Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 5

message: On the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, Rick has recently flagged those articles that are no longer featured with a rust coloured star. People here might want to browse that list looking for older ones that have not yet been FARed, but need to be. Marskell 16:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of FA nominations 

message: There's an involved editor looking for a list of improvements needed on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roe v. Wade - I don't have time to get to it today.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Roe v. Wade]]

message: Gimmetrow, I assume we also need to divide historical archives so you can point the bot at them?  FAC uses a monthly system for promoted and failed:
*Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2007
*‎Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2007
I don't think we have enough volume to separate by month.  Marskell, who gets the honors of doing this work, and how should we set up the files?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wouldn't bother separating the older archives. Gimmetrow 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me 24 to respond to this fully. Marskell 03:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dividing the archives

message: Not sure what to do with the Damon Hill review - holding off on Project notification until others give me a clue how to proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked the nominator about it. Marskell 15:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On quick glance, I don't see problems in the article - it concerns me when POV is first raised on FAR in an otherwise sound article, when there has been no attempt first to resolve the issues with talk page discussion.  The nominator asked the critical editor to respond on FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Damon Hill Review

message: Can others pls have a look - this has been referenced.  Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anne of Great Britain Are there other issues?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some statements use words like "probably" etc. as though the statement is speculation and not fact - these statements need citations. LuciferMorgan 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anne of Great Britain]]

message: Shortly after it was created, Execution of Saddam Hussein was nominated as a feature article, on December 31.  It was quickly, unanimously shot down.  It has since been nominated as a good article, also shot down.  It was also nominated for the 2006 Wikipedia CD selection.  I am not able to assume good faith on any of these nominations.  It is patently obvious the article was not even a 'good' article.  It's easy to speculate on why it was nominated, but it only takes a single user to nominate in bad faith.
I want the tags removed from the talk page that the article has been considered for feature article and good article.  I think those tags, to a real extent, are taken as a sign that at least some significant part of the Wikipedia editor community think the article is a great article.  It makes Wikipedia look bad, IMO, to have those tags on weak articles.  Tempshill 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags are useful for history purposes if the article reaches GA/FA standard again. I can't see how they suggest a significant part of the community think it is great; it only takes one editor to nominate. Trebor 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, if people are curious, all they have to do is click on the link and see how big of a landslide it was. — Deckiller 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the people who read this talk page here are aware of this, but the tag, to me, sounds like it is full of portent; I think the 'facfailed' tag alone does lend some heft to the article that's unwarranted.  A fix could be to just make the 'facfailed' banner tiny instead of this big thing, and mention in it that the tag alone doesn't mean anything, etc.  Tempshill 06:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If an FA didn't get any comments other than object and WP:SNOW, and was never put into the archived nominations log, then precedent exists for removing the tag. Often, a message is left on the talk page (which will eventually become part of the talk page archive) linking to the FAC page, especially for good-faith nominations made unknown to the article editors. The same thing has happened with GA nominations. (This is, by the way, why the bot does not simply find as many archived FAC pages as it can and list them on the talk page.) Gimmetrow 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purging mentions of bad-faith FA and GA nominations 

message: So we've been at this new process close to eight months and the archive for the sixth month was finally completed a couple of days ago. Sept: 7kp, 21rm; Oct: 4kp, 33rm (ouch!); Nov: 13kp, 18rm. The total is 24 kept and 72 removed, exactly 25% versus 75%. This is down from apx. 32% in the first three months and under the old process—the floor hasn't fallen out or anything, but it's just enough of a dip to be noticable. Random notes:
* Avg. 32 nominations per month or just over 1 per day. This has remained remarkably consistent.
* Apx. average number of bolded keep or remove comments in FARC (excluding those struck): 4.4 in November; 4.5 in August. By this rough metric we did not see an increase in reviewers. 
* Apx. number of words per review (total in archive / number of reviews): Sept., Oct., Nov., at 1152, 1263, 2258; June, July, Aug., at 1433, 1600, 1624. Similar when averaged, with a spike in November. By this rough metric we did not see an increase in commentary.
So we're on a plateau, which isn't a bad thing. More reviewers remains, of course, the greatest need. One last point of interest:
* The total number removed for the entire eight months is 153. Of these, 125 or 82% were on the citation problems list. This tells me that a) the list is a good means of identifying poor quality FAs, and b) we have roughly compartmentalized the FAs that need to go through the grinder—when we're through the list a large part of FAR's purpose will have been served (though of course FAs will continue to decay and we'll still need this process). Marskell 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another overlong Quarterly report

