Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive5

message: I suggest that unsuccessful and withdrawn nominations be archived on the article's talk page since there is usually suggestions as to how to improve the article. It will be more visible to those interested in improving and editing the page. 
Quite a few discussions have not been archived at all. Tags also need to be removed once the nomination is removed. See "what links here" at Template:fac. There's some housekeeping to do. --Jiang 20:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the discussion here is quite valuable, and should be archived on the Talk: page as well as the various FA logs, and I'd say that that's also the case even when the article is successful, although this means we'd have, for a successful promotion, 1) Remove from WP:FAC, 2) Add to FA, 3) Add to "Featured Log" 4) Change the tag 5) Archive discussion to the talk page, and 6) Note on WP:Goings-on, which is quite involved. Still, I'm up for some housekeeping. — Matt 23:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I'm willing to volunteer to cover 5) whenever I can (that is, archiving to "Talk:"; I hope Raul654 is still happy to archive to the normal places) and simultaneously check "4" (the FAC tags). Some elaboration on why I think the discussion here is valuable: 1) During the nomination process, discussions about various changes in the article take place here, rather than the Talk: pages. There's clear advantages in keeping discussions related to the evolution of a page, and keeping them in a single place. 2) Explicit peer review is desperately scarce on Wikipedia — this page generates a lot of good peer review, and we should make the most of it. — Matt 01:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving failed candidates 

message: This is the second time I've had to restore the Mount St. Helens entry on this page.   I think this has something to do with all the section title changes back and forth from 'contested' to uncontested. If that is the case, then we should get rid of the practice and go back to the two section (or better yet, two page) set-up. --mav 02:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Heavens please not a two page set-up. The potential bug you identify notwithstanding, the current layout is much more usable than the old two section layout. If there is a bug, we should take the "(un)contested" and start date bit out of the section heading (where it is ugly anyway) and put in italics on the line below. Pcb21| Pete 07:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've implemented this, and think the page looks better for it. Pcb21| Pete 08:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The advantage of having it in the heading is that, although ugly, the automatically-generated Table of Contents acts as a handy summary of the page. — Matt 08:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed; the TOC allowed me to see, at a glance, articles that weren't objected to, and to go and see if I could find grounds to do so myself, and, further, to see quickly if any articles that I might be able to help in have fallen to contested status... James F. (talk) 09:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rats, sorry guys. I dutifully went through and checked how it looked on various skins, but completely forget that TOCs are completely separate option. I have them turned off completely because I hate how they make you scroll down all the time to see content. But given I am likely to be in the minority, it may well be worth reverting me :/. Having said that, the summaries are rarely up-to-date - few people seem to dare to change a listing back from "contested" to "uncontested", diluting the usefulness of the TOC. Can your bear to be without the TOC whilst the problem mav identified is sorted? Pcb21| Pete 12:49, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Seeing that about half of the articles which  passed in FA status were still marked as "Contested", I fail to see how that fact is so important as to be in the TOC given the noted bug. --mav 02:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: This issue just happened again. This time it may have been due to one of the sections disappearing while someone was editing/adding their comment. I fixed, but it is troublesome.--Gregb 05:30, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted entry problem 

message: In addition to requiring a second within 24 hours (I had added this previously but Raul apparently objected and removed it), maybe we could split the page up again (and a bit differently).  New nominations (not seconded) would go in one section.  Nominations with a majority of support would go in another.  And nominations without a majority of support would go in another.  This way people wouldn't have to waste very much time on nominations which are unlikely to succeed anyway. The criterion for featuring would still be consensus, majority would only be used for splitting into sections (see explanation below).  anthony (see warning) (comment edited after reply)
:Just for the record, I personally like the idea of no support after 24 hours means removal. I removed the requirement because I didn't like the way it was added - I thought it was sneaky. It didn't have much support on the discussion page. However, I strongly encourage discussing it here and now - I think it would help the current problem (although, I don't think it would be enough). →Raul654 17:54, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
:For one, this is a unanimous consent page, not a majority voting page, and I think it should stay that way. For another, that creates the lovely task of, for borderline articles, moving them back and forth between majority and minority support constantly. Snowspinner 13:35, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
I understand this is a unanimous consent page, but I still think the more appropriate sections would be majority and non-majority.  The idea is to split the ones that have a good chance of receiving unanimity from the ones that probably don't. And yes, there would be some moving back and forth, but I think the work saved would outweigh the work spent (especially using majority/minority, as I think articles rarely pass through this threshold).  Alternatively, and similarly, maybe we could have a separate page for nominations, which would only be moved to candidates after a certain level of support (say 5 people).  There would be no objections at the nomination stage, and wouldn't even need to be explanations. anthony (see warning) 13:53, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the page again?

