Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive24

message: Dear colleagues
WP's Manual of Style has been expanded to include a summary of the recently overhauled MOSNUM submanual. Featured Article candidates are explicitly required to follow these guidelines, as are all WP articles. 
At issue are the new Sections 9–14:
*Non-breaking spaces
*Chronological items (Precise language, Times, Dates, Longer periods)
*Numbers
*Decimal points
*Percentages
*Units of measurement
*Currencies, and 
*Common mathematical symbols
More detailed information on these and other topics is at WP:MOSNUM. Tony 06:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MOS is not a policy and so saying that all articles must "explicitly ... follow these guidelines" isn't exactly true.  Of course we'd expect them to when they come here, but that's a little different.  violet/riga (t) 09:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the lead to Criterion 2: "It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects." The top of the MOS proclaims "These guidelines ... should be followed in Wikipedia articles." Tony 09:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly I was commenting on your "as are all WP articles".  Secondly it is important to be aware that "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception".  I agree that FAs should conform to our MOS in most situations.  violet/riga (t) 10:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the rules explicitly say that FAs must comply with the MOS. If you want to change that wording, you're welcome to lobby here for it. I can only advise of what is clearly set out in the FA Criteria. Tony 10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some cases where there are exceptions to the MOS as that guideline itself says.  violet/riga (t) 12:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If exceptions are noted in the MoS, then aren't they part of the MoS? — BQZip01 — talk 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections in the Manual of Style: dates, numbers, etc 

message: Mauna Loa is on the main page on 5 August, and its main editor () is no longer on Wiki, in case anyone wants to help watch over the article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 5 main page 

message: May I ask why this was featured, by a bot of all things, when the discussion was not clearly in favour?--Nydas(Talk) 07:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly curious myself, since the FAC has only been underway for about a week and there was clear opposition and lots of discussion still taking place.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a pretty good article, and the opposes are generally over minor issues; however, I believe it should have remained open for a couple more days to iron out the comments. — Deckiller 12:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A bot does not "feature" articles;  (the FA director) does.  A bot updates the talk page when Raul moves an article to WP:FA, the definitive list of featured articles. This is stated in red at ; does anyone think it needs to be more clear? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Red text on an orange background is not very clear. It'd be nice if there was a short blurb at the top explaining why objections about the comprehensiveness did not matter. --Nydas(Talk) 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The red text is clear on all of my computers; can anyone suggest a color that shows better?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Black. The current contrast is bad for colour blind people.--Nydas(Talk) 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, editors weren't heeding it when it was black, and we had even more of these kinds of queries.  Is there a better way to make it stand out?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scrap the bot and have some feedback on the debate closure itself, like on contentious AfDs. I'm still curious as to why the objections over the comprehensiveness of the article were struck down.--Nydas(Talk) 07:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nydas, the bot doesn't close FACs; Raul promotes/archives FACs based on consensus during the FAC.  The bot only updates the archives and the articlehistory after Raul makes the decision.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. I'm just curious as to why certain objections were struck down. The bot doesn't give any feedback.--Nydas(Talk) 07:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: PS, the green check marks on that FAC make it look like things are done when they may not be.  Those "done" graphics are a bad practice.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article earlier in the week, saw the ANI posting, and still I was impressed. Its a good overview imo, I am happy that it is FA. Ceoil 14:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Nydas, this seems to be a way for you to complain that your oppose on the FAC wasn't taken into action. If the Big  R thinks it featured, it is. David Fuchs (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it how there wasn't any feedback. On the basis of this judgement, anyone who objects to a film article because it has no worldwide box office information is wasting their time.--Nydas(Talk) 07:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you want feedback, talk to Raul, i guess. David Fuchs (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For everyone's information, it isn't the Big R, it's Raul. Raul, the FAC director. I wish people would speak English here - not everyone will know what is meant by a comment like "the Big R". Such things make FAC inaccessible to lesser experienced editors. LuciferMorgan 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thoroughly chastised. David Fuchs (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[300 (film)]] featured?

message: In an effort to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible, I suggest that articles must be formally reviewed by a full-time or part-time reviewer (someone with suitably high real-life qualifications). I welcome all commentary, although I might not be available on Wikipedia to comment for a little while. — Thomas H. Larsen 06:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reason they cannot express their concerns during the regular FAC discussion? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This will never happen. Wikipedia is anti-elitist. --Kaypoh 08:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A nice but unworkable idea. It doesn't hurt to send an e-mail to a subject matter expert when you're working on FA. The worst you'll get is no response. But we're not in a position to make it a requirement. Marskell 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Having an EPR for your article is a great thing but is often difficult to arrange.  If you can get an expert to review your article then including their comments on the talk page (and noting so on the FAC) would certainly help the nomination.  violet/riga (t) 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but again practicalities prevent this from happening reliably. The dynamic nature of the system allows for FAR etc. so at some future stage if concerns are raised they can be addressed. I'd give it a couple more years before there's a critical mass of experts - but more are creeping in all the time (which is great) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Expert peer review is a good long-term goal.  Probably not quite there yet as the whole FA system seems pretty taxed as it is, especially with the large number of FARs that are happening from when FA standards were a bit more relaxed.  But certainly anyone who wants to start arranging peer reviews on the current round of FAs should be encouraged to do so! --JayHenry 05:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every expert I have attempted to contact has failed to return email. I believe my count is 8 now. Experts write papers, we regurgitate them. I'm not sure expert review can ever be a requirement, not to mention I'm not sure there are many experts on 3D Monster Maze. -Ravedave 06:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert reviewing before an article can pass FAC? 