message: I think we need to look at FAR realisticially; we can only support ten reviews and 3-4 removal candidates at a time. Perhaps we need to make a clear cutoff? We need to focus on improving the articles, not removing them. By overwhelming this page (and WikiProjects), we are injecting FEAR into editors, who will feel helpless. Also, we might need to be a tad more kind with our criticism, including myself (although I haven't been on FAR in a while). — Deckiller 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain how you arrive at the ten and 3-4 numbers?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are just example numbers; either way, I think we should put a limit. This way, we might be able to keep more of the FAs in the long run. — Deckiller 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a very different problem.  Our experience is that things start to get difficult if the number of noms approaches 40 - which it rarely does.  We can't keep the articles whose original editors or Projects don't want to source them, upgrade them, improve them, expand them, prune external links, etc.  I do agree that we need more active help from reviewers on articles that do have editors willing to do the work and are seeking feedback - right now there are about half a dozen of those.  Some people spend more time making FAR talk page comments than helping those editors, and I'd love to see more reviewers jump in to help.  The problem isn't the number of noms - it's the lack of people willing to help. There have been dozens of reviews where I've been the only person giving feedback to editors who want to do the work.  In other words, Tyler, we need you on the FAR page, not on FAR talk  :-)  At any rate, we don't defeature articles when editors are actively working on them; the bottom line when there is a bottleneck is simply that the half a dozen or so of us who do the review work here have to work harder - the result is not more defeatured articles - the result is more demands placed on the time of a few reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for starting such a rant, because I have been juggling so many tasks and Tony is away. I'm just afraid that people will get burned out. But Sandy, you did clarify something; we don't close articles that people are working on. I should've used common sense. Perhaps I should've looked more carefully before I made this half-arsed topic. — Deckiller 23:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that makes two of us who are frazzled without Tony :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens when we get too far above 1 per day is that we eventually have a pile of eight or ten straight in FARC that have remove comments and nothing else. (How are the 24 sitting in FAR now going to look in two weeks?) It's depressing from a content improvement perspective. We decided a while back that we wouldn't police nominators or remove noms, but it would definitely be nice if the people nominating would be willing to come back to work on the articles. Marskell 05:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the FAR page, but am prioritising the articles I nominated for FAR. At the moment the only one which is having active work is Quatermass, which I've commented where I'm able and Sandy's been nice enough to put her 2 cents in, as has Marskell (sorry if I've forgotten anyone else). The two aspects I find annoying are that the original FAC nominators sometimes don't wish to get involved, and sometimes the FAR nominators seem to disappear after their nomination. LuciferMorgan 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Realism

message: Who is moving articles to FARC with strange comments? Tony 13:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A newbie editor, presumably. I think I've fixed it. Marskell 13:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unexplained movements 

message: I came here after noticing a long time featured article that had been demoted. "FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs" <-- Is this a joke? Featured article review and demotion of featured articles can take place without any editing of the articles or discussion of articles on their talk pages by the reviewers. People who might take an interest in helping the article do not even know that the article is being demoted. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it is hard for me to imagine that this "FAR" process is constructive for the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 03:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We leave messages on user and project talkpages, as well as a notice on the article talkpage itself. — Deckiller 03:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Besides multiple Project notifications, I doublecheck that every article is noticed on its talk page with a FAR template, and notification remains on the article talk page for at least a month in every case; can you pls tell us which article you're referring to, that wasn't noticed?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I queried JWSchmidt about which article was the problem, and had feedback from him; he correctly points out that when the FAR tag was placed on the article, there was no edit summary.  (Our instructions do say to indicate FAR listing in the edit box.)  On the other hand, there were eight Project and User talk page notifications on the Carl Sagan FAR, with no input or feedback whatsoever from anyone.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not hold featured article reviews on the talk page of the featured article and in a section called "featured article review"? This would increase the chance of people who have the article on their watch list noticing that the article is under review. --JWSchmidt 14:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People have been discussing problems with that article on the talk page since 2005; it sat of FAR for more than a month. It really should come as no surprise that an article that fails all the FA criteria was demoted (in 2007). FAR cannot notify everyone when an article is nominated; given that you don't appear to actively edit the article (3 edits in the last 500/ 2 of which were reverts) and that you have been generally pretty inactive for 2007 - it's no ones fault that you missed the FAR discussion. FAR actually seems to work pretty well as is. --Peta 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   intended to facilitate improvements 

