Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive14

message: I am proposing a change to FAC reasoning, eliminating the rule that suggestions that an article should never be frontpaged be ignored. Please come discuss it at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candicates/never_proposal --Improv 19:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed policy change on FAC reasoning

message: to find a list of some sort that can show me all of these wonderfull featured articles ?
I really did try. I checked all of the search results of the phrase and found nothing but internal referncing to 
"Featured article candidates" etc'.
This REALLY SHOULD BE QUITE EASY to get.
Even as a link from the main site ,yet it is so alluding ,I still cant find it.
what is there to hide?
The Procrastinator 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you looking for WP:FA? Dave (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the main page, you can click "More featured articles."  When you're looking at the talk page of any FA, you can click the "featured article" link.  You can also look at WP:FA which redirects to Wikipedia:Featured articles.  Hope this helps.  Dave (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, we clearly go to great lengths to hide the list ;) Raul654 09:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should put featured crap on the front page and password protect the featured articles. :-) 09:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I should get a dollar for every time I have to cite user:Raul654/protection Raul654 09:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wasn't just saying that the articles should be protected from editing... I was saying that they should be encrypted so people can't find them. "Wikipedia: the 7337 encyclopedia that only h4X0rz can edit" Dave (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Teet encyclopedia? --TidyCat 10:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You boob.  (Couldn't resist ;-)--TidyCat 11:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see :Category:Wikipedia_featured_articles. — Wackymacs 11:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it so imposiblly difficult 

message: Hello there.
Sorry to interrupt. Can anyone tell me how long I have to be a registered user, before I can vote on Featured Article Candidates?  Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. Aspern 15:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FAC is more a discussion than a vote.  The important thing in deciding if an article makes "featured" status is not that it has more "support" than "oppose", but that all major objections have been taken care of.  If you've got suggestions on how to improve an article, feel free to add them. --Carnildo 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and don't be put off the place by the "discussion" above, we all love each other really, even old Ghostie has a soft centre. Giano | talk 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Your views will be taken into account, although a lack of edits, if you are in a startling minority, will probably be used to assess how familiar you are with Wikipedia's policies and articles.  There is a fallacy in such things, but it's the best defense we have against vote drumming and article wrecking.  (I.e. if you are the only objector, and your objections are wild, folks will look at the number of contributions.  If you're supporting in the face of a number of objections, it won't make any difference at all, as articles are promoted only when all substantive objections have been addressed.)  Geogre 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting age

message: Did you recently up your standards?  I use to enjoy reading all the new FA from the lists at signpost, but for the last two weeks no new FA.  Hopefully you don't run out of articles to front page.  I would help if I wasn't busy trying to get wikiproject Nebraska off the ground.--Rayc 22:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - Raul654 just didn't promote any last week, but there were lots (14!) the week before, and he has just promoted seven more today (see WP:GO). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just as long as one is produced per day.--Rayc 05:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the current average is running at well over 1 per day, but there is a large backlog of old ones still to go on the front page (if that is what you are worried about).  In any event, we could always start from the beginning again. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No new FA?

message: How do any articles ever make it to Main Page when 90% of nominations get shot down by unanimous objections? Captain Jackson 00:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other 10% are what you see on the Main Page; this is consistent with Sturgeon's Revelation, incidentally ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The number of articles unanimously shot down would reduce if nominators spent some time reviewing how other unanimously promoted articles meet the FA criteria. Most editors don't, so the noms get shot down as a result. Spending some time on WP:PR and actually listening to and implimenting the suggestions given there and asking for more is a good start also ignored by most. - Taxman Talk 17:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shot down 

