Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive23

message: A number of articles have ndashes in the title, eg the recently-renamed Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941). There are others, but the recent rename got me looking around, and I found this and this discussion, where the point seems to be that anything other than regular hyphens has some accessibility issues. In fact, the ndash causes problems for the FA bot on one of the platforms it runs on. Can we have a clear policy on this, at least for FAs? Gimmetrow 04:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also a concern for the recent FA and FACs, Bill Russell and Michael Jordan.  There are numerous linked NBA articles which don't use en-dashes in the titles; should article names follow WP:MOS, or should they use hyphens to avoid accessibility issues?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right now, WP:NAMING#Special_characters and WP:MOSDASH appear to be in conflict. Gimmetrow 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accessibility is our primary concern. I say we use the standard ascii dash. Raul654 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: En dashes are an important part of the written language. They should be preserved in titles. Tony 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles with ndash in the title 

message: I've looked around for info on how to request a review of a current FA to insure it is still still FA class, but I must be blind because I can't find it. Would someone mind point me to this process? For instance, Moe Berg was promoted in April of 2005, but it doesn't have inline citations, that's an automatic fail even for GA class. Thanks --Roswell native 15:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Roswell (GA or NM?).  Pls see WP:FAR; if you need help, let me know.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks SandyGA,(I'm GA BTW). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roswell native (talk • contribs) 23:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process for requesting review of older FAs that no longer meet FA quality? 

message: I'm a bit concerned that an article I nominated for FAC, Nigel Kneale, isn't garnering many responses to its candidacy, possibly because it simply isn't very interesting to the people who regularly review articles here and cast their votes. Which is fair enough, but I wonder if there's any way I can try and get more people to come and cast their votes that doesn't simply look like me trying to drum up blind support votes? For instance, I was wondering whether to post a mention of the FAC on the talk page of Wikiproject:Doctor Who (Kneale had nothing to do with that show, and indeed disliked it intensely, but fans of it generally tend to be interested in his work too, and there isn't a wikiproject for any of his own stuff) but I don't know if that would be acceptable or not? Angmering 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had that problem too.  I think posting notices at related WikiProjects is fine.  (PS:  try to use the preview button)  --Ideogram 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess that if you follow the WP:CANVASS guidelines, and resort to "friendly messages", it's all right. You just have to sound neutral in the request.--Kylohk 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting people to read FACs

message: This is rather odd - a user whose only contributions are to create a humungous table setting out the history of all featured articles.  Is this a by-product of the article history template?  If not, I suspect the bot could create something like this. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in use before ArticleHistory, and it has been extremely helpful in re-constructing some missing FACs for articlehistory.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Feature Historian]]

message: Besides the fact that few reviewers seem to check sources :-), do we need to be more aggressive about Youtube?  US$1 billion Youtube lawsuit.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say "Don't link to copyrighted content on websites involved in $1 billion lawsuits over copyright violation" is a fairly sensible guideline :) – Qxz 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where it gets tricky at FAC is that editors defend that their link to Youtube isn't a copyvio; I always have a hard time with Fair Use and other copyright issues.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any editors who say their Youtube link isn't a copyvio are talking rubbish 99% of the time. LuciferMorgan 22:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Youtube

message: Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon seems to have disappeared without any "Promoted!" or "Not Promoted!" explanation next to it.  Did someone set us up the bomb? Hbdragon88 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags are a relatively new development. Perhaps a bot will (is?) going through the archives addding them? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; tagging and closing by GimmeBot is new.  The Ninja article shows as featured on the article page and on its talk page.  The Bot is still processing through older noms (Dec 2006 and older) to close and archive the fac pages.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened? 

message: I do hope that the problems I pointed out yesterday were fixed before promotion. I do hope. :-(
Tony 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Minnesota 

message: Is it possible to withdraw an FA nom? The Land 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is, policy is what we do. But I'd say withdrawing becomes increasingly difficult the longer the nomination has been up, and the more support it's drawn. I felt very conflicted about Great Fire of London at one point, wanting to withdraw but feeling it would be discourteous to the people who had already supported. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more, some people will want to accuse you of WP:OWN for wanting to withdraw it, and then they'll say that you haven't kept it up, later, when the standards for citation change again and they put the article on FARC.  Rueful observations aside, it is possible to withdraw a nomination at any time, but Bishonen is correct that the more supported it is, the more of an angry move it is, and the more anger it may generate.  Geogre 10:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawing Featured Article nominations 

message: I was having some fun with an article history fetching script I wrote. It shows who edited a given page, and how many times they did. Raul654 06:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about the same thing.  It would be good to know, especially for FAs, how many words that remain in an article were done by so and so editors.  There would be some difficulties, such as if the original editor's words were entirely rewritten by a copy editor(s), even though the article's material was all the same.-BillDeanCarter 07:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been done Raul654 07:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has there been any discussion about incorporating such an algorithm straight into Wikipedia?  Then at a glance you could determine who the authors of a document are.  I've heard recently that there will be some changes to Wikipedia's system, something about keeping recent changes to an article hidden until an editor approves them, for either controversial articles, all articles, or some such thing.  Any truth to these reports of new changes on the horizon?-BillDeanCarter 08:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is already a tool to do that - here - example -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice.  (But, what's the difference between those and Raul's tool?)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine operates directly against the live version instead of using a data dump. So it takes longer to run but the results are up-to-date. Also, mine can be automated (so it's trivial to run it 100 times and let the computer do all the hard work, instead of doing it all by hand). Raul654 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - and we access it by... ? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By opening another tool that already did that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't make it go.  Can anyone run it on the article, Toronto Raptors?  Also, I can't make the tool that ALoan posted work on articles with special characters in the title (example, Early life of Hugo Chávez).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, ALoan.  I misunderstood, and was trying to plub in the "stuff" written above by Raul, rather than just typing in the article name :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a tool to make sure that reviewers have read the article they're reviewing or the existing discussion about it? The Land 12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a tool to make sure nominators have read WP:WIAFA before nomming?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Problem is that tool has a 34 day lag from en_wiki! CloudNine 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that the counts generated by my script were higher than the tool, and (after some reading on that page) I was coming here to say just that. Raul654 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Food for thought

