Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive13

message: I'm disappointed with the recent promotion of Human. A 75% majority voted in support, which can hardly be called consensus. Worse than the numbers though, is the fact that the objections (some of which I presented) were not resolved or even commented upon by the supporters. If an article can simply be voted through the process without its flaws getting fixed, then the process is broken, if its intent is to identify quality. This article is an embarrassment to the FA list in its current state, and unfortunately it's not alone there either. Fredrik | talk 17:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel you have a valid objection to it remaining featured, please take up the issue at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates, not here. Superm401 | Talk 18:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, this strikes me as a perfectly reasonable place to discuss the promotion process or examine its current functioning.  The promotion of Sicilian baroque was also controversial, and I am also curious as to whether or not I understand the promotion process as well as I would like to.  Jkelly 18:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can certainly discuss promotion in general here, but to actually reverse the promotion of Human specifically, we need to go to WP:FARC.  I'll let the regulars here start the general discussion. Superm401 | Talk 19:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: According to FARC rules, an article recently featured cannot be listed there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  He would have to wait a while.  However, he is claiming there wasn't really a consensus.  Going back to the debate, that seems fairly accurate.  Raul654, who did not comment on the nomination, appears to have closed the nomination as featured(he transcluded it in the promotion log and tagged Talk:Human as .  I'm going to ask him to join this discussion and explain his perspective. Superm401 | Talk 20:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human 

message: At Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAs first, I am trying to set up a system to ensure that featured articles are regularly reviewed.  Have a look at what I've come up with there.  It's a list of featured articles with links to the revision that was current when it was promoted and a diff with the present-day version.  If changes are significant, they could be placed on a sister page Wikipedia:Featured article review to be approved (hopefully).  Suggestions?  Is anyone interested in working on this? Tuf-Kat 08:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review 