message: I don't understand what the dynamic is here. There are too many editors lurking around here to automatically condemn a ref-less article, or pile on unnecessary support in an obviously liked article - wait - and too few at Peer review. A fellow editor waited eight days at Peer Review, and upon getting nothing, was supposed to just give up? No, it was moved to FAC where people tell you your work is substandard if they can't "find anything wrong with it." ALTON .ıl 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It often takes a month to get good feedback at peer review; if you are getting no feedback, you can pester relevant WikiProjects and editors in the topic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Peer Review suffers from a lack of eyes.  Don't be offended, really.  If the article does not pass FAC the first time, look at the failed FAC as simply a peer review, and use the recommendations as a launching point to improve the article.  Many, if not indeed MOST articles take two or more trips through FAC to get it right.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peer review is mostly useless, unless you are working on a popular topic or the topic is being covered by a giant wikiproject. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's the same problem we had during the recent expert review discussion. Not enought people willing to review, be they experts or not. Ceoil 03:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Come to think of it, would collapsing peer review into GA be a good idea? -Ravedave 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually quite a good idea.  PR hasn't worked well for a long time, and GA is having some success in this field (though I don't have anything to do with GA so I'm not sure how well it is working).  violet/riga (t) 01:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA seems to be doing pretty good, but I think that combining the two would only hurt both. GA has only recently been able to reduce the backlogs on its page. I'd hate to set them back when things are looking so good. Wrad 01:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: PR has much wider purposes than GA; it can be used for preparing an article for FAC and for anything short of GAC.  Why would it be combined with GA when it serves many more purposes, and many editors bypass GA altogether?  Some articles at PR aren't close to GA, some are beyond it, and some don't intend to process through GA.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) GA's intentionally unbeurocratic nature makes it quite controversial. I am a frequent reviewer of Good Article Candidates, and I personally would wholly endorse the process as an excellent means to get someone to quickly review an article (after the recent backlog elimination drive, the mean-time spent on the Candidates page is less than a week, making it one of the fastest ways to get quality feedback). However, the fact that GA does not rely on concensus and instead relies of good-faith trust in a single editor to make reviews, many Wikipedians adamantly dislike and distrust the GA project. I would definately recommend bringing any article there for review, but given its controversial status, collapsing Peer Review into GA would be a bad idea. What Peer Review really needs is an active WikiProject to help keep it going, which is what has made GA so successful. As soon as 2-3 months ago, GA had as long of a backlog as Peer Review had, and many article languished for over a month before receiving comment. Thanks to the work of some dedicated editors who have fired up the troops, the process now works quite quickly and smoothly... Anyone looking to "fix" Peer Review should look at the changes at GA that have made it work so well in recent weeks. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something I was discussing with an editor on the PR talk page not to long ago. WikiProjects can work wonders. Wrad 02:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This and Peer Review 

message: Can an article be both a WP:FL and a WP:FA.  In the near future Chicago Marathon will likely be nominated at WP:FLC.  From my experience and the recent promotion of List of winners of the Boston Marathon, I think it has a good shot at promotion.  Its text however is borderline for WP:GA.  However, in the future the text may catch up.  If this occurs can an article be both a WP:FA and a WP:FL.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  16:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll get a harsh rebuke at FLC, but then, I couldn't get Administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea de-featured, so you'll never know... Circeus 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I get your point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's list content, but the article's purpose (Chicago Marathon) is not by any definition that of a list, so I doubt it'll get any luck, but then, stranger things have happened. Circeus 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it meets the criteria of an FA, then why not (not sure it does, but you are more than welcome to try. BE BOLD!!! — BQZip01 — talk 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say that an article titled "Chicago Marathon" implies that this will be an article and not a list.  The word list is not required in the title to make it a list, however an article named after an event should be an article about that event, and written in prose.  FLC is a place to bring great list articles, not a place to bring an inadequate article that happens to contain a great list, when it should be something else.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I also agree, that's an article that contains a list, not a list. If I were you, and wanted to go to FL, I would move the list portion to List of Chicago Marathon winners. IvoShandor 03:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLC/FAC 

message: Out of curiosity, how long does the FAC process usually take?  I'm asking because Fun Home has been up for about two weeks, and at this point all the editors who have commented on the article are supporting its promotion.  (Some had concerns, which were addressed to their satisfaction.)  However, that still totals only four editors supporting (besides the nominator, me).  Is there a critical mass needed before an article is promoted?  If so, how long does it usually take to get enough attention?  I see FACs listed from July — does the process usually take that long?  I guess I'm just wondering what the timeline I should expect is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can take less than a week or over a month.  Obvious failures and easy promotions can go through in a week or less; rarely less, because Raul usually leaves a week between promoting/archiving.  I believe Raul is busy right now from some notes I've seen him leave, and it's been a while since he's done a big chunk of promoting/archiving.  He'll be around to catch up sooner or later.  Mike Christie (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long? 

message: We are close to having 100 FACs. I'm aware of the reasons why, but I'm inclined to see it from a glass half full POV. Ceoil 12:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 100 FACs

message: Wouldn't it make more sense for the redirect to point to Wikipedia:Peer review or Wikipedia:Featured article review?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wow, uh, yeah. it should, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected. DrKiernan 08:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:REVIEW]] 

message: I often have to correct FAs that do not meet our MOS guideline on quotation mark punctuation (WP:PUNC).  Not a moan, just a reminder that we should be checking FACs for correct usage (because there isn't enough to check them for!) especially when the wrong form appears on the Main Page.  violet/riga (t) 10:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this something a Bot could be set to do, in part or in whole? --Dweller 11:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. I often correct people who add dots and commas inside quotation marks not realising that it is a quotation and should reflect the original words of the speaker not the grammatical wish of the editor. Bots would not appreciate this finer distinction. DrKiernan 12:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation marks 

message: How is it possible that this article is an FA [the current FA, btw] without having a single citation? Let alone that fails to meet several other criteria, but I distinctly remember a lot of hubbab on this page about how this was not going to happen anymore. Not to mention the hubbab surrounding articles that were/are actually sourced... Can someone please explain? Dahn 11:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the nom was three years ago, almost, maybe an FAR is in order? IvoShandor 12:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit history of the actual nomination page is quite suspect as well. I am unsure of what, exactly, went on there. IvoShandor 12:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the instructions at WP:FAR regarding main page articles.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (Replying to Ivo) There's nothing suspect about it - it's to be expected. Mav created that page from the FAC page history when we move to the system we have now, where each nomination has its own subpage. Raul654 16:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  IvoShandor, that's how many of the older FAC files are built; I added the old diffs to make it more clear.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Millington Synge]]

message: May I ask why the discussion for this article was closed and the result being "not promoted" when there was still discussion going on about the article and the objections that had been raised by those commenting on (and the single objection about) the article had all been resolved? --Simmo676 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middlesbrough F.C. 

