Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 3

message: What do people think of this one? We've said that a lack of inline citations will override keeps, and this only has a 11 plus the comment "The original content for this article came from http://users.pandora.be/worldstandards/electricity.htm." But then, there is a large number of different links, so the info can be easily checked. Marskell 04:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm uneasy about the use of a single source, and in any case would prefer to have specific references sprinkled through the key parts of the article. I wonder how much of the article is directly quoted without the use of attributive quotation marks. Tony 08:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very uneasy about it, but not knowing the territory well, I'm just not sure if better sourcing is needed or if some of it is "common sense" or "common knowledge".  I'm inclined towards Remove unless someone can convince me the sourcing is OK.  Sandy 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic power plugs 

message: Problem with war elephant (sorry, I was traveling when it came up).  I just checked the diff, and was very surprised to find such little progress.  The original FAR was never posted on the article talk page.  The nominator incorrectly listed it at peer review instead of here, so there was never talk page notification.  What next ?  Sandy 15:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, it appears that even the peer review link was incorrect; I think it linked to the old peer review.  Sandy 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reviewing all the current FARs:  Joshua A. Norton wasn't placed at the top of the page; an old template was used at Homo floresiensis (I don't know what that's about or if it matters); something really should be done about some of the talk page templates, which are massive in size and make talk pages hard to negotiate.  Look at Talk:Link (Legend of Zelda).  There really should be a size limitation on some of those boxes (Biography comes to mind here).  I wonder if anyone read the FAR message on Link-Zelda:  I moved it to the top.  Sandy 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewing the FARs (not FARCs):  Tuberculosis, Louis XIV of France, and Ackermann function were not at the top of the page; Definition of planet was at the bottom, after several other templates.  All fixed, everything else OK.  Sandy 16:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the hobbit review link, Peta placed the old one and I changed it the first day (at least I think I did). I suppose this is just going to have to be one more thing to check when something arrives on the page, though it's annoying as there's already so many little bureaucratic tasks to take care of already. Marskell 18:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  [edit conflict] Right.  I used to have occasion to check them all, when I went to the talk page to see who the original author was; now that I have that in a spreadsheet, I no longer routinely check talk pages, so we'll have to do that.   Should we extend War elephant?  Sandy 18:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Damn, that's annoying on War Elephant. It went almost the full month without the tag. It will have to be given an extra week, I suppose. Marskell 18:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about two more weeks?  The Plugs have gotten that much extra time, so the elephants surely deserve it :-)  Sandy 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As our repromoted FA page suggests, elephants can crush you to death with a few furious stomps. We'll give them all the time they need. Marskell 18:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no harm in giving it two full weeks. Joelito (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[War elephant]] - big problem 

message: There's a move over at WP:CITE to lower the requirements for inline citations; Plange and Kirill are trying to inject reason at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources.  Sandy 02:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing sources 

message: For those watching the back door of FAs, here is a new little idea for increasing things coming in the front. The idea is a list of people willing to bring articles to standard and a timeline to do so. I'm going to spam everywhere I can think of, so hopefully it will snowball a little bit (or perhaps fall flat, as new additions to Wiki space sometimes do). Marskell 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:1 featured article per quarter]] 

