Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 4

message: Will someone else *please* look at V for Vendetta?  Like the ship, I seem to be the only one commenting, and it's not good for any FAR to overly rely on comments from one reviewer.  Can someone see if I'm on the wrong track?  SandyGeorgia :(Talk) 14:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have given my reviews. — Indon (reply) — 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ahem 

message: Just to make sure everyone active here will follow this discussion about bots and templates for closing FACs and FARs.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template and bot proposals

message: Can a few reviewers weigh in in the FARC vote of this article, and declare "Keep or Remove"? It's been over a month, and only two people (one of them being me) have currently voted. LuciferMorgan 08:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone listened to me? LuciferMorgan 13:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Palladian architecture]]

message: On review of recent promotions, our instructions say, "Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances)."  
But we don't spell out a guideline between time on main page and listing for review.  This came up with Wikipedia:Featured article review/V for Vendetta (film), and I'm wondering whether we should be reviewing Gerald Ford so soon after it was banged up by its time on the main page vis-a-vis current events.  I thought we had once discussed how soon an article could be reviewed after appearing on the main page, but I can't seem to find the discussion in archives. Is it too soon for Gerald Ford?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite happy for listing here immediately after (although not during) a main page appearance. It's often main page exposure that brings to people's attention the unsatisfactory state of a FA; sometimes it's just the opening that has been fixed up, which disguises an overall failure to meet the criteria. Is there a reason for waiting? Tony 16:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No opinion one way or the other - just trying to determine if we have consensus.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should just leave it up, as a) it appeared in the news rather than on the main page proper and b) the current event was the subject's death, which does not require on-going changes to the article. People have obviously engaged it, but nothing about it should be inherently unstable or unreviewable. Marskell 08:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter what anything thinks - judging by the Palladian architecture fiasco Featured Article Review is an utter joke. 3 inline cites? Give me a break. It's full of opinions, and opinions need citations. If that ends up being kept we might as well scrap FAR right now - the fiasco is totally pathetic. LuciferMorgan 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main page and promotion timing

message: (Which fails to pick up chunks of B movie because it has listy prose that isn't captured - prose is higher than the 84 shown) - comparison with ultra long FAs, that were discussed on ELAC:
B movie
*Wiki text: 127.1 kB (19486 words)
*Prose size (text only): 84 kB (13569 words)
*References (text only): 15 kB
*Images: 477 kB
World War I  (recently defeatured)
*Wiki text: 95.0 kB (14441 words)
*Prose size (text only): 69 kB (11406 words)
*References (text only): 2 kB
*Images: 360 kB
Ketuanan Melayu (Size was considered on review - unlike B movie, where size increase occurred after support was garnered)
*Wiki text: 107.5 kB (16228 words)
*Prose size (text only): 81 kB (13048 words)
*References (text only): 11 kB
*Images: 131 kB
And for comparison to a LONG FA, Bacteria, size all in references, not prose (conforming to WP:LENGTH)
*Wiki text: 84.6 kB (11403 words)
*Prose size (text only): 39 kB (5820 words)
*References (text only): 21 kB
*Images: 375 kB
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr pda data