message: Look, folks, let's be absolutely clear, eh?  There is no requirement for one style of citation over another.  There isn't one at WP:CITE, and there isn't one for FAC.  Citation is mandatory, but parenthetical vs. inline is an absurd battle to wage.  I do not like inline notes.  When I see a note, I expect it to be an emendation, to actually say something.  Otherwise, it's as John Barrymore said: "Reading a footnote is like running downstairs to answer the doorbell on the first night of marriage."  Provide a parenthetical, and, if I have read the references first (which I have), then I know which work you're referring to as I go.  That's far better than a tiny number and flip-backs, for me.  I've written my share of Featured Articles, but I will never use the inline style.  Remember: it's a style.  It isn't an obligation.
I demand citations for controversial facts, and I demand citation for inaccessible facts, but something like "he was a noted controversialist" doesn't need a note when the body of the article is going to explain how many controversies he fought in.  When the evidence is right there in the biography, the adjective is supportable and NPOV.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, but it's not an academic clipping service: it's an encyclopedia, and that means that things are said that are supported, not that are repeated.
I object stenuously to anyone who goes through substituting style over all other considerations and who goes into style wars with an aim to reducing rather than increasing choice.  Don't ask me to use a reference style that will render my article un-editable.  Don't ask me to use a style that is unreadable.  Don't demand that I violate my professional academic procedures and my personal aesthetics because you have a bur in a sensitives spot over footnotes or some other bit of fustian.  Geogre 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a big vocabulary... :) --Tsavage 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You could have shortened that entirely because you are correct there is no consensus for one style over the other and therefore any consistent style within an article is acceptable. Anyone wishing to change that should propose it in WP:CITE and will face a huge uphill battle. Objections based only on which style of inline citations are used are invalid. Simply point that out and point people to WP:CITE. - Taxman Talk 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, from WP:CITE, I think this is particularly important as a starting point: Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below. --Tsavage 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should probably be modified. Featured articles are required to have some form of inline citations (be it footnotes, or harvard style parenthetical citations). Simply posting a list of references at the end of an article is not good enough as it does not tie specific facts to specific sources. Raul654 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Raul, that refers to certain situations like Charlotte Charke or Laetitia Pilkington or Sarah Scott:  the biography is not controversial, and all of the factual information comes from the personal memoirs of the subject and a DNB entry, so putting a note up saying "Got this from DNB" and "Got this from there too" and "Got this from there and the novel" and "Got this from there, too, but I also read it in the memoir" is kind of blunt.  There simply aren't many good sources for some of these folks.  (The folks I mention there really haven't any biographies other than what one finds in biographical dictionaries, and specialists tend to read the primary source document.)  Geogre 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing a memior that could easily be 100,000 words long isn't particularly helpful to anyone. The cases you cited call for inline citations with specific page numbers. Raul654 22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Schabir Shaik Trial, where the nominator/main supporting editor noted in FAC review: I found it silly to continuously repeat the same footnote when from reading the articles its fairly obvious. --Tsavage 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If it were a research paper, Raul, we'd demand that facts that are inaccessible, phrasings that are peculiar, and structures that are unique be cited.  Otherwise, "I'm reading this here book, and this is what's in it" is a references page matter.  Similarly, "I'm reading this biographical dictionary, and these are the facts from it in a new order, in new wording, with implications expanded and inferences drawn, with hyperlinks" is a reference.  Otherwise, like Tsavage says, you just keep saying, "Ibid," "Ibid," and "Ibid" and sound like a swamp full of frogs.  (And, for the record, I've read the Memoir of Pilkington like a mosquito on a pond -- alighting here and there -- and so to AC Elias's work I add things from the Memoir, but they're not quotes.  I haven't added the Memoir to those references yet, because I got lazy and didn't go find out when the modern edition is.  (I used an ancient one when I read it, but I had a great lieberry.))  So the short version is that I don't think the "sometimes References is enough" needs to be changed.  Such an article might not get promoted, but it should be possible.  What I wrote to object to, though, was the current run of "not inline citation!" for objections.  That has gone unchallenged every time, and I should hope that we'd all be reminding voters that references are required, but notational vs. parenthetical is preference. Geogre 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References: the new new witch 