message: The new process has been in place for four months, and thus three months of archives have been created (Sex Pistols', which I'll tentatively assume as a keep, is the only leftover from August). Per my bonkers FAR obsession, I have done some mild number crunching in looking at the archives. 
----
Under the new process:
* Aug. 11 k - 19 r
* Jul. 7 k 23 r
* Jun. 11 k - 18 r
Total keep % = 32.6
Under the old FARC process:
* May 8 k - 10 r (a large number here were called invald)
* Apr. 5 k - 15 r
* Mar. 8 k - 19 r (exluding 5 delisted as invalid by Tax, which might have gone either way)
* Feb. 6 k - 13 r 
* Jan. 6 k - 10 r 
* Dec. 3 k - 7 r (excluding one invalid)
Total keep % = 32.7
----
Some observations:
* While the nine months as whole saw a steady up-tick in nominations (with a spike in March), the new process created a jump that has been sustained. We've been very consistent, processing 30 per month.
* The present cohort of reviewers is almost certainly harder on articles than the previous. For instance, this version of Art competitions at the Summer Olympics was kept in Feb/Mar, while a similar (in fact, slightly improved) version was readily demoted in Aug/Sept. Until well into this year, people were passing those with what would now be considered insufficient inline citations (numerous examples can be found) and being particularly forgiving with older FAs. 
* The remarkably similar keep percentages must be judged in the above light: we're passing the same amount despite being much more stringent with articles. There is no evidence that articles currently being nommed are in better shape to begin with (most have come from the citations problem list) and thus it would appear we are "saving" more (i.e., actually bringing them to standard, rather than forgiving them).
* As a general observation, older nominations show a greater number of single sentence kp/rm comments and a larger number of individuals stopping by. Fewer people are actually "voting" now, but given the fact that we've actively discouraged such in the first period (and even, to some extent, early in the second) this is predictable. The lack of reviewers remains, of course, a concern.
* Another general observation: long-winded arguments over the validity of nominations have effectively ceased. There's been a couple of debates over closure (Anarcho-capitalism and Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace) but we are not wasting time on the review page arguing about procedure.
Yes, I have too much time on my hands. Marskell 14:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *With regard to the lack of reviewers: when Peer Review was grinding to a halt last month, I found posting a request on the community portal worked quite well in attracting them. It may have just been coincidence, but it is worth a try (although my notices are still up there at the moment, so for maximum exposure, maybe wait until they are pulled) Yomanganitalk 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *How about if we instead continue to encourage some of the serious reviewers encountered at FAC and PR to come over here, so we don't revert back to the older ways of people simply voting keep/remove without serious involvement with the articles and the process?  I think our promotions/delistings have been exceptional because it is no longer a "vote", rather a process that really sorts out the issues and results in better articles, when there's an effort.  I'd hate to see a community posting result in a lot of drive-by voting. Sandy 17:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for providing these data, Tim: essentail stuff. I'm sorry that I can't spend time on the process at the moment. In a week or so, I'll have more time. Tony 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't noticed I closed both debatable FARCs. Anyways thanks for the info and sorry for always messing the archives. :-) Joelito (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of your closures were sound and I'm only picky about the archives because I'm a maniac ;). Marskell 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for your observation that the new system seems harder on articles than the old system, bear in mind that that could be because the FA standards themselves are increasing. Borisblue 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlong quarterly report 

message: FAC has 36 reviews on-going at this moment, and FAR has hit 40 for the first time ever. Just an observation. Marskell 20:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two will be closed tomorrow :-) Joelito (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, there's a few on the block. I made a vote-like-comment on War Elephant, incidentally. Marskell 20:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this, and felt bad about my two recent noms - but then again I'm real happy because people are working on each, and if people are still working on them by the end of the two week limit, I hope we can give them extra time. LuciferMorgan 21:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the number of noms gets any larger, should we have a temporary lockdown to prevent further noms for a short period? LuciferMorgan 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should continue to let this be organic, IMO. The backlog tag can be applied, but disallowing new noms is not a good idea. Bear in mind, that the above is only one side of a teeter-totter. We do want pace (consistent noms, day-by-day), just not a pace that can't be absorbed. As it stands, we can live with forty. Let's all pick one to work one! Marskell 22:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I can see your point. It's just although people FAR nominate here, they seem to just drop it here and whizz off instead of reviewing other articles. Right now, which is the first time for me, I'm trying to clean up Iron Maiden. This article probably has too many issues for me to save it from FA removal, but even when/if it gets removed I'll still keep working on the article - that's my pledge. Many people here are worried about many articles being de-featured, but to be honest I'm not at all. The FA star should be something to aspire to, but if FAs vary in quality this'll bring down its reputation. I feel many on Wikipedia feel once an article reaches FA, then thats it and not much else can be done to it - which is a wrong impression. An FA which doesn't reach criteria, and which is then de-featured, shows to others the article can be improved. I don't feel keeping FA stars is what we're trying to encourage, but article improvisation. LuciferMorgan 10:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of the number of noms... 