message: I'm think of putting Barack Obama up for FAR sometime in the next few months.  Not that there's anything I see wrong with it, but the article was passed in August 2004 (before he was even elected to the Senate), and since then Mr. Obama has become a leading candidate for President of the United States.  Obviously his article has evolved tremendously since then, and will probably undergo changes of an equal scale several times over in the course of the campaign.  Would FAR be the appropriate place to certify that it's still of featured quality, even if I don't have any specific problems with its content now?--Pharos 07:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just went through a FAR a few months ago; check the article history.  It wouldn't be appropriate to bring it back if it's less than a few months.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks, I was just thinking off the top of my head.--Pharos 07:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, less than a few months ago—closed Jan 23.  Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May be better after everything dies down. LuciferMorgan 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should get a peer review instead.  Tayquan hollaMy work 18:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles without specific problems 

message: The recent FAC application for Japan failed. Why was this? Votes were overwhelmingly for. If it is because some people opposed it, please explain how it is possible to remedy two diametrically opposed complaints - see the first two "oppose" votes. John Smith's 17:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps ask at User talk:Raul654. There were 5 opposes. I can't tell if the first one is resolved, but the second and third imply incompleteness, the referencing issues in the fourth seem addressed, and the fifth was likely ignored by Raul (gallery? FAs should almost never have a gallery...)  Gimmetrow 19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed FAC - why?

message: I offered to work on this after I returned from travel because User RN has been very helpful to me in the past.  I asked that the review be held because no one apparently was reviewing the sourcing or referencing of the text.  I spent an hour and a half this morning, and barely got through the lead only.  My concerns only from the lead are listed on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Microsoft/archive1.  These are not just formatting issues as I hoped; there are issues of reliability of sources and overreliance on Microsoft itself as a source, based on what I've seen so far.  I will continue once I catch up in other areas; IMO this review should not have been closed, and the article has substantial problems with reliable sources and over-sourcing to Microsoft itself. Closing a review with substantial problems means that it's not likely that anyone else will help clean up these problems;  I suggest the close was premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been rightly chastised here. I've started to work on the article myself. Marskell 13:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Microsoft]]

message: user:Chahax nominated this article, and I have removed it. While at first glance, it appears this user is uninvolved in this article, within seconds of his adding the nom to this page, user:216.67.29.113 (who has done some pretty ridiculous POV pushing on that article and others -  ) added the FAR tag to the article. I smelled a sockpuppet, and checkuser confirmed it. As such, I have removed this FAR nom, being that it is being done both through sockpuppety and in mighty bad faith. 
Furthermore, on a more general note, I am concerned about how our two most controversial FAs - intellgent design and global warming - are being treated here on the FARC. Global warming (which is currently in the FARC section) is there as a result of POV pushing by a small but dedicated cadre of POV pushers.  Intelligent design appears to be experiencing similiar. Raul654 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a sock puppet. In fact it's impossible to nominate an article for FAC anonymously. The fact that you have removed the nomination without any discussion shows that there is a serious problem with the page as I have pointed out. Furthermore you have threatened to block me if I persue this...that's a no-no. I am replacing the nomination. If I am blocked, I hope someone will unblock me. This article (and possibly your adminship) need serious review. Chahax 19:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User blocked for sockpuppetry and seriously biased editing. Raul654 20:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chahax, my assumption has been that your addition of this was done in good faith, but although the subject matter is of course contentious and editors present their opinions forcefully, the outcome at present is that a significant change (and improvement) to the lead has achieved consensus. It's unfortunate that you appear not to have added the FAR banner to the article talk page yourself. .. dave souza, talk 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One point needs making: stability (1e) can't be a self-fulfilling. "It's unstable because I'm making it unstable right now." This is what concerns me about some of the opposes on Global warming. Marskell 07:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past, when an article has appeared at FAR with claims of a POV dispute or instability, and examination revealed no other issues, no attempts to resolve the content dispute either on the talk page or via mediation, and an article that otherwise complied with the rest of WP:WIAFA, we have closed the FAR, asked the editors to attempt to resolve the dispute, and reminded them that FAR is not dispute resolution.  That doesn't appear to be the case here.  The article was on the citations list, the problems are not recent or confined to a few editors, attempts at mediation have clearly failed, and almost every argument on the FAR in favor of keeping its featured status amounts to arguments that deprecate the entire notion of NPOV.  (It's "the other side" that's causing the problem.)  The article doesn't have even enough stability to insure compliance with 1c and 2, while 1b, 1d and 1e don't appear to be met.  I agree we should continue to watch for articles that come here only with claims of NPOV or instability, as those can be self-fulfilling and we have seen that before, but this is not an article that only suffers from a recent claim of instability or POV.  It has long-standing problems, indications that editors don't recognize the fundamentals of NPOV, and mediation hasn't helped.  I hope this is not Wiki's best work; we're in trouble if it is.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I echo Sandy's sentiment. LuciferMorgan 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent design

