Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates/Poll

message: Ahoy everyone.  In my time closing Farcs there have been a couple of instances where there has been some disagreement about the amount of time that needs to pass between the closing of a successful Fac and the inception of a Farc.  The language of the Farc policy in this regards is... interpretive: Do not list articles that have recently been promoted—such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period. Do not list articles that have recently survived removal attempts. Either listing is likely to be summarily removed.  
The purpose of this poll is to define a specific time for "recently promoted/survived."  
There are certain considerations to be made as we come to consensus.  Too short a time period, and Farc may become just a FAC-redux for an article's detractors.  Too long a time period, and an article that has noticeably devolved to a point where it no longer meets the criteria may not get the review it deserves.  
That said, we take it to the community.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The time is pretty much arbitrary.  It's common for people to try for dates that are significant for the subject of the article.  My general impression from watching FAC is that it's rarely less than a month, with no definite upper limit. --Carnildo 04:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *The wording of the policy seems problematic because the use of the words "should have been" assumes that the one making the reference to FARC "could have" made objections earlier. Whether the objections should or should not have been made earlier is irrelevant. Suppose that the one making the reference to FARC is completely new to Wikipedia or was not previously aware of the article. If this person has relevant expertise and raises issues of genuine substance not considered during the FAC, a refusal to allow a listing in FARC is to allow material of a potentially poor quality to remain as a featured page. Such a course of action for form's sake cannot be justified if Wikipedia wishes to build a reputation for quality. Thus, no matter what the outcome to this poll, the policy should be redrafted. David91 05:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POLL:  "Recently Promoted" 

message: *Support; leave it to discussion and consensus. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current standard is fine - no specific time is needed 

message: *Support, since there is no mechanism to deal with controvertial promotions this would be prefferable to unsuitable articles being untouchable until they have appeared on the main page.--nixie 03:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be no time limit - allow immediate Farcs 

message: *No. See above. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be a specific time limit 

message: *It would be useful to know the average time from becoming a FA, to being featured on the front page, if it's not entirely arbitary depending on the article. We could then pick a timeframe that would either allow a FARC before front page featuring in order to catch any that shouldn't have made FA before they appear on the front page, or one that makes sure an article can have it's 'day in the sun' before anyone tries to delist it. exolon 04:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The time is pretty much arbitrary.  It's common for people to try for dates that are significant for the subject of the article.  My general impression from watching FAC is that it's rarely less than a month, with no definite upper limit. --Carnildo 04:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *The wording of the policy seems problematic because the use of the words "should have been" assumes that the one making the reference to FARC "could have" made objections earlier. Whether the objections should or should not have been made earlier is irrelevant. Suppose that the one making the reference to FARC is completely new to Wikipedia or was not previously aware of the article. If this person has relevant expertise and raises issues of genuine substance not considered during the FAC, a refusal to allow a listing in FARC is to allow material of a potentially poor quality to remain as a featured page. Such a course of action for form's sake cannot be justified if Wikipedia wishes to build a reputation for quality. Thus, no matter what the outcome to this poll, the policy should be redrafted. David91 05:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments