Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/New steps to FA

message: New nominators need to know what to expect from the FAC review, so there needs to be a more in-depth explanation of the process either on the Featured Article Candidates page or linked to it.
A couple of pages that attempt to do that are WP:REVIEW and User:Jengod/Some_common_objections_to_featured_status_and_how_to_avoid_them
:I've added a more thorough explanation now to Featured Article Candidates per your comments on WP talk:REVIEW. Ryu Kaze 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of FAC review process

message: In order for editors to receive as much feedback as possible, editors should be encouraged to relist articles (their own or those of others) in the appropriate place, whether that be the related WikiProject review process or WP:RFF. For example, a video game article listed on WP:PR should be relisted at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/Peer_review unless the editor had specifically asked for it to remain in WP:PR (for a style or non-partisan review); a request for 'general comments' should be relisted at WP:RFF; and a request for FA status feedback received in WP:RFF should be relisted at WP:PR.
:I'm not so sure I'd encourage the relisting of articles that other editors are working on. At least not without asking them if that's what they'd want first. While they technically can do so at any time, and while it would theoretically provide maximum feedback, it would also cause the respective editors to be pulled in multiple directions at once, possibly when they aren't prepared for it. As a result, they may not be able to respond to feedback received as efficiently as they otherwise would. Ryu Kaze 23:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was an area I was struggling with - sometimes requests don't receive any peer reviews for days when if moved to a project review they might get some feedback (although most of those that receive poor response are in niche areas anyway, so it may not help). I hadn't thought of confusing editors mid-review because I was really concentrating on the "ignored" peer reviews. Maybe just adding a note saying "Have you thought of listing this request at Project X too" would be a better solution. Yomangani 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. Ryu Kaze 00:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  (It might be worthwhile to note that we should hopefully see some more active project reviews cropping up, as running one is given considerable attention in the new WikiProject guide.) Kirill Lokshin 02:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relisting peer reviews during peer review

message: Reviewers could be encouraged to suggest relisting the article at WP:PR (or the appropriate project peer review) if it has not received a peer review before applying for FA status and is clearly well below the standard required.
:This is a good suggestion, and I think a lot of reviewers tend to do this anyway. I personally do so. Sometimes nominators can pull it up to standard without doing so, though, so it's, of course, at their discretion whether or not they take a step back or plow ahead, and is always a case-by-case thing. Ryu Kaze 23:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that a fair number of the FAC nominations that have received comments that they should be taken to peer review are actually better suited to be sent to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion, or Cleanup.  This is because peer review has historically had a poor record at taking articles lacking in basic research and structure and finding editors that desire to expand the articles in such bad shape.  Sending articles in need of major expansion and rework to the places designed to handle such issues will allow peer reviews resources to be better allocated and give articles needing more help than peer review is designed to handle a chance to receive the help they need. --Allen3 talk 21:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good point - the articles likely to get turned away from FAC for being too far off the criteria are probably in need of more attention than they are likely to get from peer review. Did I hear somebody say "can of worms"? Yomanganitalk 22:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relisting at Peer Review during FAC review

message: GA is evolving, there is still some disagreement among the GA group. But I don't understand the objections to suggesting a path through these steps in general. Maurreen 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary problem with GA is that there is no agreement on what a good article is good for.  There are at least three competing philosophies competing for a share of the GA pie: the articles short of FA status camp, the high-quality short article camp, and the add self-recognition templates to articles camp.  The resulting disorganization from competing interests prevents GA from actually achieving any of the competing groups goals. Until WP:GA figures out what its mission in life is, it would be better to keep GA out of the FA steps list. --Allen3 talk 00:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair point, but isolating GA from the process isn't necessarily going to help. The ideas behind including it here were a)attempting to divert some substandard FA candidates away from FAC and b)remodelling the simplistic "Steps to FA" (which didn't give a newcomers a realistic view of the process) Yomanganitalk 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the proposed remodel of the "Path to FA" chart if only because it helps infer that the path isn't as simple as the present chart makes it seem. That said, I do think GA is in desperate need of figuring out just what exactly it's supposed to be. Ryu Kaze 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some concerns over the "Steps to FA" box even appearing on the WP:PR page have been raised by Raul and Tony over at Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article%3F#Aftermath. What do you think about dropping the box? I think the lead box does a fairly good job of explaining the purpose of and alternatives to peer review, but currently the FA infobox distracts from it. Yomanganitalk 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Path, GA, etc.