message: Wouldn't be better if the FA nominations are being voted by a jury or commitee that are being chosen for their quality and precision in revewing articles? This way, if an article doesn't meet the FA standars in the point of view of this jury, the unsuitable support votes of users that have worked on this article, who would like to see it promoted, won't affect the decision.
And, of course, any user have the right to post his comment. CG 21:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting idea.  I'm not quite sure if I'm for or against it yet.  On one hand, we would then have a more uniform set of guidelines being used to deterimine an article's FA Worth, so there wouldn't be as many surprises by an editor who has a particular idea that the rest of us hadn't thought of yet.  However, it would have a tendency to lessen the worth of opinions by the general editing public since their objections could be overruled by "The Committee" (just picking a name out of thin air for the moment).  What qualifications would we require for Committee members?  What amount of reviewing do we set for Committee member quotas to ensure that articles are adequately reviewed?  The consistency is good, but I think the logistics get in the way to effectively enact this proposal.  slambo 21:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm against this; any problems FAC might have don't seem to warrant the wholesale creation of another layer of bureaucracy. RfA is ugly enough sometimes; I shudder to think of what the RfFACCM (Request for FAC Committee Membership) process might turn into. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to support the basic concept of a qualified review panel in charge of reviewing articles on FAC.  This parallels the peer review process for academic journals (and, to a lesser extent, any publication), and would lead to more consistent quality standards.  There are several issues though.  First and foremost, you'll be getting a lot of arguments that this is "contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia" (I happen to disagree).  There is a high volume of articles that flows through FAC, and a good review takes time... therefore the pool of reviewers would have to be relatively large (perhaps a few dozen editors) so that they could keep up; this would also ensure that enough panelists are interested enough in any given nomination to take the time to review it.  On the plus side, this would give nominating editors a more consistent standard to strive for, and mechanisms could be put in place to ensure that each nomination gets the attention it deserves.  Some may remember that I have been concerned in the past that the FAC process is vulnerable to manipulation; I think this type of system would address those problems.  However, I am skeptical that the community at large could be convinced to adopt such an approach. - Bantman 22:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are exactly my concerns and also the reasons why I would agree with it.  If such a Committee is formed, I would be willing to volunteer as a member provided enough other people also volunteer.  slambo 12:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I am also against the proposal. Its not a bad idea but that is the  Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAs first job. We don't need another bureaucracy. FA's are about community Consensus. Falphin 01:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - featured articles are first and foremost about solid, well-written articles. Not about the way they are chosen. If there are problems like in bad articles sneaking in and a jury leads to better results, I'd say well, go for it. --Elian Talk 04:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have my doubts that a panel system would work any better than the current system.  If you have an appointed panel (appointed by whom?  More voting?) then we have to rely on that panel being willing to consistently put in the effort and on being better at their job than the editing population at large (note that anyone may place objections).  Personally, if we're going to have a panel, the panel should replace Raul as final arbiter, not replace the current FAC discussion. —Morven 21:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. I like that idea. Johnleemk | Talk 07:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I would personally be opposed to such a change, mainly because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Provide examples of your theoretical situation and then we can discuss. Otherwise, the system ain't broke, so let's not add complexity to one of the last few places on Wikipedia where consensus actually rules somewhat. Johnleemk | Talk 12:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Without reopening old wounds by pointing out specific examples, I think that many of us have seen times when bona fide objections have been overwhelmed by eager supporters, and an article with significant but addressable problems gets promoted.  I imagine that the best process would be analagous to a supreme court case: the panel would interact with nominator, supporters, and objectors, asking and answering questions, but in the end discuss the article and reach a conclusion among themselves. - Bantman 21:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that over 800 articles have been promoted using this process, it's not surprinsing that you can point to a few promotions that in retrospect might not have stellar. On the other hand, what you are proposing is awful - it adds a great deal of needless overhead to an otherwise slim and very functional processes. →Raul654 23:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note of correction - it's not my proposal, I'm just discussing the pros and cons. - Bantman 23:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: The FAC process needs to be reformed.  In many votes there are few votes and it only takes one or two voters to defeat a candidacy, e.g. my recent Bob McEwen FAC had only four votes cast.  But if one goes out and asks for votes, there is sometimes criticism for "spamming" for votes.
Worse, when votes are cast, there's no consistency.  My Bob McEwen article was apparently defeated on the basis of it not having footnotes.  To the best of my knowledge, footnotes are not required and my James Aubrey article was voted in as a FAC one week before despite lacking footnotes.  Ditto my articles on Julia Stiles and Dawson's Creek.  
The issue of pictures is also deviling one.  I have been criticized for using photos, e.g. Mark Felt, James Aubrey, so when I submitted the McEwen article, I removed the pictures.  And what did we get, no votes on the grounds of lacking photos.  It's an impossible situation, especially as I understood that photographs were not necessary for featured status.
I'm also troubled at how negative comments prevail in FAC.  I'm surely as guilty as the next person.  But it seems there are some voters who only are out to tear down others work and never offer anything good to say.  I've seen it time and time again.  And this is precisely the attitude which drives away contributors, that they work hard only to hear nothing but the bad.
Therefore, I suggest that FAC voting be changed and suggest these possible methods instead.  Certainly other ideas could work, but I'm throwing these out for comments.
#Have an expert or panel of experts on subjects.  Those panelists would review articles as the editors of scientific journals do.  If they approved a candidate, we could put it out for popular comment for a week to see if there were objections the jury missed.  Yes, I know we have something called "peer review" but rarely are any comments posted.  I've submitted articles there and it was a waste of time.
#Limit voting to administrators.  These are people who are known quantities, who have been approved by the community at large and presumably in a better position to apply our rules and regulations than the average user.  Of course, I realize that some administrators like to tear down others' work, but I think there would be fewer of them than in the population at large.
#Require administrators to vote on a certain number of articles per month as a condition of keeping their adminship in the same way doctors at some hospitals must work the E.R. from time to time to keep their admitting privileges.  This would ensure that candidacy do not fail for want of attention.
Yes, I'm irritated that my articles have been rejected.  Who wouldn't be.  But I'd like to think change for the better can occur.  Reactions can be posted at User talk:PedanticallySpeaking.  PedanticallySpeaking 18:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I absolutely agree those voters appear to be wrong, the solution is to educate, not add another layer of complexity to the process. FAC is one of the last strongholds on Wikipedia where consensus and not simple 2/3rds voting or some other committee-like measure is used for decision-making. I think most, if not all of your suggestions are instruction creep. IMO, this situation could be resolved if our standards for FAC were more clear. References are required, for instance, but no particular referencing method is prescribed by Wikipedia:Cite sources or the Fact and Reference Check Wikiproject. You could easily have told the objector(s) that the objection about footnotes was inactionable. Johnleemk | Talk 18:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the Bob McEwen vote, I don't agree with Johnleemk that the voters did anything wrong (if I'm reading you right and you are talking about those voters). What people complained about wasn't lack of footnotes, but the form of the inline notes, external HTML. Pedantically, you did not reply in any way to this reasonable concern, which is one often raised (and not normally ignored by the nominator). Your one support vote —Saravask's "Conditional support"—was withdrawn, explicitly  because you didn't address any of the queries and objections. Pedantically, I respect your frustration, and I don't mean to dismiss your concerns, but your own actions as nominator, or rather lack of action, seems to have been the problem in the case you mention. See page instructions: "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." Speaking as a former Peer Review housekeeper, I would also add that being responsive to the concerns people raise is a good way of actually getting more votes: people lose interest if you don't look like you're listening to the comments you do get. This became very clear to me as I watched Peer Review, and I think a similar psychology might be at work on FAC. (I won't address the idea of giving admins special powers and responsibilites in an approval process, because it seems to me to be bad in so many ways that I'd be talking all night.) Bishonen | talk 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I was unable to return to Wikipedia for several days; thus there was no reply to the objectors on Bob McEwen.  That said, I do not understand the objection to links.  What is the issue there?  I can think of other articles with many links which successfully passed the FAC process.  PedanticallySpeaking 18:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Call for Reform 

