Archives |
---|
Archives for former FARC process
Archives for current FAR process
|
|
- See also Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and the Toolserver listing of featured articles with cleanup tags
Contents |
Articles in need of FAR
Hi everyone - Since the list on the FAR page is fairly short right now, I thought I'd go ahead and list some articles here that have had notifications of work needed in the past and now could stand to be listed on the FAR page:
Dog Day Afternoon- nominated by TenPoundHammer on 9/22/11 - Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Francis Petre- Nom'd Brad (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Island Fox- Nom'd Brad (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Order of CanadaNom'd Brad (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Hero of UkraineNom'd Brad (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)TemplonNom'd Brad (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Sylvia (ballet)Nom'd Brad (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Sunset Boulevard (film)Nom'd Brad (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Fauna of AustraliaNom'd Brad (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)The RelapseNom'd Brad (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Rosa ParksNom'd Brad (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
All of these articles have had notifications of a possible FAR over the past couple of years, with little or no follow up. Everyone should feel free to either nom these or pick them up for cleanup work! Thanks to Brad101 for updating Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles, from which I compiled this list. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- If there are no objections I'll nominate one article a week until I get tired or someone else wings in here. Or we could throw caution to the wind and do a nomination bombing. Brad (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is it really fair to encourage people to nominate one of Bishonen' pages the day after she announces that she will be away with a health problem for some time? Even by FAR's standards that seems pretty low. Giacomo Returned 17:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Brad, I don't have a problem with you noming more often/once a week or so (unless the page starts getting backlogged with more than 20-25 noms; it's no-where near that right now, though). If other users have an issue with that course of action, though, they are encouraged to post here. Per Giano's comment, you may want to hold off a while on The Relapse, to see if Bishonen is able to come back. Giano, you make it sound like it was deliberate...many of these articles have editors that are away at the moment or have been for a while - hence the reason they have had work needed sections on the talk page go unanswered, in some cases for years, and hence why they are listed here. Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is it really fair to encourage people to nominate one of Bishonen' pages the day after she announces that she will be away with a health problem for some time? Even by FAR's standards that seems pretty low. Giacomo Returned 17:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Yom Kippur War. Talk page notice was given in May 2010 (now in talk archives). Skimming over the article I can see that it is in very bad condition. Promoted in 2005 it had a FAR in 2006 and can be listed for another FAR at anytime. Brad (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
FAR on auto-pilot
Could we please try to avoid "FAR noms on auto-pilot"? One of the aims of FAR is to improve articles when editors are willing to work on them, yet I'm seeing lots of vague nomination statements that don't engage WP:WIAFA with specificity and clear examples, to encourage article improvement. A driveby "this article needs FAR" without providing specifics isn't in the spirit of FAR-- some of the recent nominations include non-specific statements with no examples like:
- Some very short paragraphs that also fall under 2b below. A general copyedit never hurts either.
- Unless you can explain why the short paragraph is a problem, how do we know it is? Of course a general copyedit never hurts, but you shouldn't FAR an article unless you can identify specific prose issues and no one is working on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- There are a few areas that are lacking citations. Several dead links.
- Perhaps those areas don't require citation? Examples would help. Links go dead over time-- check archive.org-- that the links have gone dead doesn't mean the article has fallen out of compliance-- it means someone needs to update the links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Could use a bibliography section.
- We don't prescribe citation methods, and bibliography sections aren't required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- 1d and maybe 1e. Article was the subject of an arbitration ruling for edit warring and POV issues. While this issue may have come to an end it's possible that some of the warring and POV still remain in the article.
- Maybe? It's possible? No-- demonstrate that the article fails 1e please if you want to FAR it on that basis. 1e by the way is greatly misunderstood-- we don't penalize articles because they are subject to edit or POV warriors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- 2c There is little uniformity in citations. Full information of sources are missing.
- Not a single example-- how does that help someone trying to improve the article.