message: Can other reviewers please have a look at the confusing situation on this review - I'm concerned about where to put the FAR notification.  Sandy (Talk) 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This move was very poorly done. I am contemplating reverting the whole thing. Joelito (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colditz castle

message: We don't need to spend weeks discussing a convoluted procedure for something that can be dealt with by a couple of people having a rational discussion when the problem arises. I asked people to slow down nominating Emsworth's articles and I haven't seen anybody jumping up and down and refusing to consider it because we don't have a policy.
Taking a wider view of the whole process: if nobody has done any work on a featured article to bring it in line with current standards and if that article is listed when the original contributor isn't around and if nobody else works on it during the month of review then at worst an article gets delisted until somebody can work on it. Then if inline citations are all that are missing it should be the work of a couple of days to re-cite it, renominate at FAC, sail through and have everything rosy again. Can't see the problem. Yomanganitalk 20:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which (pointing out for stb's benefit) Yomangani has already done on articles no one got to during FAR (see Platypus :-)  Sandy (Talk) 20:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, indeed Yomangani is a valuable Wiki member. Once the Beatles articles have all been FAR'd, I'm considering coming down on the Miltiary History Wikiproject with a hatched - take a look at the WW1 article, and not one inline cite (this is appalling). LuciferMorgan 20:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Random line break to save from scrolling way back up

message: Here is a revised proposal. This is being RfC'd.
The additional proposed text is in italics. 
:Older FA's are held to the current standards. A significant change since 2005 is the requirement for inline citations, for a screening list and further information see Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems. Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances).
Support or Object
*Support. A clarification of the single largest issue facing older Featured Articles is a help, as is mentioning the approximate date this went into effect, as is a link to the Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems which contains additional information for those who want to learn more (otherwise this page is not linked to anywhere from WP:FAR, in fact it's not linked to from anywhere accept other talk pages.)  -- Stbalbach 01:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: straw poll

message: I didn't do the notifications on Wikipedia:Featured article review/1996 United States campaign finance controversy, pending input from others as to whether this is a situation for FAR, or would be better placed as a Request for Comment or some part of dispute resolution - talk message left for Joelr31.  Sandy (Talk) 14:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless anyone disagrees, I move that we remove this FAR nom, per the above.  Sandy (Talk) 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR or Dispute resolution ? 

message: Is the featured article director allowed to remove an FAR listing when the FA listed is his own? He's suggested doing this to Operation Downfall if you check the FAR, which I 110% disagree with. Surely this isn't allowed? LuciferMorgan 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on my watch, since the review appears to make some valid points which have been supported by other editors. :-) Joelito (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the merits of the FAR, it wouldn't serve anyone's best interests for Raul to remove it, as that would not set a good precedent for future FARs:  if he removes his, other editors might start removing theirs, too.  Sandy (Talk) 21:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: IMV, he shouldn't be removing any without first raising the issue here. Tony 22:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is pretty good, but, with respect, I think there are some issues that should be discussed.  -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul654 would be correct in saying that the FAR nominator made a cursory examination, but still the FAR reviewers have made a thorough examination of the article and highlighted criteria concerns. LuciferMorgan 11:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAR Removal

message: I just moved a featured list review to WP:FLRC - the nominator suggests that we add a line to the instructions here reminding nominators that lists belong elsewhere.  (I wonder who reviews at Featured Lists - there was nothing else there.)  Sandy (Talk) 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The FL regulars watch it, I think.  Very few FLs get nominated at FLRC, and even fewer demoted. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, ALoan - the original nominator said, "Oops I didn't realize list had a different process. Maybe something can be added to the header of the page."  I was wondering of others think it necessary to add a sentence to our instructions:  this is the first time I've encountered a list listed here, so I was thinking not.  Sandy (Talk) 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think not too.  There is a clear link at the top of WP:FL and WP:FLC. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured list instructions