message: This is a lesson to all of us to keep a level head when things get heated. Tony 00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link doesn't work. Howard Cleeves 18:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global warming FAR: user blocked 

message: I just reverted an IP edit to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Quantum computer because I was unable to decipher what it was or what happened to the article structure (it repeated my previous post and several sections 3 times).  If anyone can salvage anything from my revert, I'd appreciate another set of eyes.  I really can't tell if it was vandalism or if there was something useful in there.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much, Gimmetrow.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum computer 

message: The first five articles listed haven't had notifications posted to original authors, involved editors, and WikiProjects listed on the article talk page.  I'm literally swamped; can someone please do the notifications with  ?  Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just did four of them. I don't know if that helped. LuciferMorgan 19:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent FAR has had a name change so that's thrown me off doing the notifications for that one. LuciferMorgan 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Lucifer; it's going to be a while before I can catch up.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I'm busy myself really with off Wiki stuff, but I'll do the rest of the FAR notifications later. I'm leaving Columbine alone though as its name has been changed during the FAR. LuciferMorgan 11:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They all seem to be up to date now, so that's cool. LuciferMorgan 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Everything shouldn't have to fall on your shoulders all the time anyway. LuciferMorgan 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notifications 

message: Hope folks here are tuned in the issues occurring here:  Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military brat (U.S. subculture) is on the main page, and has been twice removed from FAR. removed four times from FAR, with disputing editors edit warring over the FAR now.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This shouldn't be at FAR right now for the reasons you've stated.  What's more, this isn't the place to try and extend a content dispute war.  I support your removal.  If this behavior persists, I think a temporary block would be appropriate. -- mattb 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the time period that is required to wait until you put something up for FAR?  Tayquan hollaMy work 18:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a month. Aaron Bowen 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Military brat (U.S. subculture)]] 

message: The TOC problem is not just on FAR; I just saw it in on the UK tax article, so it's apparently Wiki-wide.  United Kingdom corporation tax   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From Gimmetrow:  See WP:VPT#Incorrect_TOC_formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The remaining error is likely from the level 4 headings in the sections above it. I wouldn't mind leaving those, though; your edit has made the TOC usable. Pagrashtak 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm, I removed the level 5 heading from Quantum computer, and now our TOC is back.  I don't understand why this isn't being fixed; it's hard to read some of the articles under review.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, fixed at last.  I'll put the sub-headings back into the articles I removed them from.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Contents 

message: Will reviewers kindly note that these boxes are regularly updated for problematic nominations and for those that are hanging around for too long with too few comments. Transcluding them on your user page and/or at the top of your talk page would be a great way to generate more interest in these processes, especially by reviewers who manage to visit only occasionally. 
All you do is to key in  and . Tony 02:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC and FAR/C urgents boxes 

message: I've proposed a new version of the existing criteria after a week or so to form consensus. Comments from reviewers from this room would be welcomed. Tony 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version of Featured Sound Criteria 