message: I'm amazed at home many people take their article to FAC without peer review when it's clearly in the instructions at the top. I'd like to be able to see instantly if, when, and how an FAC was peer reviewed. Is there anyway we could make an automated link to each nominee's corresponding peer review? So if I nominate Foobar, it would automatically post a link to Wikipedia:Peer review/Foobar. That way, articles without peer review show up as redlinks. Lovelac7 14:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere do the instructions say that an article has to go to WP:PR first, before being nominated here; it is, however, often a wise thing to do.  You may be being misled by the "path" to a featured article: it is simply guidance, not instruction. Some other Wikipedias require a period of peer review before selecting their equivalent of featured articles, but we do not. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be mandatory, but it would be nice to have the links nonetheless. Lovelac7 16:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that the feedback at Peer Review is sometimes non-existent. It leads to me to believe some people take their article to FAC in place of Peer Review because of its greater activity. Gflores Talk 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point. I'm just now getting the hang of FAC. Lovelac7 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some articles get little to no improvement on peer review, but showing that the effort was made to send it there should be good enough for many of us. But, if people really want to bypass Peer Review, they should at least check the grammar, spelling and wording of the article, and make sure that any media passes all copyright tests. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy  00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *...? No, it's not a caution to "object lightly". To again take you as the example, I think you do excellent work on FAC. And for simplicity's sake to take me as the example of a nominator, I would have been gratified to have you object strenuously and dialogue critically on some of my selfnoms. (I've probably only listed one since you arrived, though; I've been getting discouraged by the sparsity of critical interest, by no means by objections.) It's a caution against making Peer Review mandatory and specifically against implying that it already is mandatory, and/or that nominators who don't use Peer Review are acting inappropriately. In speaking of "many" hoops, I also had Geogre's points above about referencing in mind. I'm sorry I seemed to be saying something completely different and sounding bizarre. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That sort of thing is what I imagined you were referring to. I commented...vigorously on that last sentence for the sake of clarity. I'm about as new in FAC as anyone, and I know it's a tricky thing finding one's bearings. I don't think Peer Review should be mandatory. I do hope that "new" reviewers feel unconstrained by anything but common sense in interpreting FA criteria, and so, in their FAC comments... Something like that is exactly all I meant! :) --Tsavage 04:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't want to put words in Bishonen's keyboard, but, having worked with her in the past, I doubt she, any more than I, would ever want to see objectors go lightly.  In fact, I think a number of the articles that are getting weeks on FAC really should have been on PR.  For myself alone, I'll say that what brought me to the talk page was a run of nominations lately where the first comment, first response was, "Object: didn't go to PR, which is a requirement.  Must have inline citations."  Both of those are incorrect, and both are format objections/procedural objections.  Substantive objections over length, content, copyright status, stunted development, lopsided development, lack of NPOV, lack of stability, lack of definite object -- these are all absolutely valid objections, and we're wasting the nominator's time by not making them.  If we defer to politeness and good feelings when there are substantive problems with an article, all we're doing, at most, is giving it a life as an FA of a few weeks before someone nominates it to FARC.  It's the lack of substantive objections and proliferation (and peremptoriness) of format/procedural objections that has some of us old timers frustrated.  (Bishonen has several FA's that she wrote from start to finish.  There was a creeping tide of format over substance a while back, as copyeditors went wild and elevated their concerns to the top of the list and the front of the line.  That was lamentable, and it was brushed aside.  The objections lately have looked like folks being misled by the superfices and the lack of objections to qualitatives has looked like a willing ignorance of what articles actually say.)  Geogre 04:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This "people are going to FAC instead of PR" problem is hardly new -- I was bitching about this almost two years ago, and helped rewrite the PR process to make it more FAC-like in the hope that this would solve the problem. Again, I think the problem is mainly volume -- there are far more articles on peer review than on FAC. Maybe we should make the archiving regulations more stringent on PR? (For instance, archive all discussions after five days unless they are still ongoing.) Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the history. A little bit of summary is appreciated. I recently spent some time reading through all sorts of old discussions, user talk pages, article histories and the like, and came to the conclusion that that's a sure way to madness - you can't "catch up" on any particular area of WP, wherever you came from, that's where you're at. WP is a mad busy and sprawling place...it's a miracle that it works (great software helps a lot!!)! :) (Regarding PR, I don't think that'll get more active without...incentives. FA (and FA->TFA) obviously has much more sizzle for all sides. It's...um...an interesting process to watch... And fun enough.) --Tsavage 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put Henry James - the article, not his ashes - through PR for a couple weeks and only one contributor made any remarks. Robth's suggestions were very helpful, but nobody else seemed to notice. So I took the article to FAC, where it did get a lot more comment. Currently, it's 4-2 support-object. I'm hoping to make it 5-1 as I root through the article for one objector's stylistic issues. The other objector hasn't been heard from since her original vote, and it looks like no article on James could be thorough enough to meet her objection. (She doesn't think 10,000 words on The Portrait of a Lady alone would be sufficient.) The point is that I'm getting a lot more criticism and comment from FAC than I ever did from PR. Sometimes I wonder if PR should even be continued. Casey Abell 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Too much rule creep for me, it should be about the article, not technicalities. --PopUpPirate 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review automated links

