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: |
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 urgents
Any reason Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second War of Scottish Independence/archive1 is on the urgent list? SN54129 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes thanks. Why, can I interest you in taking a look? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why is it on the urgent list? SN54129 20:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Cus it has exactly two general supports. (All FACs meeting that criterion will be (should be) on Urgents.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why is it on the urgent list? SN54129 20:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that's a good way to use it, though perhaps some minimum age is also a good idea -- older FACs being more urgent, other things being equal. That list used to also be used for FACs which were in danger of aging out and being archived with no reviews or perhaps only one review. I think that was also helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Quite.
That list used to also be used for FACs which were in danger of aging out and being archived with no reviews
is precisely how the list has been used, and interpreted, for years. It has never been interpreted as "has two general supports so needs review"; what supports that argument? I think for editors—not me—who are less used to our arcane lore, the optics look exceedingly bad. SN54129 21:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)- I'm not so sure, and to be fair Gog's technique of threatening to close stalling reviews has pushed a lot of nominators into sticking out their necks reaching out to potential reviewers (a good thing), very often saving the nom from a slow, clogging, death.[1]. I'll fight him to the death on article length, but would not question on his approach to keeping the noms moving along. In this instance would give latitude as also with this mon the review to nom stats are very high. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- At the moment there are nine reviews which would be candidates for appearing on the urgent list (nominated ~a week, two or more supports). That would completely swamp the list, and render it completely ineffective. In fact, it would likely be counterproductive; who's going to take the trouble to find something genuinely in need of review when it means wading through a list almost as long as the main page? Even if it's limited to "exactly two supports"—i.e., no more and no less, with no duration limit—that would add seven. And in the meantime, there are five reviews with less than two supports that have been open for at least a fortnight: they're what the urgent list is for.I appreciate the temptation just to phone our own articles in, but we should be looking for transparency, clarity and parity. SN54129 15:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Like you I think putting older unreviewed nominations on the list is a good idea, but Gog's approach to that list is at least as old as this conversation, a year ago, and Ian at that point agreed with Gog. Ian's been around FAC a long time, so clearly recollections can differ. I also agree that an urgent list with nine FACs is not useful. I don't think we should legislate exactly what goes on the list, though; for example NERVA is near the bottom of the list and has a source and image review and three supports, one from an relatively inexperienced reviewer and two from very experienced reviewers. There's a question in that FAC about whether the high overlap between this article and Project Rover is a problem. If the coords want more input on this point I could see them adding it to the list, though it doesn't meet any of the criteria we've been talking about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I read that discussion slightly differently: IR says, there, that the list is
traditionally populated by mature noms needing a bit more input to get consensus
(my emph). Which is not, uh, the same as putting your own nomination on the list after a week! I agree we don't need more legislation; we do need all reviews to get a fair bite of the the cherry, in the context of VOL. SN54129 16:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)- I agree. personally I don't think the template is very useful to me personally, but I would oppose putting any noms there unless they've passed out of the first stage (3 weeks) and still need more reviews to promote. Stuff that's just 1 week old still has lots of opportunity to get more reviews without being highlighted. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Per this conversation I've removed another recent nomination from that list. Re the 3 weeks, the position of the divider has varied over time -- here it was around ten days, for example. The original intent was an approximately halfway divider, so as FACs have taken longer Hawkeye7 has changed the age FACbot inserts it at, but if things were to speed up I think FACbot could be set to reduce the age again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't recall a specific halfway divider. The original intent, established explicitly per RFC, was that a) the divider was placed by the delegates (now called Coords, which it was) and b) to reflect those nominations in the Urgents template, which was also managed by the delegates to be those that were going to be closed (soon) if they didn't get feedback. All established via RFC and community feedback; neither being followed now. See archived discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive43. The current method seems to be a continuation of the three supports = promotion notion. Unfortunate. Can anyone point to the community discussion that led to the current convention? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- At the time the FACBot was written, the delegates said that the marker was to be placed at the 20-day mark. The FACBot updates the marker daily (although often this results in no change). It was proposed at one point to move it so it was closer to the halfway mark, but this was not accepted, and it was never changed. As it happens, the the majority are no longer "older nominations". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't recall a specific halfway divider. The original intent, established explicitly per RFC, was that a) the divider was placed by the delegates (now called Coords, which it was) and b) to reflect those nominations in the Urgents template, which was also managed by the delegates to be those that were going to be closed (soon) if they didn't get feedback. All established via RFC and community feedback; neither being followed now. See archived discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive43. The current method seems to be a continuation of the three supports = promotion notion. Unfortunate. Can anyone point to the community discussion that led to the current convention? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Per this conversation I've removed another recent nomination from that list. Re the 3 weeks, the position of the divider has varied over time -- here it was around ten days, for example. The original intent was an approximately halfway divider, so as FACs have taken longer Hawkeye7 has changed the age FACbot inserts it at, but if things were to speed up I think FACbot could be set to reduce the age again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. personally I don't think the template is very useful to me personally, but I would oppose putting any noms there unless they've passed out of the first stage (3 weeks) and still need more reviews to promote. Stuff that's just 1 week old still has lots of opportunity to get more reviews without being highlighted. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I read that discussion slightly differently: IR says, there, that the list is
- Like you I think putting older unreviewed nominations on the list is a good idea, but Gog's approach to that list is at least as old as this conversation, a year ago, and Ian at that point agreed with Gog. Ian's been around FAC a long time, so clearly recollections can differ. I also agree that an urgent list with nine FACs is not useful. I don't think we should legislate exactly what goes on the list, though; for example NERVA is near the bottom of the list and has a source and image review and three supports, one from an relatively inexperienced reviewer and two from very experienced reviewers. There's a question in that FAC about whether the high overlap between this article and Project Rover is a problem. If the coords want more input on this point I could see them adding it to the list, though it doesn't meet any of the criteria we've been talking about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Suggesting a gentle reminder to nominators who don't review much or at all
We have some excellent nominators who review far fewer articles than they nominate. The statistics I record for FAC let me identify how much everyone reviews and nominates. How would people feel if, once a month, I posted a short notice to a couple of user talk pages, saying something like "Can I encourage you to review more at FAC? FAC always needs reviewers, and the average FAC needs about 6 editors to review it before it can be promoted. If you were to review just one or two articles more per month than you currently are doing, you would be helping speed up all of FAC -- and not incidentally, freeing up other reviewers to review your own nominations." I could include actual numbers ("You've nominated three articles this year but have done no reviewing") but that might feel a bit too hectoring. I would limit this to one or two postings per month, and wouldn't post to anyone a second time until at least six months had passed. Does anyone feel this sort of nagging is inappropriate or might lead to low-quality reviews? I think we have some nominators who just don't realize the impact it has on FAC when they nominate and don't review, and my hope would be that we could turn one or two of them into more regular reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I keep having to remind myself to contribute more and have yet to do so. I don't think that low quality reviews are going to be a problem here; if folks nominate multiple successful FACses they probably know what the expectations of an article are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I feel some version of your suggestion is appropriate, but it leads to some issues that you would have to decide how to handle. Some nominators are not good reviewers, and you may not want them to review more. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions ... slippery slope towards quid pro quo. Perhaps you could try out your idea on just a very limited basis to only a few nominators you know are also good reviewers and not prone to quid pro quo slippery slopes and see how it goes. Unlike Jo-Jo, I am quite concerned about low quality reviews, even from frequent nominators. Poor reviews have a much worse effect on FAC than lack of reviews, as they get poor articles promoted, which is a worse problem than good articles archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Go for it. Sounds good to me and I don't see any intractable down sides. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- As a reviewer who these days doesn't nominate at all, I think this is fine. The main danger is skimpy reviews, but I think DYK, where there is a strict QPQ actually enforced, doesn't suffer too much from this. I wouldn't object to such a policy here, or publishing statistics in an attempt to name and shame; I for one would be likely to avoid reviewing nominations by those editors. Nominators who don't review would very likely learn from doing more. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: statistics are available for your enjoyment here :) SN54129 17:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's also this page, which attempts to summarize the data for the current nominators, though if a nominator has never reviewed they don't show up on this list. That's a bug I will try to fix at some point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "name and shame" is an appropriate term or response. Getting an article to FA status is not an easy feat in most cases. I don't do many reviews because I don't see articles I'm interested in, but at the same time if I'm on here I'm working on building up another article which is generally a 4-6 week endeavor. Should I be named and shamed because I'm both building and nominating articles because I then don't have much time to review others? At the same time, I don't feel refusing to review my nominations because I'm doing a lot of work on the front end but not the back end is fair. If this isn't what you meant I apologize but it's how I've read it. Mike has actually asked me to review more pop culture articles and I did agree to because ultimate that's where my interest lies, they just don't come up often.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, there was an element of hyperbole involved. On your 2nd point, yes probably, & on your 3rd, yes that was what I meant. "Fairness" to nominators isn't a big element in my choices of reviews, and don't worry, I haven't reviewed pop articles for years, so you won't miss anything from me. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: statistics are available for your enjoyment here :) SN54129 17:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Like Sandy noted, we do need to make sure we don't get into QPQ here. QPQ may work reasonably well for the DYK system, but DYK is a much lower bar than FAC and a proper DYK review is trivial compared to most in-depth FAC reviews. A gradual slide down the slope into QPQ would do great harm to FAC. I'm not opposed to trying to get more nominators engaged in reviewing, but we need to be careful how we go about it. Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would just add somewhere in the message, as a sort of explicit disclaimer, that reviewing at FAC remains voluntary and that no QPQ is required. JBchrch talk 17:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reviews that aren't thorough and even supports based on inadequate scrutiny of the article shouldn't be a problem. We coords should not make the mistake of thinking 3 supports -> promote but rather check to make sure all aspects of the FA criteria have been adequately evaluated. Certainly the potential of possibly attracting some perfunctory reviews shouldn't outweigh the benefit of increased reviews overall. (t · c) buidhe 00:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Taking the QPQ concerns into account, here's an updated wording for what I (or anyone else, I suppose) might post:
Can I encourage you to review more at FAC? FAC always needs reviewers, and the average FAC needs about 6 or 7 editors to review it before it can be promoted. If you were to review just one or two articles more per month than you currently are doing, you would be helping speed up all of FAC -- and, not incidentally, freeing up other reviewers to review your own nominations. There's no requirement for nominators to review at FAC, so if you don't have time or don't wish to review, that's fine, but please consider it."- Now revised per comments further below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can I encourage you to review more at FAC? FAC always needs reviewers, and the average FAC needs about 6 or 7 editors to review it before it can be promoted. When you review an article, you are helping speed up all of FAC -- and, not incidentally, freeing up other reviewers to review your own nominations. There's no requirement for nominators to review at FAC, so if you don't have time or don't wish to review, that's fine, but please consider it. You may also be interested in reviewing at FAR or URFA."
How does that look? Darkwarriorblake mentioned that I asked him if he'd consider reviewing pop culture articles; it was that conversation that made me think about doing this. But I'm starting to think this might feel like "naming and shaming" no matter how it's handled -- if I leave such a message for an editor with twenty or thirty FAs, it's going to feel like templating the regulars; if I leave one for an editor with under three FAs, they are probably still gaining confidence with FAC reviewing norms. And I don't know how many editors there are in the window between the two. I do think some nudging is needed (and perhaps for those that read WT:FAC this conversation is doing that nudging) but I don't know if there's a better way. We could post the statistics directly on this page, without comment, but that seems pushier than just posting quietly to an editor's talk page. JBchrch, of the editors commenting above, you're the one with the shortest history at FAC, but you've already jumped in and started reviewing. How would you have felt about such a message on your talk page after your first (or second or third) FA was promoted? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Mike, if an editor is reviewing at WP:FAR or WP:URFA/2020, they are also helping maintain the overall FA pool, and we should account for that. Perhaps work in a "FAC or FAR' into your blurb above; FAR is a much easier place for new or inexperienced reviewers to learn the ropes, as there is no risk there that a premature support (keep) will lead to promotion there, as we have seen here. Mentioning those other pages would give you the opportunity to reinforce that the FA process is not only about promotion, as FAs have to be watched, maintained and checked over time, so help at both ends is valued. Also, what if your monthly summary of reviewers were to include a summary of monthly nominators (promotes and archives from the previous month), along with their ratio? SandyGeorgia (Talk)
- I like Sandy's idea above about posting the nominations-to-reviews ratios in Mike's reports on WT:FAC. I check these ratios when I begin my FAC blitzes because I want to review nominations from editors that are actively working to reduce the FAC backlog, even if it is in topics that do not immediately interest me. Posting these stats in a more public space might encourage experienced nominators to do more reviews. Z1720 (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have read this and refrained from responding until now, because I don't know if my input adds anything. In fact, I have reviewed more articles at FA than I have nominated though all of my involvement would probably be less than 10 articles. I have no problems whatsoever with a reminder to do reviews and I admit that every article I have ever looked at has been because Gog the Mild told me it was nominated. That being said, as a novice to reviewing, this "just one or two articles more per month than you currently are doing" seems daunting. I am a methodical and comprehensive writer. I've been writing for over 4 decades, but WP is an entirely different animal. I enjoy the hunt for sourcing and writing and especially the opportunity to learn, but reviewing is excruciating for me. It is very difficult for me to critique other people's work, as I am constantly questioning is this really necessary, or just something that I would do were I writing the article. I find the learning curve of being an effective reviewer is fairly steep and it's always difficult no matter how many times I do it. If I manage a single review, it is an accomplishment for me. The reminder is worded well, but the expectation of one or two a month (especially being in addition to others) is not something that I think I could ever do because it would take away from actual writing time and create stress. My experience may or may not be similar to other people's, but I think "If you are able to review an article(s), you would be helping speed up all of FAC" gets the message across without setting a bar so high that someone would feel as if they were failing to get out of the gate, so to speak. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree this phrasing was unfortunate. These days I only manage "one or two articles per month" myself. We need more reviews, but also (or even more) more reviewers, and it's a lot of work if done properly. We should not put people off by implying there is a base load. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed; I recently semi-retired and have more time to review than usual; I need to remember my five-day-work-week life in which I often struggled to find time to do reviews. I've revised the text above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike Christie. I like the revised wording. I do not know if there are a large number of projects devoted to improving existing articles to higher standards, but for example, such a reminder on the talk page of Women in Green might open up a pathway for recruiting new reviewers. I absolutely agree with Johnbod that more reviewers is the key, not necessarily having the existing reviewers increase their work load. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed; I recently semi-retired and have more time to review than usual; I need to remember my five-day-work-week life in which I often struggled to find time to do reviews. I've revised the text above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree this phrasing was unfortunate. These days I only manage "one or two articles per month" myself. We need more reviews, but also (or even more) more reviewers, and it's a lot of work if done properly. We should not put people off by implying there is a base load. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have read this and refrained from responding until now, because I don't know if my input adds anything. In fact, I have reviewed more articles at FA than I have nominated though all of my involvement would probably be less than 10 articles. I have no problems whatsoever with a reminder to do reviews and I admit that every article I have ever looked at has been because Gog the Mild told me it was nominated. That being said, as a novice to reviewing, this "just one or two articles more per month than you currently are doing" seems daunting. I am a methodical and comprehensive writer. I've been writing for over 4 decades, but WP is an entirely different animal. I enjoy the hunt for sourcing and writing and especially the opportunity to learn, but reviewing is excruciating for me. It is very difficult for me to critique other people's work, as I am constantly questioning is this really necessary, or just something that I would do were I writing the article. I find the learning curve of being an effective reviewer is fairly steep and it's always difficult no matter how many times I do it. If I manage a single review, it is an accomplishment for me. The reminder is worded well, but the expectation of one or two a month (especially being in addition to others) is not something that I think I could ever do because it would take away from actual writing time and create stress. My experience may or may not be similar to other people's, but I think "If you are able to review an article(s), you would be helping speed up all of FAC" gets the message across without setting a bar so high that someone would feel as if they were failing to get out of the gate, so to speak. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I like Sandy's idea above about posting the nominations-to-reviews ratios in Mike's reports on WT:FAC. I check these ratios when I begin my FAC blitzes because I want to review nominations from editors that are actively working to reduce the FAC backlog, even if it is in topics that do not immediately interest me. Posting these stats in a more public space might encourage experienced nominators to do more reviews. Z1720 (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I routinely encourage editors new(ish) to FAC to review as part of their familiarisation. Eg, from a recent post on my talk page: "Review eight or ten FACs yourself. Firstly there is nothing better to give you a real grip on what the criteria need than trying to apply them to another article. And reading other reviewers' comments on an article you have just assessed means more than just reading them in isolation. Secondly, getting your name recognised as someone who is generous with FAC reviews may mean that when you nominate the "regulars" are more likely to reciprocate with reviews for you." Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie I think it would be great and informative. I initially had some comments on the 11:26 draft, but they've all been solved in the 16:15 draft. I didn't want to make too much noise here but I am emboldened by your ping to share a bit more: couldn't we display this figure (1 nom = 6-7 review) more prominently somewhere at WP:FAC itself? Perhaps along with an encouragement to review? Personally, I began doing reviews out of moral obligation when I read on your own user page that you had a goal of doing six reviews for each article your nominate -- the figure made sense to me. In addition, I haven't had and will probably not have the time and the headspace to write a FA this year, so I'm sticking to "lighter" tasks, among which FAC source reviews. These two elements explain why you've seen me around here. In response to @Gog the Mild, I would just note that wasn't clear to me at all that it was "culturally" acceptable to review FACs before having written one, so perhaps this could be communicated more clearly as well. JBchrch talk 20:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
(ec with Gog) I just revised the text above but I also like the suggestion above of instead posting a table each month of the nominator/reviewer stats. I'm assembling the April stats now, and will see if I can build a table like that. If anyone thinks I shouldn't post such a thing, please say so; I would only post it going forward if there's consensus to do so, but I think posting it at least once would be worth it just so we have an example to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I no longer watchlist this page - but saw this after being pinged below. I try to keep up a 5 reviews to nominations limit, but it's not always easy. the stats page above which I'd never seen before suggests that some users get around the same amount of reviews as they take on, and some don't. It's a bit difficult, as a singular number of reviews is a bit misleading. I've seen single line image reviews given the same weight as incredibly detailed source reviews. I don't think messages are the way forward, but publically putting the review percentage down in a well seen area would get me to do more reviews. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
FAC comments on talk pages -- any support for banning this except by coords or when the page is not loading?