message: Over at featured article review, I've made a section for "featured articles of concern" due to issues like a lack of images.  Would anyone mind if I moved the current section on this page over there?  It would nicely trim down FAC, I think. Tuf-Kat 18:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me.  It might get more people heading over to featured article review, too.  Anville 11:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure.  The 'Featured articles missing pictures' section never really fit on this page anyway.--Pharos 02:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree.  Jkelly 02:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs images

message: I am strongly opposed to the use of the term self nom on FA nominations since in the wiki spirit even though an individual can make an effort to bring an article up to spec with the guidelines for a featured article wikipedia is about many editors working together on an article and not just about individual editors. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, actually I think that as someone else stated above that it would be better if people noted if they didn't work on the article. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm just opposed to the term I'm for someone saying I worked on this article JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My suggestion isn't to do away with people saying hey I worked on the article my proposal is to do away (at least officially) with the term self nom since that implies that the nominator's work is more important than others. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see - you think that a "self nom" is a form of boasting.  In a way, I guess you are right; I guess it is up to the nominator to make it clear how much input that have had (for example, many of our more illustrious FA nominators do essentially write the whole page themselves, but they are pretty open to contributions from others that add value). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the term "self nom" 

message: I've seen several Featured Article Candidates that seem designed as subarticles of larger articles (Early life and military career of Hugo Chávez, Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., USA PATRIOT Act, Title II).  Should these articles be judged in their position as subarticles, or should they be judged as if they were standalone articles?  Most of them are very good resources within the context of a larger article, but none of them have enough context or analysis that I would feel confident in their position as a standalone Featured Article.  It seems like people are usually voting for these as if a "sub"article has different standards than a "main" article.  What do people think?  -- Creidieki 02:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer that the articles are worked from top to bottom. Hugo Chavez (main article) was recently featured, and Early life and military career of Hugo Chávez is the detailed part of him. I see no problems if this is done as opposed to the featuring a sub article and then the main. In short, judge it as a main article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't have subarticles - all articles should be readable as a coherent whole, and if an article relies on the context of a larger article then it should be merged into it.  Worldtraveller 21:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - summary style indicates that a larger subject should not be dominated by any of its sub-topics, but when a sub-topic is broken out into a separate pate, that page has to stand or fall on its own. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured subarticles 