This is an alarming trend, based on only glancing at the top of the FAR page-- one that I'd not like to see also take hold at FAC (if you oppose an article without specifics, I'll be likely to ignore the oppose unless someone else provides specifics and examples). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I raised this issue three months ago, but it hasn't been addressed. For example, a month later, on the Kolkata review, we find:
1a: The prose is in need of copyediting
- You really don't understand FA editor retention do you? After a comment like I have yet to see a nomination from Brad that addresses WP:WIAFA I think you should start looking in a mirror after cleaning your glasses. That statement is completely false and unwarranted. Brad (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Examples above-- never addressed, ongoing. Additionally, for a reviewer to speak of FA writers like this indicates other issues that may need attention. So, here's what I'm asking:
- Don't put up another review until your current ones are in FARC.
- Stop making personal attacks and disparaging remarks on FA writers.
- When listing issues for FAR, please address WP:WIAFA with specific examples.
- When notifying article talk pages of FAR issues, also engage WP:WIAFA with specific examples.
- One of the goals of FAR is to help improve articles, even if the star can't be saved, and neither improvement nor restoring of featured status can happen if we don't list the deficiencies and engage with editors to improve them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Examples above-- never addressed, ongoing. Additionally, for a reviewer to speak of FA writers like this indicates other issues that may need attention. So, here's what I'm asking:
- You really don't understand FA editor retention do you? After a comment like I have yet to see a nomination from Brad that addresses WP:WIAFA I think you should start looking in a mirror after cleaning your glasses. That statement is completely false and unwarranted. Brad (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's another (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Francis Petre/archive1):
- 1c The obvious problem is the overall lack of citations throughout the article. The lack of citations leaves "well researched" and "high-quality and reliable" sources questionable.
- 2a Lead section lacks a lot of points raised later in the article body.
- 2c Lack of citations leaves this criteria open to later question.
All of this is speculative, nothing specific, no examples of problems; FARs like this should be questioned by the delegates, and enough specifics (including sources) to back assertions should be provided so that others can determine what work is needed and delegates can determine if WIAFA is engaged.. We don't FAR something because we think it might be questionable. There is very little actionable in this nomination statement, and yet the FAR was passed to FARC with no further followup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This FAR however is an improvement: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katie Holmes/archive1. Specifics are listed, so I have now seen a FAR nom from Brad that does engage WIAFA. Much better.
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Transhumanism/archive1 (not a Brad nom) is also a deficient FAR declaration-- it is full of opinion, but no sources or examples of the alleged deficiencies. It would be helpful if the delegates would guide nominators towards engaging the criteria, and review the pages closely so that deficient noms are identified and removed: my concern is that the example set in earlier deficient nomination (including the failure to check for notifications, which should include all Projects) has been followed here, and folks aren't even noticing that nominations are not specifically engaging WIAFA, giving examples, sources that back assertions, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's another sample: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Polish–Soviet War/archive1
- Red links all over the place, particularly in the refs. These should be checked to see if any have article potential.
-
- Red links are not a breach of WIAFA.
- 1a TPH mentions several prose issues but the entire article suffers with prose problems. Thorough copyedit needed.
-
- No samples.
- 1c Is a major problem. Many citation needed tags, several paragraphs without citations and dead links. WP:NOENG should be followed.
-
-
Brad says: "Many citation needed tags". NO. There are 2 (dos, dwa, two, 1+.9999999999...) cn tag in the article currently. That's not many, that's something that can be easily fixed. Let's not have a replay of what happened at the Katyn massacre FAR. Please take some time before making comments here. Volunteer Marek 22:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
-
- 1d Seems to be a long standing problem with this article. Talk page threads are full of disputes.
-
- According to Volunteer Mark on talk, all old disputes. No samples of current disputes given.
This is not the way to run FAR; folks, please get the nominators on board with how to list and nominate a FAR, and how to do it in less offensive ways. Specifics, sans hyperbole. Perhaps a review of some older FARs will help re-set the tone here. There are too may stalled FARs, running much longer than the previously too long of two months, and there are apparent issues here.
