Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 1

message: I just added Myxobolus cerebralis to the uncontroversial category, given this diff.  I was wondering if I should take any of the other steps like adding the {FAR} template.  The instructions don't seem to explain what to do.  Thanks, Dave (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Featured article review#Nominating an article.  Add  to the talk page. Tuf-Kat 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I wanted to make sure that the instructions were the same regardless of which catagory it was being nominated in (I thought maybe it needed a third kind of template in addition to Current and Concern)  Dave (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, okay, the "controversial"/"uncontroversial" distinction is just for ease of commenting.  The only practical effect it has is how long the review stays active for at minimum. Tuf-Kat 16:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I have proposed modifying the FARC guidelines to say, ""Before placing an article on FARC, editors should first either raise the issues with the article on the Wikipedia:Featured article review page or on the article's talk page." I hope editors here will check out this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates and let their views be known. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better state that on the FARC talk page. People there so far don't like the idea.--Alabamaboy 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New FARC Guidelines: must go through Featured article review and raise issues on FA article's talk page 

message: Taman made a list of featured articles with reference problems in April 2005, User:Taxman/Featured articles with possible references problems. All the talk pages of the relevant articles were notified, and for many of these the references situation never changed. I have nominated a few for FARC, but since there are so many can anyone think of a better way to address this problem. I'm not interested in trying to add sources for topics I have no knowledge of - since that may make more of a problem than it fixes. Any thoughts on how to proceed with these articles would be appreciated.--nixie 07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the list and there are only 25 left. I'm open to ideas about the best way to encourage fixing them up, but in a week or so I plan to start nominating them a few at a time at FARC, after adding another notice to their talk pages that I plan to nominate them. Major progress has been made, as originally over 190 were listed, but I think it's been more than enough time. There's only really one I'm qualified to reference, and I won't be able to do that until next week. I will commit to researching and referencing Labour economics then though. - Taxman Talk 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxman, I've just been pointed towards this page and new policy, and checked your list.  Could there be consideration of a category of articles with an unusually high representation of "questionable" (to be defined, perhaps according to WP:RS) sources or a lack of balance in biased sources? For example, refer to the discussion on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Hugo Chávez.  In its original FA status, Hugo Chávez contained a lot of references, but it has been argued on the FARC that the references are not from a balance of sources, and include a disproportionate representation of biased sources.  This problem doesn't fit into your category scheme, so I'm wondering if future situations like this could be accounted for somewhere? Sandy 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxmans list

message: I saw suggested on WP:FARC that perhaps an article should instead be brought here, where if consensus was reached, it could be reverted. Is that some sort of policy or power vested in WP:FAR, or would that simply be a...reversion, same as anyone could make? --Tsavage 05:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same sort of reversion based on consensus as could be formed on any random talk page. Tuf-Kat 06:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... "reversion based on consensus" ... Hugo Chávez was reverted to a six-month-old FA version without a single talk page comment wrt reversion anywhere. I'm guessing from your phrasing above that isn't the best way to proceed? Sandy 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting articles based on FAR consensus?

message: A consensus seems to be emerging on Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates for some kind of merger between the review process on WP:FAR and the removal process on WP:FARC. More ideas and points of view are welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FARC]] / [[WP:FAR]]

message: This page has not been categorised! Shouldn't it go somewhere in :Category:Wikipedia featured content or a related category? That might increase its exposure slightly. I'll add it. Carcharoth 06:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this page is a ghost town and should probably be demonlished (the FA process tends to spawn off unnecessary pages and this is one of them). Raul654 06:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I didn't realise that. Thanks. Is that "Help Desk" (Wikipedia:Featured Article Help Desk) and its category (:Category:Featured Article Help Desk staff) another such set of pages? Carcharoth 08:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of those, and they look dead as well. Perhaps they should be closed down? I really don't see what purpose they serve, given that we have peer review, the GA process, etc. The Disco King 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No category! 

