SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →John Wick: Reply Tag: Reply |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →John Wick: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 2,548: | Line 2,548: | ||
:::Certainly, [[WP:FACC]] was established precisely for that purpose—to minimize the reliance on back-channel talks, create a transparent communication platform between coordinators, and facilitate the tracking of nominations, thereby preventing any oversights in mandatory spot-checks for text-source integrity for first-time nominators. Regarding my mention of "Ian and Gog wanted David and me to express our opinions on this as newly appointed coordinators," I might not have conveyed it clearly. It wasn't an obligation to discuss but rather an opportunity for us, as new coordinators, to share our perspectives (emphasis being on the "new" aspect as in a one-time occurrence). [[User:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]] ([[User talk:FrB.TG|talk]]) 11:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
:::Certainly, [[WP:FACC]] was established precisely for that purpose—to minimize the reliance on back-channel talks, create a transparent communication platform between coordinators, and facilitate the tracking of nominations, thereby preventing any oversights in mandatory spot-checks for text-source integrity for first-time nominators. Regarding my mention of "Ian and Gog wanted David and me to express our opinions on this as newly appointed coordinators," I might not have conveyed it clearly. It wasn't an obligation to discuss but rather an opportunity for us, as new coordinators, to share our perspectives (emphasis being on the "new" aspect as in a one-time occurrence). [[User:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]] ([[User talk:FrB.TG|talk]]) 11:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::Reviewer time is precious, and co-ordinator time is also precious. If a co-ordinator needs to copyedit an article so much that they need to recuse, then I think the article is not ready for promotion. This is especially true if the copyedit involves significant paraphrasing of quotes. Instead of spending hours copyediting (as that's how long it takes me to complete a significant copyedit of "my" FAC articles) the coordinator should state their opposition to the nomination and explain their concerns. This is not meant to be a criticism of co-ords, but rather an encouragement and empowerment to co-ords that they are not responsible for "fixing" articles at FAC. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 14:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
::::Reviewer time is precious, and co-ordinator time is also precious. If a co-ordinator needs to copyedit an article so much that they need to recuse, then I think the article is not ready for promotion. This is especially true if the copyedit involves significant paraphrasing of quotes. Instead of spending hours copyediting (as that's how long it takes me to complete a significant copyedit of "my" FAC articles) the coordinator should state their opposition to the nomination and explain their concerns. This is not meant to be a criticism of co-ords, but rather an encouragement and empowerment to co-ords that they are not responsible for "fixing" articles at FAC. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 14:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::Alternately, they glance at the article, see that a significant copyedit is needed, and archive the nomination with an indication that an independent copyedit is needed. Do that three or four times, and a nominator will understand they need to better prepare, and the page won't be so backlogged. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I understood that part; the intent is commendable, but the problem here is that they each looked in at stages when the nom should have well been closed, and didn't do so. Leaving two new Coords in that position was a problem. In contrast, once Raul delegated me, he never once recommended any course of action with me, or even discussed a nomination with me. I emailed him one time about a nomination, to let him know why I archived a nomination from an editor with a serious COI situation, a professor citing their own content and then launching a FAC while both main editors were on travel breaks and without consulting the main contributors, and then accusing me of abuse of power when I followed the instructions and withdrew the nom. And even through six Catholic Church FACs, the FAC delegates at the time never spoke back-channel; then, there were very different standards regarding what should be discussed off-Wiki, and we just didn't do it. The instructions at FAC haven't been followed for years, Coords have turned into copyeditors trying to pull deficient articles through, and if you have to consult back-channel, it seems there's not a good understanding of how to determine when a nomination should be closed. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
::::I understood that part; the intent is commendable, but the problem here is that they each looked in at stages when the nom should have well been closed, and didn't do so. Leaving two new Coords in that position was a problem. In contrast, once Raul delegated me, he never once recommended any course of action with me, or even discussed a nomination with me. I emailed him one time about a nomination, to let him know why I archived a nomination from an editor with a serious COI situation, a professor citing their own content and then launching a FAC while both main editors were on travel breaks and without consulting the main contributors, and then accusing me of abuse of power when I followed the instructions and withdrew the nom. And even through six Catholic Church FACs, the FAC delegates at the time never spoke back-channel; then, there were very different standards regarding what should be discussed off-Wiki, and we just didn't do it. The instructions at FAC haven't been followed for years, Coords have turned into copyeditors trying to pull deficient articles through, and if you have to consult back-channel, it seems there's not a good understanding of how to determine when a nomination should be closed. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:30, 8 November 2023
Pages, tools and templates for |
Featured articles |
---|
![]() |
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 (April Fools 2005)
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 Archives by topic: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Image/source check requests
FAC mentoring: first-time nominators
A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
FAC source reviews
For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.
/FAC co-ordination
Great improvements are happening. There is now a smart table instead of ad hoc commentary (thanks Gog, looks much more professional). Ian has removed the remaining 10-year-old commentary. The only thing left, I think, is to to move the page from its current backwater as a subpage of an editor who'se been barely active for ten years to somewhere in the FAC project. WP:FAC co-ordination, perhaps. In any case the new target can be thrashed out here. Serial 17:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. It does look strange doing it on the subpage of a user who has nothing to do with FAC anymore. Gog the Mild, perhaps moving it to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/coordination (or the one suggested by SN) makes more sense? :-) FrB.TG (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG: actually, your suggestion is probably best. I think all our main pages use the long form, with the short form for redirects, etc (of which, in any case, I only found three!). Serial 19:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Given that the page has been labelled FAC coordination for more than a decade I have stayed with that. I went the long way round creating it, seem to have got there. FrB.TG, feel free to change or undo anything you wish to. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- The long way round, quite. It's on the talk page though, not the main page? I'm sure Uucha won't mind either way. Serial 20:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- We use it for talk, no? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, we can talk about what we like anywhere. However, the purpose of the project page is to record co-ords' non-co-ord participation. The talk page is where people talk about co-ords' recording of their non-co-ord participation. The 'General discussion' section on the project page is where the co-ords discuss their co-ordination with each other. 20:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- We use it for talk, no? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Going the long way round, whilst neat, means that the page history's now been deleted. Any way of getting it back? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone competent could undo it and do it again, the right way? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a huge deal, just thinking about whether it might bug Ucuha. In the end, it's not really my business; just some Wiki-archaeologists who might protest. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'll perform a history merge. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Cool. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Let me know if anything still looks wrong. —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Looks great. Thanks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I fixed the page. Due to bureaucratic nonsense it has to be in the Wikipedia space -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Looks great. Thanks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Let me know if anything still looks wrong. —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Cool. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone competent could undo it and do it again, the right way? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- The long way round, quite. It's on the talk page though, not the main page? I'm sure Uucha won't mind either way. Serial 20:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Given that the page has been labelled FAC coordination for more than a decade I have stayed with that. I went the long way round creating it, seem to have got there. FrB.TG, feel free to change or undo anything you wish to. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG: actually, your suggestion is probably best. I think all our main pages use the long form, with the short form for redirects, etc (of which, in any case, I only found three!). Serial 19:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
First-timers' welcome
- Looking at the table, it's interesting (and encouraging) to see so many first-timers nominating. Is this about average, or are we seeing a higher-than-average number go through? - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is not something - so far as I know - which is tracked, so it is not possible for me to be sure. But my "feel" is that this is an unusually high proportion of FACs by first timers and a very unusually high absolute number. Although note that two of the "first timers" in the table are actually making their second nomination (in itself an encouraging point) and their first did not receive a spot check. (Hopefully the new system will reduce or eliminate such errors.) Also, from memory, one, or possibly two, of the "first timers" have previously had successful nominations at FAC, but 12 or more years ago and it was felt that another spot check etc was appropriate. Nevertheless, a quarter of FACs being from (actual) first-time nominators is pleasing. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Would if be worthwhile drawing up a 'Welcome to FAC' template to drop on the talk pages of first timers with a few bullet points about what to expect (spot checks for the first one and a rigorous examination of every aspect of the article); advice on how to deal with the comments (keep calm, deal with act in a timely fashion and don't take any of it personally); and how to get the best from the process (review the work of others to get a good idea of the process from the other side)? I was woefully underprepared for my first nomination and have seen a few newbies struggle with what is, for them, an alien process, and something along these lines may be of assistance for them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- That is a wonderful idea. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I also like this idea. We could encourage new nominators to broaden their engagement by reviewing nominations in their areas of interest, emphasizing that this not only helps others but also heightens the chances of attracting reviewers to their own nominations. However, we should remind them that FAC doesn't operate on a quid pro quo system.
