Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 6

message: An FAR has recently been filed on Austin Nichols by Ilse@. As the main contributor to the article, but also as a student currently on exam leave, I am unable to work on the FAR until the 22nd and asked for a delay in the FAR until I could actually address issues. Instead Ilse@ seems to intend to push for delisting because neither I nor the other contributor to the article will be available during the FAR period. As she put it "There is always the opportunity to renominate the article later on."
I have to question what the point of this FAR is if no-one who has worked on it, who knows what information is available, where to access it and who has the dedication to work on any problems raised is going to be able to do anything for the entire duration. I am happy for this article to go through FAR when it is possible for me to work on it.  I was planning to update Austin's article in light of the new information available through the John from Cinncinnati publicity after my exams anyway - an FAR is a great opportunity to get some external feedback. If Austin is FARCed while I am away, I will simply fix it and renominate immediately when I come back. Net result: a collossal waste of everyone  else's time who contributes to the FARC and FAC and a very annoyed Dev. So why bother? What exactly is so difficult about delaying an FAR for a mere twelve days? DevAlt 13:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry; the practice here has always been to allow extra time when needed and when someone is working on it.  It's not at all likely to be FARC'd if you're planning to work on it within the month—I don't believe that has ever happened, as long as the FAR was notified.  We can leave the FAR up, as someone else may work on it while you're in exams.  Did Ilse notify the Projects yet?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can just consider as not actually starting until the 22nd. Marskell 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extra time will be granted. Joelito (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrealistic FAR nomination 

message: Reviewers here may be interested to know that the MOS, which is undergoing a gradual overhaul, now contains detailed guidelines on hyphens and dashes (until now, there were virtually no guidelines). As you may know, Featured Articles are bound to follow the MOS (Criterion 2). 
A rationalisation of the several articles covering this topic is planned. Tony 09:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major new sections implemented at MOS on hyphens, en dashes and em dashes 

message: It has been suggested that €2 commemorative coins would be better as a featured list than an article. Would it be necessary to start up a FAR to discuss it? Gimmetrow 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  €2 commemorative coins 

message: A rewrite of WP:FICT is being proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Rewrite proposed. Needs polishing, clarification, and so on, but it's a start. — Deckiller 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:FICT rewrite

message: I would like this article reviewed by people not directly involved in the creation of it. It has created some significant discussion since I started editing it a few days ago. See discussion: Talk:Hamersley%2C_Western_Australia#this_article. I disagree with the status of Featured Article for a number of reasons:
* History section - is very long and verbose. it's not "well written" in my opinion as it's not concise. almost every single planning decision is included up to 1980 (not all of which is notable) yet there is a considerable gap from 1981.
* Some editors think I am questioning the comprehensiveness and factual accuracy. Not true. it is well citated and referenced. My issue is with the number of facts, some of them are minor, like the relevance of the history of bus services, or that school used to be a community hall till 1975. the only thing I would question about comprehensiveness of this article is this Talk:Hamersley%2C_Western_Australia#Jump_in_history.
* However, I think the article fails the last criteria of Featured articles: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"
* Structure is not clear and does not bring out the suburb's key notability or key facts. Compare the readability to other featured article locations: Birchington-on-Sea or El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda.
Thanks for your consideration. Michellecrisp 05:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hamersley, Western Australia]]