message: With notice placed on the FARC page to redirect everything here hopefully the ghost town will be brought back to life. There's a lot of things outstanding to do though, such as renaming/editing Templates and Cats to reflect the change. I'm not going to dig in editing those things until hearing from others. Marskell 09:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new page 

message: Since Wikipedia:Featured article review is now the process for improving and removing FAs, I changed the link on the main FA page and Template:Fapages to reflect this. While Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates will continue for the pages that are already listed there, we don't want people to mistakenly add new listings to that page. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also changed the link at Template:FARC to reflect this new situation. --Alabamaboy 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed FARC links to FAR 

message: I've found a major problem here and I can't fix it. On Template:FARC, the category link needs to be changed so that it links to FAR, not FARC, an issue Tony first raised at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Space Race. However, when I changed the link it didn't work (upon discovering this I promptly changed the link back to FARC). Anyone know how to fix this? Just to be clear, unless we fix this category link at the top of each FAR nomination will be a link to the FARC page. Also, I sincerely hope that my attempt to fix this issue didn't result in the crashing of Wikipedia's servers a few minutes later! While I doubt that this is the case, whoever tries to fix this issue should be careful because this template links to a ton of FARC and FA talk pages.--Alabamaboy 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is done. There was a spot right in the template itself you missed. Plus Joel31 just added a category. Marskell 15:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though, indeed some renames will be in order. Perhaps an admin can delete Template:FAR and we can move Template:FARC to it. Marskell 15:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to do that.--Alabamaboy 15:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait! I've just made the language identical on Template:FAR. This is actually best. Either template will create a sub-page here. Onwards and upwards! Marskell 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap. Already did it. Want me to undo? I'll wait until you say either way. I will state, though, that deleting the FAR page and moving the FARC has created a ton of double redirects that will need to be fixed.--Alabamaboy 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I hear from you soon I'm going to simply revert the FARC template to the FAR language. I agree with you that the best solution is to have both ther FAR and FARC templates existing with the smae language.--Alabamaboy 15:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just sent you a message to that affect :). Marskell 15:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There's still a problem. Now the current FARC nominee pages don't link to their respected FARC pages. I'm going to reverted the FARC link to its original setting (i.e., to the FARC category rather than the FAR category). As you said, this way the old pages work while all new pages will use the new system. --Alabamaboy 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shit, ya. I guess we'll have to leave it until what's left on FARC clears out. Marskell 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Still, it appears that everything is now working. Let's call this a last-minute BETA test of the FAR system. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Houston, we have a problem 

message: So on the FARC page, the general agreement seemed to be that if an article passed FAC before inline cites were required, it couldn't be demoted simply for lacking inline cites. I'm in favour of carrying that over to the new FAR page. (I guess this pertains to the current "Space Race" review as well, but it makes a bit more sense to post this here.) Comments? The Disco King 17:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as an article had references lacking in-line citations was generally not a reason to demote. However, it was expected that the corresponding references be converted to in-line citations whenever possible/needed. Joelito (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And that it could be considered as an additional reason to demote. So not as the sole reason, but one among others. - Taxman Talk 11:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I missed the consensus process, but I feel there is nothing wrong with demoting articles that are not up to current standards. I feel citations are a very important part of this, due to WP:V and the fact that we do not have the credibility of a print encyclopedia due to anyone being able to edit an article. But if people are against demotion, perhaps there could be another solution, such as a special template:unsourced template that states the article was given FA status before intext citations were required, and that editors are encouraged to bring it up to current standards. I feel that if we just let all of these articles slide, they are never going to improve and get their proper citations. --Andrew c 13:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, it would be ideal if articles used inline citations, but let's face it, simply having well-researched articles with references puts most of these FAs well ahead of the game. I would agree that adding inline cites eventually would be a good idea. Perhaps a project like Taxman's, where he posted messages on the talk pages of all the FAs with no references, would be in order here. Give 'em six months to a year to add inline cites, and then we start phasing them out of FA. What does everybody think? User:The Disco King (not signed in)204.40.1.129 14:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall, this idea sounds reasonable, but I think a year is too long.  Anville 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of FAs without inlines. I've started a list which you can see here, and I've been working my way down the FA list, checking every article. So far, I've finished up to the "Food and Drink" section, and the list is already REALLY long. It would be a massive project to try to get them all to have inlines. The Disco King 17:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you calculate a % for us? Obviously that won't be an accurate extrapolation, but it can help give us an idea of the range of the problem. And yes, I agree another notify and then after some time phase them out is a good way to go. Anville you may think a year is too long, but it's been well over a year since I tagged the talk pages of all FA's with no references, and one of those recently survived a FARC and there's still 6 left including that one. (I really should go update that again.) - Taxman Talk 18:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue Andrew is the footnotes don't guarantee better verifiability than just listing the references at the bottom. In fact it can be worse. An article with 20 footnotes, those 20 might be the only referenced facts in the article with the rest being original research, whereas I know for a fact on some of the older FA's written by some of our best editors that every single fact in the article was distilled from the listed sources, though no footnotes were added because that just wasn't done at the time. So footnotes can give the illusion of better sourcing. Now do we need both? Of course, but don't lose sight of the potential problem. - Taxman Talk 18:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noted that last point on my User:The Disco King/FAs with citation problems page. Some of these FAs with no citations look like they were incredibly well-researched. As for a percentage...Maybe when I'm done. So far, having finished through the "Geology" section of FAs, I'd say at least 150 either have no footnotes, or have very few. I'm not sure how many that's out of, though. Some should be easy to add references to (there's a surprising number of India-related FAs which are inadequate citation-wise, but I imagine Wikiproject India will deal with those pretty promptly), while others may be contentious (like Global warming). The Disco King 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (P.S. - If this is any kind of indication, about 43 of 91 articles in the "History" category either had no citations or very few - that's almost 50%!) The Disco King 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I ran the numbers-there are 341 FA's through the Geology section, and you have 132 on your list with no inline citations and 72 more with few. So that's 38% of the articles you've checked so far have none and 60% ((132+72)/341) have few or none. So that means there's a significant problem and it won't be fixed overnight. And based on the problem noted above I wouldn't think 10 is a borderline number, that's just not enough if it can't be confidently said that the entire rest of the article came from a systhesis of sources too. It's a decent number to demarcate a problem, but having 9 or ten isn't really great either. I do finally now see the problem other people have pointed out that we may have been better at times when we just required references for the whole article, and footnotes can mask that. But again, both is the answer. - Taxman Talk 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (moved back in) Ten was pretty arbitrary, I'll agree, but if it's any consolation, as of the end of the Mathematics section, there haven't been many with more than ten and less than twenty. If article have them, they seem to have a ton of them. It is a significant issue if we do decide to move towards phasing it in as a requirement for current FAs - I had thought that at least half were problematic while I was doing it. It's a real pickle...The Disco King 20:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FARC Consensus re: sources

message: WP:FAF went totally batshit when we edited the FAR template. Should we try to revive it? There was a two month period this year where it didn't receive a single edit. Perhaps scrap it and start afresh, listing what has been reviewed as they finish? Marskell 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of FAF is a good one, but the project does seem kinda dead. Is the plan to eventually review all of the featured articles on this page? (That's a HUGE task, really...) Either way, it would be good to somehow revitalize FAF...Is anything salvagable? The Disco King 19:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I see what you actually meant. Yeah, that's tricky. How did that happen? The Disco King 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The short answer: it's a complicated template thing and I can't even program my VCR :). If we do want to revive it, we can create an FAF template identical to the FAR before my changes and replace the letters FAR with FAF on the page (clueless as I am, I think Excel could handle that quickly). But before that: do we need it? Could, for instance, the archive page for this serve as a go-to point for people working on Wiki 1.0 to look at what FAs are up-to-date? Marskell 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it depends on what the goals of this page are. Do we want to try to review every FA on Wikipedia? As a sidenote, we can't go into the history on FAF, because all the old versions of the page run into the same problem. I'm not sure if it was a really useful page, though. How many articles actually went through the old FAR? And with FA standards improving so much over the last year or so, is a link to the originally promoted version of an FA going to do anybody any good? The Disco King 01:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles first 

message: Why aren't the nominations currently at WP:FARC moved to the featured article removal candidate section on this page? It would be nice to get some fresh eyes looking at the nominations instead of just those that happen upon the talk pages of those nominated for removal. joturner 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - I have moved all the remaining FARC nominations to the major review section here. Raul654 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, why not move them to the FARC section? --mav 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather see them reviewed and brought up to spec, if possible. Think of it as FAR's first test. Raul654 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I have rewritten some of the instructions at the top, because they were incredibly wordy and very process-heavy. Raul654 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving [[WP:FARC]] Here 

message: Now that this page is being revived, I would like to point out the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Improving Featured Articles. What I want to ask is whether there any way to integrate into this process of 'reviewing featured articles', a way for people who substantially edit a featured article (ie. after it has attained featured article status), to submit it here for review and approval, as a way to ensure that the changes meet FA criteria?
An important effect of this would be to encourage continual improvement and updating of featured articles, and to recognise that this takes place, and to pass both positive and negative critical comment. At the moment, this page seems designed mostly to prevent the decay of featured articles, and I feel that there is the possibility of encouraging the opposite processs - the continual improvement of featured articles. This would also spread 'best practice' techniques on how to continue polishing and improving a featured article.
Does this all sound like a good idea? Carcharoth 11:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Minor Review section can handle this. When first drafted I had the sentence "this is also the place for people who have edited an article after an FA to make sure they are on the right track" (something like that). You might when posting there present the link immediately after promotion and the present version with the question "Have I improved this?" Marskell 11:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More general reviews of changes to Featured Articles 

message: I know people are rightly concerned about instruction creep and forcing people to jump through too many hoops to nominate, but is it sensible to have a sentence like "if nominating for a Major review please consider informing the user who originally nominated for FAC (if they appear to be active)"? The obvious rejoinder would be "they should have it on their watchlist anyway" but you never know. Things get missed but the little orange message bar often prompts people to take action. I think it especially important considering the original nominators are the people most likely to know what is what in introducing in-line cites to match the references listed. Marskell 16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a reasonable change to me. I've missed these things occasionally (a tide of edits to the talk page of an article can camouflage things, and when you are pressed for time, it doesn't make sense to visit each individual talk page to check for anything interesting other than something the RC patrollers dug up), and it's always been a very unpleasant annoyance to see lengthy discussion at the FARC nom without having been involved. Johnleemk | Talk 12:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing initial nominators 

message: I'd like to suggest moving the featured article removal candidates (FARC) back to being under Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates (i.e. not back to a page called Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates, but rather to pages similar to Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Batman; visually, this page would look exactly the same). The reason for this is that the  template links to subpages of Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. Changing the template so it links to Wikipedia:Featured article review subpages would not be feasible as almost all former featured articles (with the exception of Hugo Chávez) have their FARC pages under Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. Theoretically, we could also solve the problem by creating redirects for every subpage or move all the old FARCs to subpages of Wikipedia:Featured article review. But remember I said theoretically; those obviously aren't good ideas. joturner 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to make a new template for future articles. All the old FARCs will link properly with the old template and later removals can take the new template. Having two pages will divide people's attention. Marskell 09:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK: for new ones. We won't need to start using this for a couple of weeks. Marskell 09:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you edited my post, Marskell, but I disagree with making a new template to solve the problem. joturner 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited your post where? That link just shows me making a comment unless I'm missing something.| What's wrong with a new template? Seems simple enough. Marskell 09:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Erk, I see in the next revision I did accidentally edit your post. I was doing a cut and paste to get the syntax for noting the new template. Sorry. Marskell 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If we move everything early then the process seems irrelevant. Marskell 09:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Featured Article Removal Candidate Subpages 

message: Space race is the first due to go down from Major review to FARC. I think we make two level three headlines to distinguish the commentary of the Major review from that of the FARC period? Marskell 09:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving from Major review to FARC 

message: I can't figure out what happened to the TOC when Asperger was added, or how to fix it.  Can someone see what happened to the hierarchy?  I don't want to comment on Asperger's until I'm sure it's in the right place.  Sandy 14:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, the pace of FAR noms has been pretty dramatic--about one a day. The TOC is getting rather large. Marskell 15:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asperger whacked out the Table of Contents

message: I have made new templates for future use when closing in future and placed a note at the top here. The old templates need to remain as they are so pages under the former process link properly. Archives for old FARCs are all caught up. I think (fingers crossed) that everything should work properly now. Marskell 09:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates, archiving