- Another point that I've been meaning to bring up for a while: when coordinators highlight potential risks of a nomination failing due to inactivity, suggesting that the nominator reviews other nominations (also with the reminder that it's not a QPQ arrangement) could be effective and reminding that reviewers are more inclined to assess nominations from users whose names they frequently encounter in other people's nominations. FrB.TG (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Would if be worthwhile drawing up a 'Welcome to FAC' template to drop on the talk pages of first timers with a few bullet points about what to expect (spot checks for the first one and a rigorous examination of every aspect of the article); advice on how to deal with the comments (keep calm, deal with act in a timely fashion and don't take any of it personally); and how to get the best from the process (review the work of others to get a good idea of the process from the other side)? I was woefully underprepared for my first nomination and have seen a few newbies struggle with what is, for them, an alien process, and something along these lines may be of assistance for them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is not something - so far as I know - which is tracked, so it is not possible for me to be sure. But my "feel" is that this is an unusually high proportion of FACs by first timers and a very unusually high absolute number. Although note that two of the "first timers" in the table are actually making their second nomination (in itself an encouraging point) and their first did not receive a spot check. (Hopefully the new system will reduce or eliminate such errors.) Also, from memory, one, or possibly two, of the "first timers" have previously had successful nominations at FAC, but 12 or more years ago and it was felt that another spot check etc was appropriate. Nevertheless, a quarter of FACs being from (actual) first-time nominators is pleasing. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've put together a quick mock-up at User:SchroCat/littertray 4 as a suggested start. If anyone wants to tweak, rework or delete and start from scratch - feel free to use the space to work in. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I like it, but have tweaked it a little. See what you think. I would also prefer to make it standard prose in its own section, rather than be in a box. Opinions on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm entirely flexible on the formatting - whatever gets the message across to people is the key. ps. I like the text changes - much better. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I prefer it as a box presented section-wise with bullet points (i.e. the status quo) because it is concise, is aesthetically pleasing and avoids the wall of text format. In the template, I would make two additions: addressing the editor by their username and making an optional parameter for the link to the article to give it a more personal feel. Also, I think File:Cscr-candidate.svg (the FAC/FLC symbol) is more suitable than File:Cscr-featured.svg in this instance since at the time of posting this, their article hasn't actually been promoted yet. PS I have nothing to add to the actual text; it reads very well. FrB.TG (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, yes, with bullets and subsections; as Schro wrote it. Yes, definitely address the nominator by name. Given that we shall be pasting this at the top of the article's nomination page, linking to the article seems redundant. I have already purloined it - thanks SchroCat - and pasted it to my FAC boilerplate page, ready for use. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'd presumed this would be pasted on the first-time nom's talk page like the "Promotion of X" messages that you get when an article gets promoted. With that in mind, I changed the style a bit to be more like that one: it looks like I was wrong, so feel free to switch back. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- If posted on talk, it can be done using {{subst}} form. For example, {{subst:User:SchroCat/littertray 4|user=FrB.TG|page=Leonardo DiCaprio}} would show the following result (see "Example" box). FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I feel dizzy just looking at that. It is far too complicated for an old timer like me. I assume no one will object if I stay with my Neandertal-style cut and paste? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Alright. Is the box ready to be given its own template page? That is, if SC doesn't mind it squatting in his littertray. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- If posted on talk, it can be done using {{subst}} form. For example, {{subst:User:SchroCat/littertray 4|user=FrB.TG|page=Leonardo DiCaprio}} would show the following result (see "Example" box). FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I like it, but have tweaked it a little. See what you think. I would also prefer to make it standard prose in its own section, rather than be in a box. Opinions on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Umm. Was there consensus for this to be pasted to nominators' user pages? I am not inclined, personally, to give advice to a FAC nominator about how to manage their FAC as an FAC coordinator anywhere other than on the FAC page of the nomination in question. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree. If nothing else, it's great for a first-timer to get a welcome message, which isn't always the case on the FAC nom pages themselves. "What to expect" is a decent thing to include, and a small package of advice isn't a bad thing either. As a current first-time nom myself, I would've been fine with getting the message on my talkpage. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- We are not discussing whether or not to give all first timers such a greeting, that has been agreed; and it is an excellent idea. Nor the wording, that has also been agreed. Just where it would be most appropriate to place it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, right. Still maintain that the talk page, not the FAC nom page, would be most appropriate. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- We are not discussing whether or not to give all first timers such a greeting, that has been agreed; and it is an excellent idea. Nor the wording, that has also been agreed. Just where it would be most appropriate to place it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've added a version in the example with the text size reduced to normal for comparison, as having it at 1.25 is a bit too shouty (although that's just my view and happy to go with the consensus, obvs).I agree with the suggestion about that if it's going on a nominator's talk page, the box sort of works, while it would be better in plain form if it goes on the nomination page.I am relatively ambivalent as to which location it goes in - either is appropriate, I think (a co-ord giving general advice to a first timer about the overall process works in either location): to me the key driver is which location would be most efficient and effective for a first-time nominator. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. And if the first thing they do is ask for clarification regarding that FAC issue which they have not understood, having their query on the FAC page both opens the discussion up to a wider range of inputs and enables the coordinators, and anyone else's, response to be viewed by a greater number of those who care and understand. And be readily referable to by other coordinators coming to the nomination later in its time at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I also think user talk page is the most appropriate. If we take the current number of first-time nominations, this message would be displayed on 1/4 of nominations, making WP:FAC page lengthier than before. Also, given this is just general advice not strictly related to the nomination itself but the user's experience (or lack thereof), talk should be fine IMHO. FrB.TG (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I also think the talk page of the nominator is the best -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 11:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I also think user talk page is the most appropriate. If we take the current number of first-time nominations, this message would be displayed on 1/4 of nominations, making WP:FAC page lengthier than before. Also, given this is just general advice not strictly related to the nomination itself but the user's experience (or lack thereof), talk should be fine IMHO. FrB.TG (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. And if the first thing they do is ask for clarification regarding that FAC issue which they have not understood, having their query on the FAC page both opens the discussion up to a wider range of inputs and enables the coordinators, and anyone else's, response to be viewed by a greater number of those who care and understand. And be readily referable to by other coordinators coming to the nomination later in its time at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Example
|
---|
Welcome to FACNormal size text Hello, FrB.TG! Thank you for your nomination of Leonardo DiCaprio to FAC. What to expect
Dealing with reviewers
How to get the best from the process
Finally, good luck with the nomination! FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) At 1.25em - for comparison Hello, FrB.TG! Thank you for your nomination of Leonardo DiCaprio to FAC. What to expect
Dealing with reviewers
How to get the best from the process
Finally, good luck with the nomination! FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
Number of first-time nominators by month
In response to the query at the start of the section above, below is a graph showing the number of nominations each month which were the earliest nomination by that nominator. The data I drew this from only goes back to late 2006, so of course everything in August 2006 is a first-time nomination, but it looks like the pattern is fairly consistent after that. It's been fluctuating but steadily below 20/month for the last ten years, but there have been other peaks similar to the current one. One other note: this reports on nomination date so it doesn't correlate perfectly to "number of first-time nominations open at once" or "percentage of open nominations that are by first-timers", but it should be a good proxy for those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Excellent - thanks Mike. Good to know that there is a constant stream of first timers. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Great stuff. Mike, does it count first-time nominations, or all nominations prior to the first one which is promoted? And how are co-nominations handled?
- Is there a technical reason why it shows zero for September, which was not the case. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I had to think for a second but I now realize that as the data only includes completed nominations, anything nominated in September (or before, for that matter) which is still open is not included in the numbers. From July back it should be correct. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Of course! Cheers. And my first question? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Got too interested in the second question to remember the first! It counts first nomination regardless of outcome, and regardless of whether it was a conom or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fascinating stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Got too interested in the second question to remember the first! It counts first nomination regardless of outcome, and regardless of whether it was a conom or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Of course! Cheers. And my first question? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I had to think for a second but I now realize that as the data only includes completed nominations, anything nominated in September (or before, for that matter) which is still open is not included in the numbers. From July back it should be correct. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a technical reason why it shows zero for September, which was not the case. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
FA stats
Percentage Growth in FA Categories, 2008–2023, Legend:
Considerably above average, Above average, Average
Below average , Considerably below average
Featured Article Category as of | Sep 16, 2008 |
Sep 16, 2010 |
Dec 1, 2011 |
Jan 1, 2015 |
Jan 1, 2020 |
Oct 25, 2021 |
Oct 20, 2023 |
Pct chg Oct 2021 to Oct 2023 |
Pct chg Sep 2008 to 2023 |
Pct of total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Art, architecture and archaeology | 72 | 117 | 128 | 175 | 271 | 290 | 308 | 6 | 328 | 4.83 |
Awards, decorations and vexillology | 26 | 28 | 27 | 26 | 24 | 17 | 13 | -24 | -50 | 0.20 |
Biology | 155 | 261 | 326 | 456 | 625 | 659 | 685 | 4 | 342 | 10.73 |
Business, economics and finance | 19 | 22 | 44 | 73 | 116 | 119 | 122 | 3 | 542 | 1.91 |
Chemistry and mineralogy | 31 | 34 | 37 | 40 | 46 | 46 | 40 | -13 | 29 | 0.63 |
Computing | 17 | 17 | 18 | 16 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 0 | -41 | 0.16 |
Culture and society | 48 | 61 | 65 | 77 | 104B | 109 | 117 | 7 | 144 | 1.83 |
Education | 34 | 36 | 38 | 40 | 40 | 32 | 25 | -22 | -26 | 0.39 |
Engineering and technology | 37 | 38 | 40 | 43 | 49 | 56 | 58 | 4 | 57 | 0.91 |
Food and drink | 11 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 21B | 21 | 22 | 5 | 100 | 0.34 |
Geography and places | 158 | 181 | 185 | 213 | 232 | 217 | 196 | -10 | 24 | 3.07 |
Geology and geophysics | 12 | 18 | 20 | 23 | 29 | 34 | 39 | 15 | 225 | 0.61 |
Health and medicine | 36 | 42 | 43 | 51 | 52 | 48 | 45 | -6 | 25 | 0.71 |
History | 154 | 189 | 201 | 239 | 308 | 321 | 371 | 16 | 141 | 5.81 |
Language and linguistics | 15 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 15 | 14 | 13 | -7 | -13 | 0.20 |
Law | 34 | 41 | 49 | 65 | 72 | 76 | 70 | -8 | 106 | 1.10 |
Literature and theatre | 134 | 161 | 191 | 258 | 316B | 323 | 346 | 7 | 158 | 5.42 |
Mathematics | 14 | 19 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 17 | 19 | 12 | 36 | 0.30 |
Media | 171 | 221 | 231 | 324 | 424 | 439 | 472 | 8 | 176 | 7.40 |
Meteorology | 78 | 111 | 126 | 147 | 168 | 177 | 166 | -6 | 113 | 2.60 |
Music | 182 | 232 | 254 | 331 | 398 | 424 | 489 | 15 | 169 | 7.66 |
Philosophy and psychology | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 11 | -8 | -15 | 0.17 |
Physics and astronomy | 82 | 98 | 101 | 127 | 153 | 154 | 165 | 7 | 101 | 2.59 |
Politics and government | 67 | 98 | 117 | 166 | 217 | 217 | 220 | 1 | 228 | 3.45 |
Religion, mysticism and mythology | 44 | 73 | 84 | 105 | 121 | 130 | 128 | -2 | 191 | 2.01 |
Royalty, nobility and heraldry | 90 | 94 | 108 | 124 | 173 | 187 | 208 | 11 | 131 | 3.26 |
Sport and recreation | 162 | 268 | 298 | 365 | 449 | 528 | 574 | 9 | 254 | 8.99 |
Transport | 74 | 107 | 128 | 171 | 213 | 215 | 245 | 14 | 231 | 3.84 |
Video gaming | 96 | 127 | 137 | 180 | 222 | 239 | 258 | 8 | 169 | 4.04 |
Warfare | 173 | 318 | 366 | 537 | 729 | 891 | 947 | 6 | 447 | 14.84 |
Total | 2,239 | 3,046 | 3,417 | 4,431 | 5,695 A | 6,022 | 6,382 | 5.98 | 185.04 | 100.00 |
- Note A: Total is off by one; not worth looking for the error.
