Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 2

message: The nom deleted this after he uncovered it wasn't FA.  Is there something we should be doing about this?
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Prince %28musician%29
Sandy 11:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is not in fact an FA, the content of the mistaken FAR might be sent to WP:PR. Marskell 12:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince (musician)

message: I can't find a WikiProject to notify about Dawson's Creek.
Although I've only been leaving messages on WikiProjects for about a week, it doesn't seem that the messages have generated interest in working on any article.  Sandy 14:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawson's Creek &ndash; WikiProject notifications 

message: I was trying to determine when it moved to FARC, and there's no date on the commentary.  I think this is it; can we insert a date somehow?  Sandy 14:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarajevo

message: Why does the FAR template say "to ensure it meets the standards of style, prose, and completeness of a featured article", leaving out some mention of references, inline citations, or accuracy??  Sandy 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to Template:FAR  Sandy 12:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Re Sandy's comment, the template is already too long. They're generally summative, not specific. The link to the standards is there. Marskell 15:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as well that I shortened it by a few words, then. Tony 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine with me:  just raised the question, as I wasn't aware of earlier discussions of the wording.  Sandy 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still mentions some standards and not others, implying (wrongly) that the aspects mentioned are in some sense the "main" standards and the others aren't obligatory. Having a link to the standards, per Marskell, is surely enough, and is more logical. I've shortened it some more. Please let's keep it concise. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishonen's is much better. Tony 01:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR template 

message: Perhaps we should simply limit the page to, say, 12 or 15 reviews at any one time. For further additions, the review can be delisted and the nominator gently informed to wait until things clear up. Marskell 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're worried about the level of participation in the review process - perhaps the review part of the process could be transcluded (like FAC noms) on this page and the article talk page. FAR needs better promotion - could the project look at getting a more detailed blurb in the signpost each week? Mabye a namspace template like that of WP:AID () could be stuck on the articles during their 2 week review to draw more reviewers/fixers.--Peta 06:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had suggested a namespace template, which seems a useful step. We could have one for both FAC and FAR. Marskell 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am opposed to the namespace template. Meta-data templates, which are of no use to the reader, should be placed on the talk page. I am also opposed to the ceiling. We have to think of better ways to deal with the rising number of reviews. Joelito (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, what then? This process invites dump-and-run and majority are already going through without serious input. Marskell 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the nomination count is low right now.  We're finally reaching the point of no return as far as inline citations are concerned; as soon as we hit that, a few hundred FAs that don't have them will be liable to show up here at any time. Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. Looks as though the process will be a factory for forcing this issue, which is relatively mechanical. The problem will be that inline citations will rarely be the only problem: we're sure to identify others. Hmmm. What to do? Tony 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe we shouldn't be too concerned ...?  Didn't want to be the first to say it, but I'm not concerned: I think the process is working fine.  Articles that have no editors overseeing them or working on them are losing featured status, while articles with involved editors are generally finding status preserved.  There are a lot of deteriorated FAs out there:  the process is doing what it should.  I was somewhat worried about the amount of manual work I was doing in notifying Projects, but even on that score, as the Projects realize that FAs are being reviewed, the interested ones will probably kick in on their own.  Sandy 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The count in itself is not the problem. I have no problem removing thirty-odd a month without in-line citations given that even that pace will require a year-and-a-half to get through the list. It's just that we still don't have the critical mass of people to really go over things as regularly as would be ideal. It would be nice if the attention devoted to Asperger's or Sarajevo could be devoted to the majority. Marskell 08:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything you said, Tim. So one of the nice things about putting work into keeping this process running is that, from time to time, you get to decide to make a gift to an article, and/or to its contributors, by directly assisting. Lucky article and contributors. It's the same issue for reviewers in the FAC room. But I'm not going to feel bad about the ones I don't help; we're under no obligation to help any. Tony 09:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps a ceiling on noms 