message: I'm amazed at the amazement expressed above by Lovelac7, but it was perhaps to be expected, since recently a lot of people seem to be objecting to articles on the basis that they "didn't go through Peer Review 'yet'". Admittedly, I haven't so far seen an objection where that is the sole criticism offered, but I fully expect to any day now, since the lack — or "lack" — of Peer Review is so often objected as a separate point. If the "path to a Featured article" is really making people  think PR is obligatory, the "path" should be edited to make it clear that PR is not a Featured article criterion. Never was, and I hope never will be. Such confidently-stated but quite untruthful statistical observations as "very very few articles have [become Featured] without [Peer Review]"   reinforce the notion that there's something wrong, something careless or downright immoral, about nominators who offer their articles directly to FAC; that these people are wasting everybody's time regardless of the quality of the article. 
Please keep referring to Peer Review if the article genuinely needs it (I often do this myself, and sometimes if the nominator won't take a hint I boldly move it to PR), but please stop scaring off nominators by implying that the PR detour is mandatory. In my experience, as FAC nominator and also as PR housekeeper (a while back) a stint on PR sometimes produces excellent input, but more frequently little or none, or mere kind but useless compliments. PR has problems as it is; it needs to be more dynamic; it needs to keep out the mere content disputes placed there without appropriateness; what PR doesn't need is being choked with articles placed there by reluctant FAC nominators under duress. And we also need to be careful about making FAC nominators jump through so many hoops they tire of taking their articles through FAC at all. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *...? No, it's not a caution to "object lightly". To again take you as the example, I think you do excellent work on FAC. And for simplicity's sake to take me as the example of a nominator, I would have been gratified to have you object strenuously and dialogue critically on some of my selfnoms. (I've probably only listed one since you arrived, though; I've been getting discouraged by the sparsity of critical interest, by no means by objections.) It's a caution against making Peer Review mandatory and specifically against implying that it already is mandatory, and/or that nominators who don't use Peer Review are acting inappropriately. In speaking of "many" hoops, I also had Geogre's points above about referencing in mind. I'm sorry I seemed to be saying something completely different and sounding bizarre. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That sort of thing is what I imagined you were referring to. I commented...vigorously on that last sentence for the sake of clarity. I'm about as new in FAC as anyone, and I know it's a tricky thing finding one's bearings. I don't think Peer Review should be mandatory. I do hope that "new" reviewers feel unconstrained by anything but common sense in interpreting FA criteria, and so, in their FAC comments... Something like that is exactly all I meant! :) --Tsavage 04:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't want to put words in Bishonen's keyboard, but, having worked with her in the past, I doubt she, any more than I, would ever want to see objectors go lightly.  In fact, I think a number of the articles that are getting weeks on FAC really should have been on PR.  