- Note B Three food biographies moved [2] per discussion at WT:FAC
- A discrepancy of 2 in the total prompted me to re-check my calculations four times and question the capabilities of Excel. Only later did I discover that two empty lines in WP:FA had caused the miscounts. It made for a rather amusing hour spent trying to find the error.
FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for re-running these numbers -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 11:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why is "Religion, mysticism and mythology" marked in orange as considerably below average? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- And why are the "considerably below average" numbers bigger than the "below average" ones, FrB.TG? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- AirshipJungleman29, my bad. I must have swapped the conditional formatting formula for "below average" and "considerably below average" in "Pct chg Sep 2008 to 2023" in Excel. Thanks for spotting that. I'll fix it later unless someone beats me to it. FrB.TG (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- And why are the "considerably below average" numbers bigger than the "below average" ones, FrB.TG? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
RBP history
See Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Pre-2003 Brilliant Prose donated to the coordinators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair use images in FAs
There's a discussion here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hypericum sechmenii/archive1 which would benefit from more comments. Thanks in advance. Graham Beards (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Moving forward at WP:PR regarding Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2
I have done an image overhaul and a severe reedit to beef/clean up the article. The article that was demoted in March 2021 was 23086 characters. The version that failed at FAC a month ago today was 32492 characters. The current version is 44121 characters. So the article has been beefed up with well sourced content. I have attempted to address issues. No specific issues related to "unattributed opinion" and "uncited text" are apparent from the failed FAC or the FAR, so I have addressed the most glaring ones that I see. The failed FAC mentions WP:NOTPRICE, which I think is more relevant for current prices of items not historical art auction sales. The failed FAC mentioned an MOS review needed. I assumed that this is what WP:GOCE and WP:PR are for. So unless there is objection to this moving to PR (which requires failed FAC review issues to be addressed in advance), I am going to go forward as if I have done what is necessary to bring this to a PR-ready state.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- For those interested in the details of the image discussions, see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#FUR_issues_at_Campbell's_Soup_Cans and Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Additional_images_at_w:Campbell's_Soup_Cans.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Uh, you are kind of bludgeoning here (and elsewhere, frankly). Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- +1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I will take that as clearance to open a PR request.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- P.S. not following this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Books by Michael Ashcroft
Weighing up doing a full rewrite of Rishi Sunak when I can find the time, using The Advance of Rishi Sunak as the main piece of "relevant literature". The book, though, has an Achilles' heel: it was written by Michael Ashcroft, who started some trouble over an unverified fact in his biography of David Cameron. I've read some reviews of the Sunak bio, and I can't find anything dodgy crop up in them, and AFAIK Ashcroft has no beef with Sunak unlike what he had with Cameron, but I thought it'd be good to get your opinions on this. If rewritten, I wouldn't nominate here at FAC until Sunak's ditched next year to avoid opposes over stability, but if I did rewrite it, you'd probably see it here in a year or two's time. Wasn't sure whether to go here or to RSN, but since a BritPol bio's just come fresh off of the FA press, I went for this one. Thanks in advance - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:RSN would be the better forum for this, as it's about weighing up whether a specific source is OK to use. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- One quick note here is that the publisher of Ashcroft's book is Biteback Publishing, which according to our article
was jointly owned by its managing director Iain Dale and by Michael Ashcroft's Political Holdings Ltd, until 2018 when Dale stepped down
; it's unclear to me whether Ashcroft still has an interest in the company but there's certainly a potential conflict of interest there which could raise potential questions about the extent to which publication demonstrates reliability. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)- Not only does he still have an interest in the company, he is classed as a "person with significant control" with over 75% of the shares. - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hm. Does this mean that the book will be any less reliable, though? Ashcroft might be a big cheese in Biteback and he probably has a say in what gets published, but does it make the actual factual content of the biography any less accurate? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, our normal rule is
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer
; it strikes me as against the spirit of that rule if we say that anyone rich enough that they straight up own a publishing company can just have their book published by their own company. Given that WP:WIAFA has a stricter than WP:V requirement of "high-quality reliable sources", I would personally be uncomfortable seeing Ashcroft's books published by Ashcroft's company used as sources about living people. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)- Yes, I think that's a big issue. If someone owns the publisher that their book is published at, it's effectively self published and needs to be treated as such for Wikipedia purposes. (t · c) buidhe 16:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Right. So, @Caeciliusinhorto-public, @Buidhe, in more explicit terms, this is disqualified from use in an article. Just need that confirmation in those bleak terms, if, of course, that's correct. Not a fan of wasting time and if I rewrite an article which turns out to be unusable then that's pretty much as wasteful as it gets. Cheers - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, our normal rule is
- Hm. Does this mean that the book will be any less reliable, though? Ashcroft might be a big cheese in Biteback and he probably has a say in what gets published, but does it make the actual factual content of the biography any less accurate? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not only does he still have an interest in the company, he is classed as a "person with significant control" with over 75% of the shares. - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- One quick note here is that the publisher of Ashcroft's book is Biteback Publishing, which according to our article
- (edit conflict) Caeciliusinhorto-public's comment is right to the point. Ashcroft's role as a politician also makes anything he says about another politician suspect. Sorry, but I don't think this would cut the mustard at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Alright. Thanks, Gog. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry Tim but I agree. I'd be nervous about including anything controversial in a BLP that I couldn't verify from an independent source. Contemporary politics is a minefield but kudos for trying to improve the articles' quality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ah well. I've not bought the book, so no money wasted. Thanks anyway, HJ. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry Tim but I agree. I'd be nervous about including anything controversial in a BLP that I couldn't verify from an independent source. Contemporary politics is a minefield but kudos for trying to improve the articles' quality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Alright. Thanks, Gog. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Caeciliusinhorto-public's comment is right to the point. Ashcroft's role as a politician also makes anything he says about another politician suspect. Sorry, but I don't think this would cut the mustard at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Tool for accessing Library databases more easily
User:smartse came up with the idea of using a browser extension to redirect links to the various Wikipedia Library databases so that, for example, when you click on a Science Direct or JSTOR reference, your browser will arrive not at the normal link – which will usually not grant you access to the article because you aren't logged in to anything – but instead your browser will arrive at the Library's version of the link, giving immediate access to the resource without further effort. I then developed more of the "redirect rules" so that now about a dozen of the most-used (my guess) databases work this way.
For directions, see SmartSE's original post at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library#Any gadgets to convert links? (permalink [3] with some discussion). Note that it is not a "javascript gadget" as such, and requires a browser that can use extensions.
To put this in the form of an example: you click on a JSTOR link to view an article, but can't access it because you are not recognized as authenticated. Now you have to consult your bookmarks/browser history and use the Wikipedia Library's interface, normally. No! With this tool, your browser automatically goes to [4], the authenticated version through the Library – no effort involved.