message: You sometimes get nominations which are clearly ill-advised such as Real Madrid right now where the article is nowhere near FA standered yet and is a waste of space on the FAC page. I proposes that with such situations a user can nominate it for "Speedy Fail". An asigned admin user would then check the article and if they agree that the article is nowhere near FA standered they can fail the nomination without Raul having to anything. Buc 16:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article is not ready it takes Raul a mere second to fail it when the time comes. I don't see a real need for this additional process at the moment. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No. As I said on this talk page previously, I don't want others closing FAC noms besides me. Raul654 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having one person taking care of such things makes it easier in general. LuciferMorgan 10:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Fail idea

message: Somebody please tell Drewcifer3000 in no uncertain terms that he is not to conveniently hide my oppose in some fancy box, and all my comments that he has allegedly addressed (he hasn't addressed them all). These fancy boxes mask the truth as regards FACs, and I 110% am against them. Reviewers' opinions should be there for all to plainly see, and for others to assess the FAC. Is this fancy box a new thing at FAC I'm unaware of, or am I another person who dislikes these boxes masking FAC comments? LuciferMorgan 00:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this and this Raul654 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cautiously used boxes to cap my comments *only* in cases where the conversation was entirely between the nominator and me, issues were all resolved, and there weren't comments from other editors interpersed.  I don't think anyone should ever cap off someone else's comments.  When another editor suggested these caps, and I cautiously tried them out, my concern was that this would happen (capping off someone else's comments).   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my edit to LuciferMorgan's talk page (diff), posted before LuciferMorgan posted here and immediately after I hid the comments.  Despite the issues on the FAC, I explained myself with as much transparency and tact as possible.  I clearly mentioned the fact that it hid his original vote, and politely asked him to vote again.  I also addressed the fact that I may not have addressed every comment.  I did so because the page was/is becoming difficult to read, edit, and wade through.  I tried earlier to divy it up into editable sections (diff), but that was reverted as well by SandyGeorgia who apparently does that often.  I thought that was a much more elegant solution to the problem then the hide box, but apparently that's a no-no too.  I am still fairly new to the whole FAC process, so please excuse me if I step on any toes.  Assume good faith, and good lord, don't scream ANI at the first sight of disagreement. Drewcifer 02:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages should not be divided into sections because they screw up Raul's promotions/archiving somehow (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC instructions above). The general rule of thumb is that we shouldn't refactor or edit other people's comments. DrKiernan 07:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  Like I said, I'm fairly new here: no need to have a heart attack over one edit that's easily reverted.  Speaking of which, at what point does Raul reboot the discussion?  It's been open for two weeks now and it's getting gargantuan and might continue to grow.  The vast majority of the discussion are old comments that have been addressed already anyways. Drewcifer 07:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *1) Summary tables have nothing to do with voting.  They are simply a summary of what has transpired. 2) My proposal makes clear that it is wrong to misrepresent people. 3) They do make the conversation more clear because they summarize what has happened.  Your last sentence needs no reply since I never claimed any such thing. Johntex\talk 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nine Inch Nails FAC

message: Today's FA is thou.  It's nomination page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thou seems to have only one edit.  There do not seem to be any deleted edits either.  Did this article really get promoted with no discussion or is there something I've missed?  Johntex\talk 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has come up before, and is a common misunderstanding with the older FAs.  The old process did not use FAC pages; articles went straight from FAC to FA without an intermediate FAC page.  In order to build articlehistory, various editors (including Mav, Gimmetrow and me) have recreated the FAC files from the old FAC page; they are correct, that's the way it was done then, there is no problem. When I rebuild them, I try to use the diff from the old FAC page so editors aren't confused, but locating those diffs involves a LOT of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: See also the entry on Synge a few sections up on this page.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Ah, good. Thanks for the explanation.  I did not know that so I have learned something today.  I can certainly see how hunting down the diffs would be a lot of work.  Perhaps we should go through all these and place a notice at the top to explain what you just said.  That way no one is confused in the future. Johntex\talk 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of a way to identify all of those done by Mav; I add the diffs as they surface.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've update Thou now; see the corrected FAC file.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Very helpful. Johntex\talk 17:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thou might find this interesting

message: I think this page should be renamed to "Feature article candidates".  Also, the "Feature article" sounds better and more upbeat than "Featured article".  It is more concise and reflects the fact that the articles continue to be "featured".Kmarinas86 21:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Feature article" has a different meaning, though. I'm not sure whether we want to say that these articles are the main items of Wikipedia, instead of them being prominently displayed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current system works just fine. The constantly-changing nature of Wikipedia makes it prudent to emphasize the fact that the article was featured as of a certain revision. – Scartol · Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change proposal

message: # Is there some way to allow subdividing of these discussions? They become pretty big pretty quickly, and it would be nice to be able to get down into one block of comments more efficiently. I see above that it interferes with archiving, but some sort of end-run would be greatly appreciated.
# Am I the only one who thinks an article ought to be judged as a GA before it's nominated as an FAC? The path on WP:FA? doesn't include GA status, but I think it's a good intermediary.
# What's the most painless way to withdraw an FAC nom? More than once I've seen an FAC that is best served with an extensive peer review, rather than a drawn-out discussion here. Seems to me that this space is best used for a (relatively) quick decision one way or another, not the kind of intricate back and forth required to bring something up to FA standards.
Thanks in advance. – Scartol · Talk 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul can answer question 1, but I doubt he'd object to subdividing if a way can be found for it to not cause additional work for him.  I don't know the details of the problem it causes.  Re GA: I don't think you have to go to GA first, and these days generally I don't.  I'd be against making it mandatory in any sense, but it's certainly advisable for one's first FAC (and perhaps the first four or five).  I think I did it for at least three or four, maybe more.  To withdraw a nom, you can just leave a note on Raul's talk page, and he'll do it.  I don't know whether things like ArticleHistory get messed up if you just delete the FAC transclusion template from the FAC page.  Mike Christie (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three questions 