message: I'd just like to make a suggestion to Raul: could you please add a note at the top of the page or somewhere that says, "please do not strike out text that you have not written and please take it easy on the use of green checks." Any chance this might happen? JHMM13 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those things are hideous, but since they only started up this week, I think that politely asking nominators to stop on each FAC should tame then in a week or so, without the need to add a note.  I've been commenting wherever I see them.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And on strike, the instructions are clear:  To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with ...) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves. If you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text.   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: [Edit conflict: Sandy, quit writing! ;P ] Ugh. Agreed. Those green checks are really annoying, and often the responding nominator could just as easily write a little paragraph summarizing the changes that were made or not made ("I've addressed your first, third, and eigth concerns, but I disagree with your ninth for these reasons . . . "). But I'm not sure we should outright ban them . . . . Striking out text that you haven't written is, of course, a strict no-no, though. — Brian (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;P SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it when another editor strikes out my comments (more often than not, it gets struck when it hasn't been addressed), but I've seen some commenters who like having their own comments struck by others as a way of monitoring progress. It should be left up to the individual, although not striking the comments of others should be the default by common sense. Pagrashtak 00:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is; see the instructions at the top of the FAC page.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ha! So it is. Thanks, Sandy. That'll teach me to speak up before reading the rules. :-D JHMM13 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, when I say it "should be", I mean that I agree with it, not that it needs to change. As for the large green check, it's very close in spirit to striking out a commenter's objections. They are both an attempt to make the situation appear resolved, whether that is the case or not. I would not object to a commenter who refactored to remove the checks. Pagrashtak 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just worried that they take up a lot of bandwidth on a page that takes forever to load. JHMM13 01:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your browser will only load the file (which at 0.53 kb isn't all that big and is probably cached), and then re-use it for every instance it is repeated on this page. So the bandwidth they consume is negligible. Raul654 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Often, nominators put their green "done" checkmarks when it's *not* done.  We don't need that kind of mess; at one point, I felt I had to add a "Not done" in red, so it would be noticed, as the pages become overwheliming with all those tic marks.   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Those wretched green checks and the strikeout

message: I have a suggestion here gotten from the Italian Wikipedia regarding the layout of an FAC. As much as I don't think their process is thorough enough, I like the designation of special areas for support, oppose, and suggestions. A lot of times FACs can get pretty tough to read on here and it might be helped a little (and it might help Raul sort it all out) if we separate the areas. Any thoughts? JHMM13 23:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a very immature process; a straight vote, similar to what we had years ago when en-Wiki was much smaller.  Most of our "votes" change as the FAC progresses, so entering them into a category like that will make a mess.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said, the system is not what I'm promoting, it's the layout. I think the current tack on below model is causing a lot of clutter and makes it difficult to figure out who is supporting or opposing what. Just because we have a section for support and a section for oppose does not mean it has to be a straight vote. It seems a lot more straightforward to me, especially considering many newbies to this current layout could also mistake it for a voting process. JHMM13 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring the specific format of FAC

message: I just realised Encyclopædia Britannica might actually pass its FAC. As this is likely to hit headlines ("Wikipedia has better entry on Britannica than Britannica does") or at least utterly enrage the EBs, they're going to go through this article and find every possible error they can if it passes. Every regular FAC reviewer needs to get down there and go through it with a fine toothcomb to ensure that everything is all above board, referenced, well-written etc. That way we won't look stupid. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note, Dev; I actually hadn't looked at it since so many eyes have already been there.  I should be able to get to it tonight.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering Dev's call to action, I'd really like to review it, but I have to put out a fire today.  Would it be presumptuous to ask Raul to let this run a bit overtime?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here. Raul654 02:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your call to action, Dev!  I've been hoping that more people would comment at its FAC to help make it a better article, like the biblical refiner's fire.  If you'll take some kindly-meant advice, however, we shouldn't speculate about what the people at the Britannica will feel.  I like to think that they will be delighted that the world has another fine encyclopedia article, on a subject dear to their hearts.  If they're annoyed, then we should engage them with gentility and fellow feeling and, God willing, charm them with our excellent manners and witty humor.  Our enemy is ignorance, not each other; we face common difficulties and share such parallel goals that we might as well be siblings.  And although siblings often bicker and tease each other, I hope sincerely that our article will increase the number of visitors to their site and perhaps even their number of subscribers.  The world would be a poorer place indeed if the Britannica were lost. Willow 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aha! So there's a conflict of interest here! ;-P Kidding of course... Nicely said. –Outriggr § 19:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive2]] 

message: Something's wrong at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Casino Royale (2006 film); comments have apparently been refactored and removed completely !!  I don't have time to reconstruct, nor should I have to.  But, for example, I had a long list of questionable sources on the page which is now POOF-gone.  I noticed other comments that were gone as well, so that one of my responses is left hanging, looking dumb.  Gosh, irritating that objects are removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Foiled, nefarious plot by evil genius, one. But my martini's still dry. Mouse, E., Anon E. Mouse. 15:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casino Royale (2006 film) 

message: Do we have any guidelines (MOS, Project or otherwise) that restrict size on plot summaries or synopses?  Someone (elsewhere) has stated that we have a 500–750 word limit; I've never seen that guideline.  What guidelines do we have on spoilers and plot summaries? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Alien, but I'm not able to locate that specific guideline on the Film page?  Do they have specific guidelines or a suggested article structure? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks; that helps.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. WP:WAF says very much the same thing: Keep plot summaries concise, and no article should consist solely of plot summary. (Tell that to voters on AFD, though . . . ) — Brian (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm having issues with WP:MUSICALS.  Someone is cleaning out all the synopses (equivalent of plot summaries), but also cleaning out other info as well.  So, if we add back plot summaries, we could get into trouble, as we may end up with only plot, nothing else.  The solution is an article structure similar to Films, but someone is deleting everything and not following any structure, leaving only a big lead and some lists.  Anyway, not FA-related, but explains why there are no musical theatre FAs or GAs.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis or plot summary guidelines 

message: I've left notes at User talk:Tomer T about multiple nominations he has made in a short period, noting the instructions at WP:FAC, specifically "Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections ... Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each." Tomer T currently has three nominations at FAC (Compass and straightedge constructions, Alfred Russel Wallace and Toronto Raptors), but hasn't participated in the discussion about any of these candidates.  If he nominates another article, can we speedy withdraw it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think multiple nominations are fine as long as you can keep up with them. The question is, does Tomer intend to? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S/he hasn't on the previous two.  Our instructions say, "Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections ... Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen other users nominate more than one article. I remember Deckiller (I think) doing so with two Final Fantasy titles but only after it was clear the first was going very well and no objections were raised. Obviously I think Tomer must have just misunderstood the policy. It should be okay if one FAC is winding down to nominate another. They should probably be separated by at least a few weeks or the original should have no outstanding objections. Quadzilla99 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple nominations aren't a problem if the person doing the nominating is capable of keeping on top of them. In this case, I'm concerned about Tomer not doing so. Raul654 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomer T generally is not an editor on the articles s/he is nominating.  After my own experience of an unexpected (and for several days, unnoticed) FAC on the article I was working on (Kepler), I asked Tomer to at least inform the editors of articles before nominating them.  The result was the FAC of Alfred Russell Wallace, posted a week after a message on the talk page ("Do you think that the article is ready to become a featured article?"), to which no one had responded.--ragesoss 02:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Multiple noms are fine if the user does justice to it. (I tried that once and got both featured). But in this case if Tomer doesn't do justice to any, more reviewers should prod him to remove noms. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple nominations 