I am announcing this here because I don't think enough people are aware of this potentially very useful idea. If you have any questions or want additional databases set up for redirect, let me know (somewhere). Outriggr (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can see this tool making article writing a little bit faster. Which for a very long list of sources to consult, can be quite useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Relevant discussion
There is a discussion taking place on a topic of potential interest to members of this project. Serial 16:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Another relevant discussion
... at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Query about use of Village Pump Proposals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatches; ten years on. (And one of the only two FAC newsletters in those ten years; by letting things like {{FCDW}} go, the FA-process community slides into obscurity, but I digress.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'd like to know what isn't obscure, if one of the most prominent internal processes on Wikipedia is apparently sliding that way... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Relevant discussions
It wouldn't have picked up either of the above two posts, but would there be interest in setting up article alerts for FAs? (Obviously excluding the FAC/FAR notifications). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria clearly needed, but I have no idea on the technicalities. How can this page stay better informed of every proposal out there that deteriorates "Wikipedia's best work"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Article alerts would pick up discussions/tags on FA-labelled articles. If you're interested in proposals from elsewhere (like VP), you'd want something more like Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Style_discussions_elsewhere - but that's manually generated, so we'd need at least one person to do it on a regular basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria ... Who can do/how can we do article alerts? The manual discussion looks awful. What if we just added a section to our {{FA sidebar}} and reminded FA people to add to it whenever a discussion relevant to FAs comes up anywhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Article alerts would pick up discussions/tags on FA-labelled articles. If you're interested in proposals from elsewhere (like VP), you'd want something more like Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Style_discussions_elsewhere - but that's manually generated, so we'd need at least one person to do it on a regular basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone; instructions here. Adding a section to the sidebar would still require people to remember to manually update it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Dumbfounded on page length in lieu of subpages
So I'm a fairly new editor so I do apologize if I am missing some context here. Why do we need the FAC Nomination Viewer to begin with? Why not just list the FAs with a timestamp and a link to its own review page like WP:GAN or WP:PR? I would assume the idea is to get more eyes on the other FACs, but there are so many FACs at the same time that the page is just completely unwieldy and lags up my browser without the Nomination Viewer. This seems like it would actually make it more confusing for new reviewers to navigate the page than if they were just linked to like GANs. Generalissima (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- GANs are (typically) reviewed and promoted/archived by a single editor, so once someone has claimed it others really only need to look in if something is going seriously sideways. FACs, on the other hand, are reviewed by multiple editors and consensus is assessed by coordinators. Having to click through each individual nom to see what types of review are missing and where consensus is at would be very time-consuming. Surfacing all reviews IMO also helps newbies understand what reviews can look like. (PR, for what it's worth, typically transcludes full reviews on the PR page until they become large; not sure what the cutoff for large is). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- It'd be nice to have it structured into a high-level summary: the discussion is this old, it has this many independent commenters, a source review is (not started/in progress/done), an image review is (not started/in progress/done), etc. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- You should be getting the first two on the nomination summary if you have the right tweaks, and the latter two are usually but not always evident from a review's ToC. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe the PR solution- transclude until it gets too big- should be considered? Because I've definitely noticed issues just loading this page. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- It'd be nice to have it structured into a high-level summary: the discussion is this old, it has this many independent commenters, a source review is (not started/in progress/done), an image review is (not started/in progress/done), etc. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The page won't load. Either the Coords need to start archiving sooner, or they need to start enforcing the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Featured Article Save Award for Attalus I
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Attalus I/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for October 2023
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for October 2023. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Reviewers for October 2023
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Supports and opposes for October 2023
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Nominators for August 2023 to October 2023 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Proposal to reduce citation clutter
... at Village Pump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy. Looks like that will hopefully get a WP:SNOW close sooner rather than later. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Biting my tongue :) :) But my bigger point is, folks, we've got to a) start paying more attention to Village Pump stuff, and b) start supporting other FA writers better by always watchlisting the daily TFA. It's a jungle out there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Citations in leads
In that now withdrawn discussion, there is a side discussion between Amakuru and me, about a point raised by the sensible Sphilbrick at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harriet Tubman/archive1. Might be worth exploring here, as this is the place where Wikipedia's best work is contemplated. Amakuru may be too busy to follow through on this, but I wanted to excerpt it here so it's not lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- PS, this very issue led to a problem at FA The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film). An IP added a cn tag to the lead years ago,[5] and then Voorts (after three years tagged) removed that info as POV,[6] although the content is cited in the body. So, bringing us to another problem: Steve, back then our most experienced film FA writer, hasn't edited for years, and it would sure be helpful if others would watchlist and help maintain this FA. I missed the cn tag being added to the lead by an IP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- My main concern with citations in leads is that as a summary of the article, a statement in the lead might require a lot of different citations to support it. How much value would "This is a sentence summarising some stuff that has happened in this article.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] really add? Verifying the sentence from a range of sources would be pretty difficult anyway. I appreciate that would not always be the case, but if we mandated citations in the lead, I think it would make it harder to have natural summaries of the article without risking citation overload. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree this is a problem. Before WP:ARBMED, we had a miniscule group of editors trying to force citations into the lead of medical articles, and I (and others, like Colin) objected for this reason. As a compromise, I added inline comments to the lead of Dementia with Lewy bodies (you can see them in edit mode), indicating which sources supported the text. That would help someone as in cases Amakuru mentions, trying to deal with WP:ERRORS issues for example, but not the readers that Sphilbrick mentions. And I should also add, that in spite of carefully chosen words and inline sources mentioned, I still had to deal with a faulty word change at WP:ERRORS on TFA day, so I'm not sure adding citations will help in that sub-problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I generally prefer using lead citations when it can be meaningfully done. I have seen and had to revert too many removals of valid content that was supported by citations in the body but not the lead. As such I'd oppose a mandate, but I don't think we ought to discourage their use as we sometimes do, and we should certainly check if uncited lead content is in fact a valid summary of cited article content. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- The footnote density would be very great. I would probably resort to footnoting sentences or phrases rather than paragraphs to avoid the issue Harrias raises (which would defeat the purpose) but there would be a lot of clutter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
ACE 2023
There are too few strong content contributors on ArbCom; ideas for 2023 elections, approaching soon? Vanamonde93, Amakuru ... others? David Fuchs, return? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Both Amakuru and VM93 said no on their talk pages. Next ? Anyone ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sign the Draft Ealdgyth Petition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would totally suck at it even if I had the time, which I don't. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth no you wouldn't. And you can do it. You are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would totally suck at it even if I had the time, which I don't. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Who else is an admin who writes content and has been active at WP:AE, or some other dispute resolution forum? [7] Firefangledfeathers ? We need at least three accomplished content creators to push back from the research library and do their time, else we are likely to see an increase in arb decisions that don't reflect concerns and issues affecting the work we do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, but no thanks! V93 would be great. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Others who show up here and write top content: HJ Mitchell, Bishonen, Drmies, Masem ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hey Sandy--I'm not going to run in that popularity contest/online harassment gauntlet again, but thanks for thinking of me. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- <grrrrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hey Sandy--I'm not going to run in that popularity contest/online harassment gauntlet again, but thanks for thinking of me. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Guerillero could you speak here to what kind of skills are needed, how much time it takes compared to creating content, and add anything to dispel the negative press from our good Dr. Mies ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Same question for Wugapodes who also wrote FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think FA writers generally have the right skills though it's arguably more time consuming than content creation. So much of what Arbs do is drafting: decisions, emails, motions, position papers, warnings, requests, etc. A lot of these need to be written well and in a way that takes into account various perspectives on an issue. It's not a skill dissimilar to synthesizing research and taking feedback from FA reviewers and article collaborators. There's also a fair bit of research, but that varies by day: delving into the depths of our archives, organizing timelines of events across multiple pages, understanding some of the more esoteric concerns of content-heavy cases. These are places where I think the skills gained from bringing an article through the FA process are most transferable. They're also probably the most time consuming since there are so many stakeholders and the "research" you're summarizing is usually something someone you know said and will get to comment on (so more rounds of revision).As for the "negative press": I don't share Drmies' perception but that's like saying my RfA went well so there's no problem at RfA. I think there's just a wide envelope of experiences, and the emotional experience of having your beliefs and actions picked apart isn't trivial. What I'll say is many candidacies are relatively uncontroversial, and if you've gone through RfA and FAC you probably have a good knack for compartmentalizing criticism which makes the experience more palatable. It's not fun, and the reward on the other side isn't exactly sunshine and roses, but it's actually pretty rewarding work. You get a lot of opportunities to help people and make their lives easier. People told me things would be way worse than they were, and while there are rough times, I think the positives outweigh the negatives by a fair margin. — Wug·a·po·des 01:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ha, not everyone here has a set of trolls building websites and doxxing them and whatnot. Turns out what's his name, Hotbling or something, is not being prosecuted after all. Admins like me and Bbb23 seem to catch flak that not everyone else does. If I'd only stuck to article writing! So, besides that I can confirm what Wugapodes says, and I was happy to be on the committee; it felt like I was doing something useful. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is certainly part of my reluctance to run, though it's far from the whole reason: not having enough time is the real deal-breaker at the moment. I've had a few years of closely watching ACE pages, and a year as a commissioner; I've seen a good bit of what was thrown at candidates, and I'm not terribly keen on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if it's time commitment that's a major blocker, I'll say that the workload isn't bad, but balance means you'll be pulled away from a lot of the content writing and internal discussions. And it's not like you become divorced from those on-wiki goings-on, you just wind up playing a later role in a lot of things. I don't think I'm spending any more time on Wikipedia tasks now than two years ago, it's just that most of it is over email rather than on-wiki. — Wug·a·po·des 19:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- The time and email load is much better than my first term in 2016. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if it's time commitment that's a major blocker, I'll say that the workload isn't bad, but balance means you'll be pulled away from a lot of the content writing and internal discussions. And it's not like you become divorced from those on-wiki goings-on, you just wind up playing a later role in a lot of things. I don't think I'm spending any more time on Wikipedia tasks now than two years ago, it's just that most of it is over email rather than on-wiki. — Wug·a·po·des 19:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is certainly part of my reluctance to run, though it's far from the whole reason: not having enough time is the real deal-breaker at the moment. I've had a few years of closely watching ACE pages, and a year as a commissioner; I've seen a good bit of what was thrown at candidates, and I'm not terribly keen on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ha, not everyone here has a set of trolls building websites and doxxing them and whatnot. Turns out what's his name, Hotbling or something, is not being prosecuted after all. Admins like me and Bbb23 seem to catch flak that not everyone else does. If I'd only stuck to article writing! So, besides that I can confirm what Wugapodes says, and I was happy to be on the committee; it felt like I was doing something useful. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think FA writers generally have the right skills though it's arguably more time consuming than content creation. So much of what Arbs do is drafting: decisions, emails, motions, position papers, warnings, requests, etc. A lot of these need to be written well and in a way that takes into account various perspectives on an issue. It's not a skill dissimilar to synthesizing research and taking feedback from FA reviewers and article collaborators. There's also a fair bit of research, but that varies by day: delving into the depths of our archives, organizing timelines of events across multiple pages, understanding some of the more esoteric concerns of content-heavy cases. These are places where I think the skills gained from bringing an article through the FA process are most transferable. They're also probably the most time consuming since there are so many stakeholders and the "research" you're summarizing is usually something someone you know said and will get to comment on (so more rounds of revision).As for the "negative press": I don't share Drmies' perception but that's like saying my RfA went well so there's no problem at RfA. I think there's just a wide envelope of experiences, and the emotional experience of having your beliefs and actions picked apart isn't trivial. What I'll say is many candidacies are relatively uncontroversial, and if you've gone through RfA and FAC you probably have a good knack for compartmentalizing criticism which makes the experience more palatable. It's not fun, and the reward on the other side isn't exactly sunshine and roses, but it's actually pretty rewarding work. You get a lot of opportunities to help people and make their lives easier. People told me things would be way worse than they were, and while there are rough times, I think the positives outweigh the negatives by a fair margin. — Wug·a·po·des 01:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