message: As it has been mentioned above, there are perhaps hundreds of FAs without adequate inline citations. This "FA criteria" was added in May 2005 (along with the requirement of a References section). The carefully worded WP:FA? says "complemented where appropriate by inline citations"; it is not a requirement itself, but only where and if it is appropriate. To help manage FAR with nominations based solely on "no inline citations", could we require that the article have  tags before it goes to FAR? Most nominations come with examples from the text about why it, in the nominator's opinion, does not satisfy the criteria. I see this as providing examples to back up the "no line citations" charge. I can help add citations if someone helps with  tags. --Maintain 05:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always just tag the section rather than individual sentences if the latter is too laborious. Obviously, a majority are not going to get all the citations they need but we've seen Sarajevo go from 0 to 30 and Phishing go from 30 to 60, so it's not impossible. Marskell 12:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I usually end up doing that.  I just wanted to point out that it's usually more than an issue of just finding a few missing sources.  Sandy 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline Citations

message: I just arrived here through :Category:Wikipedia backlog, but am unclear on what precisely the backlog is and what an eager volunteer might do to help out with it (as I'm sure I saw such a volunteer pass by just a minute ago...)  Perhaps a note to this affect should be added after the backlog template message? --jwandersTalk 01:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: The editors seem to be hard at work over there, which is a welcome change to the FARs that get no attention.  I've given talk page commentary a couple of times, and editors have moved quickly on my suggestions, so others might want to comment on the talk page. Sandy 21:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bob Dylan]]

message: I want to raise an issue that hasn't been aired before to my knowledge: whether FARCs are bereft of "friends" or are likely to enjoy ongoing maintenance by commited WPians. It partly comes down to the stability of the topic. Indian pottery is likely to be relatively static, but Economy of India and Photonics are likely to be dynamic and thus constantly changing: I think this should be a factor in considering whether to remove or retain borderline cases. We need to put our minds at rest that a dynamic topic has friends, such that it won't end up back here in a year or two.
I have in mind Economy of India at the moment. Tony 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But all friends of articles are fairweather on Wikipedia. I don't know if we can ever put our minds at rest (certainly not looking ahead a year) because the people working on an article can take off at any point. If its up-to-date at the moment of the review, that's the most we can ask IMO. Marskell 06:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airing an issue: "friends" of FAs 

message: I've just left this note on his page:
I'm not in on the specific issues, but perhaps a note on the FAR discussion page explaining why you removed this listing? The edit comment needs elaboration. Tony 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony asked me to comment on why I removed the Bulbasaur FAR. I've been watching this particular nomination with some interest because not a single objection brought up was a significant one, and (more importantly) not a single one is new since the FA nomination. This FAR nomination appears to me to be a transparent attempt to rehash the FAC nom, which this page is *not* for. Raul654 03:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the same thing with the Iranian peoples FAR. We do have the comment about not nomming things immediately after they've been promoted. Marskell 05:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, Bulbasaur was promoted in March, which is why I asked for an explanation. Raul, I'd have preferred a comment here and/or on the Bulbasaur FAR page before acting unilaterally; this is not a slight on you, but arises from a concern that such actions may be used to justify similar moves by other people, where consensus here may not support it. The process needs to be transparent. Tony 08:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought my edit summary did a satisfactory job of explaing my reasoning. If it would calm your fears of others doing it, then I'll make it clear that my decision was done under the auspices of my FA-director position. Raul654 17:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer that your position were understated when you take actions. This is not a personal matter in the least—I just think that the consensus-based approach works best when hierarchy is just in the background. And by rationing explicit mention of the directorship, when you really do need to weigh in, it will mean more to the punters. Tony 08:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't involved in Bulbasaur, but I'm confused.  Our instructions say "Older FAs are held to the current standards. 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)."  Bulbasaur was older than 3 months: do we need to update our instructions?  As I re-read the FAR, it didn't appear to be headed for FARC anyway, so I'm not really understanding the issue.  Also, regarding "FA-director position", I'm not understanding if there is separation between FAC and FAR ??  Sandy 17:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Bulbasaur was in fact listed in the FARC section when I removed it. And just so we're clear - it was promoted only four months ago, after a long and contentious FAC discussion. This FAR is, as I said before, a transparent attempt to rehash the long and contentious FAC discussion that bulbasaur caused, which is not acceptable. And no, in terms of my position as FA director, there is no seperation between FAC and FAR. Raul654 17:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In removing the minor/major distinction one thing that became less easy was deciding if things really need to go down to FARC. I just move them down automatically to make sure that base is covered. If Raul or anyone wants to remove something early, perhaps post the Status question about whether it needs to go to FARC and leave it for a day. This shows the nominator it was removed with process. Marskell 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Marskell, that's a helpful instruction.  I've been posting Status as a question, to see what others have to say, in cases where nothing is happening, or a lot is happening, or there is no clear direction.  In the case of Bulbasaur, since there were no Remove votes and no strong indication towards delisting, we probably could have been done with it if someone had posted a query.  I guess I should keep doing what I've been doing (checking status), and hope that I'm not misusing my time by trying to help out here.  Sandy 20:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, then, two or three days' grace should be the norm when it comes to deciding whether to move down or close a FAR. Whoever is managing the process at the time might insert a standard notice at the bottom of the review commentary asking for reasons that the article should not be moved to the FARC list. Tony 08:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can make the notice a matter of course. But per earlier discussions, those absent in-line citations should always go down. These shouldn't be default kept due to lack of commentary. Marskell 10:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raul's removal of Bulbasaur 