message: A new suggested template has been proposed at WikiProject Cities. Since the main purpose of the template is to assist editors in bringing articles to GA and FA status, I thought I would mention it here to seek comments on it. Please leave comments on the WikiProject Cities Talk Page, not here. Dr. Cash 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:CITIES - city template

message: Of late, the stability criteria is being cited in far more cases than it should. 
A few days ago, I told a friend of mine who is familiar with Wikipedia that I'd wager any amount that someone would nominate Virginia Tech massacre on this page within a month of the shooting. I would have won the bet. It is for situations like the requirement is intended. I wrote it after someone nominated Beslan school hostage crisis less than a week after it occured. These are cases of articles that are clearly unstable.
However, as I said, many people seem to be citing it for articles that are generally active, but not necessarily unstable. This is a practice I would like to see ended. Raul654 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stability

message: I find the FAC page to be far too long, and it requires so much loading time that it isn't at all convenient for me to read the nominations. I had the idea of creating a separate, short page that just lists links to the individual discussions, so you aren't required to load everything up on one page. Raul seemed to think it would be difficult to find an automated way to do this, but I wanted to see if anyone else had ideas about it. Everyking 08:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd personally be concerned with even less input than we already get. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well there's User:Deckiller/FAC urgents which is (I think) hand maintained, it's pretty useful for seeing the FACs that are slipping through the cracks, you can transclude it to your user page or wherever. Maybe User:Dragons flight could adapt his AFD monitor (User:Dragons flight/AFD summary), which seems pretty able to list all the daily AFDs, although the vote totals wouldn't be very useful to FAC. If someone feels like creating/maintaining such a thing there's no reason it can't exist. --W.marsh 13:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be handy. It's the same as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I always go to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard instead of the extremely long RFA page. Garion96 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good idea. But for now, we have my archaic, hand-cranked template :) — Deckiller 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page length

message: Can someone with admin tools please look at the trainwreck there; someone tried to do a FAC nom, I think.  It's a mess.  There's no new FAC, but there's some weird moves and redirects in the talk page history.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Bulgaria]]

message: Dweller has written a lesson for the virtual classroom, at User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates.  Before it goes "live" it needs to be proofread/copy-edited.  Please look it over for accuracy and quality.  Thank you.   The Transhumanist    00:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added comments at User talk:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I welcome further comments and criticisms. --Dweller 11:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC lesson 

message: This article, which I made over 300 edits on and nominated for FAC was failed today for no valid reason I can see after a month of me hanging around waiting, then canvassing for someone to review it. Only two people bothered to make a decision on the article, one was invalid (no refs in lead), and the other hadn't really read the article closely - claimed it had "sloppy copy" which is just garbage as the two instances cited came from direct quotes by subjects in the article - and never responded to my subsequent clarifications/minor changes. Thus it's wasted a whole load of time for me, and for the few editors who bothered to even look at it during it's candidacy phase. This process is deeply flawed. Change it before it wastes more people's time.-- Zleitzen(talk) 11:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zleitzen, I really think you were just a victim of a very busy time on FAC.  And, it's not just FAC; GAC is backlogged and WP:PR currently has 139 articles listed !  Whenever FAC gets above 50 articles listed (and it's been hovering around and even above 80), it's hard to get enough attention on any one article.  (I was out for several weeks because of the Spring Nor'easter of 2007, then spent six hours catching up on FAC reviews a few days ago, and what I got for my effort was a lot of talk page harassment from editors who were apparently surprised that someone was actually going to review their articles :-)  I'm sorry this happened to you, since you've been pitching in here to help review articles.  Please shake it off; bring it back now that there's hopefully less of a backlog and you'll get more feedback.  It might also help to announce the FAC on as many WikiProject pages as possible; you can find a council directory listed at the top of WT:FAR.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Sandy but after 17,000+ edits and various featured items here, I’m finished with this business. I made the latest FAC available to the wikiproject early on, but received no reviews.  I went around begging people I’d helped on their FACs to review the article after weeks without a review. I eventually received just one Mr Magooesque review from Dweller. Dweller then didn’t bother addressing my responses - apparently being too busy voting to support his own articles at FAC and writing guides for featured article candidates (the two seem related as far as I can see) - and that was that. Thanks for the work you put in on the refs. Good luck in the future!-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buena Vista Social Club/archive1]]

message: Will reviewers kindly note that these boxes are regularly updated for problematic nominations and for those that are hanging around for too long with too few comments. Transcluding them on your user page and/or at the top of your talk page would be a great way to generate more interest in these processes, especially by reviewers who manage to visit only occasionally. 
All you do is to key in  and/or . Tony 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who decides what is urgent or not? (No, I'm not being a smart aleck, I'm just interested to know what the algorithm is.) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how Deckiller adds FACs; I add FARs or FARCs that are near the end of their review period but are lacking input, "votes" or consensus.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I keep the total number of "urgent" FARs at or below five; it is intended to be those reviews most urgently needing further input for consensus.  I think Deckiller adds FACs that have received little or no attention or input.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC and FAR/C urgents boxes 

message: I've proposed a new version of the existing criteria to be implemented after a week or so of debate. Comments from reviewers from this room would be welcomed. Tony 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version of Featured Sound Criteria 

message: One problem I've noticed with the FAC process is that discussion happens at both article talk pages and on the nomination page, and many contributors end up talking past each other because of this (and it makes the whole thing more complicated to keep track of).  I think we should make it part of the nomination procedure to transclude the nomination on the article talk page (as well as here) so that editors don't have to navigate away to contribute.  This would have the added bonus of making nominations more visible and probably increasing participation.--ragesoss 21:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcluding FAC nominations on talk pages

message: Why was Toronto Raptors promoted when there are active objections in the nomination? Punctured Bicycle 06:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of question might get a better response if you ask Raul directly (User talk:Raul654). Presumably he felt that the objections were (1) made irrelevant by improvements to the article; (2) unfounded; or (3) insignificant or not relevant to the featured article criteria. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think passing articles is an art, not a science... and as such, there are cases that pass that should fail and vice versa... Raul is only human and doing the best he can... which is a lot more than most of us are willing to do.  (His level of commitment to Wiki is amazing, and my hat is off to him.)Balloonman 18:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, lots of people are willing to help Raul654, but he insists he doesn't need it. He's the featured article director, an administrator, a bureaucrat, an oversight, an arbitrator, and a PhD candidate, but supposedly he doesn't need help. Common sense says that the more tasks a man has to do, the less time he will have to devote to each one, and quality suffers as a result. In my opinion, this faulty promotion illustrates what happens when you draw one man too thin. Since the nomination is now frozen, I have outlined a more detailed criticism of the Toronto Raptors article at Talk:Toronto Raptors/Flaws. I am troubled and annoyed that this article was promoted when most of these serious criticisms were mentioned in the nomination already, just in less detail. It doesn't even pass the Good Article criteria. Punctured Bicycle 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toronto Raptors 

