way in which prose reviewing could become more objective, but which would, I feel, not necessarily be a net benefit, because of the tone that would develop from the review. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I won't bother with more comments then. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Mattisse - I made my feelings clear about that RFC on you. I don't appreciate double standards in any kind of regard, especially when they harm people. However, I do feel that it dealt more with off FAC matters than not. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- (Reply to Ottava Rima) That is not true. I had thought that you had read through the RFC, as my other defenders there did, and so were defending me on substantive reasons. There were non issues introduced to confuse, such as edits I made in 2006. The issue was FAC, issues related to my perceived treatment of FAC editors, like Calisber and his attempt to get me blocked. Nothing off FAC and related matters were substantive, relevant, and/or more recent than over a year ago. The only conceivable reason for bring it was to ban me from FAC. I will say no more on this issue. But it does point out the substantial dangers of daring to review at FAC, and while reviewing FACs is so unappealing that there are more nominators than reviewers! —Mattisse (Talk) 15:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- (Reply to Raul654) I don't think anyone is saying that a reviewer's suggestions should be implemented one and all by the nominators; I am certainly not. Neither am I saying that everyone should conform to my stylistic preferences. (I have read enough English prose—from Fielding, Defoe, and Swift to Naipaul, Philip Roth, and Raymond Carver (for example)—to know that there are vastly different styles in the corpus.) However, in an encyclopedia a kind of lucid precision is a must for effective communication. A featured article in Wikipedia is not the same thing as a feature article in the New York Times. An author of the latter is allowed to take liberties with language that a regular "hard news" correspondent presumably is not, although correspondents too have different styles of writing.
- Similarly, here, my "nitpicking" is not about style, not even, in the end, so much about grammar, but really about clarity and precision. So, when I say "poor prose," I'm really often saying that the prose is neither lucid nor precise. (Lucid precision, however, can be packaged in manifold literary styles.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- The MoS is clear about hyphens and some other points (including placement of punctuation in regards to citations). It is not clear about grammar. If there are run-on sentences, then this should be brought up and the nominator shown where (it is a very simple fix). If there is a lack of proper nouns (too many pronouns instead) that causes confusion, then this should be brought up and the nominator shown where the passages become unclear. If a handful of sentences do not unite in a paragraph or there is no topic sentence, then this should be brought up and the nominator shown why this is confusing and needs to be addressed. These are the three things that matter most in my view of things - they deal with encyclopedic clarity. I see "brilliant prose" in the original sense - lucid, revealing, and clear. We want people to be able to read our encyclopedia and understand what is said first and foremost. The little things can be picked about, but are best left to people who feel like going through and doing such to articles. There will always be things missed. There will always be little changes. Most textbooks are filled with spelling errors. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- F&F and OR agree that brilliant prose is about "clarity" and "precision"! Clearly that is our new definition of "brilliant prose". :) Awadewit (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, but the key difference is that my use of clarity and the rest deals more with topical than anything else - do I actually gain knowledge on this topic. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- F&F and OR agree that brilliant prose is about "clarity" and "precision"! Clearly that is our new definition of "brilliant prose". :) Awadewit (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)