Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive83

Confusing and frustrating

I have tried the FAC mentorship and that didn't work out so well. I sent messages to a lot of volunteers and only one responded. I have also nominated so many music articles, but I never seem to get any comments or support. What do I do to get an article to FA without editors opposing or getting angry? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What nominations are you referring to here? The best starting point would be to look for the common threads in the reviews you've received. Also look at feature articles in whatever field you're working in to see where they differ from those you've worked on. I doubt that anyone has been made angry. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

And an immediate re-nomination before anyone else could respond. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Peer review opened at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cups (song)/archive1; see you there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at two of your previous FACs, it doesn't look like they were archived from a lack of responses, but rather that the responses suggested that the prose was not up to the FAC levels. I think it is very easy to want a promotion, and overlook the quality of what is being written. It looks like you've gone the right way, opening a peer review, might I also suggest going to WP:GOCE if the issues are limited to the prose needing a tweak (I haven't checked it over myself). It is much harder if the article doesn't get enough eyes than having things to fix. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

One more thing

I nominated "Everything I Wanted" back in July 2020 for FAC. Other editors recommended that it gets a peer review and a GOCE. I did both of those thing. I got a peer review from the wonderful and super kind editor Kyle Peake in August 2020. The GOCE was finished about 3 weeks later. I nominated "Everything I Wanted" for FA again and the editors STILL opposed and said I should get another peer review. I recently nominated Cups (song) and editors have recommended the same things. I'm wondering if the same issue is going to happen with "Cups"? P.S. thanks SandyGeorgia for taking on the peer review for "Cups". The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, and to some extent because of the shortage of reviewers, many nominators are impacted by similar. We just don't have enough resources to bring every nomination up to standard, and even experienced nominators end up having a network of people they can pull in for extra eyes pre-FAC. This is partly why I linked you (at the peer review) to general advice in my essay about building your own network of collaborators, and becoming a regular reviewer at FAC and FAR to help understand the standards. WP:FAR may be the best place to ease in, because the pace is slower and you can get to know what sorts of things to look out for, and then eventually dip in to FAC as well. Slow and steady wins the race ... I have FAs that took two years to ready and involved more than a dozen collaborators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the issues related to the second Everything I Wanted were with the sourcing even more than with the prose. When in doubt, run a source through WP:RS/N before nominating, or just replace the source with a reliable one. The purpose of FAC isn't to try to pull a source through the standards if its not ready, but more to see if a source is pretty close to the standards. The second Cups (song) FAC was quickly archived largely because some of the comments at the previous FAC were not addressed before renomination. What you'll need to do to ensure success is have all of the I's dotted and all the T's crossed. Address or respond to all comments from previous FACs. Be certain of the reliability of all of the sources. Do your own spot checks before nominating, especially where there's content you didn't personally write. And yes, it'll be frustrating at times. My first FAC was a bit of an ordeal, and probably should have been opposed and archived, as it was kinda pulled up to the standards during the review. So yeah, you'll need to make sure everything is ready before a nom. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Include the urgents list on the FAC main page?

Is there any reason why we can't include the FAC urgents list on the FAC page, as well as here on the talk page? When I'm ready to pick up a review I usually want to look at the urgents list and it would be easy if it were right at the top, above the first nomination. Any objections? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

One issue is that it is not regularly or consistently populated, and how it is used is unclear. Perhaps different Coords use, or don't use, it differently. A worthy nomination was archived today for lack of review, but was never added to the template. I am concerned that the main FAC page is already convoluted enough, and we "regulars" know to find this template on talk.

A separate issue that has come up before is ... why do we have urgents still in Tony1's and Deckkiller's userspace? We moved the FAR notifications to Wikispace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I use it for nominations that are at or near the bottom and need some extra attention to push them over the hill. I don't use it for non-starters or things that are far off from promotion. My needle is moving from bemused to irritated. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Riegelmann Boardwalk/archive1 a non-starter? Maybe I should have looked at it closer, but it looked worthy at a quick glance. Should other editors add to Urgents? Are other editors feeling like they can't add to Urgents because they are in userspace rather than Wikipedia space? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I've intermittently added something to the urgents list, and looking at the history I see others have done the same, most recently Buidhe about three weeks ago. Mostly the coords manage it but I don't think there's any reason for it to be their sole prerogative. The page statistics for it might be a bit misleading as plenty of reviewers feel free to remove archived or promoted FACs from the list; additions are probably rarer. Putting it on WP:FAC, where others may see it more readily, seems like a way to increase its visibility and perhaps help keep it more up to date, if that is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