message: I have removed the premature relisting of Hollaback Girl for reasons detailed in the latest Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very brave. ;) FWIW I agree. Someone is bound to say that only Raul654 can do that.  Phoey.  I've just removed a few waste-of-space FAC noms myself today (one a deleted article, two withdrawn). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Brave? Oh, you mean "How dare you"?) De-listing Hollaback Girl myself seeemed the natural thing to do after Raul ignored a request for comment that I posted on his Talk. As far as I've noticed, he's never very proactive in removing nominations anyway; the Terri Schiavo yo-yo debacle was allowed to disrupt WP:FAC for several weeks, IIRC. Perhaps Raul waits to see if the community really wants it gone (=will remove it). I shifted a withdrawn one today also, btw. I hope you carry on the good work, ALoan, you clean up the list far more than I do. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I retroactively approve of Bish's actions. I wasn't around last night or most of today, and this was clearly a case of someone exercising good judgement. Raul654 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, not really.  I just ask myself, "What would Raul654 do?" ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically what you are saying here, Geogre is: 'This shit is bananas...B-A-N-A-N-A-S!' ;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say that again. But don't! -- Cjmarsicano 00:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I could'nt resist, though I should have ;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, what are disasters for, except to generate humor? (-; Anville 11:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Laughter in the face of disasters, is certainly the more pleasant option :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's going to keep be relisted until I get a reply to one of the comments I made. Not surprising it was ignored — an excuse so that it could be delisted from the nomination process again. There is no guideline stating that the article cannot be renominated the day following a failed FAC, and because of this, no Wikipedians have the right to delist a candidate because they feel it "being in bad faith". Always assume good faith, even if you do not want to. (Furthermore, it will just make some people look selfish if they choose not to.) Once again, the article will be returning to the article nomination process following this failed FAC. Now does anyone care to answer a question I posted on the nomination page? If this article cannot be renominated four days after its original failure, then why can Céline Dion be renominated one day following its original failure? We seem to have a very biased group of people on Wikipedia who feel Hollaback Girl does not deserve to become featured due of its quantity (several others felt this way). Since this has been posted on the talk page, amid some of the laughable nonsense comments made above, I'm sure it will be answered from top to bottom. A pleasure this has been. —Hollow Wilerding 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted a reply to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl.  I am not sure why you think one wrong thing (Céline Dion being renominated too quickly) justifies another wrong thing (Hollaback Girl, ditto), nor why you think there has to be a guideline stating (presumably in writing) what people can and can't do.  We try not to have too many detailed rules because we like to work out what to do together by consensus.  Any written guidance or policy is just a crystallisation of that consensus, as an aide memoire.  There is a clear consensus (as evinced by comments here and on the nomination page) not to reconsider the article until previous objections have been addressed.  Immediately renominating an article after a failed FAC without addressing the comments of people who have taken the time to review the article means that they will inevitably raise the same comments again, wasting everyone's time.  As I said on the nomination page, you may find it more fruitful to take the article away from WP:FAC for a while to address the objections before bringing it back. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps receiving an answer earlier would not have stirred such controversy. Thank you for delivering me what I requested, User:ALoan. I am in your debt. —Hollow Wilerding 00:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: By reverting the removal of Hollaback Girl from WP:FAC yet again, you're spoiling for a block from editing Wikipedia, so please consider starting to behave like an adult. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates if you haven't already. Did you notice Raul654 approving my de-listing of Hollaback Girl? Not that he needs to, as the overwhelming consensus is already that you're being disruptive. Bishonen | talk 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By failing to respond to the second half of my above comment, I do thank you for ignoring the second half of my above comment, which was expected. Do you care to answer it now? —Hollow Wilerding 23:43, 4 December 2005, you're spoiling for an RFC being filed against you if a block is taken into action. However, I am not surprised that you ignored me, as most Wikipedians resort to this when they are uncertain of how to answer. Do not tempt me with a block when you are the one not providing the answers. That's what I call uncivil behaviour. Due to my other comments made in this article nomination, I will renominate it until it becomes featured. —Hollow Wilerding 21:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You make an unfortunate choice in making me responsible for your behavior, and picking out my "not providing the answers" as a wikicrime. None of us are employed here, or obliged in any way to keep interacting with people who behave unpleasantly; on the contrary, there are plenty of recommendations  sprinkled over the site to "walk away" in such a situation. I replied once with restraint (though indeed not with perfect charity) to an eye-poppingly rude and callow comment of yours, and you invited me sneeringly to reply to it yet again. I chose not to, and would again; if anything, I rather regret replying even once. Feel quite free to RFC me. Please consult Raul654 before bringing the article back to FAC again, since your own sense of what would would be a good time seems to be weak. I will consider it disruptive if you flout this advice, and note that I have given you a block warning about disruptive re-listing. I would naturally not block you personally, but my guess is that plenty of admins would be ready to. BTW, it's also possible to get blocked for personal attacks if you fling around enough of them, and generally poison the wiki climate, so please consider that. I suspect you don't even realize how your tone comes across sometimes. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But of course you didn't reply to the second-half of my question. If you had, you would have not been correct. But whatever floats your boat floats my boat. All is pleasant again. —Hollow Wilerding 20:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As demonstrated. ;) —Hollow Wilerding 20:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Premature relisting of [[Hollaback Girl]] removed