message: I checked several featured articles and unfortunately found that most of the articles which were accepted 2 or 3 years ago can't stay as FA unless some improvements have been done. In fact, the standard of choosing an FA article has risen so we need to review old FA articles after every 1 or 2 year periodically. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are several examples of the first featured articles which don't achieve today's criteria:
*Trench warfare: weak lead and insufficient in-text citation(even it have a tag for this issue).
*Helium:The long lead of this article doesn't have even 1 reference. 
*Franks: This article has several citation needed and expansion tags. 
*First Battle of the Stronghold just compare it with the new articles which have been chosen as good article (not even featured one).
--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soon, there will be 1500 FAs; reviewing each of them routinely isn't feasible.  Trench warfare is currently under review.  Leads aren't always referenced; the body of the article should contain the citations to text that is summarized in the lead.  Have you left talk page messages at these articles about the deficiencies and the need for review?   You're welcome to submit any articles that don't meet current standards (preferably limiting to one review at a time per nominator so you don't overload FAR with reviews you might not be able to keep up with).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Sandy. This same line of thought has been used occasionally to argue for reconfirming all 1000+ admins, and the counterarguments which have always knocked that idea down apply equally here. Raul654 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good on you for getting involved Sa.vakilian, I am a bit more optimistic as I think many of the current FAs have reached a point where they are fully referenced and superior to what is actually published in many popular texts. Amazing really. We're trying to do what we can but at the end of the day it is a volunteer phenomenon and no-one is bound to do anything. Quite a bit of stuff is being picked up at FAR...and if it isn't...well it can be delisted and resubmitted later. Fascinating process all round really. :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Periodically automatic review

message: Would it be possible for someone to either make a decision as to whether or not this FAR is open or closed, or to explain the process by which we can progress the making of such a decision?  As things stand, discussion of the future of the article is being carried out on at least three separate pages, which can't be of benefit to anyone. Tevildo 20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FAR is open; it's stately clearly above by Raul654, and on the FAR page by Marskell.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is all as clear as mud.--Filll 04:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Humble plea

message: I am sure most of us has thought at one time or another "how nice it would be to review all FAs periodically", and of course we all reached the same answer - that it's technically not feasible. But despite our best efforts, we have many FAs of vastly divergent quality. Cutting my ponderings short, I may have a solution.
First, there is one one pretty flawless standard of quality: the main FA votes. The official and unofficial standards for articles, however, is constantly evolving (which as the author of many FAs spread over 3 years I can personally vouch for). 
Second, successful FARC reviews raise the FA quality, but they are also affected by the same 'improving quality requirements over time' issue.
Therefore I would suggest dividing the FAs into time period, preferably by month, but at the very least, by year. We should make our main list of FA sortable by time (sortable tables are supported by wiki) or maybe create a series of subpages 'FAs since 2006', 'FAs since 2005', etc. Succesfull FARC could upgrade old FAs to the new 'year' category. This way we would have an easy list of 'what needs to be reviewed due to age', and we could also direct the readers to 'new FAs only' for much better quality then the general FA page which, as we well know, has articles ranging from excellent to 'what the heck is this doing here?'. 
Alternatively, we could introduce a discussion/vote process separate from FARC for the 'year upgrade'. The idea is that the articles in 'year x' should have been accepted by FA discutants in year x (FA and FARC standards differ a little bit). Therefore perhaps we could list such 'year upgrade' FAs on the normal FAC page, with the (year upgrade) added to the title so people would be aware this is not a normal FAC. In essence, they would be a 'candidates for current FA standards', but if they fail, they would not be defeatured (this is FARC domain) but simply would stay in their old year quality cat.
Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's especially useful to expend effort breaking this already tiny slice of Wikipedia into even smaller pieces. More urgently, please don't turn the main list of FAs into a sortable table; the page would become far too long. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems is already a good proxy for those that need to go through review. About 80% of removals have come from the list over the last 12+ months and most on it are early '05 or prior. I don't know about introducing an entirely new discussion/vote process, but a list could be of use. If nothing else, we might use it to indicate what has been reviewed already and when. Marskell 14:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA sorted by "year quality" and other ponderings

message: WP:FAC says " Do not split a FAC page into subsections", to avoid what is happening at FAR.  Should we add same here ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsections 

message: I've closed the Intelligent design FAR. It was having a markedly corrosive effect on both the article, the article's authors, and the FA process in general, so I decided that a restart would do far more harm than good. Raul654 14:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. .. dave souza, talk 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, thanks. •Jim62sch• 10:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ID FAR closed once and for all