message: I notice lead sections are very problematic in Wikipedia, and recently I've seen quite a few GA, A and even FA articles with very brief leads, even when they are 100kb long or more. The two main problems are that people a) Don't summarize the article very well in the lead. It isn't just an introduction, it's basically a miniaturized version of the full article that people can take home with them if they don't want anymore. And b) Many are far too short, especially in lengthy articles. Something 30kb and more should have a decent chunk of lead to start with. I've recently noted my dissatisfaction with the lead of the FA Military of Australia, which is a whopping 90kb, yet its lead is only 3 paragraphs, two of which are very tiny. Perhaps reviewers need to pay a bit more attention to WP:LEAD? Richard001 02:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't agree that the terms "summary" and "miniaturised version" are synonymous. Personally I think that the lead in the article you quote summarises the article reasonably well. I don't see any prima facie reason why long articles inevitably and automatically must have correspondingly long leads. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD correlates article size with lead size and to the lead should be "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article".  I agree that is a meager lead.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD may well correlate article size with lead size, but that's not the same as a proof that it necessarily makes sense to do that. --Malleus Fatuarum 15:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: With how Raul654 used the word blurb, I think it's also appropriate to compare the lead to a blurb. When you look at a reference book on a specific topic, the blurb gives you an idea of what's in the book. The book might be a tome of 400 pages of text and pictures, but the blurb does a good job of summarising the key points. In the ADF example, the lead wouldn't be out of place on the back cover of an ADF reference. Ong elvin 02:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead sections

message: Dear all, 
I've nominated lion at FAC and it's pretty hefty, though looks smaller than Jerusalem and schizophrenia which have recently been successful at gaining or keeping FA status. I fel I've tried to write as succinctly as possible but would be interested if any others can give a quick look at whether (a) the article is manageable despite the size or (b) needs reducing. Both Circeus and I have a couple of bits which could be reduced or summarised but I was keen to see what others thought as well. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another big article at FAC... 

message: Candidates will be check for dead external links every day the results are stored on the tool server.  Please check this page regularly to determine if any of the links (typically references) on the candidates' need replacing or review.  —Dispenser 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neat! Raul654 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic dead link checking 

message: I've been having a lot of issues at my FACs where editors would pop up 'comment' or 'opposes', then vanish off the face of the earth (or at least never bother responding to my repeated requests for them to reevaluate.) If we're confident we've addressed their concerns, can we simply strike their comments? It's annoying, especially when only three or four editors bother reviewing the page to begin with. 
As a side note: is there any specific time limit on FACs? Raul seems to close them arbitrarily, consensus or no... David Fuchs (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if reviewers always returned to their comments, and the instructions certainly encourage them to do so, but I don't think we can assume that an objection has been dealt with if they don't return.  I don't think there's any harm in leaving a note on a reviewer's talk page to let them know you've responded, but that's all one can do.  I'm sure Raul tries to take things like that into account in his assessments.  As for closing FACs, from comments I've seen I believe Raul used to leave them up for no more than one or two weeks, but will now leave them longer in order to generate consensus.  Hence one FAC may be promoted in six days, while another takes thirty. Mike Christie (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (1) No, do not strike out other peoples' objections. This is a recipe for trouble. If you want an editor to revist his comments/objections, drop a note his talk page (2) As I have said numerous times, both on this page and elsewhere, I give 5 days to all FAC noms (4 if the FAC is particularly overloaded). After that, they may be closed at any time. Raul654 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As above, no, but keep it really simple and state that 1) you feel you have addressed the concern and 2) that the editor has not responded to requests to re-evaluate. With that information, including diffs ideally, it makes it really easy for Mark to evaluate what is going on. Thus why there is no need at all to strike. - Taxman Talk 04:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strike Comments of KIA reviewers? (or, time limits on FAC?) 

message: I've nominated the film Rob-B-Hood for 2 weeks, and there are still only 2 comments. I've asked members of the relevant WikiProjects to comment on it, all to no avail. So, I'd appreciate it if someone could just drop by and identify the problems with the article, since it's currently underreviewed.--Alasdair 07:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried asking for comments on the WikiProject talk pages? That might be a good place to start. ISD 07:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request for reviews on [[Rob-B-Hood]] 

message: The Spam protection filter is preventing me from adding Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Mythology to the nomination page. It says "http<colon>//www<dot>clickitaliansoftware<dot>net" triggered the spam filter, but I can't find that link anywhere (I've looked through all ~70 links). Anyone know what's causing this? · AndonicO Talk 14:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was on the "Audioslave" nom. Is it sorted now? DrKiernan 14:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's okay now. Thanks! · AndonicO Talk 14:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't add nomination. 

message: Hi all Peterborough is at FAC - there's been alot of to-ing and fro-ing and the article is improving steadily and will probably pass but I have a real problem with this bit which is at the end of the modern history section:
:Between 2006 and 2012 a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas will take place. The master plan outlines a new vision for the city centre, identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15–20 years. Proposals are already progessing for the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter, where Network Rail is preparing a major mixed use development
To me it sounds like advertorial and I feel strongly that it doesn't say much at all and should be reworded or replaced with a mere statement the city centre is being extensively redeveloped. I'd love some input as to whether others agree with me or think I'm being too harsh and let it slide/or are not fussed about the bit. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say rewrite a tad, but I wouldn't remove it if it has citations... Just edit out the advertising elements... Spawn Man 11:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also say it's a bit on the press-release side of things. Rather than "a new vision" the article could tell us what the vision is. Rather than "guidelines on shaping the physical form", it could tell us...etc. Also, I'd enquire if this proposal is/was being opposed in any way. I've yet to see a large city-centre proposal that didn't, at minimum, have grumbling in the local press; often it can be more. J.Winklethorpe talk 12:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The future tense is also problematic. What if there are snags and development stalls or even ceases completely? Better to recast it in the past tense: "On [insert date], the Peterborough So-and-So Office announced a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas, scheduled to take place between 2006 and 2012." — Brian (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a reasonable basis for an objection to FA status; I also think it's fairly easy to fix with a little toning down.  It would certainly be good to get information about any opposition, but that shouldn't prevent support for FA status. Mike Christie (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm with Mike: this is a perfectly valid concern. If the prose is weak and fails to tstae want it wants to state, the article obviously fail Criterion 1(a) (with extra concerns for 1(c) and 1(d) here). Circeus 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Brian, Circeus and Mike. It reads like a prospectus at the moment. I'd damp it down and remove some of buzz words (master plan, new vision, investment priorities). --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The material itself is not objectionable, but it could use some rewriting. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that's worth opposing over since it's a copy vio... I'm with Brian as well in regards to setting it in the past tense... The copy vio needs to be eliminated though... Spawn Man 06:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks guys. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose question - is this a deal-breaker for  anyone else? 