message: I've moved a couple of comments from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl, where they're becoming increasingly irrelevant, and added a reply to HW, since she insists. Hollow, I for my part have spilt more than enough ink on this business, please don't look for any more input from me. 
:By reverting the removal of Hollaback Girl from WP:FAC yet again, you're spoiling for a block from editing Wikipedia, so please consider starting to behave like an adult. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates if you haven't already. Did you notice Raul654 approving my de-listing of Hollaback Girl? Not that he needs to, as the overwhelming consensus is already that you're being disruptive. Bishonen | talk 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By failing to respond to the second half of my above comment, I do thank you for ignoring the second half of my above comment, which was expected. Do you care to answer it now? —Hollow Wilerding 23:43, 4 December 2005, you're spoiling for an RFC being filed against you if a block is taken into action. However, I am not surprised that you ignored me, as most Wikipedians resort to this when they are uncertain of how to answer. Do not tempt me with a block when you are the one not providing the answers. That's what I call uncivil behaviour. Due to my other comments made in this article nomination, I will renominate it until it becomes featured. —Hollow Wilerding 21:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You make an unfortunate choice in making me responsible for your behavior, and picking out my "not providing the answers" as a wikicrime. None of us are employed here, or obliged in any way to keep interacting with people who behave unpleasantly; on the contrary, there are plenty of recommendations  sprinkled over the site to "walk away" in such a situation. I replied once with restraint (though indeed not with perfect charity) to an eye-poppingly rude and callow comment of yours, and you invited me sneeringly to reply to it yet again. I chose not to, and would again; if anything, I rather regret replying even once. Feel quite free to RFC me. Please consult Raul654 before bringing the article back to FAC again, since your own sense of what would would be a good time seems to be weak. I will consider it disruptive if you flout this advice, and note that I have given you a block warning about disruptive re-listing. I would naturally not block you personally, but my guess is that plenty of admins would be ready to. BTW, it's also possible to get blocked for personal attacks if you fling around enough of them, and generally poison the wiki climate, so please consider that. I suspect you don't even realize how your tone comes across sometimes. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But of course you didn't reply to the second-half of my question. If you had, you would have not been correct. But whatever floats your boat floats my boat. All is pleasant again. —Hollow Wilerding 20:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As demonstrated. ;) —Hollow Wilerding 20:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Responding to Hollow Wilerding

message: I'm doing the Signpost article for Features and admins and I can't find the December log. - RoyBoy 800 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, because nothing has been promoted since 30 November - see WP:GO (which also needs archiving as of the start of yesterday). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No articles have been promoted yet (it's still early in the month) - perhaps you could check the November log for any new ones since the last Signpost update.  violet/riga (t) 22:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well that would explain it. - RoyBoy 800 06:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  December log 

message: First, I apologize if this is a question that is already answered somewhere... I just can't find the answer.  The FAC page says that the nomination will be removed if objections are not resolved within a reasonable amount of time.  What is the reasonable amount of time before FACs are approved?  What happens when a user who objected stops responding to the nominators (who made the appropriate changes), and therfore cannot and does not change their object vote?  I am essentially just wondering what the time span is between start and finish if the article is to succedd in FAC and become FA. Thanks! -Scm83x 07:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's deliberately not specified. Pcb21 Pete 08:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Reply in the nomination page and leave a comment on the user's talk page that the article was updated to address the objection and request the user to "please review the changes and your FAC vote".  You'll usually get a good response, but don't feel offended if it doesn't happen; we all have lives outside WP that interfere with our editing time now and then (and I'm as guilty of this as the next editor).  This is part of the reason why a specific time frame is not mentioned.  If the nomination is removed as non-promoted, wait a little while (one month is generally recommended), revisit the objections in the article and renominate it. Slambo (Speak) 11:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The others answered the time frame, but if you simply explain clearly why you think you've resolved the objection, and enough others agree, then it can be considered an addressed objection even if the objector doesn't get time to get back to it. It depends on the situation of course, but ask some other people to see if they think it is resolved. - Taxman Talk 13:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Raul654 usually promotes successful candidates and removes unsuccessful one every few days.  The minimum period for candidates to remain on FAC is around 5 days.  Clearly "bad" nominations (articles that clearly fail to meet criteria) will usually be removed in the first update after the minimum period has passed; clearly "good" nominations (unanimous "support") can be promoted on the same timetable.  Candidates where the nominator is working to address objections can remain on the list for 10-15 days before being promoted or failed. But it is all ultimately up to Raul654's reading of whether objections are actionable and whether there is a consensus to promote. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC time period questions 