message: (It's just hard to digest dozens of new comments)
General thoughts. I have no problem making the closing rationale more explicit. I'm travelling, but can draft a page soon enough detailing the thought process for FAR. The only really critical point has been this: is someone working on the article? Has someone indicated they intend to work on the article? If so, we leave it open. Five days, five weeks—no problem, if people are working. If it's overdue already and a couple of weeks have gone by with nothing in the history, then it is closed, because no process can be indefinite. But I really try to be fair and I actually try to close in-line with what I think Raul would do at FAC; Joel (whose editing has declined after a job move) has done the same, in my experience. Thus, it's not just closing but tracking FARs; stopping by with "How are things going here?" or "Let's keep this on hold until mav is back" etc. It's not all just shouting—I can cite dozens examples of good collaborative work over the last year. If you stop by and only see something like the ID FAR, you think it all bad. But go and look at the keeps in the archives; those are why I edit FAR, and I know the same is true of others.
If I would offer a proposal, it would be simpler: if someone wants to help, then they should come to this talk page, talk about it, and then we can ping Raul if the person is committed to aiding the process. I would say that if Raul is trusted enough to handle a page as big as FAC, then he should be trusted to "tacitly delegate" at FAR. If he and I are on the same page, and I believe we are, then I'll go along doing what I've done. Marskell 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two thoughts. Firstly, picking up on SlimVirgin's point about the appearance of trying to delist articles, as of 14:29, 20 July 2007, the statement read "If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed. 2. If deficiences are not addressed, the article is placed on the featured article removal candidate (FARC) list." This was changed to "If the consensus is that the article does not meet FA standard, the article is placed on the FARC list. No consensus for a change in status means the article continues as an FA." In my opinion that's an immense improvement. For a newcomer to the process, the old version seemed to invite a pile-on of opponents to the article's content to try to get it demoted. The second point is, are two enough to monitor articles? There were several requests at the ID discussion to end the agony, and the points you've just made would have been immensely helpful .. dave souza, talk 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, we tried over and over; there was so much hollering, no one was listening.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm missing something, but looking at the latter part of the discussion such reassuring comments (for those wanting to keep FA) don't jump out at me. From "If people are going to give substantial objections they should have specific details, not just pithy objections or attempts to game the system. Can we get this process over with? JoshuaZ 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A new thread (sorry)