This is how a nomination should be written: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Azerbaijani people/archive1. Specifics, samples, and sans hyperbole. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Updated
Getting messy up above here. Articles are in order of how old the notice is; old and really old at top and more recent at bottom. Brad (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Gas tungsten arc welding
- Raney nickel
- Notified FAR needed Jan 25. (Let's stop relying on years-old notifications, that may have gone unnoticed, please). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Scotland in the High Middle AgesNom'd Brad (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Katie HolmesBrad (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)- Humpback whale
- Free will
- Gas metal arc welding
- Restoration spectacular
SupermanNom'd by DanaChennaiNom'd by User:Secret_of_successFederalist No. 10Nom'd Brad (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)- Read my lips: no new taxes
What happens to a delisted article?
What happens to a delisted article? It becomes a good article or a normal one? ژیلبرت (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- When an article is delisted, the article has all "class" status (Stub/Start/C/B/GA/A/FA) removed. The projects concerned with the article can then reassess at any level other than GA or FA. When an article becomes featured it loses its GA status, so does not return to GA status when it is defeatured. Dana boomer (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not agree with you. articles to become featured article should be good article at first. It means being good is pre step to being featured. Then coming a level back for a featured article lead it to be a good article.--عباس ☢ ✉ 18:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Featured articles do not have to become a GA first; it is perfectly valid to take an A class article to FAC without going through GA. I do not see why articles should lose their GA status if they have one, because the FAR process does not re-evaluate them on GA standards, but solely on FA standards. An article that fails at FAC does not lose its GA status. The GA review outcome. if there was one, should stand unless a GAR is carried out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Technically no article at FAR has GA status - this status is removed on promotion to FA, not demotion. I'm not sure myself why that is, but I do agree that GA is not a prereq to FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times in archives (please search them). GAN and FAC are community processes, and GA or FA status can only be conferred by going through those processes. Individual WikiProjects assess at other levels. Most articles that are de-featured no longer meet even GA criteria, so assessment is removed when an article is defeatured, and it is up to individual WikiProjects to re-assess (A, B, or C-class) and GA status can only be conferred by re-submitting the article to GAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
RfC on the leadership of the featured article process
An RfC on the leadership of the featured article process has been opened here; interested editors are invited to comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Notifications
Folks, this is the second time I've visited a FAR to find that no notifications were done.[1] Here we have a FAR that could be moving to FARC, but no one checked notifications. I used to do that task here-- who is doing it? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Héctor Lavoe/archive1. How are we going to get Puerto Rican editors to work on this article if notifications aren't done, and why isn't someone checking notifications? Also, the nominator didn't address WP:WIAFA in his nomination statement, which is another trend I'm seeing here. This article needed a FAR, and I can give a list of reasons, but is someone reviewing the nominator declarations to make sure they speak to WIAFA, not just IDONTLIKEIT and ITHINKSOMETHINGMIGHTBEWRONGHERE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sandy, it isn't necessary for nominators to state 1.a, 1.c, etc. The Lavoe nomination speaks mainly of comprehensiveness and neutrality, in my reading. The nominator posted to the article talk page, as required, about these issues and prose problems and got absolutely no response, and therefore brought it to FAR for further evaluation. That seems to be a very solid following of the nomination procedures to me. If others disagree with the nominator's opinion - well, that is what FAR is for... Dana boomer (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I notified additional WProjects tagged on the talk page (we really need to-- or at least we used to-- make a good effort to bring people in for article improvement, not just delist). Yes, we need specifics as to what is wrong with articles as relates to WIAFA-- otherwise folks don't know what needs to be fixed. That nomination statement is wholly deficient, and gives no guidance to anyone as to how to work on the article, and the nominator statement was based on opinion, and gave no sources. That wouldn't work at FAC, and shouldn't work at FAR. In the event someone shows up, I'll list the deficiencies as it should have been done. FAR is for saving as many stars as possible, improving as many articles as possible-- not just for running 'em through