message: I've noticed a new trend of combining FARCs with FARs. I don't think this is a good idea -- but I also think there's an issue with a FARC discussion being started without being separately announced on the article page. (See Talk:Super Mario 64 for the specific example that I'm referring to.) It seems to me that we have things like  for a reason, and they must be used for a FARC to be valid. I would question many of the recent removals. Andre (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrevan, please refrain from reverting Joelr31's updates to all of the FA pages until you have reviewed the decision.  The FAR was posted on the Super Mario 64 talk page for over a month.  Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 20:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: is not used at all any more - it has been replaced by . It was on only one article talk page, Talk:Virtuti Militari (see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Virtuti Militari, which seems to be a comment triggered by it appearing on the Main Page). Perhaps we should just turn it into a redirect to . -- ALoan (Talk) 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FARC section must be advertised 

message: Greek Mythology, James Joyce and Operation Downfall need reviewer input as to whether they can avoid FARC.  I don't want to add them to the urgent template, as that is articles in FARC. Sandy (Talk) 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to FARC?

message: Jguk  raised a question about the FAR instruction on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bodyline.  He points out that the instructions about FARs removing to FARC, and when to vote, are not mentioned on an individual FAR, although they are at the top of the WP:FAR page.  He suggests the instructions should be included on each individual (article) FAR.  I note that WP:FAR is set up the same as WP:FAC, with the overall instructions on the overall FAC page, not on each FAC; not sure if we need to make a change.  Sandy (Talk) 14:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...Better not to bloat every FAR with instructions. Joelito (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed that the instructions are on the FAR template, which is placed at the top of each article talk page.  Sandy (Talk) 21:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The instructions at the top of the FAR page are totally fine to me. I could understand them perfectly. LuciferMorgan 01:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that not everyone sees those instructions:  some come to the individual article FAR page directly via the link on the article talk page, and may never see the overall page or the instructions at the top of the page.  That's why I mentioned that the FAR template on the article talk page also has the info.  Sandy (Talk) 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, so wouldn't it be very easy to add a link to the instructins on the template? Tony 13:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it already has one (although it isn't obvious it is to the instructions). What about adding a single line to the FAR and FARC headings along the lines of "Please comment on the standard of the article. See instructions at the top of this page." (FAC) and "Please comment on whether you believe the article should keep or lose its FA status, or if you are working on it please comment on the progress." (FARC). We could put it in a template if the wording can be agreed, so it wouldn't be any more work for either the nominators or the admins, and it wouldn't bloat out the FAR/Cs to any great extent. Yomanganitalk 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think (?) there are basically three routes to the article FAR page:  via WP:FAR, via the FAR template on the article talk page, and via the notifications we post to user talk pages and projects.  If we add something to the actual FAR template, that covers people who come via the article talk page, but not those who come via the notifications.  If we change the FAR template, I could add a similar line to the notifications (or change the notifications to go to the overall WP:FAR page, rather than direct to the article FAR page).  I do think we should do something, rather than assume everyone sees the instructions, but I'm not in favor of adding something to each individual FAR, as moving them down and closing them is already a labor-intensive process.  If we add a line to the template and a line to the notification (or have the notification link to the overall page), no extra work is created. Sandy (Talk) 15:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And today, incidentally - see the recent edits by User:Dmmaus at Bodyline (he was one of its original authors, but did not know it was being reviewed, it would seem).  Is there any reason why we should not just reinstate Bodyline on FARC and await developments? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had only a cursory look at the issue, but it does seem that there's a case for reinstatement to FARC. Tony 14:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not weighing in one way or the other whether it should be reinstated, as it does appear to have been closed properly, so I defer to Joelr31.  But, I did want to correct the info above:  the FAR was noticed to the Cricket project on 31 October, Dmmaus acknowledged on 4 November, and his talk page was also noticed on 31 October.   Dmmaus did know about the review.  That isn't to say the instructions might not need work.  Sandy (Talk) 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my mistake then - I was judging by his comment "I didn't realise this discussion was going on" yesterday in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bodyline.  It just seems a bit legalistic to me to insist that the article returns to FAC if it is OK the day after the FARC was closed (and, as I say, improvements were continuing to be made in the week before the FARC was closed). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Understood - no problem :-)  I read it as he didn't realize the vote was going on, because of the issue about the instructions - just wanted to clarify.  Not sure where there was a suggestion it go back to FAC, but I just checked the article and see that it is now cited.  What a shame someone didn't ask for more time, and two weeks elapsed with no comment from editors on the FAR.  I defer to Joel and others as to how to handle this one.   Sandy (Talk) 16:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about instructions

