Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates/Archive 2

message: I am not entirely clear on this. 5 follows pretty much from the first 3 guidelines. Unless people can skip the first three guidelines not having 5 does not make much sense. And if the first 3 are voluntary then we dont need them at all. We can probably change 5 a bit by removing the need for citing the reasons in detial and instead just ask people to link to the talk page for everyone to see. I also think if everyone agrees on the first three guidelines than 4 is unnesscary as this would already have been thrashed out on the talk page. I would like some form of discussion on a FA's talk page before it being listed on FARC as it simply wastes peoples time when we have to review and vote on it and then rereview and revote if the author changes the article. A number of article problems can be easily addressed on the talk page, failing which it should be listed on FARC. On the side note while we are at it we should also quantify the time before a new FA can be nomanated on FARC or a article renominated. So my vote is for the following modified proposal:
#Mention, on the talk page of the article, which all FA criteria the page lacks, or if the text is a gross POV.
#A time period of a minimum of seven days should be given so that those who handle/watch the page can respond to the reviewer's comments.
# A mention that if comments are not satisfactorily entertained, the page may be nominated as a FARC in a week's time.
#If his/her grouses are still unaddressed, only then may the reviewer move to the FARC. A short summary of the objections along with a link to the talk page of the article should be provided.
#Users should wait a minimum of 30 days before nominating an article which has gained FA status (from the date of promotion to FA) or renominating a failed FARC (from the date it was removed from FARC).
Feel free to modify the last point as 30 days is an arbitrary number that i just came up with. kaal 07:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Different Vote

message: I should probably put a note in here (considering I *did* write the original FARC rules, as well as rules for a lot of others pages). The rules for any page should be designed to minimize the amount of work everyone, but especially hte maintainer - has to do. Also, and I cannot say this strongly enough - avoid setting specific deadlines and times - if you look at the FAC instructions, it avoids saying with specificity how long nominations stay there. Some go quickly, some go slowly. Setting specific deadlines only makes tremendous headaches for the person/people who maintain the page. 
With that said, nobody wants to see surprise de-featurings. I see no problem with requiring hte nominator to drop (at least) a  tag on the nominated article. After that, it's the job of people who have that article on their watchlist to respond. I also think that nominations and objections here, as with the FAC, have to be actionable. →Raul654 07:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
: I agree that there shouldn't be a specific time period --> "a week's time (the minimum period)" is the phrase used.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm with Raul here. Just have a minimum time period and give the maintainers the ability to extend that if they see that somebody is working on the issues or the vote if close. --mav 02:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Raul's take on the rules and proposals