and delisting as many as possible. And you can't expect to bring people in to work on articles if you don't do notifications, and don't explain exactly what work is needed, per the criteria. The decline at FAR can be addressed by going back to the kind of work that was done here years ago. If you disagree with the FAR instructions that were established long ago, then please open an RFC to change them, but don't just ignore them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly the impression I got when I tried to do some work on Simon Byrne at FAR was that the nominator simply wanted it delisted no matter what. That's why I've I've never been back since. Malleus Fatuorum 15:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's time to start changing that in here. Malleus, there are boatload of editors at work on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kolkata/archive1, and I've worked with several of them in the past. Dwaipayanc is competent, and Saravask has several FAs. It's not yet to the point of needing your expert eye, but I believe that FAR may result in a good outcome with some work. Would you be willing to look in on the prose in a week or so? In a few more days, it could also use scrutiny from Nikkimaria-- I'm picking up things in bits and pieces only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- To a large extent that depends on the outcome of the ArbCom case. There are several potential resolutions that would be completely unacceptable to me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, full circle to the Simon Byrne FAR, here is the precedent set by ArbCom; if there's anything different, they can write the articles themselves. Is not the enforcement of BLP policy on Wikipedia more important than policing "civility"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- To a large extent that depends on the outcome of the ArbCom case. There are several potential resolutions that would be completely unacceptable to me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's time to start changing that in here. Malleus, there are boatload of editors at work on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kolkata/archive1, and I've worked with several of them in the past. Dwaipayanc is competent, and Saravask has several FAs. It's not yet to the point of needing your expert eye, but I believe that FAR may result in a good outcome with some work. Would you be willing to look in on the prose in a week or so? In a few more days, it could also use scrutiny from Nikkimaria-- I'm picking up things in bits and pieces only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly the impression I got when I tried to do some work on Simon Byrne at FAR was that the nominator simply wanted it delisted no matter what. That's why I've I've never been back since. Malleus Fatuorum 15:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I notified additional WProjects tagged on the talk page (we really need to-- or at least we used to-- make a good effort to bring people in for article improvement, not just delist). Yes, we need specifics as to what is wrong with articles as relates to WIAFA-- otherwise folks don't know what needs to be fixed. That nomination statement is wholly deficient, and gives no guidance to anyone as to how to work on the article, and the nominator statement was based on opinion, and gave no sources. That wouldn't work at FAC, and shouldn't work at FAR. In the event someone shows up, I'll list the deficiencies as it should have been done. FAR is for saving as many stars as possible, improving as many articles as possible-- not just for running 'em through and delisting as many as possible. And you can't expect to bring people in to work on articles if you don't do notifications, and don't explain exactly what work is needed, per the criteria. The decline at FAR can be addressed by going back to the kind of work that was done here years ago. If you disagree with the FAR instructions that were established long ago, then please open an RFC to change them, but don't just ignore them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Reaction to different aspects of the recent FAR disputes
- Nom statement hurdle
I'm sympathetic to trying to save stars. For one thing...we should be working on getting more content created of a high value...not battles over old stuff. It's even just psychically better to help someone accomplish a star than to take one back that was granted before. Certainly more motivational.
I'm not into the per number stuff as much as Sandy. I prefer the "step back and think about the benefit to a reader" of Malleus. The number stuff feels slightly Wiki rule-gamey (we get criticized enough for the insane amount of policies and then how fluid they are and lacking in real world justification). That said, I DO ADVOCATE a thoughtful review that would give the major aspects to be worked on. And some feeling for extent (is it a 10 manhour job or 100 or 1000?). Not every single task, sure, but a work plan at conceptual design stage. In other words, a "real review"! And it's most efficient if done by the first person putting the thing into play. Not just have this as a place to throw a switch and start a process that consumes lots of time. I mean in the work world, someone calling a meeting may not be expected to have every thing planned...but should at least have enough to tee up to give others a structure to build on more easily.