message: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce/archive1
This FAC had appallingly little comment. I submitted it to the process because I usually get more of the criticism I want and need from this process, rather than the peer review process. But the FAC only received comments the day it was posted, and the day after. I asked follow-up questions of two of the objectors, none of them replied.
Can I get a reconsideration of the FAC closure, on the hope that someone gives enough of a hoot to comment?  --  Zanimum 14:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FAC might be less backlogged if it wasn't being used for peer review.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think suggestions on both the PR and the FAC are important, as they usually address different issues and have diferent standards (so in that sense an FAC is a bit like an advanced peer review). However, with the PR being backlogged, I'm not surprised people are hoping for more in-depth help and suggestions at the FAC.--Clyde (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, everywhere's backlogged (FAC, GAC, PR), but it seems that two things are resulting:  FAC being used in place of PR/GAC (because of the backlogs there), and complaints being lodged mostly at FAC, when some articles are coming here rather than PR.  It seems the real backlog that needs to be addressed is at PR.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Clyde that PR and FAC seem to address different issues; the comments I have received from articles submitted to PR are vastly different from those at FAC. And several of the PR comments have been lacking altogether. I know quite a few people who view PR as a waste of time, as their articles received little or no feedback. And in many instances, the articles aren't being reviewed by peers at all. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team was bypassing "peer review" altogether because the articles were peer reviewed and partially written by published paleontologists, and it seemed like a waste of time to have the article submitted to a non-professional "peer review" of dedicated but non-professional Wikipedians, who often offered well-meaning but bad scientific advice on how to improve the article. That said, the Scientific peer review process has been helpful, and I recently sent an article there. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  It's not so much even backlog. When I was working to get Sesame Street to featured status, back in the days when PR wasn't backlogged people still gave me weak, meak comments that did nothing but artificially inflate my opinion of how good the article was. So I'd head into FAC feeling fantastic, and get whacked in the face as soon as people would vote. It was the only place I good get comments I could really actually use.  --  Zanimum 19:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I work in a completely different sector of Wikipedia then Frisfron, but I find myself with the same ideas. When I'm working on an article, I find the video game peer review much more helpful, and I myself prefer to review articles there. The PR is just so large that it is impossible to find an article I know about to review, so I prefer to go on a smaller scale. I think if we had more subject specific reviews where people can find articles they know about, then there'd be more action on the PRs. I've also seen some FACs are promoted even through there is very little activity or improvement, but they are promoted simply because not enough high end editors are around to rip it apart and correct it.--Clyde (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FAC board seems to go through cycles where sometimes it has plenty of participation in reviewing FA candidates and sometimes it doesn't.  Right now seems to fall in the latter cycle.  I've been attempting the last week or so to try to assist the articles on the list that haven't received much participation, but I just can't get to them all.  Plus, I'm just one person.  We obviously need more people's participation with this forum and the main peer review.  The Signpost highlighted the problem recently, which I think helped increase participation somewhat.  But, we still need more participants.  How can we influence more people to participate in these forums where participation is so crucial for the process to work?  We especially need more participation in the different peer review forums, because we shouldn't have to use the FAC forum as a peer review. Cla68 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was this one closed yet Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta restarted? Here's an editor who wanted feedback so he could make a successful FA and was willing to address objections, yet this other abomination of an FAC which has no respect for the process whatsoever has been restarted. LuciferMorgan 11:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed FAC had little input 

message: Two editors are changing WP:LAYOUT to state that Wiki "sister" links should be added to the lead rather than the See also or External links at the end of the article.  I believe this will clutter the lead, resulting in ugly articles, and that external content (even interwiki) belongs at the end.  I always fix this on FAs. — am I wrong?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sister links should be in the "See also" sections, as you said. JungianPPP seems to have signed up just to change Wikipedia rules and does not appear to respect consensus. CloudNine 15:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I just realized the three editors on that page have strikingly similar prose, syntax, and reasoning.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting the sisterlinks in the lead is an awful idea. — Brian (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't belong in see also - they belong in the external links section. That's how we've done it for years. Raul654 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: Say for example you have an FAC that has garnered little comment, would the nominator be allowed to leave messages on specific editors talk pages to take a look at the FAC? In this I mean editors that the nominator is particularly familiar with. I'm unsure if there's a policy on this and am seeking clarification. LuciferMorgan 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely familiar with the area, but Wikipedia:Canvassing seems most relevant. Geuiwogbil 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no problem with nominators asking a few people to have a look, provided the request is phrased neutrally. Trebor 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with above. Just say "can you please review my article to either Support or Oppose giving FA status? Without your help, the article will soon be removed from nomination", or something similar. It works. That's how I got Jay Chou to FA. I don't think many people would've reviewed it if I hadn't done it. SeleneFN 00:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have certainly done this in the past. It's not a vote so this is relatively unlikely to have any negative effects. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A question

message: I added Marskell's suggested wording to :Template:FAC-instructions ("do not add a second review until concerns in a first have been substantially addressed"); pls review.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being that all noms start off without any opposes, that wouldn't prevent people starting multiple noms at the same time. Epbr123 13:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it's clear what Sandy/Marskell meant, but how about this wording: "Please do not add a second review until the first nomination has gained some support and there are no significant remaining concerns"? Mike Christie (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC instructions

message: I run through every new nomination at FAC (daily when I can) to make sure everything is in place on the article talk page for the eventual GimmeBot conversion to  (anyone want to take over that task while I'm traveling next week)?  This includes making sure the fac template is at the the top of the page (many nominators forget to add it), oldid is identified in the GA template (if you have Dr pda's articlehistory script, this is easy), everything in Dr pda's articlehistory script is on the talk page, dyk is added to the template, peer reviews are archived, and old facfaileds are correctly dealt with, archived and listed on the new fac (they almost never are, except for those since about Feb, when GimmeBot started up).  
I am seeing something way too often that we may need to address in our instructions (I may be the only one seeing this, since I'm the one running through the talk pages of the noms).  Too many times, an article is listed at peer review, GAC and FAC all at the same time.  (Yes, the workload issues are a concern to me — we have scarce resources working on one article in three places at a time, and only a few people doing the archiving, correcting the talk pages, etc.)  Can we add something to our instructions specifically saying not to submit here if you are currently at peer review or GAC?    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you do if you nominate an article for FAC, and then someone requests that a peer review be done during the FAC?  That happenned during the surface weather analysis FAC, and it seemed to work out fine.  Different people were involved in the FAC and peer review.  Thegreatdr 13:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, you have two choices:  withdraw the nom, so that you can go to peer review instead, or stick it out and hope you can address all the issues here, even though they are substantial.  Personally, I don't recommend peer review unless the article seems so unprepared for FAC that it doesn't seem like it can get there from here.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sandy - peer review already has an instruction saying to remove the PR if the article's at FAC. It should be added indeed per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto..cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 20:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noms in multiple places 