message: Seriously, if Raul654 were to be incapacitated, what would happen to the FACs?  Are there instructions in place for someone else (who?) to take over if Raul stops editing for X days? NYC, Baybie 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Jimbo? Has he made provisions for us all in his will? We don't need instructions of this sort; when a person central to a process leaves, Wikipedia inevitably fills in the gap. Marskell 14:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If Raul has a long-term absence for any reason, we'd handle it the same way as everything else on Wikipedia - we'd choose a new (or acting) features director based on consensus. There's no need to create any additional process. Girolamo Savonarola 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why have a process that depends on only one person anyway - you said it yourself - because achieving consensus on anything seems to take an inordinate amount of time. Having one person to decide things gives the process a high degree of order and consistency with a minimum of overhead, all qualities which are lacking at AFD, RFA, or other processes on Wikipedia. Raul654 17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Then why aren't FL, FT and FP promoted in the same way? Buc 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a specific FA you have in mind? I have this mental image of a group of large men in suits chewing toothpicks walking into a shop, commenting "Nice shop you have here. Shame if something were to happen to it. Like it burning down in the middle of night, all sudden-like. Wanna buy some insurance?" :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Giano, I'd hustle and take that pic down. One of the review sites will use it to out you. Marskell 17:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, it is so flattering no one will recognise me. Giano 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Having one person to decide things gives the process a high degree of order and consistency with a minimum of overhead, all qualities which are lacking at AFD, RFA, or other processes on Wikipedia. At the price of opacity though, as that one person's decisions are never explained. Although I do agree with the general point about other processes on wikipedia, which seem to drag on interminably and often come to no satisfactory conclusion. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At some point in the future, we should probably switch to an election process for FA director and/or break the responsibility into several tracks (sciences, history and geography, culture).  We all appreciate what Raul has done, but it's getting to the point where the process would probably benefit more from having enough people to give more detailed feedback on decisions than the corresponding negatives in the area of "degree of order and consistency", especially since as it is there is enough inconsistency in the quality and depth of reviewer comments that the level of quality it takes to pass FAC is rather inconsistent, overall.--ragesoss 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: But the curent process is completely opaque, and dispiriting for too many editors and reviewers. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you're tilting at a straw man. The suggestion (above) was to "break the responsibility into several tracks". Nobody but you mentioned a committee to "approve FACs". --Malleus Fatuarum 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but that is what it would and will amount to. Giano 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, it isn't. There would just be more than one Raul, with each of them hopefully then having the time to explain what currently appear to be arbitrary decisions. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, it is all hypothetical because Raul is going nowhere. Giano 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Giano, why are you so opposed to having more than one person on the FAC docket? David Fuchs (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is scaling 50% higher than a year ago. If it increases another 50 to 100% a single person closing would be increasingly untenable. But the principle is sound—it isn't (usually) a madhouse because there's oversight vested in a known user. Raul has various descriptions of criteria decisions floating in his user space. Perhaps they could be consolidated into a Wikipedia page debatable by all to make it less opaque. Marskell 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While a full blown committee would not really be advisable, for reasons already mentioned, it might be a good idea to have one or two deputy or assistant FA directors, which would be familiar with everything that Raul does, and might even be able to handle some minor tasks as well. But mostly, the reason for this is to have someone essentially be trained to be able to take over for Raul if, for example, he decides (a) take a short vacation, (b) leaves wikipedia voluntarily, or (c) leaves wikipedia involuntarily (killed, eaten, or otherwise rendered incapable of fulfilling the duties of FA director). Dr. Cash 20:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is essentially akin to what WikiProject Coordinators exist for, no? Overall consistency of execution, with redundancy for counsel and backup. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to have two assistants for this capacity. Raul would of course retain the lead role. Girolamo Savonarola 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if something should happen to Raul? 

message: All reviewers taking part in WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:PR, are encouraged to take a look at Wikipedia:Content review/workshop. While there's no specific proposals on changing anything currently, we're trying to initiate a friendly discussion regarding the review processes on wikipedia as a whole, and how to improve all of them. Dr. Cash 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review workshop

message: They often look longer than the text of an article. May scroll bars be required in some way? E.g.:



Cmapm 18:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scrolling boxes for refs have been regularly discouraged. They affect the article's printable version. See WP:CITE#Scrolling_reference_lists. Gimmetrow 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Scroll boxes are awful, don't play on numerous Wiki mirrors, and aren't printable.  A long ref list is not a bad thing.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see problems with scroll boxes now. Then maybe "hide/show" link could be implemented like in some templates? Cmapm 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you see as the problem with a long list of references? --Malleus Fatuarum 18:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, I cannot visually estimate the size of an article, it looks long, but more than a half of it is a list of references. And what if I want to print only the text of an article? Cmapm 18:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I still not sure I see the problem; suppose you wanted to print only one section of an article? Should there be separate "hide/show" links for every section? --Malleus Fatuarum 18:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if you want to estimate size you can easily use Dr pda prose size script. --Victor12 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, then I should use some good script and compare some numbers...Cmapm 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To get an idea of the size of the article, click on the References link in the Table of Contents.  Look at the scroll bar on the right hand side to see how far into the article the References section began.  The size of the bar in the scroll field might also give you a hint as to how much of the article you can view at a time.  All this depends upon your browser behavior.  (SEWilco 19:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, can you, using this method, with no "counting script", at once say, which is longer: New York City or Los Angeles? And if I could hide references, then it would be enough to look at the size of the bar in the scroll field. Cmapm 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm still confused as to why that is even a problem. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with long ref lists. It's at the bottom anyway so it doesn't stop me looking at hte article. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I only mind when there are so many refs it makes the article hard to read, like in Hillary Rodham Clinton, which has almost 300 refs.Rlevse 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Long ref lists

message: Well, we've been talking over and over about increasing reviewers, so… I think this is suitably "aw shucks". Only problem I foresee is that GA will create one if FA does, so perhaps we should mention it and PR. (I post here because this is more active than WT:FA.) Marskell 21:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: or, even better, we just create one 'content' welcome where we mention getting an article to GA and/or FA, the various methods on improving (collabs, PR, etc), and all the rest? David Fuchs (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, one is best. My biased opinion is to lead with FA—it's canonical, it's considered the best. Thus focus on it, and add a sentence mentioning the other processes. Dammit, it just reinforces the fact that there should never have been a divergence in the first place. Marskell 22:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wanna strike out the above bit I drew a line through? Sounds weasly and a bit lame if it has to be prefaced with "Editors have agreed.." cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: I'd also replace the "identify unprofessional prose and grammar" with something about improving but can't figure out how I'd word it. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. As I say, I was trying to be "ah shucks", but brevity is always good. Marskell 22:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article welcome 