How about if we were to simultaneously lower some of the stuff on the main FAC page? Why do we have now an entire (huge) section about sub-pages of TFA? The top of the FAC page is already pretty darn dense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You mean the featured content navbox at the top right of the page? That takes up less room than the instructions. Perhaps they could be loaded in a collapsed state, so people see the ToC immediately? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

An idea worth pursuing. IF all of those navboxes sections were collapsed (for example, everything about TFA in one collapsible thing), that would make room for a new section in the navbox, that could include all three Urgents lists in collapsible form (FAC Urgents, FAR notifications, and FARC candidates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That template (Template:FApages) is shared with TFA, I believe, and the links are desirable there. You could certainly create one specific for FAC. That might even be desirable.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No objections so far, so I've done a fairly extreme collapse of the instructions to see what people think. No objections to anyone reverting it, but I think it looks better like this, and I would like to see at least some collapsing left in place if others think this goes too far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Tks Mike, I think collapsing the nom process and supporting/opposing stuff is an improvement. I've uncollapsed the instructions for a couple of reasons: 1) when I unhid that section I found a great deal of white space above and below, and very thin navbox on the right, I don't know if that's a skin thing but if it happens to me it could happen to others; 2) I think it makes sense to have an introduction on any main project page, and this one doesn't take up too much room IMO. Obviously I'm open to discussion on any permutations but this is my preference. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a skin thing (the navbox completely disappeared for me, which I didn't mind) but this version is still an improvement. I'll wait a bit and if this version survives I'll add the urgents list somewhere around the top of the page, if nobody else does. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

While we're addressing all of this, it would be nice to deal with all of the notification/urgent templates in one place somehow (including those we don't but should have). Right now we have FAC urgents (in userspace), FARCs (in userspace), FAR notifications, and a long discussion over at Peer review about how to flag attention to Peer reviews that are to prepare for FAC. I wish we had a templated sidebar notification of those, because re-invigorating PR is one route to re-invigorating FAC. So it would be nice to find a way to put all four of these into one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll see if I can come up with something that works for all these in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I inquired before but got no answer, so ... what ability do we have to move the userspace templates to Wikipedia space (out of concern that some editors may not be using them, thinking they can't)? Do we really think Tony1 or Deckiller will care if they are moved? Do we violate something sacred if we just do that? I suppose we could email Deckiller? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think a move was suggested, at least for Deckiller's subpage, but got no traction on the grounds of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I would have to dig in archives to remember the exact conversation. What I think I would do is create new pages, probably all in template space, and simply transition to using those once we had agreement on design. That would make it easier to fiddle around with designs until everyone is happy without breaking what's there now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

And, if you come up with an elegant solution, I would add this one to it: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. We have an excess amount of real estate devoted to TFA in the overall sidebar and that one stands out as something that could be added to a pending/notifications/urgents overall template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Mike Christie, putting this one here also to have everything in one place: {{FAC peer review sidebar}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm in Connecticut for a long weekend so won't be working on this for a few days at least, but thanks; yes, I saw that and I think it's worth including. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer reviews prior to FAC nomination

Articles seeking peer review
before featured article candidacy

• October 31 Hogwarts Legacy
• December 9 Central America under Mexican rule
• January 12 Gaetano Bresci
• January 18 William L. Breckinridge
• February 2 Virgo interferometer
• February 10 Born to Run
• February 17 Nurture (album)
• February 17 Idris Bazorkin
• February 20 The Sims Online
• March 3 Not Strong Enough (Boygenius song)
• March 3 Muckrach Castle
• March 6 Nezak Huns
• March 14 2020 Coulson Aviation Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash
• March 15 Arthur O. Austin
• March 20 Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945
• April 2 Rain World
• April 3 BP Refinery v Tracey
• April 5 Narwhal
• April 7 St Melangell's Church
• April 11 Chetana Nagavajara
• April 11 Ann Cook (cookery book writer)
• April 13 Charles the Bold
• April 14 Tiger
• April 17 Kes (Star Trek)
• April 24 Nestory Irankunda
• April 25 Ethics
• May 3 Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

Unanswered peer reviews here.