message: This article looks like an advertorial, a majority of the references points to unreliable, primary sources. If this is one of the best articles of wikipedia, we have failed. Erik Warmelink 01:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; however, a Featured Article Review cannot be brought until several days after the article is on the main page.  There are numerous comments on the article's talk page re-iterating your concerns; if the issues can't be worked out over the next four or five days via talk page consensus and article edits, then a Featured Article Review could be initiated. There are statements referenced to blogs and Pregnancystore.com, in addition to heavy reliance on primary, commercial sources.  Main page exposure may help address the issues in this article and encourage better examination of sourcing by FA reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above, but I think that the article is an almost great article that doesn't belong anwhere near the main page, yet.  The introduction is the problem - it can easily be seen as an advertorial.  But the body of the article sets out the facts pretty well - and must have taken some digging to get them, i.e. the article is about a scientific/commercial scandal.  So the article is schizophrenic: Intro - this is a great product that does something that people have wanted to do forever; body - this is a product that very likely doesn't do what it claims to do.  It's notable either way, but shouldn't a feature article reflect the main body of the article in the intro?  BTW there have been about 150 edits on it today and maybe it was different at the start of the day.  Smallbones 17:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lead has changed a lot. At some point the lead was about the controversies surrounding this product. As for the sourcing, the blogs really shouldn't have gotten through FAC, but since this article is basically a critique of a product's marketing, it seems natural to have a fair amount sourced to the marketing. Perhaps someone needs to do reviews of upcoming main page articles. Gimmetrow 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the information in the lead concerning why someone might buy this product, that informaiton was added because an early reviewer basically asked "why would anyone buy this"?  As for it being an "advertorial", did you read the article?  There is plenty of informaiton about controversies relating to this product.  As for links to primary sources, I assume you mean the company website and their related patents.  Surely this is appropriate informaiton to tell the company's side of the story. Johntex\talk 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did read it. The article itself is unbiased. However if unbiased articles about commercial products can become featured articles (and, as far as I can tell, there is nothing to stop them), the Main Page can be abused to draw attention to unknown products. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ErikWarmelink (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As for the "blogs", they are appropriate because they are used only a source for what people say about the product and they are directly attributed as coming from the blog.  These are not some random anonymous posts on a random blog - it is from the creator of a prominent web-source on pregancy issues that just happens to use blog-style formatting to post items.  The references we are making are to say things like "...and In-Gender.com reported that the test has been completely pulled from the market."  Just because a source happens to be formatted as a blog does not mean it is unusable.  The fact is it is usale informaiton if it is used correctly.  I believe it is used correctly here.  Johntex\talk 20:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Perhaps someone needs to do reviews of upcoming main page articles.  I started doing that about a week ago.  Cleaning up refs, cleaning up MOS stuff, tagging things that aren't well cited in time for them to be cleaned up before the main page.  I haven't gotten to Japan which, IMO is in VERY bad shape, not ready for the main page, and due up tomorrow or the day after.  I'm traveling, on a very slow dialup - I hope someone can run through it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Japan was just promoted. What happened? Gimmetrow 01:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When I checked yesterday, the ref formatting needed work — I can't remember what else.  But, from a dialup, I can't work on big articles.  Not that we need to do anything about the size of our articles, for the half of the world that uses dialup :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sometimes, non-standard ref formatting is a handy way to locate more serious issues :) Gimmetrow 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Baby Gender Mentor]] 