message: Can anyone tell me if there are other WikiProjects that should be notified for Memory Alpha?  Sandy 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Memory Alpha

message: We discussed whether a nominator should have more than one article on FAR at a time, but I don't recall a firm conclusion.  I haven't yet put out any notifications on Omnipotence Paradox, because we also have Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace.  What should I do?  Sandy 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't really see the need for a hard limit here, as the nominator's role on FAR is not nearly as labor-intensive as the nominator's role on FAC. Kirill Lokshin 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More than one nom

message: I've become aware that articles are spending more time at the doctor's than anticipated when the lead text was framed. I wonder whether it should be modified to reflect our experience. I see nothing wrong with longer stays here, given that contributors sometimes have to be prompted to help.
In addition, I hope that criteria listed at the top of "FARC commentaries" don't preclude declarations of "Remove" on the basis of other criteria. If I discover that 1a, IMV, is not met, I'd like to be able to declare "Remove" even if this hasn't been mentioned during the review. Any thoughts? Tony 05:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a more pressing concern, as highlighted in the thread under my bulbasaur removal comment, is that we need clearer criteria for what goes onto FAR and which reviews are simply closed. As it now stands, I think everthing goes to FAR, which was not the intention. Raul654 05:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you mean "everything goes to FARC"?  We have had articles not go to FARC, and we have others headed that direction (it looks like Free will is coming up to snuff quickly).  Sometimes moving them to FARC is what gets more editors involved:  Yes, Tony, I agree we should give them more time in FARC once we see progress.  (For example, only yesterday I noticed the reference problems in Korean names, and an editor got on them as soon as I pointed it out.)  Some of them don't really get action until they are under the threat of FARC. I'm not sure what Raul means by "clearer criteria for what goes on to FARC":  anything that still doesn't meet the FA criteria goes on to FARC.  ???  Sandy 11:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. Tony 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  timing 

message: I don't want to add them to the "urgent" list, but can reviewers please have a look at Omnipotence paradox and Free will ?  They look to be able to avoid FARC, and if more work is needed, the (very involved) editors should be told so sooner rather than later.  Sandy 20:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Left note on Omnipotence paradox about a verify tag, closing Free Will since concerns seem to be addressed and all reviewers agree it is up to par. Joelito (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoiding FARC?

message: I intended that anyone here might remove and add articles appropriately. Even though it's in my user-space, please treat it as public. I've just added Cambodia. Two more could be added, bringing the number to five (which I felt was the comfortable maximum). They take about 10 seconds each: you just insert the article title in two places.
It's obviously going to work better if copies of the box are disseminated. As well as posting it on my user page, I'm placing it at the bottom of my talk page from time to time, inviting visitors to copy it onto their own page.
Tony 02:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent FARCs box 

message: Damn, this has been up a while. Any other FAR watchers want to take a look at it? Marskell 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cambodia 

message: Pope Pius XII has a review page listed on its talk page, but not here. Was this listed corrects here, or was it removed from FAR without the templates deleted from talk? Gimmetrow 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was ever listed here, because it doesn't have my notifications at the top.  (Gimmetrow, you never miss a thing!) Sandy 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been listed now. Joelito (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pope Pius XII

message: Am I missing something?  This seems to be a very hard way to find the original nom:  I go to the article talk page, and click on the original FAC nom. ???  Sandy 16:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the intent in adding that was good but obviously the original nom via talk is the simplest means. Marskell 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hint to find original nom 

