User talk:Moni3/Sandbox1/FAC

Comments from SG

• Current headings don't follow WP:WIAFA, 1a, 1b, 1c, etc.
• Current description of 1e doesn't agree with WIAFA (see Marskell's recent FA about a current event)
• Not sure if I'm in favor of any sort of automated implementation, but this could be helpful for reviewers.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Fixed the first two. I don't know about implementation either, but similar to the cite web or cite news templates, it might be helpful for reviewers. --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It has 2a, 2b, and 2c, but it lacks 2 in general (MoS compliance). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You could also add a ton of links, things like WP:LEAD, WP:CITE/ES, etc. in the appropriate places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment: I find this sort of thing really helpful. I remember that Sandy once started a detailed checklist that I found extremely useful. I'm not terribly detail oriented, but if I have a detailed list of all the things I need to remember (for my first five FACs, I think I forgot to run through WP:DASH, for example) I'm glad to go through. --JayHenry (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is outstanding, Moni. I think if we combine advice like this for the "jury" and instructions for the role of a person acting in the role of "plaintiff's lawyer", that will cover 90% of what people complain about at FAC, speed it up, and increase comfort levels. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Doh! I missed JayHenry's comment and forgot about this little thingy of mine until Dank55 just replied. Seems like it didn't make a big splash, so I thought it was unnecessary and filed it away until further scrutiny was necessary. JayHenry, what kind of MOS checklist were you thinking of? Because including all the points of the MOS would a really freakin' long checklist. Were you thinking of typical MOS FAC issues like dashes, quotation punctuation, blockquotes, etc? --Moni3 (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What I liked about this is that it corresponds to "instructions to the jury", and any lawyer will tell you you're going to get bad results if there aren't any. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it in terms of instructions to a jury. As a former teacher, I wrote it thinking how I would grade a student on an FAC. A very advanced and independent student. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Moni, JayHenry is referring to an article I had started in my userspace about reviewing articles at FAC (before I was named FAC delegate). I've author-deleted it twice, out of concerns I'll be accused of "reviewing by checklist", particularly after it was advertised before it was ready. It had helpful info, but left me too open to misinterpretation. I could get an admin to reconstruct it, but I'm not eager to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I just left him a message on his talk page, inviting him to clarify. What I hope I've done here is different from a checklist, though. I hope it's more comprehensive and addresses the article as a whole. Since the tables I've designed here don't seem to be getting a lot of attention, what is your opinion of what should be done, if anything? --Moni3 (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, mine wasn't a checklist either, rather explained how I approached a review and what things I looked at before I even decided how much time to invest into an article, but my concern was that it would be interpreted as checklist reviewing, which is very unpopular among some (who may view yours as checklist reviewing as well). Since FAC is *so* slow right now, I'd say do nothing until summer is over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't want to see FAC chunked up with that amount of size, so not sure where these reviews would be put. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Chunked up", indeed. I hope someone comes along who can visualize how this might easily be used by new and experienced reviewers. I did all the, uh, hard work. Someone make it practical. --Moni3 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, can the tables be converted to wikitables (using class="wikitable") and use a less frightening color? Gary King (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Less frightening? 'Tis art deco! But to be honest, it was a struggle for me to build the tables you see there. If you can change them to wikitables and keep their structure, feel free to tinker with them. And use light blue or something less ghastly. --Moni3 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I will get right on it. Gary King (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It should look better now. Gary King (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Moni, in answer to your query: I have to use some very specific style guidelines for some stuff I do in my real life, and so I've deliberately stayed away from memorizing Wikipedia's tomes of requirements. It's not that I am opposed to a Manual of Style per se, just that the size and the amount of strictures in it are way too vast and complicated for me to keep track of and I don't want the many peculiarly Wiki idiosyncrasies sneaking outside this site. And I'm much less active than a lot of the regulars, so I sort of end up drowning in it all. Sandy's page was basically, as she describes, just a list of things to consider, links to various policies and guidelines that come up a lot, minor things to check, etc. Although it was more like a road map, I found it very accommodating to use as a checklist. Sandy gets a lot of really ridiculous and unreasonable flak for her work, and so I understand the preemptive deletion, but I do think that reviving a detailed checklist, that you can move through systematically, could help a lot of writers--or at least ones like myself who aren't so great with details, but happy to comply when those things are pointed out. --JayHenry (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I should figure out how to revive it, finish it, and then pass it on to someone else. But I've never been able to do the work on Wiki; maybe I need to sockpuppet! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Want me to create a sandbox for it? No one check my stuff out. I have all kinds of plans for destroying the universe in my sandboxes. No I don't. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)