message: I don't like the two week deadline for major reviews. I think that major reviews should stay open as long as significant article improvements are being made, as moving an article to FARC will halt the improvement process and turn the review into a vote. Pagrashtak 13:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been much discussion about this. The two contrary concerns are a) leaving enough time to get work done and b) creating a sense of urgency so that things don't get left here for months as was the case previously. It also needs to be systematic and scaleable--do we move Hero of Belarus down after fourteen days and leave Coca-Cola up for thirty?  I don't feel the move will "halt the improvement process" (at least that wasn't the intention); once it gets to the FARC section you're perfectly free to continue to edit and to note "Keep + I've done some work on it". Re the Zelda page you've worked on, I actually contacted the nominator and asked him to look at it again. Marskell 13:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it seems that if editors are committed to fixing an article, that becomes apparent pretty early on.  RN and I have been prodding the editors of Asperger syndrome to make the necessary changes, giving them many examples of the work needed, doing some of the work for them so they can see what work is needed -- but it's been clear from early on that no regular editor intends to take on the work.  In a week, there's been no movement on the article, and the article could easily be fixed in two weeks.  They seem more interested in keeping the unencyclopedic content, which they are more involved with.   The whole discussion about stable versions comes to mind, because a revert to an outdated older version would be better for the article now.  Sandy 11:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite happy to FARC articles for which little interest in improvement is generated by their placement in the minor or major review list. Tony 08:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major review time frame 

message: Could we add an additional section to this page. It's called "Specific issues" and will have different subsections ("Insufficient lead", "lack of citation", "needs an infobox"...). It will serve as a fragmentation of the FA review process, making it more efficient and rapid. Open for comments. CG 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An additional section or the replacement of the ones we have? You mean, if lack of citations were the issue it would be placed under a section so titled? Marskell 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we can keep "minor review" for a general review. CG 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not make the structure any more complex than it is now. Tony 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. I think more fragmentation may decrease how much the page gets browsed which is already a concern. Plus many of the criteria concerns are interwoven and it doesn't make sense to treat them separately. Marskell 09:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a new section 

message: We shouldn't be both, so can someone who hasn't made a vote-like comment at Space Race close it tomorrow? Archive is simple enough, template at top of this page, -1 on FAs, move it from that page to Former FA. Marskell 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it. Raul654 18:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can also do it since I was going to do it today but I wanted to allow a full 2 weeks. Joelito (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By committee then ;). Per our discussions the two weeks is not hard and fast. This one isn't moving though. Marskell 21:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: True. I have to agree with you here. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judge and executioner 

message: Per Splash's concern above—that FA status shouldn't be kept for poor articles just because nobody has commented—how about this informal rule:
* An article may be removed based only on the nominator's recommendation after the full period if the outstanding concern is a lack of in-line citations (2c). 
* If the concern is writing quality, comprehensiveness, POV etc. it shouldn't be removed if no one has commented or if the comments are only very cursory.
This allows us to continue to gradually remove the uncited FAs and not have them "accidentally" kept due to lack of commentary. Marskell 09:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in principle, but defining "cursory" might lead to arguments. What about: "If the nomination is on the basis of another FA criterion, the article should not be removed unless there are comments concerning its failure to meet that criterion, including supporting reasoning and/or examples." Tony 14:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fair enough. I wasn't thinking we'd actually post this on the page, just have it here as a general rule given that closing is being done by a handful of people rather than just one as at FAC. Marskell 15:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing status without commentary 

message: Since this process is still fairly new, and most nominations have come from regular contributors here, I want to raise a concern about a recent nom for review.  FAR is not dispute resolution.  Shouldn't requests focus on the article, giving specifics about the current status of the article, rather than detailing past edits, edit wars, and perceived wrongdoings of past editors (except to the extent necessary to show instability)?  I am concerned that the review will degenerate into personal conflicts when an article is placed for review in a way that focuses on the editors involved and the past edits, rather than the specific issues with the current article content.  Should we ask an editor to resubmit the review?  For example, these statements should be backed with examples, while the details about specific editors make it appear that the review is being asked to resolve conflicts between editors:
*Many of the passages are long-winded or tangential  No example given, yet detailed examples of conflicts between editors are provided.
*Some of the sources that remain are not peer-reviewed, are secondary sources that do not use primary sources themselves, are not independent, and have conflict of interest in representing the issues they discuss, violating reliable sources guidelines. No example, yet detailed information about specific editors is given.
*14 pages of archives dealing with many POV objections that have been resolved/ignored/dismissed to various degrees.  No example given.
* to address these and other issues have largely been ignored or dismissed by editors, No example given.
I am concerned that FAR not become a place for dispute resolution, this nomination reads like a request to resolve a problem between editors, and I'm wondering if we should request that it be resubmitted with focus on the article content rather than past edits and editors.  Should we ask that noms focus on the article, and not point fingers at editors?   Experienced editors here have probably encountered these issues with the old FARC procedure, but I'm still fairly new to Wiki.  Since the new process is a much longer one, my thinking is that we want to avoid a month of discussion that involves editor conflicts rather than focus on content. Sandy 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Procedural question