message: :Moved from Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria 
Does anyone else object to the increasing segmentation by nominators of the pages in this room? I find it irritating to have to wonder whether to place my comment half-way through, at the end of the first segement, or right at the bottom, where it might not be read. 
There's also my suspicion that some nominators have used sectioning to cordon off debates they don't like.
I see nothing wrong with banning the practice. Tony 10:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate them, agree with you, and IIRC, Raul has removed some before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, subsectioning causes me irritation when I go to do the promotions. I don't think an absolute prohibition is necessary, but I would like to see the practice strongly discouraged unless there's an obvious need. Raul654 01:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Raul, is this better: "The splitting of FAC pages into subsections is strongy discouraged unless there are compelling reasons for doing so"? But then, who wants to get into a debate with wilful nominators about what compelling reasons are. Tony 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sometimes helpful if the discussion is a really long one..cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 12:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, this proves my point precisely: I don't want my comment to fall under this subheading, so you're making me locate a precise position somewhere in the middle of the section, and to carriage-return a few times to fit it in. Really long discussions still take up just as much room when segemented into subsections (more, indeed). I'd still rather have a continuous page; it makes for a simpler structure and prevents attempts to fence off information in ways that suit the nominator. The other thing I'd love to ban is those ugly, humungous green ticks, but that might be going too far ... Tony 14:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MY gosh, yes !  I think this tradition of separating comments with a section heading got started at peer review.  It makes sense there because one reviewer enters comments, yet there's no need to come back and strike, etcetera, as there is here.  It doesn't work here, and those green tick marks are awful as well.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my adamant support for getting rid of this practice, which is particularly annoying when the user puts a fancy sig or links in the section header. I've found ---- to be perfectly acceptable for separating comments. Pagrashtak 18:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I only find a problem when it causes the FAC table of contents to become even longer, and that can be dealt with . Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I was having a bit of a laugh :) )cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections within FAC pages 

message: ::Sometimes helpful if the discussion is a really long one..cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 12:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this proves my point precisely: I don't want my comment to fall under this subheading, so you're making me locate a precise position somewhere in the middle of the section, and to carriage-return a few times to fit it in. Really long discussions still take up just as much room when segemented into subsections (more, indeed). I'd still rather have a continuous page; it makes for a simpler structure and prevents attempts to fence off information in ways that suit the nominator. The other thing I'd love to ban is those ugly, humungous green ticks, but that might be going too far ... Tony 14:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MY gosh, yes !  I think this tradition of separating comments with a section heading got started at peer review.  It makes sense there because one reviewer enters comments, yet there's no need to come back and strike, etcetera, as there is here.  It doesn't work here, and those green tick marks are awful as well.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my adamant support for getting rid of this practice, which is particularly annoying when the user puts a fancy sig or links in the section header. I've found ---- to be perfectly acceptable for separating comments. Pagrashtak 18:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I only find a problem when it causes the FAC table of contents to become even longer, and that can be dealt with . Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I was having a bit of a laugh :) )cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Cas Liber

message: The nomination for this article has been up for nearly two weeks now and attracted only two votes. Both supports, mind, but hardly enough to qualify it for promotion I'd have thought. Does anybody have the time to give it a look? I appreciate it's on a fairly niche topic, and I'm not trying to trawl for support votes, but I'd like to feel that if it doesn't make it it would have at least have had a fair review, rather than failed through apathy. Angmering 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rudolph Cartier]]

message: Starting the Berlin FA candidate request the new entry didn´t evolved properly. Any suggestions? Lear 21 12:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to click "edit" since the  template leads to a blanked page by default. Resurgent insurgent 13:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Berlin]]

message: Who would act as featured article director if one of the following happened?
*Raul resigns
*Raul goes on holiday
*Raul is too busy with real life
*Raul gets into an accident and is hospitalised
*Raul decides not to rule on a certain FAC due to a real or perceived conflict of interest
I have nothing against Raul - I think he's doing a good job.
--Kaypoh 07:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reserve featured article director 

message: I don't appreciate threats like this from anyone. I suggest FAC tell Epbr123 to stop attempting to bully nominators around over their opposes, especially in light of the fact that same editor recently called someone here a "sad bastard", did other incivil things on this talk page for which no action was taken, and removed and reinserted their noms (rather silly behaviour). I don't have time for this at all, and have much better things to do with my time - I'm trying my best to improve Slayer related articles, yet my time's being taken up responding to this threatening behaviour. My time can be much better used focusing on improving articles, and furthermore I don't need the hassle. Thanks FAC reviewers and nominators for your time. LuciferMorgan 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Threats - please consider your actions before making them

message: Reviewers here may be interested to know that the MOS, which is undergoing a gradual overhaul, now contains detailed guidelines on hyphens and dashes (until now, there were virtually no guidelines). As you may know, Featured Article Candidates are bound to follow the MOS (Criterion 2). 
A rationalisation of the several articles covering this topic is planned. Tony 09:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major new sections implemented at MOS on hyphens, en dashes and em dashes 

message: Is Ediacaran biota about ready for FA, d'ye think? Adam Cuerden talk 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe peer review is the most appropriate way to get an answer, but given the enormous backlog, maybe this is OK too. I took a brief look and it seems ready for FA. You should remove those tags that say "Article with unsourced statements" though, provided of course all of the statements are actually sourced. SeleneFN 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drat! Missed that. Ah, well. It's only one, and it doesn't look hard to source. Would have just done peer review, but, frankly, for the more obscure scientific subjects, I'm not sure peer review works very well at the moment: Keep seeing articles leave peer review with no comments. Thanks! Adam Cuerden talk 03:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The secret with getting peer review to work is canvassing (same with FAC, if you want constructive criticism of substantive content).  Ask someone you trust to review it.--ragesoss 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for opinion 

message: Can we codify what a significant contributor is? I've been raked over the coals because some people (who will remain nameless) felt that all "contributors should identify themselves as such" when they review an article. The top contributors to the article are myself, someone who hasn't posted in almost 2 years, and then people who have made minor grammar changes. After the first two, the highest number of changes comes from a guy who put in  a picture and made six VERY minor changes (spelling, commas, etc) and everyone else was minor junk. To imply the reviews are biased or in some way tainted because wikipedians haven't disclosed their entire editing history, school of gradutation, affiliations in Wikipedia, etc. seems to go against Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Do I need to write this down every time I review an article? Should everyone also do it? In short, should I have to write down for every review that I am a US government employee who graduated from Texas A&M University with a degree in computer science and a minor in mathematics, deployed to the Middle East twice, currently am in pilot training, was in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M and its band, etc...oh and here is my entire edit history:
# 09:26, 19 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fightin' Texas Aggie Band (whoops)  (top)
# 09:25, 19 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fightin' Texas Aggie Band (made chart easier to read)
# 09:21, 19 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fightin' Texas Aggie Band (miscounted)
# 09:16, 19 June 2007 (hist) (diff) V-22 Osprey (→Popular Culture - wiki date) (top)
# 09:13, 19 June 2007 (hist) (diff) 9/11 conspiracy theories (title required by template...feel free to replace it with the actual title) (top)
# 22:31, 18 June 2007 (hist) (diff) B-2 Spirit (fixed poor wikilink)
# 22:29, 18 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IPod (→IPod - oppose) (top)
...
— BQZip01 — talk 14:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the fact that you contributed to the article is of any particular relevance to the process, so I don't see why you would be expected to mention that you had contributed to the article. How would other parties (e.g. Raul) use that information? Any objections you make can be evaluated on their merits. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Significant''' contributions

message: So, we now have a featured article that was promoted while it was tagged, "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed?"  Why?  This article needs substantial work, not the sort of work even someone who's mapped the damn mountain can do on a flyby because of the choice of age of geological history.  There's no way an article should become a FA while its factual accuracy is being disputed.  KP Botany 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So as not to beat around the bush - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geology of the Lassen volcanic area. There were also a few things left on my list, nothing major like what you brought up though. Raul may have promoted it accidentally. -Ravedave 04:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, probably.  KP Botany 05:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Substantial work? The only major thing you brought up was the fact that the basement rocks, not the mountains are what broke apart. That has been fixed. As for the missing history - what part of the history from that event to the tilting of the Sierras is relevant to the current geology of the Lassen volcanic area? Heck, as you stated originally, even the basement rock breakup is not really needed but I thought it would be important to mention in the geologic setting section (esp since the gap created was called the 'Lassen Strait' and readers wanting to know about that would likely look here). Either way, I asked Raul to relist the nom as we work this out. He has complied. --mav 23:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not that important, then remove it.  But, really, if you start about something over 100 myo, then move forward 50 my, people might wonder what went on in those 50 my.  Don't mention them if it's not your intention to discussion them.  The geological setting can certainly be Cenozoic, but if you insist on making it Early Cretaceous, deal with the rest of the Cretaceous.  KP Botany 20:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Articles with  

message: €2 commemorative coins  was promoted at a time when Featured Lists did not exist, and if it were nominated today, that would be its rightful place. Since there are no agreed process for moving an article from a cat to another, I've started with nominating it at WP:FLC. When (if?) it is promoted, I will either nominated it for removal or boldly remove it myself. Any thoughts? Circeus 05:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is precedent. Provinces of Thailand was a FA, was removed at FAR on November 9, 2005, was immediately nominated for featured list, and passed November 19, 2005. This also means that featured lists existed in January 2006, when €2 commemorative coins was nominated and passed featured articles. Gimmetrow 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird... I thought FL was more recent. I still think the article in question is not in the right category, though. Circeus 06:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First FL, 1 June 2005. I think, based on precedent, that maybe a FAR should be started for €2 commemorative coins. Gimmetrow 06:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There were several comments in its FAC (one by me! gosh, how time flies!) that FLC was a more appropruate place for this.  Yes, FAR and then FLC would be the appropriate route, I think. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've asked over at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#€2 commemorative coins. Gimmetrow 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Deckiller, this has too much prose to be called a list.--Danaman5 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm of the opinion that it's more of a list. LuciferMorgan 13:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving a Featured Article to Featured Lists 

message: :Moved to User_talk:Raul654/test#Updating_FA_stats Raul654 16:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Audit/updates to WP:FAS completed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help requested

message: ::::::Given the nominator's interest in getting an FAC promoted (and the fact that reams of text tend to put me off reviewing something), maybe there could be a suggestion/guideline that the nominator can summarise as an update with tally and notes on outstanding opposes once a page gets too hefty. The nominator is the obvious person to do this as it is in their interest to get the article through. This could be then noted in the FAC process cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See page 23685.65 of the wikipedia rulebook: Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep :P. I think that yes that is the way to go about it, but it doesn't need to be codified. If people start summarizing results, eventually it will be the vogue thing to do and no instruction creep needed.  -Ravedave 03:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Just thought it was worth mentioning somewhere in case people felt a bit abashed in doing it.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OTOH all the material pre-summary is still evident right there and those who have been incorrectly summarised could point out any naughtiness. Question is, who else would be motivated (i.e. put up their hand) to summarise longer articles? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Can't the content of the old nom simply be moved to the talk page of the new one and Raul can point that out when restarting? Seems easy enough. Marskell 08:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Cute, convoluted but cute :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Solution?

message: It would appear as though the article Erie, Pennsylvania passed its FAC last week solely because User:Tony1 didn't get round to making his usual request for further copy-edits. I think it's a shame that the awarding of FAs depend on factors as arbitrary as this. Epbr123 09:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah. It is an arbitrary process. I had some big concerns about Guinea Pig which I posted about 5 seconds before it was promoted. It happens. I agree he's pretty tough at times and also that if there are some glaring errors it is pointless continuing to review. I always come back to look to see if my concerns have been addressed. I can't speak for Tony. I do like hte guide he's written. Were you happy with the prose of this article you mention above? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even after it's promotion, I had to do a spell check and I caught some errors. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 11:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in the first paragraph of the lead it makes an outdated/inaccurate statement such as this: "Erie's Metropolitan Area consists of 280,843 residents." Epbr123 12:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if there are actual concerns you can always discuss them on the article talk, or the nominator. In last resort, a FA review is OK if the concerns are made clear. Circeus 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a thought