message: - I think people are being far too quick to support articles, many of which really don't deserve it. There still seems to be confusion among many users about what a Featured Article is -- people are listing articles on the grounds that they should be on the main page because the topic is interesting. We need to be very clear that what we're doing on that page is nominating and voting for or against articles that represent the very best writing, research and presentation that Wikipedia has to offer, and I still say the best way to do that is to change the name of the page. By the way, why are we no longer putting a notice on articles that are nominated? And when a nomination is successful is there a notice permanently placed on the page? Exploding Boy 13:30, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
:I actually think the standards are too high.  Yes, we are only selecting the best, but what percentage of the best is not defined (and presumably that percentage can eventually rise to 100%).  I put my threshold at what I would consider acceptable for a non-stub article in a 1.0 version of a CD-ROM Wikipedia.  Adhering to the standards in Wikipedia:What is a featured article is essentially enough. anthony (see warning) 13:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Anthony (eek! That's twice in one week!). The standards sometimes are a bit too high. Better than having them too low, I suppose. And to reply to Exploding Boy, the featured article/featured article candidate notices are now placed on the talk page, and not in the main article. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if the nominator does not respond to objection votes or address them within 48 hours, the article should be removed too. Johnleemk | Talk 13:48, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this one.  It is not the job of the nominator to fix objections.  Objections, especially minor ones, are frequently fixed by others. anthony (see warning) 13:56, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then if the objections aren't rebutted or fixed by anybody within 48 hours, the page should be removed. Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: The current time period is 2 weeks.  2 weeks may be a little high, but 48 hours seems too low.  I would think there are a large number of highly valued contributors who don't even participate every 48 hours. anthony (see warning) 14:03, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The two week limit for old nominations seems rather unfortunate. Suppose that an article is nominated on 1 August, objections are made and fixed, save for one made on 13 August. Suddenly, without the nominator having had a chance to rectify the problem, the article is removed because the 2-week deadline has expired. Alternatively, one might object on 2 August, but have to wait for two weeks to see if the nominator will do anything about the objection. Therefore: I suggest that the 2-week rule be abandoned. Instead, if X days (perhaps 7 days, but a shorter term if desired) pass without a particular objection being dealt with, the nomination should be removed. -- Emsworth 14:05, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: It was my understanding that objections had to last for two weeks.  If there were no objections, the timer would be reset.  The page says "If enough time passes (~ two weeks) without objections being resolved..." so it seems that in your scenario where an objection is made at the last minute the time limit would be extended. I think 7 days without a particular objection being resolved is a good change, though.  anthony (see warning) 14:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree wholeheartedly with EB in this case - it's *MUCH* better to have FA standards that are too high than have them too low - otherwise, it defeats the purpose of having an FA. I think that's just common sense there. →Raul654 04:16, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
Consider the Emacs article as an example of a featured article that may have been featured too soon.  I'm not sure exactly when it was featured, but at least before this version, which had a number of problems. (Sorry for the html link, dunno how to cite old pages with wiki markup.)  I know because I was drawn to contribute to the article by its featured article status.  Much of the Customization section belonged in either the User Interface section or the Internals section.  The User interface section may or may not have been 'good enough', but I think Wikipedia is looking for better than that for featured articles.  The interface section wasn't really useful, even in the most basic sense, to an actual Emacs user.  Perhaps it was useful to someone doing casual editor research.  To say that "The user issues editing commands by entering keystrokes." is not useful enough, considering that the whole point of an editor is to alter text and Emacs does this with commands.  The article goes some way but does not really make clear why the choice of Lisp is a good one.  Attmittedly, the new version does contain a lot more information that the featured article version and perhaps not all of this would be required to reach featured article status, but still. BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm the one who did most of the latest Emacs writing so naturally I think that what I've written is useful.  Please comment, I guess on the Talk:Emacs page, if you think the Emacs article contains too much operational info. --Kop 18:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Standards too low/too high?

message: Ok, I like some of the suggestions I have seen. It seems that these ideas are the ones that people like most:
* After 24 hours, a nomination must have a supporting vote, or it will be removed (I removed this from the rules once before because it didn't get consensus before it was added) 
* Everyone is limited to one nom at a time
* If an article needs a lot of work (but is not a blatantly bad nomination, per se) instead of voting support/oppose people can suggest it go to Peer review first. (Example - PaX, as it was a week ago)
To this, I would also add that: 
* Self-nominators are expected to fix objections when they are raised. 
What do people think about these 4 ideas? →Raul654 04:38, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
Snowspinner has pointed out that "an article that is 98% of the way to Featured Article status but has a couple of small things wrong with it could concievably get only objects in the first 24 hours despite the fact that it's clearly likely to get it eventually."  Personally I feel that in that case it can just be renominated as soon as those small things are fixed.  We don't have any restrictions on renominations, it seems; so long as those renominations are made in good faith, anyway. anthony (see warning) 05:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: I have this problem with my nomination of Yesterday (song) — Oldak Quill has left on holiday till August 10, but Yesterday's nomination expires on August 7. I've done my best to copyedit the article, but how can the article become featured now that Oldak Quill can't withdraw his/her nomination? Johnleemk | Talk 07:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to re-iterate Oldak's objection they should speak up, otherwise we have to assume it is fixed and ignore the objection. Pcb21| Pete 08:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Sjc hasn't explicitly stated he/she will be away, but he/she has not responded to my query on his/her talk page about why he/she didn't strike out his/her objection. If the objection isn't withdrawn by August 3rd, even if he/she hasn't explicitly stated a leave of absence, yet hasn't responded, is the objection ignorable? Johnleemk | Talk 12:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if an objector goes on leave? 