message: I have a growing concern with the FAR process. I have noticed that while some articles get worked on, others are just left unattended. I have begun to wonder if there is something we can do to encourage the improvement of reviewed articles. Should we leave messages on talk pages enumerating the reasons for the article review and maybe a link to the discussion (I know the link can be found at )? Should we leave messages on the main contributor's talk pages? Should we care if the contributors don't? Joelito (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps an easy way to bring reviews to the attention of more editors would be to also list them at the appropriate WikiProjects.  Jkelly 17:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is clearly a problem, but I think adressing respective Wikiprojects will be helpful. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the best way then we need a list of WikiProjects related to the following categories: Art, architecture, and archaeology · Awards and decorations · Biology and medicine · Business, economics, and finance · Chemistry and mineralogy · Computing · Culture and society · Education · Engineering and technology · Food and drink · Geography and places · Geology, geophysics, and meteorology · History · Language and linguistics · Law · Literature · Mathematics · Media · Music · Philosophy · Physics and astronomy · Politics and government · Psychology · Religion and mysticism · Royalty, nobility, and heraldry · Sport and games · Transport · War. Joelito (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The silence here isn't necessarily indicative of work on the article (for example, Asperger syndrome saw major improvements, albeit maybe not enough to pass FAR, but only one of the editors working on the article has bothered to comment here so far).  I posted messages to three four contributors of Race, and have also raised the FAR on the WikiProject for Medicine, WP:MCOTW (in fact, I've been ringing bells on MCOTW for several weeks, with no input).  If they don't pitch in, maybe they don't care?  Also, on new review nominations, I'm asking each nominator if interested parties or original author have been contacted.  My suspicion is that current editors don't want to get involved in salvaging someone else's old work: the response I've gotten from the medical project has been indifference.  Sandy 18:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you have a point, Sandy. And it is understandable (sort of) move. For instance, backsourcing an article to get inline citations is kinda complicated. Maybe one should insist (i.e. spam) them more. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I may have "spammed" on the AS article <grin>, and I even dug in to try to fix it myself, which only served to get me into very hot water :-)  I'm going to work on the "spam 'em" angle on a few new reviews, but if we find current editors just aren't interested in salvaging old work ... <shrug> ... maybe it is what it is.  Some of the AS folks didn't want a medically-referenced article:  they liked their original research :-)  Sandy 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no template and I believe there shouldn't be one. A simple note on the project's talk page should be sufficient. Something along these lines: "Insert article here is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality." Joelito (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, thanks!  Sandy 20:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting people to improve articles 

message: Wikipedia:Regional notice boards
(Please add WikiProjects under each category: when there's a Portal to several projects, I'll list it instead)
*Art, architecture, and archaeology
:*Portal:Arts
:*Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts
:*Wikipedia:WikiProject American Animation
:*Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga
:**Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update
:*List of Performing Arts and Broadcasting Projects
:*List of Visual and plastic arts Projects, and Architecture
:*Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology
*Awards and decorations 
*Biology and medicine 
:*List of biology projects
:*List of Health Sciences Projects
*Business, economics, and finance 
:*List of Business and Economics Projects
*Chemistry and mineralogy 
:*List of Chemistry and mineralogy projects
*Computing 
:*List of computing projects
*Culture and society 
:*Portal:Culture lists a couple of areas
:*List of Ethnicity projects
:*List of Society WikiProjects
*Education 
:*List of Education Projects
*Engineering and technology 
:*Technology Wiki Projects
*Food and drink
:*List of Food and drink projects
*Geography and places 
:*Geographical Wiki Projects
:*List of Geography Projects
:**List of Country Projects
*Geology, geophysics, and meteorology 
:*List of Geosciences Projects
*History 
:*List of History Projects
*Language and linguistics 
:*List of Language and communication projects
*Law 
:*List of Law Projects
*Literature 
:*Portal:Literature lists numerous WikiProjects, very specialized
*Mathematics 
:*Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics
*Media 
:*List of Mass Media Projects
*Music 
:*Portal:Music lists numerous WikiProjects, specialized
*Philosophy 
:*List of Philosophy and Logic Projects
*Physics and astronomy
:*List of Physics projects
:*List of Astronomy projects 
*Politics and government 
:*List of Politics and government Projects
*Psychology 
:*Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology
*Religion and mysticism 
:*List of Religion Projects
*Royalty, nobility, and heraldry 
:*Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage
*Sport and games 
:*List of Recreation Projects
*Transport
:*List of transportation projects 
*War
:* WP:MILHIST, the only and true :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Category:WikiProjects
I can't find Engineering or Awards.  Sandy 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: AFAIK there is no Wproject for Awards and Decorations :( A poll to create such a Task Force for Military decorations was made at WP:MILHIST but never made it because of lack of editors. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I completed most of the list from there.  Sandy 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with that list is that it is full of inactive projects. The purpose is to list only the projects that collaborate with our efforts. Joelito (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I should go back through all of them that come from the list Grafikm gave me, and delete/consolidate to include only active projects?  Other editors, please feel free to edit my list above - it's just a start.  Let me know how to improve it, or we can ditch it, whatever works.  Sandy 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think we should leave the list as is. Once we start interacting with the projects we list/delist those that collaborate/ignore us. Joelito (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I put a question on the topic above: do we have a template for notifying the Projects?  Sandy 19:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning list of WikiProjects