message: Huh?  Is it my eyes, my computer, or my brain.  The article is gone, although the history and discussion pages are there, and the history shows nothing happened to the article.  Ziad Jarrah  Sandy 20:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the article. I can even see that no work has been done for 3 days ;-) Joelito (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ... I'm getting the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Ziad Jarrah in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings" screen.  Still. When I click on the link above.  Maybe I need to re-start my computer or something, but this is weird. Sandy 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cold booted computer, still no article.  Does anyone else use IE6? Sandy 20:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am using IE 6.0. Have you tried Crtl+F5? Joelito (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did it ... same.  Sandy 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well either something is telling you not to edit that article or that you need to take some time off wiki ;-) Joelito (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe both.  Oh, well.  Sandy 21:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it might be a bug, theres a few similar questions on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) today. --Salix alba (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I left a note there, at the same time you did.  Sandy 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ziad Jarrah 

message: Today, the fac process is usually featuring quite excellent articles. I'm almost sure some of this will someday will go down in quality and be nominated for review. What is the official stance of the community regarding reverting this articles back to the version when they were featured once they diminish in quality? If indeed everyone agrees that this is a good option then I believe we should state it more clearly for reviewers that this is a possibility when putting articles for review.  - Tutmosis 23:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already pretty clear in the text on the FAR page that reduced quality over time falls within its ambit. What I'd like to see is mention on the FAC page that promoted articles need to be tended from time to time, like a garden, or they'll end up here. Tony 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you misunderstood me. I am not familiar with the FAR process but wouldn't revisions be much easier when an article degrades in quality rather than improving all over again. I would support such a measure and would like to see it clearly mentioned if the community agrees. Currently I do not see this mentioned anywhere so I am not sure what you ment...  - Tutmosis 02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends on the article, when it was originally featured and the types of changes that have taken place. There has been a steady increase in the expectation of a FA over the last 6-12 months; some articles that were featured before that time would fail to meet today's criteria - thus a revet to the featured version wouldn't necessarily be an improvement. If the article was featured in the last 6 months, and there was degeneration due to "bad editing" - then a revert might be a good option. But if quailty has fallen due to addition of good into in a bad format - you might be losing good stuff that just needs polishing if its reverted. If an article is on FAR because it has become outdated (Country and economy articles), a revert would also be useless.--Peta 02:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I perfectly agree and am aware of this, that is why I said its an option rather than the only solution. With the current expectations of FAs, the next generation of FARs I believe will mostly deal with the issue of "bad editing". Thats why I think something of this sort should be stated somewhere: "If community consensus agrees that a featured article met the featured article criteria on the day featured and has dimished in quality, then reverting back to the day the article was featured is a possible option to bring an article back to meeting criteria." to help editors not waste time rewriting the article over again.  - Tutmosis 23:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting to day featured 

message: ... has been cited, and needs a new look/votes.  Sandy 03:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great save there. People might also look at Ziad Jarrah where work has been done. Marskell 07:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary II of England 

message: I've changed the instructions to:
1. Place  (upper case) at the top of the...
A bit of emphasis on the "top" aspect as for some busy talk pages it gets lost in the middle of project boxes,portal boxes, peer review requests etc. (Talk:Go (board game) - a lovely example) Yomanganitalk 13:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold in instructions

message: Can Michael Woodruff be removed from the list, or should we FAR it?  It appears to be mostly cited.  Sandy 19:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one responded:  I'm going to remove it from the list, since it is referenced.  Sandy 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles lacking citations