For myself alone, I'll say that what brought me to the talk page was a run of nominations lately where the first comment, first response was, "Object: didn't go to PR, which is a requirement.  Must have inline citations."  Both of those are incorrect, and both are format objections/procedural objections.  Substantive objections over length, content, copyright status, stunted development, lopsided development, lack of NPOV, lack of stability, lack of definite object -- these are all absolutely valid objections, and we're wasting the nominator's time by not making them.  If we defer to politeness and good feelings when there are substantive problems with an article, all we're doing, at most, is giving it a life as an FA of a few weeks before someone nominates it to FARC.  It's the lack of substantive objections and proliferation (and peremptoriness) of format/procedural objections that has some of us old timers frustrated.  (Bishonen has several FA's that she wrote from start to finish.  There was a creeping tide of format over substance a while back, as copyeditors went wild and elevated their concerns to the top of the list and the front of the line.  That was lamentable, and it was brushed aside.  The objections lately have looked like folks being misled by the superfices and the lack of objections to qualitatives has looked like a willing ignorance of what articles actually say.)  Geogre 04:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This "people are going to FAC instead of PR" problem is hardly new -- I was bitching about this almost two years ago, and helped rewrite the PR process to make it more FAC-like in the hope that this would solve the problem. Again, I think the problem is mainly volume -- there are far more articles on peer review than on FAC. Maybe we should make the archiving regulations more stringent on PR? (For instance, archive all discussions after five days unless they are still ongoing.) Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the history. A little bit of summary is appreciated. I recently spent some time reading through all sorts of old discussions, user talk pages, article histories and the like, and came to the conclusion that that's a sure way to madness - you can't "catch up" on any particular area of WP, wherever you came from, that's where you're at. WP is a mad busy and sprawling place...it's a miracle that it works (great software helps a lot!!)! :) (Regarding PR, I don't think that'll get more active without...incentives. FA (and FA->TFA) obviously has much more sizzle for all sides. It's...um...an interesting process to watch... And fun enough.) --Tsavage 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put Henry James - the article, not his ashes - through PR for a couple weeks and only one contributor made any remarks. Robth's suggestions were very helpful, but nobody else seemed to notice. So I took the article to FAC, where it did get a lot more comment. Currently, it's 4-2 support-object. I'm hoping to make it 5-1 as I root through the article for one objector's stylistic issues. The other objector hasn't been heard from since her original vote, and it looks like no article on James could be thorough enough to meet her objection. (She doesn't think 10,000 words on The Portrait of a Lady alone would be sufficient.) The point is that I'm getting a lot more criticism and comment from FAC than I ever did from PR. Sometimes I wonder if PR should even be continued. Casey Abell 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Too much rule creep for me, it should be about the article, not technicalities. --PopUpPirate 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Didn't go through Peer Review yet": the newest witch hunt