message: I've asked this a few times, but either the question or answer got missed. Can someone say what the benefit is of having two processes, FAR and FARC, rather than just one i.e. one process, whatsoever called, to discuss and find ways to improve FAs, and to remove the status if they can't be improved? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Polls are evil. One thing about the split is that it causes confusion – several contributors "voted" at the ID FAR, and then the reprimands for doing that didn't help build a constructive atmosphere. Perhaps a better process would be to have no voting as such, but a focus on presenting concerns and suggested improvements for discussion. It would then be open to the "whitelisted closer" to invite discussion from participants on whether the process had succeeded, rather than going on to a new delisting process. .. dave souza, talk 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I tried to answer in the thread above.  The new system came about when the citation requirement was added.  The idea was to *not* allow pile-on removes of these older articles, rather to allow time for them to come to standard.  As long as someone is working on them, the article can stay in review.  If not, it moves to FARC where Keep/Remove are declared, but even there, we hold them as long as possible if someone is working.  We didn't want immediate FARC, as the older FAs would be immediate Removes.  Does that answer the question?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Two processes exist to make it not a vote. That's the basic idea. You comment and suggest in the first period, and you declare keep or remove in the second. In sum, it's supposed to be what exactly what Dave is saying. Marskell 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't really answer the question. Why couldn't you have one process in which people comment, suggest changes, make changes, and then declare keep or remove depending on what happens? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't around under the old process, so I'm not sure why or by whom it was decided that a change would help process the 500+ potentially uncited articles.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In the previous process users were supposed to initiate discussion of problmes at the article talk page before bringing an article to FARC (in the hopes of avoiding FARC altogether). The "FAR" stage replaces the talk page notification. While the initial step is now much more formal and bureaucratic, both processes used a two-stage system. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, again (to CP). And the thing was nobody was actually using the talk page. They were just "FARCing" it. The present system was created to address that. Plenty of time--a month to get people involved in general, and at least two weeks before the "vote". To go back to up-or-down keep or remove would be an enormous step backward, IMO. Marskell 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) And the ID FAR has been, to my knowledge, the only time participants haven't understood that FAR is for "review"; this is not a common problem.  To further clarify the closing, the procedure has been in place for at least a year.  Marskell is in a different time zone than many of us.  When the FAR was closed, not in accordance with the procedures in place for at least a year, I checked all the talk pages (Raul, Joelr31 and Marskell), saw no agreement to close, re-opened it like I would any other premature (according to the procedure in place) close, and immediately notified Raul, who endorsed the re-opening.  Had Raul wanted to leave it closed, he could have asked me to undo it (the botification steps are tricky) and that would have been no problem to me.  There is much misunderstanding here.   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned that you're defending what you did and spinning it a little. Raul didn't see what was going on, and as soon as he did, he endorsed the closure. You were one of the primary critics, and arguably the most aggressive. You then got into a personal dispute with one of the article writers. You therefore shouldn't have reverted the closure; in fact, it would be a good idea never to revert an admin's closure of anything, but especially not in a situation where you have expressed such strong views. Do you disagree? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I did not get into a personal dispute with another editor. He lobbed unfounded charges at me and three others, and hasn't even tried to follow up.  I've tried to dialogue with him, that hasn't happened in spite of four approaches (my talk page, Raul's talk page, and twice on his talk page), and I don't see how I can be accused of a dispute when there's not even been a conversation.  As to re-opening the FAR, I plead Pollyanna.  I've always done the grunt work at FAR/FAC, the articles we're working on don't usually have such a toxic environment, it never occurred to me I'd be crucified.  Of course, in hindsight, that was incredibly naive of me, and I wish I hadn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worrying that you feel your only mistake was naivety. Do you see how your comments caused or contributed to the toxic atmosphere? "The lead alone is an embarassment to FA status ...," "Wiki's worst example of how not to hammer out an NPOV compromise ...," "Raul has expressed sentiments in this area that may reflect a conflict of interest ..." "This article is an embarrassment to FA ...," "This thing is dripping with POV and sloppiness ...," "Embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing ..." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why two processes?

message: Should the ID FAR have been accepted in the first place? It had only been promoted fairly recently, and as I recall, it was about one editor getting frustrated that attempts at rephrasing what had probably been the FA version were not getting consensus because editors thought they affected the meaning of the statements. The article was certainly receiving attention! .. dave souza, talk 19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict ) I don't know what today's instructions say (since they've been changed repeatedly in the last 24 hours), but previously, the instructions said that articles that came to FAR within three months of FAC were removed. Usually by me, sometimes by someone else. This was established so that FAR wouldn't be in the business of second guessing Raul/FAC.  ID came to FAR immediately after FAC, and Raul removed it, as he should have.  This was its second time at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three months isn't long enough. There's no reason volunteers should have to go through that so soon after the rigmarole of FAC. And the instructions have not been "changed repeatedly" in the last 24 hours. Please stop the spinning. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So, the rules say 3 months but at 4 and a half months there's no discretion about exposing the article to attempts to delist it, and no attempt to consider if the grounds for review are trivial and already being discussed? In this obviously sensitive instance a RfC might have drawn in more editors without the nasty aspects of what inevitably developed. .. dave souza, talk 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Volunteers shouldn't be dragged through this unnecessarily. Can someone explain what the process is for accepting an FAR? Are all FAR noms accepted (opened) so long as they're at least three months after the promotion — and do they also need to be at least three months from the previous one? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing of FAR from promotion