message: You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V  examples, and WP:FN.  Part of it is whether it is acceptable to ever replace URL-only references.  This could somewhat affect FAC-related edits.  I also got blocked for adding citation details, which could somewhat affect FAC-related edits also.  What could also somewhat affect FAC-related edits is the recent deletion of suggested citations from peer reviewed articles Stonehenge, Colonization of the Moon, Golden Gate Bridge, Military budget in the United States, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Royal Air Force.  (SEWilco 08:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation alterations 

message: For the second time in a week, I've had objections I made to a candidacy struck out (in the first case, actually cut from the page) by somebody favoring the candidacy.  This really isn't appropriate, and I'm not the only editor this is being done to.  The FAC directions only call for text to be struck/removed if the objector is ready/willing to withdraw the objection. The first time this happened, the editor who did it apologized, but in the one that just happened, a different editor has followed up with a weird note on my talk page telling me that if I didn't "ellaborate" my objections or let him strike them he'd take things up with JWales directly. Is this passing into the zone of the deeply wacky, or have I missed something? Monicasdude 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zone of deeply wacky. There's a Raul's law about appealing to Jimbo, I think... oh, it's a third-party one: "JamesMLane's Futility Principle - In any Wikipedia discussion, the probability that some participant will belligerently threaten to appeal the matter to Jimbo is inversely proportional to the probability that Jimbo would actually intervene in that dispute." Yep. Everything I've ever seen about Wikipedia and/or FAC etiquette tells me Spawn Man should not be editing your comments; I'll drop him a note, too. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as I'm aware, it's never been acceptable to strike out someone else's objection. --Carnildo 07:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did it become acceptable to remove other users' objections? 

message: Has the policy on free use images changed somewhere? I objected to the FAC on Celine Dion on the grounds that I'd like to see at least one free use image in the article before it's featured, and people are telling me this is not a valid objection. I'm a bit perplexed by how my good-faith reasoning and expectations can be declared "invalid" by another editor, but in any case... the last time I came into FAC (admittedly awhile ago) we had people objecting to every article that contained even ONE fair use image. What have I missed? --causa sui talk 21:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put forward articles that have been objected to solely on the basis of images, but ultimately those objections have been outnumbered.  It seems that the trend is moving to allow minimal numbers of unfree images, as long as the image description page is correctly noted with copyright details and a fair use rationale.  Rossrs 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the rest of the world (I'm in Australia) but here cameras are banned in a lot of concerts.  I've seen staff confiscate cameras and they're supposed to be left in the cloak room.  I understand this is to protect the artist's right to produce only "official" photos.  This might not be the same for every artist or every event (note there is a free image of Robbie Williams from an Australian concert) and the rule may not apply in other countries, but may not be a simple matter. Rossrs 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't find it that hard to find a free photo.  You just have to know where to look, and it'll do no good to not even try.  See :Image:Céline Dion-AFR.JPG (it's from the very first result on a google search of .mil).--Pharos 23:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that going to a concert counts as part of that military man's "official duties", and thus is public domain. Pcb21 Pete 08:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a military concert on board an aircraft carrier; in the photo she is performing with the U.S. Air Force Reserve Band.  This is actually probably the best way to find PD photos of North American entertainers.--Pharos 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in FAC 

message: Is their a particular reason why you have to enter the full  rather than the simpler .  josh (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you have to do that so when the noms get copied to the archives, the links don't break. Raul654 18:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Thanks for letting me know. josh (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==Sub-page nominations==