So, with almost everyone meeting the three criteria (admin, top content producer, active in arb enforcement) declining, one of the three has to go, and it can't be admin; non-admins are not electable. So we can lower to the non-FA level of content writers, or search for an admin who is an FA writer who isn't active in arb enforcement. The latter will be harder to elect than the former. Ideas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3: an FA-level content writer runs for RfA now, passes, and immediately stands for election; would have to be someone very experienced to avoid looking like a hat collector. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- That would have to be an FA writer already active in arb enforcement; I glanced down the Arb Enforcement list from page tools and no one jumped out at me-- did I miss someone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- AirshipJungleman29 is there an active GA writer who is also an admin and active in Arb Enforcement and related dispute resolution, eg AN or ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Alternately, is there an active FA-writing admin who would like to become very active at Arb Enforcement prior to Arb elections, so we would have some basis on which to judge decision-making? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Harry? - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ditto ... waiting to hear from HJ Mitchell (who I pinged earlier). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm toying with the idea... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth, how would HJ Mitchell rack up in your Arb Guide? Let's get any shortcomings addressed up front :) :) And we still need more candidates! (Including Ealdgyth.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm toying with the idea... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ditto ... waiting to hear from HJ Mitchell (who I pinged earlier). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping, Sandy. I have some thoughts. In general there are a few buckets of work ArbCom does:
- Arbitrating through cases, motions, amendments, and clarifications
- Appeals of ArbCom blocks, ArbCom bans, private evidence blocks, AE blocks, CU blocks, and OS blocks.
- Appointing, removing, and managing the functionaries
- Diplomacy with the WMF, global bodies, and other projects
- Solving issues that can't be dealt with in public, oftentimes due to privacy
The results of each of these have first, second, and third order ripples that effect content creators. Any admin who has FA experience would be an asset to the committee. Don't count yourself out because you don't have CU/OS or AE experience or any of the other hoops that guide writers like. All of that can be learned on the job. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Guerillero the reason I originally stipulated AE experience, is that it is my impression that getting elected without it will be hard. Perhaps that is wrong? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Arbitration enforcement is probably the closest thing admins do to drafting an arbitration case; some AE requests are essentially mini cases and you have to analyse a pattern of edits to determine whether someone's editing is problematic, then decide what to do about it and hopefully get other admins to agree. But the skill set in bringing a broad article through FAC and defending your sourcing is similar. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think AE experience is particularly important. The most important factors are name recognition (in a neutral or positive sense) and willingness to do the work. For the past three elections in particular, we have had quite few candidates relative to the number of seats; last year it was 8 seats for 12 candidates (frankly, only 11 candidacies were viable). There is an "advantage" as far as being elected roughly in the order of incumbent, bureaucrat, functionary, experienced administrator, and administrator; all of that is provided there has been much controversy regarding a given user. If someone reading here is curious about serving as an arbitrator—not definitely sure but also serving at least one year won't be the end of the world—wait until the last day of nominations, and if it looks like we're heading to another choose 8 of 11 situation, then put your name in, and there's a very good chance to get in. As for non-administrators, I could see an FA writer actually scraping a solid mid-60% in an election, and depending on the vote distribution, that just may be enough for a seat. Maxim (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I get the sense that, partly due to the paucity of candidates over the last three elections, the community is open to admin candidates with a wide range of experiences. Clerking, AE, CU/OS, etc. definitely help, but so does writing content. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Arbitration enforcement is probably the closest thing admins do to drafting an arbitration case; some AE requests are essentially mini cases and you have to analyse a pattern of edits to determine whether someone's editing is problematic, then decide what to do about it and hopefully get other admins to agree. But the skill set in bringing a broad article through FAC and defending your sourcing is similar. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Use of 'archiveN' as subpage name for active, non-archival page
I followed a link to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1 and got very confused, when I found what appears to be active, ongoing discussion on a page that is clearly not part of the Talk page archival process. I would have performed an immediate page move, but I discovered that this appears to be standard practice, with 111 subpages here with names of the form Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/<Article name>/archiveN
. Can someone explain this practice? Why can't discussion take place exclusively on the parent page, and then let a bot move it to the archive if desired, after it's been dormant for some time, such as, say, at WP:RSN? Mathglot (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Give me a minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
First, there should not be 111 active FAC pages; there should be more or less 45, plus any recently promoted or archived that have not yet been closed by FACbot. We could look into why there are 111, but I suspect it's because we had a period of several years in which, if nominators voluntarily removed a FAC that was unlikely to succeed (essentially, drive-bys or other out-of-process), they were not closed as archives. So that's one thing that would take some investigation-- adding those to archives would be a timesink for little benefit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I could manually close those if we identify them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Second, I'm unsure what you mean by "take place exclusively at the parent page", but if it means what I think it means, that's a nightmare (no tranclusions of individual FACs, rather than one page with 30 to 60 individual discussions going on at a time). Before GimmeBot/Gimmetrow came up with the current system (sometime around 2007), there was no naming convention for FAC pages, and there were infrequent repeat FACs, so someone (generally, me) had to go through and clean up all the pages pointing to and at times overwriting previous FACs. This effort took three people months of cleanup work. Gimmetrow came up with the idea to simply place the next N fac at archiveN, so they would be pre-named and avoid the kinds of messes we had. If there is a better suggestion today for how to do that, I caution you that changing this system now is likely to make all kinds of messes in all kinds of places-- archives, scripts, bots, articlehistory, etc. The same system exists at WP:FAR by the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Third, I don't recommend using a bot to clean up whichever errors there may be relative to the 111 number; there are many different scenarios, requiring manual intervention, to make sure everything lands in the right place per FAC archives, articlehistory, and Mike Christie's FAC stats tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) Thanks. I don't actually know how many of these are active, I suspect not a lot. Is the philosophy page a unique exception, perhaps? What is supposed to happen, with respect to where active discussion is supposed to be held, and is there a convention about archiving them by bot or otherwise? Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- By 'parent page', I meant the page with the same name, except for the
/archiveN
suffix. Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)- The Philosophy page is doing just what it's supposed to be doing; it's an active FAC, still listed at WP:FAC (FACs can take up to four months to close these days). Give me a minute to find some sample exceptions in the 111 list for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- So, by parent page, I think you mean article name/archiveN? That is essentially the system used at GAN, and it creates ENORMOUS messes in articlehistory-- long discussed between Mike Christie and me, and too hard to explain, except that when pages move, history is mangled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) The parent page of is the part *without* '/archiveN' at the end. Lots of noticeboards do bot-archiving from the main page (RSN, ANI, COI, etc.) and it's pro forma, not a nightmare. Others do it from project subpages to archives of project subpages; I think maybe TFD or SPI might be examples of those, but I'd have to go check. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, old dog, new tricks, I would need a concrete example of exactly what you're suggesting, in Dummy101 Form, and even if that is done, I suspect the work to adjust FACbot processing, FAC archives, Mike Christie fAC stats, and articlehistory would not be worth it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) The parent page of is the part *without* '/archiveN' at the end. Lots of noticeboards do bot-archiving from the main page (RSN, ANI, COI, etc.) and it's pro forma, not a nightmare. Others do it from project subpages to archives of project subpages; I think maybe TFD or SPI might be examples of those, but I'd have to go check. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Skimming through these, a lot of them are from 2005/2006 (ignore the 2023 dates on this list - most are not actions that hide the fact that most of these are ancient). - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's good news; so those really *are* archive pages. So maybe the question should be, why is there discussion going on at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1? Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Philosophy is an active FAC; see WP:FAC. Gimmetrow designed them to pick up the next N open archive number, so the bot that closes FACs would not have to move them. All FACs and FARs are placed by the Subst script that initiates them at the next open archiveN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't fully understand that, but if that means that there is some convention or process here that generates pagenames with '/archiveN' as the last part of the name that are open for active discussion by editors, then I think that is non-standard and problematic. Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that has been the standard for almost two decades, and changing it now will be a ton of work and zap resources we don't have. I've provided an alternate suggestion below (add a note on the header of active FACs, have FACBot strip it out when closing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't fully understand that, but if that means that there is some convention or process here that generates pagenames with '/archiveN' as the last part of the name that are open for active discussion by editors, then I think that is non-standard and problematic. Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Philosophy is an active FAC; see WP:FAC. Gimmetrow designed them to pick up the next N open archive number, so the bot that closes FACs would not have to move them. All FACs and FARs are placed by the Subst script that initiates them at the next open archiveN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's good news; so those really *are* archive pages. So maybe the question should be, why is there discussion going on at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1? Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I should clarify. When I see '/archiveN' at the end of a page name, I assume that it is an archive page, and no more discussion is allowed there. Its only purpose is as a repository for stale discussions on some page higher up in the hierarchy. That doesn't seem to be the case here, and it's confusing what is an active page I may edit, and what is an archive page that I should not edit. Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Correct; all active FACs and FARs are placed automatically by the subst FAC or FAR at the next open archive, where they stay. To avoid moving them afterwards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- So, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1 is an exception in being still open and active? Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's the norm. There are 45 open and active FACs now at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- This has been very confusing, but I think I finally understand the intended processing now. The add-note-and-later-strip idea mentioned elsewhere will likely go a long way towards short-circuiting a lot of confusion among other editors like me who drop by here as "FA newbies". Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- You're not the first to raise this, so yes, we should fix it. When Gimmetrow came up with this idea to solve huge messes we had around 2007, it was genius at the time. It may seem outdated today, but too much work to change now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- This has been very confusing, but I think I finally understand the intended processing now. The add-note-and-later-strip idea mentioned elsewhere will likely go a long way towards short-circuiting a lot of confusion among other editors like me who drop by here as "FA newbies". Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's the norm. There are 45 open and active FACs now at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- So, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1 is an exception in being still open and active? Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Some samples
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard/archive2, a 2006 FAC, that is added to archives and articlehistory, and was dealt with by Mike Christie and me. We could simply manually add the closing header to that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frank Zappa/Archive 1, a 2005 FAC, that was added to FAC archives and was added to articlehistory, but pre-dates when FAC pages were closed by bot. We could simply manually add the closing headers to that page.