message: I wonder how many inline refs are enough - anyone willing to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deinonychus for starters as I'm having trouble reconciling the idea of every sentence being inlined as requested by Spamsara with the style issue of rather alot of cites and duplications.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the (surprisingly new) user has been making similar comments on a number of FACs. I can understand a request for a few cites, but for every single sentence is preposterous. Circeus 05:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) It's certainly possible to place a footnote after every sentence (I very nearly reached this level here); but it's neither required nor even recommended by any guideline I'm aware of. Unless you actually want to go for that level of citation, I wouldn't worry about people trying to impose "every sentence must be inlined" as a criterion; if a reasonable request is made for something in particular to be cited, you should do so, but you don't have to follow blanket requests for everything to be cited. Kirill 05:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember I got opposed once for having too many citations, I believe their reasoning was that it breaks the flow of the article and distracting to some. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Description" section is under-cited, but otherwise I think it's fine. DrKiernan 07:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands now, the article has approximately one citation for every two sentences (48 cites, 106 sentences). I've never heard that every sentence needs citation, and in fact some editors have opposed articles for over-citation. The position that every sentence needs a citation isn't really supported at WP:CITE. Academic papers don't usually use that much citation, either. I'm going to add some additional citations to the description section, though, as I think DrKiernan's correct that that section needs more support. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's an update on another FAC with a similar discussion. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of line refs

message: For a VERY long time, I have sorted out every move, redirect, archive and anything else that has come up that affects  and GimmeBotification on FAs and articles listed at FAC, but I've hit one I can't fix myself.  Several times, I've corrected errors and keep the history straight at Raëlian Church, which has now been split (or something) to Raëlism and Raëlian beliefs and practices while at FAC.  The listing at WP:GA is now wrong (I don't know which article should be listed at GA, if either, since the Church article was assigned GA but has now been split and moved one day after attaining GA, and I don't think there's a GA any longer, but that's beyond my scope).  The FAC has been moved, but not corrected at WP:FAC.  And the articlehistory is now on a page it doesn't pertain to, since the items in History don't pertain to the new article. At least I think that's a summary of the situation, but I'm not sure.  In any case, when GimmeBot has to decide what to do with the current FAC, there will be a mess to be straightened out. Can someone with admin tools who speaks ArticleHistory please help sort this out?  I can fix ArticleHistory once it settles into one article or another, but I don't know where to park all the pieces in ArticleHistory.  Then there's the matter of dealing with delisting the GA, but that's out of my realm.  Maybe it's simpler than it appears, but I've gotten dizzy of trying to sort out the situation.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that if an article splits, then it's clearly not stable and clearly not the article that was nom'd. It should therefore be stripped of all GA/FA distinctions until it can be re-vetted by the appropriate noms. Girolamo Savonarola 21:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be put up on GA/Review or be demoted immediately? Carson 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion about the article itself, but I have noticed something of what's been happening to it because of my involvement with a GA bot.  The article has been to GA multiple times and has had a very hard time getting reviewed.  For example I think it was quick-failed once or twice, causing it to start over at the end of the GAC queue.  It was also put on review and hold notices by people who did not then complete the review.  The nominator has become understandably frustrated, though I don't know that there was anything but good intentions on the part of the other editors.  I believe there has been more than one split and/or merge done, as a result of other editors' inputs.  I also think it might be unfair to say it's unstable: I don't think anyone else is editing the article significantly except the main editor.  I think the nominator is trying to be responsive, and it would be ideal if the issue could be settled in discussion in the FAC since that's where the cause of the merge is.  Just to reiterate, though, I have not reviewed the article, and it may be obviously not FA quality: I just feel a bit sorry for the nominator because of the history. Mike Christie (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same sense as Mike, which is why I'm asking for help.  I can't keep track anymore, and I'm not sure what to do, but name changes alone aren't an indication of instability (The Language Movement article also had me chasing my tail, and it ended up at the right place). There are just a lot of pieces to sort out now.  Calm heads needed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, considering its history at GAC, kudos to TimVickers for taking it on, but it's changed a lot in the day since Tim passed it GA.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And, as I keep going back trying to fix this thing, I still can't even find the original talk page, with all the GAC/GAR commentary; that's why I asked for admin help, to get the moves straightened out correctly.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy, I think this is the link you're looking for.  Mike Christie (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Mike, I just found it as well.  Part of the puzzle is that he didn't move the page; he redirected the page, but left the talk page behind.  I don't know how to fix it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly revert and move properly? It is also possible to move talk pages alone, though it can get tricky. In general, if an article is split by cut and paste, then the original talk page should be archived after the split (leaving notes about all this on the resulting empty talk page), and archive links placed at the start of the talk pages on the split destinations. Sometimes it is possible to leave a short disambiguation page/summary style stub at the original location, directing people to the two split pages. An example of this is at History of Greek and Roman Egypt, which got split into Ptolemaic Egypt and Aegyptus (Roman province) (since moved). Gory details at Talk:History of Greek and Roman Egypt. Despite my optimistic note at the bottom: "I've removed the redirect and turned this into a stubby disambiguation page that will hopefully turn into a summary style article", the original History of Greek and Roman Egypt remains as stubby as ever, but, and this is the crucial bit, contains two and a half years of page history for the text that ended up at the split destinations. Carcharoth 16:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have admin tools and I can't fix it, but the articlehistory and GA templates are now on a talk page that doesn't detail the GA history.  It needs to be fixed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The admins who hang around Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves probably enjoy poking through article histories. Why not try there? Carcharoth 17:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm kinda busy right now :-)  This is really a GA problem, not an FA problem; I posted to them about it days ago, and I think someone over there should take this on.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin help needed to sort this out 

message: I propose a new rule under which each comment that refers to "criteria 3" or some such is immediately discounted for idiocy. Also, consider whether FAC nominations that use "phenomena" where "phenomenon" is appropriate should be removed and banned from nomination for two weeks. Spamsara 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it April 1? Thought we were in July... LuciferMorgan 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The singular is "criterion" 

message: I'd like to suggest using the Template:La to list candidates.  Would make it easier to navigate, i.e.  Article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Cricket02 07:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount of time spent reading an article at FAC means the extra time spent finding these links is not really saving much time at all. 'La' is used at AfD, theoretically to remind people to look at the history of an article and its interconnectedness with other articles, before discussing. That is not so necessary here. The only thing that is really needed is a link to the talk page, but that is only one click away. Overall, could distract people from reading the article, so I'd say no need to use 'La'. Carcharoth 16:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to use [[Template:La]]

message: i want this article to re-reviewed. the article do not meet any criteria. though the article was nominated on Aug 2004, but the article should meet atleast the basic Wikipedia's requirements. thanks, Sushant gupta 10:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governor-General of India 

message: I know the question of length has come up before, and in principle there are no objections to an FA that is very short if it is of exemplary quality.  However, I have an article I've been considering nominating which is probably right at the limit, and if anyone would be willing to take a look and express an opinion I'd appreciate it.  It's Beyond Fantasy Fiction. Calculating the text size by grabbing the rendered article text and pasting it into a text editor and deleting headers etc. gives a little under 5K.  This is comparable to the shortest FAs but would probably be the smallest yet; the shortest I know of is Hurricane Irene (1999)Hurricane Irene (2005).  Beyond Fantasy Fiction would be about a hundred bytes shorter than that.  Thanks for any comments or advice on whether this should or should not be nominated.  Mike Christie (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Hurricane Irene (2005), by the way. On a quick glance, I don't see much of a problem in it undergoing an FAC run. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very short article question 