Also, I think we need some difference in expectations. Even if we don't admit it because we want to have some lofty ideal that every FA is perfect, it only makes sense. IOW, we should not throw something in here if it is a tiny bit bad (or even passed, but an individual disagreed). We need some magnetic hysteris curve or we will continually be barely passing and barely demoting articles! We don't have time for that. So I am FINE that FA is hard (to pass) and FAR is hard (to fail). It makes sense from process efficiency.
- Problems of the bad FA bank
That said, there are still some FAs from the pre-2008 quality increase that need to be purged. Things without modern standards on inline references or reference quality for instance. And some of the old FAs running on TFA have been embarressments...stuff that would no where NEAR pass an FA. (I did not like Peregrine Falcon when it ran, seemed subGA. The thing measurably improved while on the main page...but TFA should not be an improvement drive...or if it is...put important articles up.) I understand that Malleus did not like some very recent proposed TFA that had leaden prose. But we've had stuff much lower than that, just because it was old (and then that stuff never got checked or voted on at TFA btw!) That stuff just runs if in the bank...
We probably should just do FA sweeps since
- (a) many articles are likely well short of expectations vice a small fix needed,
- (b) nominators unlikely to be here to upgrade articles if very old,
- (c) in many cases the articles are not that important (just some individual's whimsy, like a movie with 1 million gate or some obscure building...but not an article like Lion, and
- (d) we can leverage the learnings from the GA sweep to be most efficient.
Even with sweeps, there is still a chance to save the article. Or to contest it. But it could be a cleaner way to take care of stuff than this super long process system here.
- Social dynamics
Also, looking at this recent kerfuffle with Brad...it seems like a reprise of the 2007 debate where Sandy and Giano went to battle stations to protect a Bishonen FA. In that case, there were a lot of complaints about notification and a desire for more time to fix things. But after several months, the refs had not been added...and the article, which was substandard, was demoted by YM. I mean there was a huge flurry of talk page stuff and sturm and drang. But not pitching in and working on the article. Is that happening again? Anyone working on the article of concern? I feel like we are in a time warp...it is just uncanny how similar the dynamic.
I find Bishonen quite charming and pleasant in the few interactions I've had and I can understand that she is loved by her Wikicomrades. Really. I like her too! (Even Risker's electric company does power outages to send emails to protect Bishonen! ;-)) But it is honestly a puzzle to a newbie why the place revolves so much around this axis. I mean Malleus I totally understand protecting (he rocks the content and does CE like crazy and works with new editors. He's amazing. The only thing I want is 10 of him...and I'm serious...it ought to be a leadership objective!) But the apparant Bisho clique is just honestly confusing. She is gone from FA work, right? Shouldn't we look to the future, not just old friends and enemies?
Something else I can't exactly express properly, but I have this thought. I think it might be more graceful for someone who used to be the leader (Sandy) here, to let the new leaders (Dana and Nikki) lead their way even if they are wrong. To give them space to set policy and such and not diminish their ability to lead. Like an ex-president of the US sort of staying out of the new guy's problems.
TCO (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's interesting that the Bish and Giano tag team antics were around long before I ever placed The Relapse for FAR. Anyone that cares to look at the topmost thread on this page can see that I delayed the FAR per reasons given by Giano. At the FAR for Francis Petre, Giano has refused to bring the article to standard which is only a matter of adding citations.
- If I were Nikki and Dana I couldn't help but see the current rampage as a slap in the face to the effort they've put in here. The blatant hippocracy in complaining about editor retention and the lack of reviewers compared to incidents like we have here are just mind boggling. I noticed the heat turned way up after I put in my opinion that FA should have elections. Brad (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speculation is free, boys ... it's the internet where anyone can say anything. But those who read will see that my "FAR on auto-pilot" section I started back in October had zero to do with Bish or Giano, and that my last two forays into FAR, where I found no notifications on FARs where I wanted to pitch in and help, likewise had nothing to do with Brad or Bish or Giano. But don't let facts get in your way now ... speculating is so much fun. Oh, but maybe not quite on in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Response to reaction post
Goodness, TCO, trying to decipher points for response from your walls of text is a challenge, so please clue me in if I've missed one:
- "More motivational": absolutely. If stars can be removed on a whim and based on grudges and every time the criteria tighten, there is no motivation for editors to pursue featured status anyway. As goes FAR, goes FAC. If we kick FA writers in the arse on the way out, for having written FAs when standards were different, they won't want to come in to begin with.
- "Not into the number stuff". No idea whatsoever what it is that you're referring to.
- How many person-hours will be required for the job? Irrelevant until or unless we change the stated purpose of FAR. As it stands now, if folks are willing to improve articles, we encourage it. The benefit of this is that no matter how many person hours it takes (and there are women in here too, you know, not just men), regardless if the article ultimately keeps its featured status, articles are improved-- and that should be our goal above ... ummm ... did someone call it "star collecting"?
- "Bad FA bank" does not extend only to pre-2008; there has been undue focus here (IMO) on a subset of articles, while some others that are much worse go unattended. As long as there's a hostile reviewer environment here, others will be reluctant to bring forward the honestly bad ones-- but having said that, neither should FAR be used to visit grudges (which we've seen in many cases). Go find the honestly truly out-of-compliance FAs, notify talk, and then start nomming them. With a list that is indicative enough of the problems that any editor-- whether they engage at FAR or come along long after an article is defeatured-- has an idea of where to begin improving the article.
- "TFA should not be an article improvement drive". The problem is bigger than that. Some articles do improve as a result of the extra attention of being TFA, but worse is that Raul tried to turn WP:TFA/R over to the community, and the community ran it down to nothing. (Can you think of anything that contributed to that, TCO?) Why were folks Supporting articles at TFA/R without even reading them? We have a forum there where the community can bring forward articles worthy of being TFA/R and review those that aren't-- but they didn't. So, IMO, this isn't a FAR problem, but a TFA/R problem, where some of us thought someone was watching that forum, but in fact, the community failed to pick up that ball. How about work to get that turned around? Saturn was alarming-- it was supported for TFA because of high page views (know any reasons that might have happened?), although it was in dismal shape (may still be for all I know-- haven't checked recently).
- "FA sweeps". Wrong on many levels, IMO. First, review the archives here for past discussions (yes, consensus can change, but I don't believe it has). See my point No. 1 above. If you can sweep 'em out, they won't want to come to begin with. It works for the GA process because one editor passes GAs. And the biggest argument, IMO, against sweeps is that when we had a huge change in criteria in 2005 (inline citations) that resulted in fully half of our then-FAs being out of compliance, we were able to save one-third of those. Had we done sweeps, we would have instantly reduced the number of FAs by 50%, offended a boatload of editors, and saved no stars. See WP:URFA for a summary of how long and hard we worked at those 523 FAs.
- "Reprise of 2007 kerfuffle"- wrong. Geogre didn't even try to hide his contempt for me, and I wasn't part of that. I don't think anyone who examines the evidence can make any sort of claim that the way Bish was chased off of Wiki by FAR is anything less than shameful, no matter what one thinks of Giano making a case for the sloppiness in some recent FAR noms.
- "Like an ex-president of the US sort of staying out of the new guy's problems", wrong again. No ex-president here ... I did much more work at FAR than FAC before I was a delegate, this is where I worked, and since 2008 I've had my arms folded seeing some of what has gone on here, unable to speak up since it's unfair to "work the equation" from both ends. It is no criticism of Nikki or Dana-- they weren't here back in 2007 and 2008, and if other editors are staying away in droves, it's not their fault. I have my own views about how this took hold, but even that happened before their time, since addressed by ArbCom. I can point out why that is happening, relative to what FAR was when had the monumental task before of us processing 523 FAs through here. There is no defense for what was done to Bishonen, and no reason to welcome reviewers here who call editors "witches" and "bitches". That said, if that behavior changes, I don't see anything preventing FAR from getting back to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Kolkata
Lots of work there, I've gone as far as I can, and it's ready for new eyes and Keep or Delist declarations: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kolkata/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)