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turkey/Archive 1 ... ditto, you go to what links here, see that it was added to FAC archives, and is added to article talk (articlehistory), just needs closing headers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Reagan/archive1, 2007, is a different example; it made it into archives, but never was added to articlehistory, so additional manual intervention would be needed here. There will be many other examples like this, pre-2008 (or late 2007, I forget), when Gimmetrow, Maralia and I built articlehistory on every extant FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Still working, will find a different example, but you get the picture. These are very old FACs that pre-date bot closings, which added headers. What is the best way to address ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, as User:SchroCat also mentioned. If all of those pages are really archives, then that's good and nothing needs to be done. Maybe it was just my bad luck that I hit the one page named as 'archive1' that isn't an archive but an active one, and there's no generalized issue here. If that is the case, then either that page should be renamed to some non-archive name, or all the discussions on it should be move from the /archive1 page to its parent. Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Adding a line to the initial FAC, FAR, to be stripped out on closing
- To rename active FACs to a different naming scheme means redoing everything about how FAC and FAR work-- Mike Christie stats, FACbot, articlehistory, FAC archives ... yada yada. Perhaps the {{subst:FAC}} and {{subst:FAR}} scripts could instead add to the header a note about active FACs, which then FACbot could remove when closing. If there is a need to add headers/footers on all the old pages, it would be wonderful if some script genius could do that if I provide a list for it to operate on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- And perhaps someone good with Petscan can sort out which of those 111 are inactive, by comparing to the WP:FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sandy, you've been very responsive, thank you. I'm not pushing for making a lot of changes in how things are done here if the regulars are happy with it, and I'm just an occasional lurker, so no need to cater to me. If the current scheme is to use pages with 'archiveN' in them for active discussion and you want to keep it that way, maybe to help the uninformed (like me) a hatnote could be added at the top of every one as part of the creation process, saying something like, "This page is open for active discussion as of <CURRENTTIMESTAMP>. It will be archived when <condition for archiving>" or similar. Thanks again, you don't need to delve deeper into ancient history of those pages; I think you've explained as much as is needed. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Great; then we are on the same page. But how to accomplish this is over my head. There are two subst scripts that intiate FACs and FARs. Those scripts need to be adapted to add a line to the header when a FAC or FAR starts, and then that has to be stripped out when Hawkeye7's bot closes FACs and FARs (he already strips out and replaces some header stuff, so this will not be hard). Cleaning up the older non-closed archives, though, requires some help; I need someone to generate a list of just the old ones, and if someone could then write a script to add the headers and footers (after I've checked them all for other sorts of issues) that would be grand. And finally, since we're going in to Arb elections and the holidays, it would be grand to put all of this off to the New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- The bit about adding a note and stripping it out later should do it, but that's certainly not urgent. If anything else needs doing, I'll leave all that up to you and others here familiar with the project. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Awesome; now who knows how to alter {{subst:FAC}} and {{subst:FAR}}, we need consensus wording, and we need to bring in Hawkeye7 on removing the new content when closing. In the New Year, I'd very much like to find a way to close out all the old ones; anyone who can assist, please ping my talk, and we can take it off this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sandy, I added a hatnote to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1 as a possible model of what might be helpful; see what you think. It's no-included, so will be visible on that page, but not on any page that transcludes it. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! That gets us started on wording. You added:
- As of 7 November 2023, 20:16 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. It will be archived later, when conditions are met.
- I would change that to:
- As of 7 November 2023, 20:16 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. A FAC Coordinator will close this nomination when consensus is reached.
- Then we need to have Hawkeye7 see if it's added to the part where he doesn't have to alter FACbot code to strip it. And have someone add this to the subst scripts that initiate FACs and FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- PS, in FA-land, "archived" means closed without promotion, hence the change to "close" versus "archive". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Adjusted the hatnote per your suggestion. Mathglot (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- See my adjustment (pending Hawkeye7 intervention). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- DrKay are you able to work on {{subst:FAC}} and {{subst:FAR}} to add in this bit ? (Assuming Hawkeye7 is on board ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Such a silly minor thing, but can we drop the capital "C" from coordinator. It isn't used on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Got it, [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Such a silly minor thing, but can we drop the capital "C" from coordinator. It isn't used on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- DrKay are you able to work on {{subst:FAC}} and {{subst:FAR}} to add in this bit ? (Assuming Hawkeye7 is on board ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- See my adjustment (pending Hawkeye7 intervention). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- If it is done this way, then I don't have to do anything. The FACBot alrerady has instructions to remove everything between the <noinclude> tags. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Great, thx, Hawkeye7. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! That gets us started on wording. You added:
- The bit about adding a note and stripping it out later should do it, but that's certainly not urgent. If anything else needs doing, I'll leave all that up to you and others here familiar with the project. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Great; then we are on the same page. But how to accomplish this is over my head. There are two subst scripts that intiate FACs and FARs. Those scripts need to be adapted to add a line to the header when a FAC or FAR starts, and then that has to be stripped out when Hawkeye7's bot closes FACs and FARs (he already strips out and replaces some header stuff, so this will not be hard). Cleaning up the older non-closed archives, though, requires some help; I need someone to generate a list of just the old ones, and if someone could then write a script to add the headers and footers (after I've checked them all for other sorts of issues) that would be grand. And finally, since we're going in to Arb elections and the holidays, it would be grand to put all of this off to the New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sandy, you've been very responsive, thank you. I'm not pushing for making a lot of changes in how things are done here if the regulars are happy with it, and I'm just an occasional lurker, so no need to cater to me. If the current scheme is to use pages with 'archiveN' in them for active discussion and you want to keep it that way, maybe to help the uninformed (like me) a hatnote could be added at the top of every one as part of the creation process, saying something like, "This page is open for active discussion as of <CURRENTTIMESTAMP>. It will be archived when <condition for archiving>" or similar. Thanks again, you don't need to delve deeper into ancient history of those pages; I think you've explained as much as is needed. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- And perhaps someone good with Petscan can sort out which of those 111 are inactive, by comparing to the WP:FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- To rename active FACs to a different naming scheme means redoing everything about how FAC and FAR work-- Mike Christie stats, FACbot, articlehistory, FAC archives ... yada yada. Perhaps the {{subst:FAC}} and {{subst:FAR}} scripts could instead add to the header a note about active FACs, which then FACbot could remove when closing. If there is a need to add headers/footers on all the old pages, it would be wonderful if some script genius could do that if I provide a list for it to operate on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Incomplete search
- What I don't understand is why that search didn't pick up more than 111 articles. Why, to pick my own active nomination, did Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891/archive1 not get picked up by the search. Same question for all of the thousands of previously closed ones. I feel I must be missing something obvious, but I'm damned if I can tell what it is. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yep. That's why I'm thinking in steps (now vs. next year, when we'll all have more time). Now, get the note added to headers only on active FACs (which means accurately identifying the active FACs-- and FARs by the way). Next year, get a good list of the old ones, no longer active, and get them closed with header/footer. Some clever person who knows PetScan can get us a good list. User:Novem Linguae? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. What's your current search (link), and what's an example of something it's missing (link)? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Novem Linguae here is the search https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=0&ns4=1&search=intitle%3A%22Featured+article+candidates%2F%22+intitle%3A%22%2Farchive%22 and missing is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- From that search, we want to be able to sort out active FACs, from old FACs (which I think requires a PetScan using categories). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) @Novem Linguae: Example: this search shows 111 subpage names of the form
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/<Article name>/archiveN
but doesn't show Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive2 (or these others). Put another way, why does this search turn up nothing? Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. What's your current search (link), and what's an example of something it's missing (link)? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yep. That's why I'm thinking in steps (now vs. next year, when we'll all have more time). Now, get the note added to headers only on active FACs (which means accurately identifying the active FACs-- and FARs by the way). Next year, get a good list of the old ones, no longer active, and get them closed with header/footer. Some clever person who knows PetScan can get us a good list. User:Novem Linguae? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Harrias, I generated that search only to provide some examples for the concern I was having, and have a general idea of the scope of the problem (if it was a problem). That search link was never intended to be exhaustive. Use a Special:Prefixindex search, if you want to see everything. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC) On further reflection, even if not exhaustive, your Somerset page should have turned up, and I don't know why it didn't, either. Worth raising at WP:VPT; please ping me if you do. Mathglot (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Harrias probably worth pursuing, lest this also means it isn't showing on WP article alerts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Harrias, I generated that search only to provide some examples for the concern I was having, and have a general idea of the scope of the problem (if it was a problem). That search link was never intended to be exhaustive. Use a Special:Prefixindex search, if you want to see everything. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC) On further reflection, even if not exhaustive, your Somerset page should have turned up, and I don't know why it didn't, either. Worth raising at WP:VPT; please ping me if you do. Mathglot (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
John Wick
Can someone please remove John Wick from the archived nominations for the moment please until David Fuchs is online? They've archived it despite me having the support to promoteDarkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the nomination. Per the discussion at the bottom, it does seem like it would have been helpful to offer a rationale as to why the FAC is being archived vs. promoted? Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- @FAC coordinators: FYI. Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- There's no urgency ... if it gets FACbot-ified and later has to be undone, pls ping me, as I know all the manual steps to undo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- P.S. Which does not mean I see consensus to promote at that FAC; just offering to help on the technicalities if manual steps are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Endorse close, post-mortem:
When I first looked at the nomination, it looked like David Fuchs had made an error on the close, but that was because this edit had broken the template; Fuchs clearly archived the nomination as he should have.