message: If people think there really are too many nominations to handle,  then lets just
* Limit the number of active nominations, say to 20
* Each nomination lasts a week, like it does now 
* Create a back log, or waiting list on a separate page (how about Nominations for FAC?)
* On the back log page, people can list upcoming nominations; nomimations are listed by (linked - to the article and article's talk page) name and date and then moved to the FAC page in order of posting as slots become available
* Place a link/message on each nominated article's page to alert readers, and make it a rule that for all nominations a section must be started on the article's talk page for discussion while the artile waits to become a featured article candidate.
This will limit the number of active nominations on the main FAC page, while still allowing people to nominate articles they think are deserving, and will help by cutting down on minor objections and the use of FAC as a second Peer review, because people could patrol the backlog page and read those articles that interest them, and note suggestions for improvement or objections on each article's talk page. 
This also works for people who feel they can read and comment on a large number of articles, and should (hopefully) reduce the size of the FAC page by reducing the need for long objections and discussion.  
Exploding Boy 03:49, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
I like Raul's recent edits to the FAC policy. It should help. Thank you Raul! --mav 06:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mav. Just a summary for the impatient - I didn't make any *big* changes, just several small ones. I don't think everyone will agree with all of the changes, but I think most people will agree with most of them. The biggest changes are:  
* 1 nomination at a time goes from a suggestion to a rule
* If you don't get someone to support your nom in 24 hours, it gets removed
* If an article needs a big rewrite, you can refer it to peer review. If an article gets a few of these, it gets moved there. That should allievate complaints that we're not supposed to be writing FAs, just judging candidates. →Raul654 06:25, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, I must note that I strenuously disagree with the 1 nomination at a time rule. Furthermore, I object to the arbitrary removal of the Coronation of the British monarch nomination merely to retroactively enforce the policy. I will, though I disagree with it, obey the rule in the future. -- Emsworth 11:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Um, is that the same Coronation of the British monarch article that is listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles now?  80.229.39.194 11:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How unfortunate... The article did not have a Featured Article Category or a message. Obviously, I must have been looking at a cached version of WP:FA as well. I offer my most sincere apologia. -- Emsworth 11:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Since Raul was named dictator of everything having to do with featured articles, of course. anthony (see warning) 20:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I've reworded the 'one self-nom at a time' statement to be a strong suggestion, with the reason - it's REALLY HARD to do justice to the article and its objections for more than one article at a time, and is strongly disrecommended unless you're a Featured Articles machine and are sure you can handle it ;-) - David Gerard 18:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to word it this way too but I prefer your wording to mine on the grounds of clarity :) Pcb21| Pete 23:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we ''still'' quibbling over what to do?

message: Please use only on the talk page of a featured article, else I'll set mav on you! Pcb21| Pete 09:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Grrr! :-)  While this still does pollute the category namespace with a Wikipedia-specific  reference, it at least leaves the article namespace alone. So I guess this is an acceptable compromise until we get a real meta tagging system for this type of thing (matadata are not the same thing as categories - although categories are a subset of metadata). --mav 17:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholeheartedly agree that a more advanced metadata solution is the proper solution longer term. Pcb21| Pete 11:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I think you'd have to really work to "pollute" the category system more than it is already ... We could do with some proper metadata, yes. Perhaps when the much-vaunted rating system is added (though consensus appears to be supporting that as per-version, not per-article) - David Gerard 17:22, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The FA category is now in [[Template:Featured]]

message: When you're working on a section, and someone else deletes a section before yours while you're editing and you save the section, it deletes the section below yours. This happens because the section-specific editing is done by indicating in the url that you're editing, say, the fifth section. But when someone else deletes a section, what WAS the fifth section becomes the fourth, so when you save the previous fifth section, it deletes what WAS the sixth section, but is now the fifth. It's a rather nasty bug, I'm afraid. --Gregb 04:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  mediawiki overwrites sections 

message: Go to Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have, find one that isn't bolded and get to work. That list is pretty much complete for en: - now, to make the kernel of an encyclopedia, we need good articles. Many of the things on that list aren't even close.
(Note on list: it's the simple: list. The full list at meta: is the one that is being added to by people.) - David Gerard 19:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another place to look is FAC archived nominations, where articles end up that not accepted as Featured articles - many are almost, but not quite, up to Featured standard.  With a little more work, many of them could be Featured. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for articles to bring up to FA status? 

message: Just wondering if all the people who vote here regularly also use Wikipedia:Peer review as a premptive way of upping candidate quality? Filiocht 11:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I ask is because I posted a couple of articles to Peer review yesterday and noted the relarively low level of response visible on that page. I think it would be good if more of those people who have clear ideas of what will make FC standard went to peer review to comment on possible future candidates. Filiocht 11:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem basically is that there are so many places to check for article improvement. FAC frequenters often don't have time to visit peer review. This has been discussed on Wikipedia:Village pump recently, but with little coming out of it. Johnleemk | Talk 11:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of [[Wikipedia:Peer review|Peer review]]