Would there be any support for eliminating the option of moving comments to talk pages except when done by coords (for relevancy reasons) or when the overall FAC page is failing to load? Comments can always be collapsed with {{cot}} and {{cob}} which are very cheap in terms of template load size.
I ask because I read every FAC when I'm doing the statistics, so I'm probably more aware than anyone except the coords of when this happens, and I always find it a pain in the neck to have to go the talk page to see what's going on. I also dislike it when I'm reviewing, because I want to be able to easily skim over the previous reviews in case there are comments there that I want to be aware of when reviewing. I have tried commenting on the talk page in the (distant) past but gave it up; now, the more I see it the less I like it. So how do others feel -- can we change the instructions to eliminate the option of commenting on the talk page?
Also, currently the instructions say "Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive." Does this mean that unresolved comments should not be on the talk page, and that if they post there the reviewer should be asked to move them back?
These comments are prompted in part by the FAC for the 1982 World Snooker Championship and its talk page, so pinging Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, and Troubled.elias who are the editors there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- AFAICT, the main reason we move stuff to talk was because that way editors could continue to use fancy—if wholly otiose—colored graphics, templates, etc., in their reviews. Better idea: continue to forbid the use of swanky graphics etc on a FAC page, also forbid the moving of comments per Mike, but with the caveat that anyone who use such graphics should receive a one-strike warning from a coord to replace/remove them, and if they fail to do so, the coord is entitled by consensus established here to remove the entire review. That will keep both nominators and reviewers up to speed.Incidentally, wrt the particular case that brough MC here: if a review needs to go onto the talk page because of its length, then it should probably be at PR rather than FAC. (Archive with the usual polite message in the traditional fashion.) SN54129 15:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I thought the review was needless nitpicks with a lot of it not things that are improved with being changed. I don't really mind where the comments go, thought. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hi Mike, certainly unresolved comments should not be moved to the talk page. I prefer to see even resolved comments collapsed rather then sent to the talk page. If comments are so lengthy they need to be moved then we might need to consider if the FAC is underprepared and should be archived anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to ban this. It's generally fine as long as there is a clear comment on the review page noting that additional comments can be found on talk. (t · c) buidhe 18:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think this should be banned; there are definitely cases where this is quite useful such as lengthy source-text integrity checks. Agree with Buidhe that where this is done, there should be a clear note pointing towards it. Hog Farm Talk 18:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Ian. I much prefer any comments relevant to the review to be on the review page, which is what it is for. And am also inclined to wonder if there is something wrong with either the article or the review if there is a case for comments to be moved to talk. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- This proposal is not workable; you can't tell people where they can or cannot comment as the basis for an oppose or support, and if reviewers want to comment on FAC talk or article talk, providing a link back on the FAC page as the basis for their declaration, no one has, or should have, the authority to tell the reviewer that the basis for their oppose or support is invalid just because the rationale is not placed in a specific place. I understand the proposal has to do with moving comments from the FAC to talk, but the arguments and the end result are the same as if they started on talk (which is where they belong if they are so long as to constitute a peer review). THe problem grows as a function of the continual evasion of what FAC has become: peer review. Shutting down FACs that become peer reviews would solve a world of problems plaguing FAC. These are relatively new problems (eg five- to seven-year), based on how FAC is functioning now; they weren't problems in the past. The way forward has been clear for a long time. Experienced reviewers will not engage FAC because it is now peer review and too cumbersome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)