message: What do we do when someone nominates an article which is clearly no where near FA quality? The case in point is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Auckland, which was nominated for FA at the same time as being nominated for GA by an editor with no edits to the article. Regular editors of the article realise that the article is not of FA quality, and it failed GAC. I've removed the listing from FAC since there is no point in asking for further comments. Should the nom be deleted rather than archived?-gadfium 05:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added back in because some feel only Raul can remove items. But, when I see articles listed for low quality, they just get "opposed" very quickly and usually removed within a week or so. But, if you are asking if we can have a quickfail, then I think we should explore the idea. GAC has them, so could we. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not very good, but to be honest, it is better than some 2005 era FAs like The Ashes. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really fussed. They generally just sit there, collect a few opposes and then are not promoted after a week or two. In this case I generally try to commnet constructively on what the article may need before a further attempt. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nishkid64 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Nishkid; I left you a note about deleting the archive so GimmeBot can do it correctly.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also done. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate nominations

message: Some of the articles that appear to meet the FA criteria are not attracting thorough reviews—perhaps because they are not so impressive.  Should the FA criteria should be expanded in order to raise the standard for FA?  If the standards do not increase, then someday we'll reach the point when a majority of featured articles do not make it to the front page.  Something must be done, IMO.Kmarinas86 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so impressive? What do you mean exactly? I had a similar belief, but I thought people weren't participating in some FACs because no one has heard of the subject, or there is no big WikiProject monitoring the FAC. For example, you were the first participant for my FAC for Thomas C. Hindman. 5 days had passed, and I naturally assumed people did not want to review the article because they didn't know who he was (I only knew who he was after I found his name on a list of assassinated US politicians). Nishkid64 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Kmarinas what you're proposing is tougher standards to reduce the flow? If FACs don't get enough input they seem to just sit until they do. It may take a bit longer. From what I've seen standards are getting more stringent as time goes on, thouhg folk are rising to the occasion for themost part very well. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also depends on the topic. Some will comment regardless of the topic and others might offer help on one subject but not others. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And some people just won't review some topics because they find them boring. There really isn't a fix to that... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely  - the trick is to be able to describe and elaborate on topics in plain english. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Many of you have very good points. I wonder which theory explains why none of you have reviewed the article I nominated for FA, Cillian Murphy, since it doesn't have many reviewers! JK... well, mostly. I've been waiting for more reviewers for some time now, and meanwhile I've seen articles about more well-known performers attract many more reviewers. In one case, oodles of probable fans seemed to support an article I found to be significantly less comprehensive and well-written than the one I've nominated, and to do so without offering much scrutiny. I guess that's a corollary to some of the theories above. --Melty girl 02:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewing is a voluntary process, nobody gets paid to do it and there's certainly no kudos in it. I guess that most reviewers choose to review articles they find in some way interesting. Apart from the oppose 1a) group of course. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, indeed. Just had to joke... and theorize. --Melty girl 05:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  'Cause I'm working on preparing mine?  Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! --Melty girl 05:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, of course. My take is that introductions should actually introduce the reader to the topic (in plain English wherever possible) rather than merely summarise what follows in perhaps unfamiliar terminology. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I have a suspicion as to why some articles are not receiving as many reviews

message: Ine of Wessex is an FA, and I am now working on Wihtred of Kent, who at one point appears to have collaborated with Ine on issuing a lawcode.  The text in the Ine article can be seen here; I have just pasted this into Wihtred's article here.  I have occasionally reused a sentence or two from other articles where the same material is being covered; usually in sections describing historical background, which obviously can be quite repetitive.  Is there any problem with this reuse?  It's all WP material, so that's not an issue.  Could it be claimed that this much overlap should not exist between articles, and that the text should live in one place only?  I don't see a problem, myself, but it feels a little like cheating to get a section written so easily, and so I thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone has additional thoughts. Mike Christie (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to save paper, and each article needs enough information to cover its subject.  The GFDL encourages reuse.  And the duplicated text may be further edited in both articles so might end up different as both get adjusted to the specific topic.  Discomfort over copying is natural when you're familiar with plagiarism (sometimes there's too much fuss when even PD text gets added to Wikipedia).  (SEWilco 16:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you didn't write the original text, though, you should mention who did in the edit summary when you add it to another article.--ragesoss 02:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; in this case I wrote the original text, so there's no problem, but I'll remember that for another time.  Thanks to both for the feedback. Mike Christie (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about reuse of text 

message: Just a couple of notes on what appear to be recent changes to the nomination template method.  Now when you add the  template to an article talk page, it says something like "Initiate nomination" instead of "Leave comments"; this is fine but the instructions on the FAC page need to be updated to refer to this.  Second, if I recall correctly the instructions used to be really clear about "click 'Edit this page' on the page you're reading now" which was sensible because prior instructions related to the FAC nom page.  This has now disappeared.  It might be good to bring it back; I didn't get confused because I've done it a few times now, but I recall thinking it was helpful on my first couple of FACs. Mike Christie (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm, I guess Gimmetrow forgot to tell us about the preload.  I made a few updates, not sure that's everything.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: further hmmm, that's only half the story.  If it's a first nom, you get "initiate the nomination" and a preload.  If it's a subsequent nom, you still get "Leave comments", so the instructions now need to be two-fold.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this too complicated? I didn't like seeing blue links for non-existent pages. Gimmetrow 02:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, there! :-)  No, it's not too complicated, but my writing at the instructions page probably makes it seem complicated, and on the first pass, I wasn't clear what you'd done.  I think it's much better, because now there's always a pre-load.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) It seemed fine to me; I just wanted to be sure the instructions were changed to suit, and I think Sandy's done that now.  Actually I think it's an improvement.  I would like to see the "edit this page (the page you're currently on)" instruction return, though; that was the most confusing part of a FAC nom. Mike Christie (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember that from somewhere, but I don't know how to do that part.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to the instructions 