message: SlimVirgin insists I put my personal statement to her on this page instead of her own talk page (where I deem it should be, but she reverted me 3 times, and I don't want this talk page getting more winded). Her goes the statement (which I fully, 100% stand by):
I want it to be noted for the record here that I have no intention of engaging in the FAR debate currently going any further, and the primary reason for this is you. I don't feel your stubborn pressing for promotion is in good faith whatsoever (and you're in no way objective, I am certain on that), and I don't feel you really care about the FAR process. In my opinion, this was borne out of your annoyance that any administrator cannot close an FAR and you have some personal agenda with Marskell and especially Sandy it seems.
As concerns being the "most aggressive", I certainly notice everyone's on the witchhunt as concerns Sandy yet nobody has condemned the absolutely disgusting behaviour of User:FeloniousMonk (and a bunch of other editors) on Sandy's talk page. I brought it up during the discussion and asked for your reply, though you have yet to offer one. Admins like him accusing fellow admins Marskell and TimVickers, not to mention Tony1 and Sandy, of being in some secret pact to depose Raul and undermine you and him, is frankly dumb. Such paranoia is rubbish, and as far as I am concerned he should be stripped of his admin powers. Whether you subscribe to such paranoia is up to you, but your attempts at trying to get Sandy to stop contributing to FAR is rather appalling - she does a damn sight more work there (boring, tedious work may I add) than you, Monk and the rest of you put together. Whether you continue this witchhunt is up to you, but I am in no doubt that this is the promotion of a personal vendetta.
I have nothing further to add, and I don't wish for further involvement in this messy affair. Feel free to continue your witchhunt.
That's my statement to SlimVirgin, which I 100% endorse. It's quite scary to think editors with such behaviour displayed by SlimVirgin are lurking out there in the crevasses of Wikipedia, though that's a common fact of life on Wikipedia these days it seems. You won't be hearing from me any further on the issue because I have better things to do with my time. I certainly don't consider Wikipedia one of those better things these days. LuciferMorgan 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this belong here? Some of us were trying to discuss improvements needed to the process, and since Sandy has taken charge of the process it inevitably involves her. For some reason she's brought up FM's behaviour a few times – my understanding is that he's the leading author of the article that was being subjected to FAR, and not in charge of the organisation of the process. My impression is that Sandy has done a great deal of welcome work, but from my viewpoint the behaviour of those in charge of processes is a great deal more scary than the behaviour of other participants, which should be dealt with by DR rather than here. ... dave souza, talk 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The impression you have is rather blighted then Dave, and I certainly disagree with your viewpoint. This edit made by FeloniousMonk was without doubt one of the most pathetic messages I have ever had the misfortune to read on Wikipedia. The behaviour of the other participants is certainly a lot more scarier to me, especially that of SlimVirgin and her minions with their swords. The fact that admins are among these people certainly bring being an admin in general into disrepute. I suppose the rules fail to apply though once you're granted admin status (yawn). LuciferMorgan 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My Statement to SlimVirgin

message: ...hi folks - firstly a small disclaimer; my one and only involvement with featured articles to date was to do with The Country Wife whose presence on review seemed a little embarrassing to me. I felt then that something wasn't right with this process, and have just tried to catch up with the furore above.
I'd like to support Geogre in his analysis concerning group behaviour, and I'd like to support SlimVirgin in her raising concerns with the openness of these processes.
I don't understand why only three users should be allowed to 'close' a review, and the arguments why this would be messy seem to me to be very similar to arguments against allowing anyone to edit a page (it is a bit of a crazy idea!).
The FAR / FARC distinctions with associated instructions I'm afraid remind me strongly of Brazil (film), and I'd invite even involved editors to try and read the page out loud without cracking a smile...! - it's certainly confusing.
The way ID editors were treated was appalling, and I believe the problems are systemic - we should aim to build consensus here for a streamlined process (top of head stuff: a 4 week minimum period review to be closed by any uninvolved editor in good standing) to avoid further frustrations.....
thanks - Purples 04:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, these seem worthwhile improvements to me. If it's obvious that the longer the review goes on, the more likely FA is to be retained, then some of the heat might go out of the situation. However, two weeks is evidently enough for a lack of consensus to be evident and for things to get pretty wild. A possibility might be allowing closure after 2 weeks subject to the keep / move on to FARC decision being subject to reconsideration by the famous three. The essential and difficult elements are "uninvolved" and "in good standing". ..dave souza, talk 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An outside perspective 