This was a good close, which should have happened nine weeks ago, when a serious list of real deficiencies was posted. The fastest route to promotion is sometimes through archival, by re-working an article off-FAC and, in a case like this, locating a copyeditor for future collaborations. The list of deficiencies raised by TompaDompa on 3 September warranted a close at that point, busy and valued reviewers should not have to come back again, a month later, when there are this many problems, and yet the nomination stayed open another month even after that. Without even looking at the neutrality concerns, the prose issues-- even after months at FAC-- are still apparent. The extra time at FAC served no one. The article does not have FA-level prose, there is lack of clarity and ambiguity to be found just at a glance, and the need for prose tightening mentioned by Tompa Dompa weeks ago is still there.
Going back to view the versions of the article that others supported, in consideration of the level of issues in the version first reviewed by TompaDompa, reveals the prose problems in those versions and renders the first three opposes moot; they clearly didn't engage the prose at the FA level. First, two of those supports had to be prompted by a Coord; why is that happening? Coords aren't babysitters; if there are no supports, just close the nomination so nominators will realize to come better prepared next time and the drag on FAC can be minimized (the page won't load now, and that's because of the ridiculously long reviews of ill-prepared articles like this one, allowed to linger for weeks. Why did three Coords look at it and not close it, until Fuchs mercifully finally did?)
Considering the obvious prose problems one can see by pulling up the version supported by TheJoebro64 reveals that review was not to FA standards. Piotrus didn't pretend he had reviewed the entire article; he looked at whether there was academic sourcing, and admitted not having read the article, so regardless if the declaration was a weak support, it shouldn't count as a support at all. So at the point of TompaDompa's identification of numerous issues, the article, the nomination, the reviewers, the nominator, and the FAC page would have been better served if the FAC had been archived then. Keeping a deficient nomination on the page for another nine weeks serves no one and is unfair to reviewers who have to visit and re-visit, and doesn't help nominators learn the standards or understand their weaknesses and, in this case, that they need to develop a better network of collaborators to come to FAC better prepared to begin with. FAC is not peer review, and not for pulling up to standard articles which appear here far off the mark. Following TompaDompa were two essentially drive-by supports which didn't engage the standards at all (evidenced by the prose infelicities still in the article) and in light of TompaDompa's list of deficiencies, can be completely discounted.
Process concerns: WP:WBFAN shows Darkwarriorblake has 24 FAs; unless this nomination was an anomaly, something is wonky. The FAC stats tool reveals that TheJoebro64 is a frequent reviewer of Darkwarriorblake's work; that's another concern, as this nomination was not reviewed to FA standards, and TheJoebro64 may want to examine their reviewing. Zmbro, who supported this nom as basically a drive-by !vote, has multiple FAs and many reviews; both warrant scrutiny. The Corvette ZR1, this was your first FAC review; FAC is not a !vote, and all you've done by adding on a Support for an article that is not at FA standards is signal to the Coords that your reviews can't be taken seriously. While you are still learning the standards, you can spend time reading other FACs or enter comments without entering a declaration, and work up to being ready to support only when an article meets the standards.
David Fuchs I do agree with The ed17 that you might have added a closing note, if for no other reason, to start re-educating FAC folks that FAC is not a !vote. Something like this would work: I've reviewed TompaDompa's Oppose and the article, and have found that the prose problems they raise are valid and are still in the article after months at FAC. I recommend the nominator locate an independent copyeditor to help tighten the prose, clean up the ambiguities, and review the neutrality concerns before returning to FAC in a few weeks.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry but what are you talking about? TompaDompa's oppose was on neutrality which Frb.TG disagreed with, accurately, the claims made were sourced by dozens of references and TompaDompa dismissed every one. Every single one of the other issues they raised I accommodated even if I didn't agree. You're also being incredibly rude and you may wish to assess how you discuss other editors and their work in the future. This, "ill-prepared articles like this one", is out of order, I've brought many articles to FA now and it was as prepared as I could make it and up to the standard I want which i think others would agree I do not cut corners or half-ass these things and I have always been receptive to feedback, they are the result of months of work and each one goes through the GOCE as well. I asked for help with this being archived without explanation, you gave me a slap in the face, and that's not acceptable for your role. You also keep raising TompaDompa's review as if I didn't address any of it when that is the furthest thing from the truth, I addressed every single point. You make it sound like the article is a write-off from top to bottom when the end point was disagreement over neutrality primarily about one section which, as stated above, was heavily sourced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- QUOTE: Copyediting for brevity and removing extraneous details could probably shorten this by about a thousand words. ... articles shouldn't be longer than they need to be ... judicious copyediting could "trim the fat", as it were. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) ... I don't think the prose quality (conciseness, use of quotes, wording, and so on) is quite up to WP:Featured article standards, but I also don't think those deficits are so serious that my objections on those grounds alone should hold up the nomination if all other reviewers agree that it's fine [ed note: I don't] TompaDompa (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC) UNQUOTE. That bit from TompaDompa is still true, and doesn't address the parts of the text that are ambiguous to the point I can't decipher the meaning. The article was ill-prepared for FAC; developing a set of collaborators to copyedit before approaching FAC will serve you well in the future, and retaining deficient articles for months on the page is hindering the entire process. I do acknowledge you tried to address the concerns, but allowing a FAC with lengthy issues to drag on this long is not optimal FAC functioning, and not helping anyone understand FA writing or reviewing standards. I'm very sorry the critique bites, but in the long run, I hope it helps-- you as a writer, the page which is so bogged down it's no longer readable, and particularly those who are conducting drive-by, prose-light reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Or just stop being rude? Learn to be better Sandy, I know you have it in you somewhere. A process that is entirely reliant on the goodwill of editors putting time and effort into writing these articles shouldn't be so blasé about unacceptable attitude from those representing it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fixes after edit conflict. The process is entirely reliant on reviewers, a precious resource, whose time shouldn't be misspent. I hope you can come to see their value. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- No editors doing the work, there's nothing for you to review, and one job is significantly harder than the other. You've got it backwards and alongside the rudeness you may need to reassess your self-overvaluation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- An idea that might help you appreciate the selfless work of reviewers, without whom we would not have FAs. You have 37 nominations, and 35 reviews, according to the FAC stats tool-- a ratio of 0.9. Maybe spending more time on the other side of the fence would change your perspective? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- This can go tit for that all day. According to your tool you've never nominated anything, do more of the hard work and less of the chatting. I spend my time taking articles from nothing. That you're comparing months of work, purchasing books at my own expense, vetting references, and writing swathes of text carefully pulled from hundreds of sources, with commenting on that work is a joke. Your dismissiveness of the amount of selflessness required to BRING an article to the point that it's even on this page is a joke. That is why we have FAs at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think you're misreading the tool :). And medical FAs can rarely be written in months; they take years and require ongoing constant maintenance. I've done quite enough to know and appreciate how hard it is to do what you have done. But being active on both sides of the fence means also that I insist that if reviewer time isn't highly valued, FAC fails. And FAC is failing-- because the page is bogged down, and Coords are feeding writers the fish rather than teaching them to fish for themselves. You should be out there developing a network of collaborators to help copyedit, rather than relying on Coords to recuse and copyedit. Coords should be rarely recusing, and shouldn't need to talk backchannel; FACs should be closed sooner so we can focus on the worthy. The entire FAC process has been turned upside down on these trends ... which are unproductive and the reason the numbers are failing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- This can go tit for that all day. According to your tool you've never nominated anything, do more of the hard work and less of the chatting. I spend my time taking articles from nothing. That you're comparing months of work, purchasing books at my own expense, vetting references, and writing swathes of text carefully pulled from hundreds of sources, with commenting on that work is a joke. Your dismissiveness of the amount of selflessness required to BRING an article to the point that it's even on this page is a joke. That is why we have FAs at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- An idea that might help you appreciate the selfless work of reviewers, without whom we would not have FAs. You have 37 nominations, and 35 reviews, according to the FAC stats tool-- a ratio of 0.9. Maybe spending more time on the other side of the fence would change your perspective? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- No editors doing the work, there's nothing for you to review, and one job is significantly harder than the other. You've got it backwards and alongside the rudeness you may need to reassess your self-overvaluation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fixes after edit conflict. The process is entirely reliant on reviewers, a precious resource, whose time shouldn't be misspent. I hope you can come to see their value. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Or just stop being rude? Learn to be better Sandy, I know you have it in you somewhere. A process that is entirely reliant on the goodwill of editors putting time and effort into writing these articles shouldn't be so blasé about unacceptable attitude from those representing it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- QUOTE: Copyediting for brevity and removing extraneous details could probably shorten this by about a thousand words. ... articles shouldn't be longer than they need to be ... judicious copyediting could "trim the fat", as it were. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) ... I don't think the prose quality (conciseness, use of quotes, wording, and so on) is quite up to WP:Featured article standards, but I also don't think those deficits are so serious that my objections on those grounds alone should hold up the nomination if all other reviewers agree that it's fine [ed note: I don't] TompaDompa (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC) UNQUOTE. That bit from TompaDompa is still true, and doesn't address the parts of the text that are ambiguous to the point I can't decipher the meaning. The article was ill-prepared for FAC; developing a set of collaborators to copyedit before approaching FAC will serve you well in the future, and retaining deficient articles for months on the page is hindering the entire process. I do acknowledge you tried to address the concerns, but allowing a FAC with lengthy issues to drag on this long is not optimal FAC functioning, and not helping anyone understand FA writing or reviewing standards. I'm very sorry the critique bites, but in the long run, I hope it helps-- you as a writer, the page which is so bogged down it's no longer readable, and particularly those who are conducting drive-by, prose-light reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry but what are you talking about? TompaDompa's oppose was on neutrality which Frb.TG disagreed with, accurately, the claims made were sourced by dozens of references and TompaDompa dismissed every one. Every single one of the other issues they raised I accommodated even if I didn't agree. You're also being incredibly rude and you may wish to assess how you discuss other editors and their work in the future. This, "ill-prepared articles like this one", is out of order, I've brought many articles to FA now and it was as prepared as I could make it and up to the standard I want which i think others would agree I do not cut corners or half-ass these things and I have always been receptive to feedback, they are the result of months of work and each one goes through the GOCE as well. I asked for help with this being archived without explanation, you gave me a slap in the face, and that's not acceptable for your role. You also keep raising TompaDompa's review as if I didn't address any of it when that is the furthest thing from the truth, I addressed every single point. You make it sound like the article is a write-off from top to bottom when the end point was disagreement over neutrality primarily about one section which, as stated above, was heavily sourced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies for letting it run for as long as it did. Ian and Gog wanted David and me to express our opinions on this as newly appointed coordinators so quite a bit of communication took place. Re "Why did three Coords look at it and not close it", strictly speaking for myself, I looked at this with a view to closing at the time of my posting at the FAC, mainly focusing on the neutrality and prose issues raised by Tompa. I found myself in disagreement on certain sourcing/neutrality issues, and I did quite a bit of copyediting of the prose trying to ensure brevity and eliminate the use of quotes, which could easily be paraphrased. This is why I thought it was best for me to recuse as I got too close to the article for me to remain completely neutral on this. I hope it clarifies some things. FrB.TG (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for that; the clarification and communication and transparency are most appreciated and helpful. (Just an aside: previous "administrations" held the policy of minimal back-channel discussion, which was reserved only for serious situations, eg COI and the like.) I did also notice (and appreciate) that you copyedited away some of the major things that were troubling me in the earlier versions I diffed, but there's still more tightening and amiguity clarification needed. Separately, because David's close was challenged, when I found it the right close, I felt it important to speak up and lay out all the reasons, so a new Coord doesn't get or feel undermined, and to (surprisingly) still have to remind others that FAC is not a !vote (which the opening statement here seems to imply). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps the coord's communication could take place at Wikipedia talk:FAC coordination, so it is easily pointed to in a discussion such as this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- That was exactly what previous delegates did, except in very rare circumstances, where confidentiality was required. That Coords feel they have to discuss how to close a FAC is concerning. If they are all adhering to the instructions, there should be rarely ever a need to discuss. That they so often have to recuse to pull an article through is even more concerning. This trend has obscured what FAC is supposed to be, decreased the network building and peer review that should be happening off-FAC, increased the prima donna factor (writers who really don't understand they would not have a star without reviewers and don't even realize the reviewer time they waste by showing up ill-prepared), and bogged down the page. It is a mystery to me why this is still going on when the stats show how badly this has impacted the numbers. But I don't think anyone even follows the numbers and trends closely enough any more to realize all of this. Teach 'em to fish has been replaced by buy the worms, bait the hook, and catch the fish for them. It's as if they think their job is to keep the promotions running at a certain percentage, and keep the page bogged down so much it won't load. So ... that is why I applaud seeing Fuchs do the right thing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- YCKGFYATWUYA Sandy :) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Certainly, WP:FACC was established precisely for that purpose—to minimize the reliance on back-channel talks, create a transparent communication platform between coordinators, and facilitate the tracking of nominations, thereby preventing any oversights in mandatory spot-checks for text-source integrity for first-time nominators. Regarding my mention of "Ian and Gog wanted David and me to express our opinions on this as newly appointed coordinators," I might not have conveyed it clearly. It wasn't an obligation to discuss but rather an opportunity for us, as new coordinators, to share our perspectives (emphasis being on the "new" aspect as in a one-time occurrence). FrB.TG (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reviewer time is precious, and co-ordinator time is also precious. If a co-ordinator needs to copyedit an article so much that they need to recuse, then I think the article is not ready for promotion. This is especially true if the copyedit involves significant paraphrasing of quotes. Instead of spending hours copyediting (as that's how long it takes me to complete a significant copyedit of "my" FAC articles) the coordinator should state their opposition to the nomination and explain their concerns. This is not meant to be a criticism of co-ords, but rather an encouragement and empowerment to co-ords that they are not responsible for "fixing" articles at FAC. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Alternately, they glance at the article, see that a significant copyedit is needed, and archive the nomination with an indication that an independent copyedit is needed. Do that three or four times, and a nominator will understand they need to better prepare, and the page won't be so backlogged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I understood that part; the intent is commendable, but the problem here is that they each looked in at stages when the nom should have well been closed, and didn't do so. Leaving two new Coords in that position was a problem. In contrast, once Raul delegated me, he never once recommended any course of action with me, or even discussed a nomination with me. I emailed him one time about a nomination, to let him know why I archived a nomination from an editor with a serious COI situation, a professor citing their own content and then launching a FAC while both main editors were on travel breaks and without consulting the main contributors, and then accusing me of abuse of power when I followed the instructions and withdrew the nom. And even through six Catholic Church FACs, the FAC delegates at the time never spoke back-channel; then, there were very different standards regarding what should be discussed off-Wiki, and we just didn't do it. The instructions at FAC haven't been followed for years, Coords have turned into copyeditors trying to pull deficient articles through, and if you have to consult back-channel, it seems there's not a good understanding of how to determine when a nomination should be closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reviewer time is precious, and co-ordinator time is also precious. If a co-ordinator needs to copyedit an article so much that they need to recuse, then I think the article is not ready for promotion. This is especially true if the copyedit involves significant paraphrasing of quotes. Instead of spending hours copyediting (as that's how long it takes me to complete a significant copyedit of "my" FAC articles) the coordinator should state their opposition to the nomination and explain their concerns. This is not meant to be a criticism of co-ords, but rather an encouragement and empowerment to co-ords that they are not responsible for "fixing" articles at FAC. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- That was exactly what previous delegates did, except in very rare circumstances, where confidentiality was required. That Coords feel they have to discuss how to close a FAC is concerning. If they are all adhering to the instructions, there should be rarely ever a need to discuss. That they so often have to recuse to pull an article through is even more concerning. This trend has obscured what FAC is supposed to be, decreased the network building and peer review that should be happening off-FAC, increased the prima donna factor (writers who really don't understand they would not have a star without reviewers and don't even realize the reviewer time they waste by showing up ill-prepared), and bogged down the page. It is a mystery to me why this is still going on when the stats show how badly this has impacted the numbers. But I don't think anyone even follows the numbers and trends closely enough any more to realize all of this. Teach 'em to fish has been replaced by buy the worms, bait the hook, and catch the fish for them. It's as if they think their job is to keep the promotions running at a certain percentage, and keep the page bogged down so much it won't load. So ... that is why I applaud seeing Fuchs do the right thing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)