message: Per the consensus at Talk:Main Page#Number of FAs mentioned as well as total number of articles, please!, I have created  to allow an FA counter on the Main Page.  Please update this template for one-stop updating when featured status is removed from articles. Thanks, BanyanTree 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BanyanTree, for those of us who work at WP:FAR, can you please explain further?  What do we do when removing FAs?  It looks like the number is now kept on the template, rather than on the page - what is the purpose?  We now have yet another page to update? Sandy (Talk) 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a normal template requiring manual updating.  The brief explanation is that ideas to place an FA counter, either in replacement of or next to the article counter, have been gaining some momentum on Talk:Main Page for a bit. Much of it is related to the quality v quantity discussion that is occurring more generally, with what appears to be an increasing number of editors wanting to showcase the FAs.  During the most recent proposal, someone suggested putting the counter within the FA box, as opposed to at the top of the page.  This gained clear support.  After waiting a bit and checking to see if Raul654 had any objections (he was not entirely happy about the idea of a separate page but didn't shoot it down outright), I put it into practice.  As I mentioned to Raul, the only other way that a Main Page FA ticker would work is if admins watching the number at WP:FA then echoed the number at , which is clearly duplicative effort and requires more moving parts.  The editors adding and removing articles at WP:FA should thus modify the template, rather than the two numbers at the top of the page.  In good news, the occurrences at WP:FA are now automatically updated and the template allows the number to be transcluded to the other FA pages or elsewhere. I hope that I've given adequate context.  Thanks, BanyanTree 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:FA number]] 

message: Dear colleagues—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 04:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess 

message: Can a few editors please lend their critical reviews, and this FARC brought to a close? It's been there for too long now, and I have no intention of getting into a long discussion with Johnleemk - check "She Loves You" old FAR page for my reason why. LuciferMorgan 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Real Love (The Beatles song)]]

message: On FR, Featured articles under review do not keep their gold star at the upper right-hand corner of the page. Rather, they get a smaller version of this image: . I think that such a procedure is a very minor but nice step towards improving the overall quality of wikipedia. When a FA is under serious review (consensus that there are problems with it) while it's awaiting either improvement or removal, I think it might be a good idea to put the article on probation, as it were. Comments? --Zantastik talk 19:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Just to beat on the dead horse a bit) I've never been a fan of the star at the top of the articles, and I'd be happy to do away with them entirely. This seems like more of the same. Raul654 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it (though I'm quite sure it will be shot down). Two comments though: there's no Web 2.0 gradient on the regular FA star (but there should be!), and I'd like to see this icon have hover text that mentions the review, and/or link to the FAR discussion. –Outriggr § 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like it, because I don't want to have to keep track of yet another item on FAR processing, which is already labor intensive.  Since articles are under review for about a month, I don't see the extra work of keeping track of, adding and deleting another template, as being worth it.  Sandy (Talk) 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a nauseous feeling when I look at the bright orange and green here. Please don't. I like the small, bronze-coloured star top-right of FAs: it's so sublte you have to look for it. Tony 00:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - one simple, subtle marker for featured content is good; proliferation of fancy icons is bad. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I rather like it too, but I think Sandy's point about increasing the workload is decisive... Unless we can get a bot to handle it, that is. Mikker (...) 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'd really like to see is a bot start writing featured articles... Marskell 03:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL... indeed, but I'd settle for GAs... good stubs even. Mikker (...) 03:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have heard of RamBot, right?  (But, more seriously, surely a bot could scrape articles from an online version of 1911 EB and other public domain encyclopedias?  I guess the encyclopedic coverage projects are mostly done by now, but I bet there is content we could use out there somewhere.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate Rambot's articles... And, yeah, I'm sure there is. But, honestly, I doubt very much what we need most is more articles. Mikker (...) 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very astute comment Mikker - we need to improve the quality of the articles already available. LuciferMorgan 08:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icon for FAs under review 

message: The project now has a special section for FAR articles in need of a copyedit. Perhaps we can advertise this in cases where prose seems to be the only major obstacle to retaining FA status. Gzkn 03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors]]