message: I too have not had much to do with FAR, but I came upon this discussion and want to add some comments about SandyGeorgia. I twice have been involved with reviews of Barack Obama and I have to say that in both instances SandyGeorgia was involved, and was highly professional, most civil, and  helpful.  In my opinion neither  review was justified - meaning, the article was, I believe, in good shape and not in need of that kind of review scrutiny (the second FAR was brought by an editor who turned out to be a sock of a very disruptive banned user, bringing the FAR to make trouble), and SandyGeorgia approached both times in an even-handed manner, and in the course of things helped demonstrate how well-sourced the piece is, shutting down the objections most appropriately, doing some of the grunt work herself in fixing ref formats.  I have no knowledge of the cases discussed above, but I find it hard to believe that these comments are about the same person.  I never felt that she was anything but respectful to the hard work that many editors have put into the article, and that her sole goal was be sure that the  status editors had worked hard to achieve was maintained.  She was working with us, not against us, and she was thorough, willing to listen, and complimented the work that had been done.  What more would anyone want in a reviewer?  I don't know SandyGeorgia or the other editors who are involved in the disagreements on this page, and as far as I recall my only contact with SG has been regarding the Obama reviews, so I can't speak about anything else. But some of what I read here sounded political rather than substantive - for what it's worth.  Hope this helps. Tvoz |talk 06:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another outside perspective, on SandyGeorgia

message: The statement of the current de-facto closure process was added after the description of FARC, which seemed to me almost exactly the wrong place. So I boldly went and put those authorised to close FAs in the FA info section, noting that it's the "current" post holders to pick up Geogre's point that all is subject to the approval of the community. There's still the possibility that we'll think of a better system than tanistry! I also changed "A nomination need not be made with the goal of removal" to "A nomination should be made with the goal of improvement rather than removal". C'mon folks, think positive! 
The info box at the top didn't really give much idea of the process, so I've expanded that to briefly summarise what goes on, with an emphasis on concerns being raised and proposed improvements discussed without voting at FAR. This aims to pick up the point discussed above that the focus is on improvement, with demotion being deferred while concerns are being attended to. Oh, and to minimise the sort of utter confusion that just happened. .. dave souza, talk 08:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no problem with your edits, they're just what I was trying to do before Slim reverted me. However, they do lengthen the header, which should be as short as we can make it (I'm referring to the whole header not the first box). DrKiernan 08:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual accusation is that I've shortened things to the extent that meaning is lost! Better clarity than brevity. One change I made was from "reviewers" to "participants" , which aims to avoid the feeling that there's and élite of "reviewers" rather than it meaning anyone who comments. This change could also be made further down the header. .. dave souza, talk 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple of clarifications

message: I've removed the acronyms again because I don't think they need to be in more than one place on the page (they're referenced under the appropriate headers in the main text) - and i don't think they help the clarity.
I also wanted to reiterate my feeling that I'm unhappy with the closure of a review being limited to three people. Two central issues;
i) I don't think it's necessary, and it seems 'un-wiki' to me
ii) The instruction reinforces the tone of the page (and therefore the process) as somewhat authoritarian, and I believe that this systemically encourages people involved in the process to wield that authority - which i don't think should be there in the first place!
I'd welcome any thoughts about whether or not this is the right forum to attempt to build a consensus to reform this review process? - thanks... Purples 03:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means raise the question here, Purples, though it's been discussed higher up this page. The way I see it is that although Raul and co would rather they close the reviews, lessons have been learnt, so if an admin or someone else comes along and closes a review (properly), I doubt they will be reverted next time.qp10qp 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronyms + question of consensus...... 