message: Is there any place on Wikipedia for reviewing a Featured Article that has recently undergone a major rewrite, but where there are not yet any specific objections to the article's content or to its FA status?
In particular, what of an article that undergoes extensive revisions shortly after becoming Featured, where feedback is needed to ensure that the editors who originally supported it will still support it now that it's been revised? In this example (Final Fantasy X), the editors of the article itself agree that the changes are much-needed improvements, but it is very uncertain that the Peer Reviewers or FAC voters would have felt that way, so outside feedback is needed. Especially since the article is scheduled to appear on the main page in three days.
(Such feedback would also be valuable for providing more information on areas to improve and cleanup further; that is the main benefit, in fact, I am very unconcerned about whether the article remains an FA or not.) -Silence 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that fits the description of Minor Review:  others may differ.  Sandy 20:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I just took a quick look at the nomination; no objections to the story length. Moreover, featured article review is normally used to give articles a prose boost — it isn't normally used in a case where the prose is actually improved. I don't think it's an issue that requires a review, unless things start to get out of hand (which is unlikely, since the article has been stable except for the recent expansion of the story section). — Deckiller 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that back, there was one objection, but it was when the article's coverage of the plot was unbalanced (I.E. ten paragraphs on one event, and nothing on other key arcs). A minor review may not be a bad idea, but it might be best to wait until after the page is featured on the main page so that it can get a wider opinion. — Deckiller 21:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that as the article has undergone a major, systematic update 3 days before it will appear on the main page, there may not have been given enough time to bring it in accordance with Wikipedia's standards, as other editors may see them. For example, no less than 5 new fair-use images have been added to the article, a brand-new, page-long section ("Mythology") has been added, a new organizational framework has been implemented for the story-related sections (placing them all under an oversection called "Story and setting"), and, most of all, the "Plot" section has been just about completely rewritten, with some extraneous details removed and a fair number of highly significant details added. I do not think that this necessarily means the article should have its FA status revoked (on the contrary, I think it's in much better shape than it was when it became an FA), but I do think that it merits in-depth review by a larger body of editors before we feature it on the main page. Also, at least another week or so to ensure stability would be wise, in my view. -Silence 21:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am split both ways, and not in a biased sort of way. In the past, I've witnessed many featured articles go through extensive rewrites before being featured on the main page (without a delay). On the other hand, delaying the article's main page debut a couple weeks (provided that Raul promises to open up the next available slot when the review is over) earlier won't upset anyone. Plus, I am interested in seeing how Tony wants to handle 2a in this situation (so I can use the criticism for the FF8 FA push). The other worry is that we may be promoting inclusionist versus deletionist debates for all featured articles slated to appear on the main page, which may turn off some editors. What does everyone else think? — Deckiller 21:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Review after major rewrite?

message: I'm starting down the list, leaving Project messages.  I left a talk message at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Mammals about Right whale.  Do I also leave one at WikiProject Marine Life, even though it's not a fish?  <sheesh> ... Sandy 20:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think marine life is about anything that lives in the sea, not just fish :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but I was afraid they'd come back to me and say, "don't ya know a whale's a mammal"? :-) Their project page talks a lot about fish ... oh, well, what have I got to lose? Sandy 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Right whale, stupid question