message: Some thoughts on our most prolific FA nominator.
I'm not sure how many successful FACs he actually has. The list shows 57 at the moment, but when I did my own count to track a couple of months ago, partly based on old info on his user page, I came up with 62. In any case, it's some number that would take a decade to accumulate under current standards. (And he did it before going to college.) The current FAR process has gone over about half of them: 10 kept, 17 removed, 4 outstanding right now (about 9% of the total that have gone through here in the last year). This is in-keeping with the overall ratio, and really isn't bad considering he's not editing himself.
My first thought is that we ought stop leaving notifications on his user talk. It's not especially important, but I think the fellow might feel a little depressed to log back in and see two dozen FAR/C notices. And it seems unlikely he's going to suddenly decide, "yes, because of that notice, I'm going to save that FA." 
My second thought is in the opposite direction: we ought to accelerate the review of Emsworth FAs, particularly relatively vital articles. I read Canadian House of Commons over tonight, for instance, and it has no business being an FA as it stands. It's decent, but not FA—small but important inaccuracies (according to this Canadian); coverage that's both underweight and repetitive; basically nothing in the References section. 
Anyhow, the same could probably be said of all of them. British Commons and Monarchy, U.S. Senate and Congress, Canadian Commons and Senate—all of these should be reviewed sooner rather than later. These are important articles that look increasingly stale compared to recent FAs. (Not that their current status is solely the product of Emsworth.)
Two suggestions:
* If you want to nominate an Emsworth article, start with the more important, currently relevant ones. And we should be nominating them, at regular intervals.
BUT, I'm not saying all this so we can have twenty of his articles removed tomorrow, so:
* Rather than contacting him, contact users that have already saved some of his articles. The venerable User:Dr pda, User:Ceoil (our pinch hitter), and the most excellent User:Yomangani, for instance. (Not to put pressure on those folks, but just as an example.) Better yet, see if you can pre-emptively save (or start to save) one.
On that last point: his British articles are often adopted, while not one of his American articles has been saved. Does Wikipedia have a monarchical bias? Marskell 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good initiative Marskell. As concerns royalty FAs that Emsworth has, could we also see if User:DrKiernan may be able to help? He's had about 5 recent royalty FAs - it's just an idea. LuciferMorgan 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Suggest Charles II of England as first project. Ceoil 22:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm on board.  Does someone else want to ping all the folks above ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Without wishing to sound like a wimp, Elizabeth I of England is about the only one of them I have the books on, and I am also an appallingly slow editor and can only really manage one thing at a time. I will say for Emsworth that he was of his time: he was knocking out very encyclopedic articles not unlike those in regular light encyclopedias and as such was doing an appropriate and highly useful job for Wikipedia at that time in its development: standards are now shooting up, which is a good thing, but each article takes more and more commitment. qp10qp 01:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to that comment, which I'm feeling guilty about, I would just say that a reason why I'm not really the man for quick-fixing is that, for some anal, perfectionist reason, I can't just add refs to existing text: I feel obliged to dig about in book after book to find the right formulation...which means that I tend to over-invest and take ages on what some people can do quickly. When Elizabeth comes up, however, I promise I'll be there, though she's not on my to-do list at the moment. qp10qp 14:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No worries. Adopt what you can. Qp and Dr K., I've got you on record for one each, and we never forget these things at WT:FAR! I'd like to lead by example, but most of these require omnibus books I don't have access to. I'll try to pick at some of the Canadian parliament info. Marskell 20:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Improve all three of the articles? Which ones are they? What we could do is allow them an extended stay at FAR (in general they stay there as long as efforts are being made on them, right?), or create a subpage of FAR to ensure constant low-level activity on Emsworth articles. I'm afraid I don't have any books on English royalty or Canadian stuff, but I would be happy to carry on watching from the sidelines and polishing up articles that others are working on (I tend to do light copyediting, improve internal linking, and ask annoying-but-sometimes-astute questions, as Qp10qp will tell you! Carcharoth 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, do an umbrella FAR nomination of the remaining un-FARed Emsworth articles, hope the talk page tagging attracts more editors to those articles, but delay FARC unless they are really bad or no-one shows any initial interest. Carcharoth 11:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another possibility is to do stop-gap improvements that wouldn't pass FAC, and note that they still need further improvement. So it comes down to choosing between doing a little improvement to all of them, or a complete rehaul for a few. Carcharoth 11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't aware of the limit on nominations. That is a good rule. I agree, remove the last two the new account nominated, and explain things to them. You've also persuaded me to recant my other suggestions, so there is not a lot left to say! :-) Carcharoth 11:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, I go ahead and remove repeat noms and notify the nominator.  In this case, I'll wait to hear from Marskell and others, as I'm not sure if this thread meeans we want to let more of them run.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and if you want to avoid Emsworth seeing multiple nom notifications, I see no problems with removing them to a subpage of his user pages, and refactoring his talk page to include a single notice and a link to the subpage. Though his contribs show he returned for a while in December 2006, so I guess he is already aware of this, so I'd suggest not worrying about it too much. Who knows, maybe at some future point, he will write articles of an even higher standard and disown his earlier attempts?! :-) Carcharoth 12:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did the notifications for the two oldest ones. Isn't much, but I hope it helps a little Sandy. LuciferMorgan 13:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I have to stop doing them, and start reminding the nominators to do it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but will they listen? There's a certain FAR culture of nominating an article and then disappearing. An unfortunate problem this is. LuciferMorgan 14:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yoda? Is that you? Carcharoth 14:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use was blocked as a sockpuppet. No idea the details. I removed the latest two but left the first up. Marskell 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the limit that can be nominated at once? I mean normally I see 10-15 articles on each section (FAR and FARC I mean). Aaron Bowen 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably isn't a set number. Howard Cleeves 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The longest thread on [[User:Emsworth]] you've ever read 