message: This article is up for a pre-FAC peer review. We're trying to prep it so the FAC process goes smooth, since the article is a bit difficult to cull together. It's pretty close. Any frequent reviewers who want to chip in are welcome to it. Wrad 02:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Hamlet]]'' 

message: It is not surprising to me (Homo sum; humani nil a me alienum puto) that the animated sitcom The Simpsons has a large number of articles in Wikipedia. Clearly it is very popular in may countries of the world. Having said that, the question that begs an answer is: do we need each episode of The Simpsons to be a featured article? Currently there are 14 articles on this subject with FA status, representing close to 10% 1% of all FA articles in our project, and a current FA topic drive project in full swing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the project can actually produce a featured-level article out of the material available for each episode, more power to them. Kirill 15:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah... Kudos if they can... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ten percent of which project exactly? Woodym555 16:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are 1,600+ Wikipedia articles with FA status, of which 14 are Simpsons' related. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe a look at the Simpson Project chart will inspire other Projects that never produce FAs or GAs (but are good at tagging articles they don't contribute to or maintain).  These two Projects have about the same number of articles tagged, but one is producing quality and the other oversees a mountain of articles that need cleanup.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you were confusing me with the 10%. We currently have 1678 FAs on wikipedia. So it is about 0.8%. Does that not just show that there are many committed Simpsons editors who strive to build up our knowledge on that particular subject. I echo Kirill really, if they can produce a featured-level article, good on them. We need projects to be as active as them. Does it not show that the Simpsons project is working well? Woodym555 16:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows there are a lot of people willing to write detailed articles on essentially trivial topics. This has been true of Wikipedia for many years. I'm not sure though how exceptional coverage of The Simpsons really helps spread the seed of human knowledge... The Land 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing wrong with that, The Land. What is trivial to one, is a passion to another. Just that is a pity, IMO, that more important subjects do not get the attention they deserve... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have the Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000. Why not try and improve one of those? Woodym555 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question, Woody. See also: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Wikisimpsons_Central. A parallel universe? :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  (double ec) Even worse than gettiing no attention is that the Projects don't clean up their garbage (example, Psychology articles).  I worked on Le Petit Tourette (to make sure they accurately represented the Tourette syndrome issues), and from what I saw there at least the Simpson Project does attempt to keep their articles decent.  Their articles aren't hurting anyone, while we have hundreds of Psychology articles that are so bad and so misleading that they could all be dumped in a wastebasket and Wiki would lose nothing, while the internet would gain a lot.  That's what's sad.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is a problem for the project: it means that our coverage of the trivial will always be more substantial than our coverage of the profound. I don't think that has any particularly negative consequences at the moment, but you never know wht will happen in a few years time. The Land 18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is just part of a larger fear that wikipedians tend to focus a lot on less-significant, specialized things rather than general things. Sure, it would be nice if people edited general articles, but it's a free world. People are going to do what they want to. I've quickly figured that out here. You can lead a wikipedian to water, but... Wrad 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that's only partially accurate. Yes, people criticize Wikipedia for focusing on less-significant, pop culture trivia in lieu of more important topics, but the more important topics are both general and highly specialized. I think the poster's worry, perhaps overstated as per The Simpsons in particular, is that Wikipedia won't be a success as an encyclopedia in the true, broad sense of the word, if everyone works most on pop culture articles. I think it's a valid criticism, and I think there are many reasons for the phenomenon. I'll quickly name but one personal reason I myself fall into this trap: given my areas of learning, I could be working on far more political and historical articles than I do, but pop culture articles are easier, more fun, and less emotionally-draining for me. --Melty girl 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nicely put, Xihig. You guys/gals are doing good work (my post was more of an open question to generate a debate than  criticism of your project's work) ...  if you could put your editing skills to help on less fun topics, that would be fantastic. If not, oh well.., there is always hope you will.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty cool. Everyone should be able to do what they want to do. Wrad 23:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Haha. Good point. Wrad 19:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good point indeed. There does seem to be some intellectual snobbery around material created for television, as opposed to material created for printing on dead trees. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Homer certainly gives Homer competition. Alientraveller 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really resent cultural 'snobs' who seem to assume triviality for anything which postdates the invention of television, with the assumption of some sort of gravity for anything which appeared before. But before I go down that path...a good way to approach trickier jobs is in pairs or groups, which is how schizophrenia got successfully cleaned up.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. In fifty years time, The Simpsons will be a curiosity a few old people have nostalgia for. In a hundred year's time, it will be of interest only to social historians. To be honest it's much more productive spending effort updating pornography or anal sex - since people will still be looking for information on them in the future... The Land 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm, some people think we should write about the Simpsons, and some people think we should write about porn and anal sex. Perhaps we should just split the different and combine them? (Per this rule)Raul654 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly. ;) The Land 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno TL, I think it's a pretty big assumption you're making about the Simpsons, think Pride and Prejudice....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Simpsons article would have the advantage that in 100 years its content will be a lot more useful -- in 2107, given cultural evolution, a hundred-year old article on anal sex will probably be nothing more than a curiosity. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I envy WP:SIMPSONS, whenever they nominate an article for FA, GA or peer review they get almost inmediatly reviewed and commented. Like right here, nothing is being discussed, but because it involves TS people comment! Someday people will become as passionate for the simpsons as for medical genetics and law, all the articles will be perfect and Jimbo Wales will be crowned king of the world.Yamanbaiia 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the only person who envies WP:Simpsons, Yaman. Many articles I've worked on get very low turnout on FAC discussions. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia or Homerpedia? 