message: I see this used quite frequently, elsewhere as well as here in FAC. As in the comment above. As in a comment just made in Bulbasaur (now entering its second month as a FAC): "Neutral. I feel it's too short, but it's borderline, and I don't want to discourage contributors, so I won't oppose." It's one thing to be civil, contribute rather than complain, and so forth, but it is difficult to reconcile the high and quite explicitly stated FA criteria with what amount to concessions favoring enthusiasm over quality. FAC isn't deciding whether to delete articles, it is supposedly to review articles according to a high and rising standard. The general principle here is, IMO, not not force peer reviews (though that is an explicit pre-FAC guideline requirement), but to consider that a good percentage of articles end up being extensively revised as part of the FAC process. As I've noted many times recently, I find this can completely skew the FAC process, putting most of the load on objectors to certain articles. "Hollaback Girl" (failed), Celine Dion (promoted), Bulbasaur (ongoing) are all nominations that took/are taking WEEKS (not to mention second and third renominations within days or weeks), and undergoing dozens even hundreds of edits, requiring objectors to spend hours and hours following all sorts of revisions. I think that's a central point here. From what I've seen, PR doesn't seem all that effective in generating decent feedback, but if the result of that shortcoming is putting the PR load on FAC, that's a different and real problem... FAC should not be a substitute for (or be seen as "better than") a peer review stage, or simply regular article improvement. --Tsavage 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to put words in Bishonen's keyboard, but, having worked with her in the past, I doubt she, any more than I, would ever want to see objectors go lightly.  In fact, I think a number of the articles that are getting weeks on FAC really should have been on PR.  For myself alone, I'll say that what brought me to the talk page was a run of nominations lately where the first comment, first response was, "Object: didn't go to PR, which is a requirement.  Must have inline citations."  Both of those are incorrect, and both are format objections/procedural objections.  Substantive objections over length, content, copyright status, stunted development, lopsided development, lack of NPOV, lack of stability, lack of definite object -- these are all absolutely valid objections, and we're wasting the nominator's time by not making them.  If we defer to politeness and good feelings when there are substantive problems with an article, all we're doing, at most, is giving it a life as an FA of a few weeks before someone nominates it to FARC.  It's the lack of substantive objections and proliferation (and peremptoriness) of format/procedural objections that has some of us old timers frustrated.  (Bishonen has several FA's that she wrote from start to finish.  There was a creeping tide of format over substance a while back, as copyeditors went wild and elevated their concerns to the top of the list and the front of the line.  That was lamentable, and it was brushed aside.  The objections lately have looked like folks being misled by the superfices and the lack of objections to qualitatives has looked like a willing ignorance of what articles actually say.)  Geogre 04:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This "people are going to FAC instead of PR" problem is hardly new -- I was bitching about this almost two years ago, and helped rewrite the PR process to make it more FAC-like in the hope that this would solve the problem. Again, I think the problem is mainly volume -- there are far more articles on peer review than on FAC. Maybe we should make the archiving regulations more stringent on PR? (For instance, archive all discussions after five days unless they are still ongoing.) Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the history. A little bit of summary is appreciated. I recently spent some time reading through all sorts of old discussions, user talk pages, article histories and the like, and came to the conclusion that that's a sure way to madness - you can't "catch up" on any particular area of WP, wherever you came from, that's where you're at. WP is a mad busy and sprawling place...it's a miracle that it works (great software helps a lot!!)! :) (Regarding PR, I don't think that'll get more active without...incentives. FA (and FA->TFA) obviously has much more sizzle for all sides. It's...um...an interesting process to watch... And fun enough.) --Tsavage 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put Henry James - the article, not his ashes - through PR for a couple weeks and only one contributor made any remarks. Robth's suggestions were very helpful, but nobody else seemed to notice. So I took the article to FAC, where it did get a lot more comment. Currently, it's 4-2 support-object. I'm hoping to make it 5-1 as I root through the article for one objector's stylistic issues. The other objector hasn't been heard from since her original vote, and it looks like no article on James could be thorough enough to meet her objection. (She doesn't think 10,000 words on The Portrait of a Lady alone would be sufficient.) The point is that I'm getting a lot more criticism and comment from FAC than I ever did from PR. Sometimes I wonder if PR should even be continued. Casey Abell 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Too much rule creep for me, it should be about the article, not technicalities. --PopUpPirate 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "We don't want to scare off (new editors/veteran editors/FAC nominators/etc)" - the default witch hunt?

message: I been looking though Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates and I noticed alot of orphaned cantidates that never really passed though here or been abanded. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) is a example. Should we delete them or place them here? Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 08:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing to do would probably be to dump them into the archive of unsuccessful FACs. Raul654 08:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok will do, thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 08:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned FAC? 

message: Is it ok to keep editing FAC once they have closed? For example, to strike out objections, to add further comments, to change a vote, etc.? If so, how long would someone have before this becomes discouraged? and is any type of edit strongly discouraged after the fact (ie. changing a vote once the decision has been made)? --maclean25 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why small changes wouldn't be OK; big changes (like changing votes) would be bad though. Raul654 19:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed FACs