message: At this section, above, I suggested a bot to track FAC contributors, in order to encourage FAC participation; after some comments Marskell refined the idea by suggesting it count sigs, not contribs.  A suggestion was made that it would be better to post the idea at WP:PR, which I did; there were no responses.
I'd like to go ahead and post a request to count FAC sigs to the bot requests page.  Any serious objections?  Would it be actively harmful?  Mike Christie (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea exactly as presented (couting sigs).--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May as well be this way..cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the idea as well. Epbr123 12:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-suggesting bot list of FAC contributors 

message: * I see lotsa complaining. Some of it boils down to (tremendously regrettable) pure factionalism, some of it is sour grapes, and some of it is sincere but directionless venting.
* Are there any essays about how to review a FAC, and what "Be Civil" actually, concretely  means when reviewing a FAC? I suggest creating them and linking them prominently on the FAC page.
* And the faction-driven culture has to go, pronto. It's cancer... people need to step up and say, Wikipedia is bigger than (more important than) your factions....
* But here's the main point: See 'The Diplomatic Critiquer'  and several other articles at .
* Ling.Nut 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some nominators could do with lessons in civility as well. Epbr123 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not incivil to say that:
#Everyone is complaining.
#There doesn't seem to be guidance, and if there is, it hasn't been displayed prominently or made a part of the culture, and
# Factions are cancer.
Ling.Nut 20:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't actually referring to you. This shows how rife incivility is at the moment; even innocent comments are assumed as attacks. Epbr123 12:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I see lotsa complaining.. what does "Be Civil" mean ... etc. 

message: To help civility I recall Dave Navarro being a good model for this on Rockstar Supernova where he was really positive and constructive - clearly really enjoyed what he was doing and respected the amount of work people were putting in....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inspiration

message: According to Wikipedia:Former featured articles, there are over 400 articles that at one time met the Featured article criteria. Many of these were demoted for minor reasons that could easily be fixed by a dedicated group of editors. This project aims to dramatically increase the number of featured articles by first focusing on those former FAs closest to meeting the criteria, and working its way to those in need of more help. This would be done through scheduled collaborations on said articles. While all editors are welcome to join, editors with experience creating FAs, especially those with strong copyediting skills and/or knowledge of MoS are most needed. There is no reason for wikipedia to have any "former" FAs. It should be top priority to maintain them. "Once an FA, always an FA." is the eventual goal of this project.  This project would also serve as a "rescue squad" for articles under FA review. Please click the above link and add your name in order to join. Wrad 14:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have often browsed the former FA page and thought about this sort of project so kudos for setting one up.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been toying with the idea myself, but the issues are generally not so minor as you might expect. It has already been suggested that the Emsworth articles are probably the easiest saves as they generally require footnotes only, and concern subjects that are widely covered. Ceoil 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many are way below FA standard, but many are very close.  For example The Simpsons and Columbine Massacre. Wrad 18:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Former_Featured_Articles_WikiProject|Former Featured Articles Wikiproject]] 

message: Do FAs still get stars on the article page? Rock Springs massacre didn't so I was just wondering. Thanks. IvoShandor 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You add that yourself, by putting  after external links.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it supposed to go there?  I've always added it at the top of the article.  Mike Christie (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know that, thanks. Hey Mike, I bet it's so a vandal would have to scroll all the way down to remove it? No? I don't know, maybe. IvoShandor 15:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's supposed to go at the bottom, with other templates after External links, but I don't remember why I think that.  IvoShandor has a good point, though.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just looked, and the template does say to put it at the bottom.  I might post a query at the template talk page; but I'll go ahead and change the ones I've done.  Mike Christie (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ah, solved. The instructions at  say it goes at the bottom.   Shall I put a "Done" on this?  :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The green checkmark has replaced Nazism in Godwin's Law. –Outriggr § 08:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outriggr, WP:BEANS !!  (Images of 60 px checkmarks all over FAC :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stars

message: I've often read the rumor that FAC is getting harder and harder to pass, so I decided to look at the data for the past six months compared to six months a year ago.
Promoted and archived FACs—last six months, 2007 vs. 2006
Month        	Promoted FACs   	Archived FACs	% Promoted
July 2007    	70              	62           	53.0%
June	2007    	73              	72           	50.3%
May 2007     	56              	49           	53.3%
April 2007   	53              	61           	46.5%
March 2007   	88              	74           	54.3%
February 2007	52              	40           	56.5%
Subtotal 2007	392 (65 per mo.)	358          	52.3%
             	                	             	
July 2006    	53              	107          	33.1%
June 2006    	43              	83           	34.1%
May 2006     	47              	73           	39.2%
April 2006   	39              	88           	30.7%
March 2006   	44              	76           	36.7%
February 2006	35              	57           	38.0%
Subtotal 2006	261 (44 per mo.)	484          	35.0%
The promotion rate has gone up considerably.  My sense is that we're working harder to get more promotions.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it might be team voting actually. A lot of FAs these days seem to have a lot of votes from people who don't write particularly much and seems to derive mainly from topical or national feelings of pride. Also the standard expected of FAs change, so I would say that the raw number is waht counts, since you could simply have a scenario of drive-by nominations of articles people read and find interesting. This would put the success rate down. These often get crushed uanaimously because of having black holes in the content and so forth. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If I had to guess, I'd say there are two reasons - (1) the expectations for what constitutes a featured article haven't been changing all that much in the last 12 or 18 months. People know what we expect out of an FA, and the nominations we're getting are, on average, much closer to being FAs and requiring less work. (2) The nominations are being left on the page longer. This was unintentional (my research and now my internship haven't left me as much time to edit Wikipedia as previously), but it appears to have had a positive effect. Raul654 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, canvansing folks to remove tags so that an article that is grossly unprepared can be quickly promoted, might explain things a bit.  KP Botany 05:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am noticing a lot of group effort too on FA's; I see projects devoted on nothing to bring articles up to this standard. While nothing wrong with that, I just don't see any of the canvassing that KP is mentioning about. But as long as the articles are good, factual and comprehensive (with free images as much as possible), it doesn't matter to me what they are about. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be another explanation: As the number of B articles and GAs grow, it is getting easier to find a "promotable" article. In other words, the average level of the articles is getting better, making it easier to "push" them through FAC. That, plus I think the standards get better known by the projects and others as time goes.--SidiLemine 15:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promote/archive stats