message: Hiya, the above FAC was closed by a bot. There was one support and 3 or 4 comments, the points of which had all been addressed and support had been given by one of those users (though he had not worked support onto his or her comment yet) isn't this a little unfair? Is there any way to reopen it to allow the supports to roll in and get promotion or do we have to renominate it? SGGH speak! 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's confusing, I know, but the bot did not close it; Raul654, the FA director, closed it.  Raul makes the decisions, and the bot (GimmeBot) then performs some of the rote updates.  You can renominate, as you say; that's the normal reaction.  I don't know if there are any instructions that address this (perhaps someone else can comment) but I believe it is regarded as poor form to renominate right away, particularly if there are multiple unaddressed issues.  If the problem is merely that the nomination was unable to garner supports, and all the problems were fixed to the satisfaction of the commenters, I'd renominate quite soon.  It appears from looking at the nom that that's the case as far as I can see.  Mike Christie (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read ; if the instructions don't clearly enough spell out who closes FACs and the relationship to the bot archiving, please suggest improvements.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blink! Blink! Raul654 15:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul has raised this blinky thing before; can someone who knows how please install that on the FAC template?  Even though we've spelled it out as clearly as we can, every time that Raul promotes/archives, on average, he gets one person raising this same question on his talk page, and we get one person who won't wait for GimmeBot to accurately update the articlehistory.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My "suggestion" for adding a blink tag is *totally* facetious. I'd cut off my hand before I let it add that godforsaken thing to the FAC template ;) Raul654 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Blinking text is annoying—I don't want the FAC template looking like a banner ad. If someone can't read bold red text, why would we expect them to read blinking bold red text? Pagrashtak 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I modified Template:FAC to be more explicit; it did imply that Raul would be modifying the nomination page, not a bot. I don't like an overuse of red text either, but in this case the actual substance was at fault, not the coloring. I would stick something similar that in Template:Fa top, but that asks to tell User:Gimmetrow first, so I notified him.  Let's see what he says.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The script uses certain details of "fa top" to determine if the discussion has already been closed, but I don't think the sort of changes you've suggested would interfere. Gimmetrow 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Good point, Pagrashtak.  And perhaps adding something to the FA top will help.  In the last promotion, again, someone updated articlehistory without waiting for the bot, and that results in manual intervention for Gimmetrow.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps instead of "please wait for the bot to correctly update the ArticleHistory template", we should be more direct: "do not manually update the ArticleHistory template". Pagrashtak 16:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! (on FACs, that is; we don't want to imply others can never update ah). (Can you make them read it? :-)  Question:  should we just link to a page where we explain the whole darn process, so Raul's talk page doesn't have to entertain these questions after every promotion?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. An explanation page would be useful, I'm sure. Raul's fond of directing users to an explanation page whenever someone wants to protect TFA or FAs in general. Pagrashtak 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Gimmetrow agrees, and unless he has a better idea (he often does), we can work up a page that explains the whole thing, and link to it from the header and the template.  Hopefully that will avoid lots of bandwidth after every promotion here and on Raul's talk page. (As to chopping off Raul's hand, lesson learned about his sense of humor :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick/archive1]] 

message: I had nominated this article expecting that I would get a number of suggestions/feedback for improvement. But one of the users nominated it for peer review and then suggested that the FAC nomination should be withdrawn.
It is very difficult if not impossible to get an article about an esoteric ritual text reviewed. This is shown by the fact that right now it is classified as of no importance to Hinduism.
I was prepared for being bashed up. But I am disappointed that what I have got is total indifference and attitude of " How dare you nominate this article for FAC?"
Thanks to Rosiestephenson and DaGizza for the encouraging words.--Sankarrukku 06:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the archived FAC, I don't think anyone was expressing a "how dare you" attitude. Pagrashtak 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Devi_Mahatmya/archive1]]

message: Wikipedia:The perfect article, widely cited on the road to FAC, has been rewritten to include such tidbits as "is titled smartly" and "categorizes itself".  A patient person with good copyedit skills might want to have a look.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My first instinct is to mass-revert after comparing the before and after, but I don't suppose that would be helpful at this point. --Bloodzombie 16:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was my first inclination, but I suggest others have a look, as prose isn't a strength for me.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ouch. I think the rewrite was done by a non-native English speaker. I normally don't like to just revert, but the changes were throughout the entire article. :-(. Let's not discuss this here, though. Wikipedia_talk:The_perfect_article#Nov_9.2C_2007_edits --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a better place for the discussion, but I brought it here because the edit history there indicates that the article isn't well watched.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to delete that page. The perfect article is a vanishing point—not much else to say. Marskell 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's a useful little list. Our policies and quidelines are huge; just the Manual of Style is so long that not even our best FA writers know it all. On the other hand, the FA criteria list is so short that the meaning of every word needs to be pored over. This is a useful compromise, long enough to be actually read. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then rename it. Marskell 17:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was a new editor, that was one of the first Wikipedia-space pages I read. It made a impression on me and the last point underlies what I feel to be the core spirit of Wikipedia, or at least a major component of that core. I like the page at its current title. Pagrashtak 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on my watchlist, I like the article and to be honest, I didn't object to the changes but more the manner in which they were made, as you can see at User talk:Leranedo#Wikipedia:The perfect article.  I will, however, bow to the consensus on the grammar, and also ask that people not move the page. Hiding Talk  20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The road to FAC 

message: There existed in the mindscape an idea of needing three people nominating or supporting it's nomination before discussion about it's candidateship - I was wondering whether it is a viable idea. Whether that kind of idea makes sense.
For that matter, what exactly does consensus mean - more than 3 people supporting, none objecting?--Keerllston 15:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The FAC I'm currently involved with currently has two 'supports', both switched from 'oppose', and two comments. I don't think any of those people thought the article wasn't worth talking about on FAC. If something really is not worth talking about then that will quicky become apparent. The Land (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who gets to nominate an article?

message: I was planning to put the article for the webcomic Jack for FA status, however I do not know if I should, as webcomics do not tend to get promoted to such ranks. This is mainly because there are very few reliable sources for webcomics. Many of the reviews for webcomics tend to come from blogs and therefore are not really usable. Currently, there is only one webcomic at FA rank, Megatokyo, a manga webcomic, and manga also tends to receive more media attention than other forms of animation anyway (Jack is furry). Therefore, is there any point of putting the article up for FA? ISD (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject matter of an article should never be a bar to FA candidacy or FA status.  This isn't always the case, but what should be important is compliance to WP:WIAFA - prose, MOS compliance, images, all the rest of it.  The article you suggest looks reasonably promising, but I doubt it would pass as it stands now;  too many single paragraph sections, citations from David Hopkin's own website, stuff like that.  But if it were to be brought here and failed, the failure shouldn't be because it's a webcomic, or because Jack is furry,  but because it doesn't comply to the FA standards.  Nowhere in those standards does it say that an article has to be high-brow, intellectual, or any thing like that (even though some reviewers might prefer that it did!) Carre (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Webcomic FAs