message: Maybe it would be useful to place featured articles on a two or three month probation in cases where the page is not quite up to snuff but editors are responding to FAR/FARC feedback and making improvements.  
Reviewers would write Probation in place of keep/remove/comment if they think a good faith effort is underway to improve a weak FA.  At the end of 60 or 90 days the article would automatically return to FAR.
If my hunch is right, a featured article probation tag with a specific expiration date could motivate more Wikipedians to raise old FAs to current FA standards.  This would give specific projects and task forces time to rally an effort to save the FA.  What do people think of this? Durova 16:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone can come up with a probation template to place on all 400 FAs lacking citations.  Sandy 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would have little benefit - it would just drag out the length of time before anybody paid attention to an article. FAR and FARC give plenty of time to work on articles if anybody is interested, and even if an article is demoted there is nothing to stop it being worked on and resubmitted to FAC. I think the problem isn't the speed of the FAR/FARC process but the apathy shown towards maintaining FAs, and I don't think that will be overcome by lengthening the process. Yomanganitalk 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should lengthen the current process (a month is enough), but I do think we should come up with a template for the 400 + articles lacking citations, to try to motivate some work before the articles come to FAR.  Sandy 17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about placing that this article doesn't cite its sources template to the top of the article? --plange 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a shame to put a template on the main page of featured articles - it would be nice to have a talk page template.  But if everyone is in agreement with tagging the main articles, I can do that work.  Sandy 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can make a talk page one, but can't do it till tomorrow -- that might better, as I think I remember doing the template on the main page once and got my head bitten off for disrupting an FA. :-P --plange 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, since one of them (British House of Commons) is on today's main page ... (eek) ... it would be nice to have a talk page template explaining that inline citations are a current requirement, and the article will eventually come up on FAR if not done. Sandy 18:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did it get past FAC? --plange 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's one of the older ones; one of the dozens by Emsworth, who is no longer on Wiki.  And, in the lead, it links to at least three other FAs with no citations - that's why I'm afraid we can't template the main pages.  Look at the Lacking Citations list for the articles by Lord Emsworth:  they are well written, but uncited. Sandy 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Every FAR in which an active editor has requested extra time, and progress is being made (even if slow), has been granted extra time, as long as work is continuing.  A month is long enough:  FAs should be watched and tended.  The situations in which *anyone* cares to work on the article are surprisingly few, reflecting that most FAs are just abandoned.  That's why I propose we try to do more, and at the Project level, in advance of FARs.  Sandy 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks for the input.  I guess you already have an informal system for handling the matter.  Best wishes, Durova 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article probation? 

message: Putting on my thick skin suit:  .  Sandy 22:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR comment at Village Pump 

message: I am not sure if this needs a formal FAR, but as I recently was forced to insert a NPOV tag into the article, comments would be much appreciated on the talk page, so we can quickly decide wheter the article is or is not NPOVed by some recent edits (like the editors insisting on using the term 'naked agression', for example).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Polish Soviet War]]

message: Any thoughts on provisionally demoting some articles while they are in FAR? Having articles that are supposed to embody our best work littered with tags pointing out that they are clearly not doing so, doesn't seem to me to be the best promotional stategy. The Polish Soviet War (mentioned above) would seem to be an ideal candidate to be taken off the FA list during FAR and then "re-promoted" if the issues can be resolved. Definition of planet, having been overtaken by current events, would seem to be another. Maybe they could be tagged with an alternative FA template which maintains the star but keeps them out of the FA list (so they don't actually lose their status and have to go through FAC again). Yomanganitalk 00:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that; you are opening a way for vandals and POV-pushers who may attach a POV tag to any FA and claim it is enough for its defeaturing. In PSW case I don't believe the (current) tag is justifified, what is needed is reviewers looking into the matter, deciding if it is justified or not and acting on that basis - not on the assumption that all tags are justified.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto to what Piotrus said.  FAR is NOT dispute resolution, we should not be used to make a point, and there are other means of resolving disputes.  We saw this with that anarchism article, where the nom never made a case for what was actually wrong with the article.  I think we should remove the Polish Soviet War listing from here.  Resolving disputes is not our job.  Sandy 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true, I was forgetting about vandals and axe-grinders. Please strike that suggestion. Yomanganitalk 00:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  I'm not going there.  If we vote to defeature every article that has a content dispute, then editors who don't like a certain article can cause a content dispute just to get the article defeatured.  We seemed to see that here, where the entire FAR was about editors and their issues rather than the article; I'm not biting.  Content disputes don't belong here, especially brand new ones.  What troubles me here is that this appears to be a brand new dispute on an established FA, and there have been no other attempts to resolve the dispute:  it came first here. Sandy 00:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple case of an editor unfamilair with FARC sumbitting an article to the wrong place. Although - as I said in the begining - a 'just review' place for FAs with disputes on them would be useful, and considering that FAR is not FARC, perhaps it is actually the right place to submit article for comments if talk page discussions are in stalemate? That said, I'd suggest a few days before discussion starts and article ends here, sumbitting in in about a day after discussion startes seems rather to quick.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This defeats the purpose of FAR and (that aside) is a horribly bad idea on its own merits. Raul654 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did say to forget I mentioned it, but (that aside) thanks for the constructive criticism. Yomanganitalk 08:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Provisional demotion