message: Thanks for an excellent tightening up of the text. This version looks good to me, with the minor quibble that to my taste "longer where changes are ongoing" would be better as "longer where changes are in progress". It gives a clear statement that "The FA Director...  or his delegates..., determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so, and that the nomination should be moved to the second stage." However, the next revision includes the detailed clarification that "Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria." While other clarifications added at this edit may be worthwhile, this defines "consensus" more narrowly and could restrict the extent to which the director or delegate can apply their discretion. It seems to me to an unnecessary invitation to further arguments. ... dave souza, talk 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instruction creep or not, perhaps it might be useful to also include a very brief note about the director's option to override any arguable consensus for "good cause" such as when, in the director's judgment, consensus fails to reflect fundamental FA criteria. This puts the onus and any rights of refusal squarely on the director, who presently bears the ultimate responsibility for all FA decisions.  ... Kenosis 22:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nah ... if the director thinks that, s/he should discuss it on the page with the reviewers. I'm for transparency in the process. Tony 07:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruction creep?

message: According to Wikipedia:Former featured articles, there are over 400 articles that at one time met the Featured article criteria. Many of these were demoted for minor reasons that could easily be fixed by a dedicated group of editors. This project aims to dramatically increase the number of featured articles by first focusing on those former FAs closest to meeting the criteria, and working its way to those in need of more help. This would be done through scheduled collaborations on said articles. While all editors are welcome to join, editors with experience creating FAs, especially those with strong copyediting skills and/or knowledge of MoS are most needed. There is no reason for wikipedia to have any "former" FAs. It should be top priority to maintain them. "Once an FA, always an FA." is the eventual goal of this project.  This project would also serve as a "rescue squad" for articles under FA review. Please click the above link and add your name in order to join. Wrad 14:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily agree that "many of these were demoted for minor reasons that could easily be fixed", but I'm glad a group is willing to work to preserve and restore status.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second both of Sandy's points. In particular, I'd love to see the group supporting the FAR/C process itself, so that we can get as many nominations over the line as possible. That's the primary goal—not to demote. I disagree strongly with the notion "once an FA, always an FA". There are several reasons for this. You can probably guess them. Tony 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing to add to the above, other than I concur with both Sandy's and Tony's comments. LuciferMorgan 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "once an FA, always an FA" needs to be reworded to "once an FA, should be always an FA". There will never be a guarantee. I believe the should be is the job for the members of this new project. GizzaDiscuss © 06:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Former_Featured_Articles_WikiProject|Former Featured Articles Wikiproject]] 

message: I don't think it's necessary or helpful to have an automated review on the page of each FAR. The discussions can be disjointed as it is, and the script generally returns repetitive output. Ceoil 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Please remove them. A person could/should highlight these points not an automated script. This is not Peer Review. Joelito (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked Davnel to post on article talk only. Ceoil 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated review

message: I'd just like to say that the closure of Byzantine Empire was a pretty bad call. We seem to be more than happy to nitpick perfectly good articles like Restoration literature and Richard O'Connor apart (even if the former was saved by strong reactions from many experienced editors), but then stick our heads in the sand when faced with quality issues like focus simply because there aren't overly simplistic rules for it.
Peter Isotalo 23:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be grey. My reading is that the closure was qualified with an acknowledgement that there is not yet a hard and fast rule re acceptable size. As far as I know, if there is doubt, and if the grey issue is the only deal breaker, the candidate is a default keep. So the closure was sound, IMO. But prose size should probably be trashed out at this stage, at a wider level, and I'd support you on that. Ceoil 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I see the problem more from the point of view of volume than focus. Ceoil 00:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am against large articles, but I'm not going to punish one article while other mammoth-sized articles like Ketuanan Melayu get through.  We need to address this at WP:WIAFA; I'll support stricter size guidelines (50KB prose) for FAs.  But if a topic like B movie gets a pass, the Byzantine Empire certainly does.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't have the energy to read an article over 45KB. It's hard on the eyes, reading text on a computer, and I get distracted, and jump about on the hypertext. I suspect most others are like this. Ceoil 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, is the discussion at the talk page of WP:WIAFA or WP:SIZE?  I don't think anyone reads Size.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WIAFA. Ceoil 00:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial closure