message: is a brand new user account, and has entered three FARs at once for Emsworth articles; what do we want to do?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Improve all three of the articles? Which ones are they? What we could do is allow them an extended stay at FAR (in general they stay there as long as efforts are being made on them, right?), or create a subpage of FAR to ensure constant low-level activity on Emsworth articles. I'm afraid I don't have any books on English royalty or Canadian stuff, but I would be happy to carry on watching from the sidelines and polishing up articles that others are working on (I tend to do light copyediting, improve internal linking, and ask annoying-but-sometimes-astute questions, as Qp10qp will tell you! Carcharoth 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, do an umbrella FAR nomination of the remaining un-FARed Emsworth articles, hope the talk page tagging attracts more editors to those articles, but delay FARC unless they are really bad or no-one shows any initial interest. Carcharoth 11:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another possibility is to do stop-gap improvements that wouldn't pass FAC, and note that they still need further improvement. So it comes down to choosing between doing a little improvement to all of them, or a complete rehaul for a few. Carcharoth 11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't aware of the limit on nominations. That is a good rule. I agree, remove the last two the new account nominated, and explain things to them. You've also persuaded me to recant my other suggestions, so there is not a lot left to say! :-) Carcharoth 11:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, I go ahead and remove repeat noms and notify the nominator.  In this case, I'll wait to hear from Marskell and others, as I'm not sure if this thread meeans we want to let more of them run.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and if you want to avoid Emsworth seeing multiple nom notifications, I see no problems with removing them to a subpage of his user pages, and refactoring his talk page to include a single notice and a link to the subpage. Though his contribs show he returned for a while in December 2006, so I guess he is already aware of this, so I'd suggest not worrying about it too much. Who knows, maybe at some future point, he will write articles of an even higher standard and disown his earlier attempts?! :-) Carcharoth 12:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did the notifications for the two oldest ones. Isn't much, but I hope it helps a little Sandy. LuciferMorgan 13:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I have to stop doing them, and start reminding the nominators to do it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but will they listen? There's a certain FAR culture of nominating an article and then disappearing. An unfortunate problem this is. LuciferMorgan 14:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yoda? Is that you? Carcharoth 14:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use was blocked as a sockpuppet. No idea the details. I removed the latest two but left the first up. Marskell 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the limit that can be nominated at once? I mean normally I see 10-15 articles on each section (FAR and FARC I mean). Aaron Bowen 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably isn't a set number. Howard Cleeves 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple noms from new account 

message: Many editors have probably noticed all four of these, but for those who don't have all the pages on their watchlist, there have been conversations with a similar background at WT:GA/R, WT:GA, WT:FAC and WT:FAR in the last few days.  I'm posting this note at all four places, to make the point that incivility (of various levels) and needlessly aggravating language is noticed and has a real impact.  Here are some section links:
*WT:GA/R#Individual vs. speedy delisting and most of the following material
*WT:GA#Concrete proposal and most of the following sections.  Both this and the above cover much more than "aggravating" posts, but that's a topic in both these pages
*WT:FAC#Could everyone be a bit nicer? Note Raul654's comments about "snowball oppose" paralleling comments on WT:GA/R about "speedy delist"
*WT:FAR#Notification: I go fuck myself An extreme case, admittedly, but it worries me that Bishonen's response doesn't seem a surprise after reading the other pages.
I don't have a prescription for this, but it doesn't seem coincidental to me that these threads are all going on at once.  Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, the FA discussions and the GA discussions are independent; but the judgmental tone invoked by review may be a common cause in both. If Bishonen, one of our quietest editors, is complaining, we have a real problem.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all related to citations; one group is for them, another is against them. A simple story really. LuciferMorgan 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you fail to understand, or are you intentionally misrepresenting?  I hope I am the most extreme in my position on references, and I'm all for them.  They should be used where appropriate and should be parenthetical citations.  Superscripts may never, ever be used as an excuse for voting against an article, and "where appropriate" means not common knowledge.  Some people, on the other hand, do not inform themselves of what's in an article, lack or pretend to lack even a college education, and count numbers rather than read articles.  That they then will go through and try to "review" every single article on FAC and even think to try to suggest that they know whether each and every one is a Featured Article is so absurd as to be self-negating.  Geogre 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't fail to understand at all, and I am not deliberately misrepresenting - are you failing to understand, or are intentionally misrepresenting? Various individuals try dressing up their reasons, but it comes down to one thing; they're either for citations, or against them. Anyone can try any which way to dispute that, but I don't feel they can dispute it at all given what's happened at FAR in the past. I even heard someone suggest reinstating brilliant prose, which I found to be a rather absurd and even ill conceived comment. With parenthetical citations, that's one of many options open to FAs on how to meet verifiability though it isn't exclusive. LuciferMorgan 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geogre and Lucifer, remeber to keep civil. This is my only warning to both fo you. Thank you. Joelito (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure.  N.b. the distinction between asking, as I did, and then being told what my real motives are, my real desires are, etc.  This is why I rarely bother trying to be polite with that editor.  It's going to be nasty one edit later anyway.  Geogre 10:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no "dressing up"; the arguments in the two threads above seem both considered and explicit. The positions are not about being either for or against cite.php; more as to when it is explicitly required. A moderate view would be to utilize the template to support stats, quotes etc. A more severe view wants to shout, at every opportunity: this is what I paraphrased. And maybe we should aim towards more than paraphrasing, ie synthesis. Ceoil 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't think it's a "for or against" citations issue for most people. A few may be boxed into those positions, but most will judge an article fairly, I believe. qp10qp 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't like cite.php.  I won't use it.  I have very nice explanations for it, but we're not really at the point where I even need to offer them, as footnotes are not required of FA's.  That's just the truth.  I adhere to academic standards when I write, and that seems sufficient.  More footnotes does not mean more researched or more right or more reliable.  (Cite.php isn't the first of these footnote formats.  I hope folks know that there were "cited" articles that became uncited with the change.  Parenthetical references don't get outmoded, don't disappear in a cloud of formatting, do not vanish in machine code, and do not suddenly require FAR.  Not only are they easier for the reader, clearer for a person checking the work, but they are also more permanent and therefore "reliable.")  Geogre 10:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are fine; and I hope no one has objected to them, because they would be entirely wrong to do so. Sometimes I feel that people who object to lack of inline citing are just objecting to lack of cite.php—usually a giveaway that they haven't read the article properly. They need to grasp that when the text is saying something like "John Smith in his History of Beer says that that Tolly Cobbold..." that that is as good a form of attribution as any extra- or supra-textual system. Formal parenthetical references of the Harvard type are also in order, of course, but I don't see them very often in history books, and so I use the "notes and references" system. which I actually enjoy using (though not "refname =" multirefs, which in my opinion make the edit page intractable in places). qp10qp 16:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility and the zeitgeist 

