Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Orion (mythology)

message: This FAC has certainly been informative. Its effects are certainly to be seen in the article. These can be grouped into five classes; in declining order of usefulness.
#Those who wrote the article. Of these I would particularly note Pharos, Carcharoth, Theranos, Mattise, and (on one detail) Ksmrq.
#Those who substantively criticized the article. sometimes severely: Yannismarou, Carcharoth, and Jim, on the talk page. 
#*I am deeply grateful to these; they noticed questions and problems I hadn't considered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense - as long, drawn out FACs...well, do they drive people away? Not sure but I feel it is a gamble posting something and then copping an oppose from someone who doesn't come back to support once copyediting done - how often does this happen I wonder. As far as my initial comment - my time was limited and I thought chipping in quickly was better than nothing at all to start off with. I don't mind offering all examples of tweaks as at the end of teh day the aim is to get the article to featured status, rather than make it a 'test' so to speak, but if it makes active learning easier as Epbr123 says....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't intend to come back unless this improves; especially if  I can get the same attention to an article by other means. More seriously, the focus on copyediting is letting some articles be approved without anybody ever considering neutrality, accuracy, the use of sources, or clarity to a general reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting attention to articles isn't the purpose of FAC. The article is certainly now clearer to read then when you first nominated it. In future, take articles to peer review and the League of Copyeditors before you nominate them for FA. Epbr123 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it to peer review; we should mention the League if we're going to require them. As for the article being clearer to read, I really doubt it; the paragraphing alone has made it significantly less comprehensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "we should mention the League if we're going to require them" - this exemplifies the level of clarity of the article when first nominated. Epbr123 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I hesitated between grammatical and physical number: the League is a singular noun, containing several people. I chose the English, substantive, approach to number over the American, formal, approach. English has subtleties, and FA reviewers should appreciate them — I do assume that this is mere ignorance, rather than a personal attack. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I just can't understand what you're saying. BTW, I'm not pro American English. Epbr123 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood what he said perfectly. Carcharoth 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or is that, "I, what he said, perfectly understood"? :-) Carcharoth 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank goodness for that. What did he mean by "we should mention the League if we're going to require them"? Epbr123 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he meant the guidelines for FAC should ask people to get the articles copyedited first, if they don't already. The League is, I believe, only one of a few copyediting organisations on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, right. Septentrionalis, the guidelines don't really need to say that; it's just basic common sense that you should try to get the article as good as possible before submitting it for Featured Article status. Epbr123 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As it happens, I didn't know of any organized copyeditors before I came here; that's why we should mention them, and others if more than one organization is now functioning. When WP:PR did nothing of the kind, I went to the next step I knew of. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That would always be more than welcome. Please do not mind if parts of it are reverted; some scarcely visible tweaks can add up to errors of fact or implication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no biggie - just give me a heads up at the time.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviewers reviewed