message: I've put my 2p about FAC in some detail at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive23#Thoughts_on_Featured_Article_process. With regards to FARC, it's a shame that there aren't more participants; however, there are plenty of articles which were featured some time ago which don't meet the current standards expected of an FA, or even come close. Having such articles listed as 'examples of our best work' is an embarrasment. Perhaps all the FAs from the old system (roughly as rigorous as GA is now) should be de-listed prior to review or renomination.
If this is a thread about Attack on Pearl Harbor, I made four specific criticisms when starting the FAR, three of which could have stopped it being an FA under the current criteria. On two counts - extreme length and POV - the current article is arguably worse than the version originally featured in 2004. If these can be dealt with then make in an FA again by all means. However, I don't see what else the user closing the FAR could have done. Regards, The Land 22:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I didn't review that article, I didn't realize it was that extreme:  64KB of readable prose (among the largest FAs, well beyond WP:LENGTH guidelines) with 6 KB in references (unusual in an article that size). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: ... no notification to the original authors, ...  Huh?  As far as I know, we always notify the original FA nominator, and have rarely missed.  I agree that a lack of reviewers is a problem, and believe it results from some of the toxic, inaccurate, and unfair smears against FAR.  People give up.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I mean that drive by nominators often leave it to the already over worked regulars to perform this task. Ceoil 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Land's comments

message: At the danger of starting another huge thread, I think the new system of "nominator notifies" is working. Since the addition of point 6 to the "How to nominate" list one week ago today, the three nominators who have added a FAR have sent out notifications. DrKiernan 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, blast. Only two of them did. DrKiernan 13:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of those two nominators, if you want us to add the list of persons/projects notified to the nomination itself then add it to the list of steps to perform when making the nomination.  It's not a big deal - we just need to know about it.  --ElKevbo 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Much improved.  Alchemy got it right, The Bus Uncle definitely needs to notify WikiProject Bio since it's a BLP issue, and Isaac Asimov missed about five WikiProjects.  We do need to clear up the instructions, incorporating Marskell's idea above.  (Elkevbo, many nominators don't seem to read instructions anyway, but we can try.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I missed the WikiProjects on The Bus Uncle.  Thanks to Hong Qi Gong for getting Hong Kong.  I've put a note at Biography now. -- Jonel | Speak 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jonel.  (Remember to add the note to the FAR.)  But you've proven my suspicion; the current nominators got the notifications done because they happen to be reading the FAR talk page :-) ... I hope future nominators do it.  Are the current instructions clear enough?   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually hadn't seen this talk page before nominating, it got added to my watchlist when I made the Bus Uncle nomination.  I didn't even realize the notification instructions were new, they're so eminently reasonable.  They're pretty clear, though step 6 is a bit long with all those parentheticals.  Of course, I don't know how to make it more succinct without losing useful information. -- Jonel | Speak 14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a side effect of long instructions will be to help avoid drive-by nominations?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think so. We should leave them for another week and see what happens. DrKiernan 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That was so surreal. I thought you were in a time machine in 1980s New York and I had visions of Isaac Asimov as one of your houseguests! :-) Carcharoth 22:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notifications (3)