Hi all, Tom here from peer review. As many contributors here know, it's very common for articles to see peer review prior to featured article candidacy. Sometimes these languor for months prior to review and, to increase visibility, I have created a sidebar which people who want to request a peer review relating to FA candidacy can place their article. That sidebar is here: {{FAC peer review sidebar}}, and can be included in talk pages etc. Please feel free to include it on your talk page or wherever else you think it may be useful. When a review has received sufficient feedback, please remove it from the list.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much, Tom (LT); just what the doctor ordered! I have added it to my talk page, and will add it to the list of templates that Mike Christie is trying to consolidate above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You're most welcome, will see how it goes! --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Do we need page numbers for cited scientific papers

Hi everyone, there is a request here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australian Journal of Herpetology/archive1, for individual page numbers to be cited for papers in journals. This has not been a requirement, we normally just give the range. I don't think they are needed. Thoughts please. Graham Beards (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I have had a change of heart on this (see dementia with Lewy bodies, complete blood count and Buruli ulcer). The reasoning we used in the past made no sense to me when confronted at the DLB FAC; if other content areas have to do this, so should medical content (even more important for medical content). Once I accepted that I should do it, I found it not that hard. You don't have to always use a page number; in most cases, a section name will suffice, and that makes it easier to do the broad update. My concern was that WPMED had become a bit of a walled garden in terms of insisting that we didn't need to provide narrower ranges for WP:V, and with 20-page journal articles, verifying the text was difficult. But, if you have a 10-page article, of which five are disclaimers, appendices, COI notices etc, then I think it is reasonable to expect the reader to find the content in the smaller range of pages left. So, this only applies in my mind to articles where the text is lengthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. Do we need to define a lengthy text? Graham Beards (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most of what SG says, except that I see no reason why life should be made more difficult for a reader or a reviewer than it needs to be, and would expect the pages referred to by a cite to be cited. It is. it seems to me, for the author/nominator to do the work, not the reader/reviewer. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Graham, I would consider it relative to a long website, for which we don't provide page numbers. My best guess is that a journal article with about three pages of text (separating out all the disclaimer garbage at the end) is no worse/longer than a typical website, so we shouldn't need to provide page nos there. On the other hand, neither would it be hard to do so ... Also, keep in mind that not all journal articles have easily found page nos (depending on whether you are accessing a PMC, etc) that correspond with the citation (sometimes an online version is not paginated the same as the hard journal copy), so often providing a section name is MORE helpful to the reader than a page number. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That was my concern. I agree that section names would be enough and more useful. Graham Beards (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason for actively discouraging doing it (which is pretty much standard in real world medical stuff) is a belief that the whole paper is what needs to be cited - readers can either look at the abstract which medical papers always have, or read the whole thing. It will often be inappropriate to just send readers to a single page, or a couple. Or course that isn't always the case, for example if the point being made isn't the main conclusion of the paper, but something said in passing. I don't think it should be made something reviewers can demand. This has come up often before. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it depends on the point being made. If the whole sentence in the proposed featured article is a summary of some journal article, then cite the whole article (I've used "passim" in such case, but that might be unnecessary). Otherwise, cite to the page or range of pages that stand for the fact being cited. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are (many) cases where one is citing the entire paper, or the main conclusion in the abstract, and page nos are not needed in those cases. In Featured articles, though, we typically go well into the body of a secondary medical review with cited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The answer here has to be a big "it depends". This is far wider than just scientific papers, any text should give an exact page number, if you are citing a particular thing written on a page, a page range if you are summarising a section or chapter, or no pages if the whole source is being cited. I do think section names in addition to page references would sometimes be suitable, but I don't see the need to get rid of page ranges altogether, even when citing a section of a book/paper. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is more than just scientific papers. In the vast majority of the journal articles that I have seen cited at FAC, the FAC nominators have not read the entire paper and summarized it in the kind meta-language, breadth, or depth that precludes a reduction to specific page numbers; they have selected factual data from specific pages but cited it to the whole article. Section numbers are fine, but even sections can run into several pages. If a cited article, or section, is more than three pages long (minus the references, tables, figures, etc.), I request the page number. To provide it on Wikipedia, in which all manner of referees review, is a demonstration not only of transparency but also of consideration for the reviewer. What they do in the real world of scientific or academic writing, is irrelevant. We are not that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm the editor who asked for the page numbers in the review here. I remember encountering this in a previous science-related FAC, and I continue to be confused about why page numbers aren't required for scientific papers given that they are considered essential for just about every other topic. The article in question here is as much a social studies-type article as a science article, as its focus is essentially on what is or isn't academic/scientific misconduct and some eccentricities around how scientific journals work. More broadly, given that it's trivially simple to provide the page numbers and doing so is of considerable help to readers, I can see no sensible reason for not providing them. Nick-D (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I also disallow a citation of the sort <<page number 5, 7, 12–15, 32, 47–49>> used repeatedly, even dozens of times. It is not my job, or an attentive reader's, to disentangle its use. Agree with Nick-D. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• The key issue for me is verifiability: how to make it easier for the reader to verify the information? It can be difficult enough to find a piece of information on one page, let alone multiple of them. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a reader to closely read 10 pages hoping that the fact is stated on one of them. (t · c) buidhe 09:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Buidhe. Why is it a problem to give the page when it enhances verifiability? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• It's a good best practice, but I am not sure if it should be required. I am leaning towards yes, however, as in the long run it is helpful. One issue to consider, however is this: if a source does not have internal numbers for pagination but has clearly distinc pages (like a pdf that has no page numbers), should we count pdf pages? There is also another issue to consider. Many articles are available in pdf as well as non-paginated html format that's just long flow of text. If we require page numbers, it means that we are telling people to use pdf over html for this technical reason. This could be mildly annoying to people who prefer working with html to pdfs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  This is why I mentioned above that often section names are more useful than page numbers. I have encountered articles where the PDF, for example, is numbered pages 1–10, when the article journal publication is pages 567–576. One knows not if the reader is looking at an online PDF, or the hard copy of a journal, so providing a page number is less helpful than telling them which section of the article to look in. And sections are almost never more than a couple of pages, so sometimes can be better than a page range. Bottom line: give the reader enough info to find the information in three pages or less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Do we need to ask the cite template creators to add a "section" parameter? 16:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure that would do the trick, because usually when you are citing multiple pages or sections from one article, you are usually using short-form citations (whether hand-written or sfn) ... see the difference between dementia with Lewy bodies and complete blood count and Buruli ulcer, because I Hate SFNs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Usually, but not always. What harm would it do to request an additional parameter? Graham Beards (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Ah I just learned, just now, that {{sfn}} (which I used for referencing at Buruli ulcer) already supports a |loc= parameter for exactly this purpose. SandyGeorgia, SFNs are looking better and better... Ajpolino (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• From a WP:V standard, there's the balance of excessive detail of the citation (down to the page number), and how easy it should be for the reader to verify the information. To step back to a more general example, if I were to cite a scientific book of more than 100 pages for a single fact , I would be expected to at least narrow it down to the chapter or page range for the book, if not the specific page if the fact is limited to that. In terms of journal articles, most tend to be under 20 pages, which I would argue is "easy" for a reader to read to verify a single fact, in comparison to the book example. But once in a while you will get a 60-80 page review article or something similarly in depth, and then that is where it would seem to be reasonable to ask for a more specific reference for the specific fact in question. Of course, if the fact being cited is something very specific in the journal article, it can't hurt to use the quote parameter that the templates offer (which will help with searching for it) to be clear. --Masem (t) 16:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should break it up for very long articles, but doing it for short articles (and Fowler's "outlawing" of multiple ranges given in one citation) seems excessive and is just another hoop for writers to jump through. I don't see why we need to be even stricter than the journals themselves, especially in these days when, unlike physical books, PDF sources are easily searchable. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: I changed a citation to a single page number and Citation Bot changed it back.[1] Graham Beards (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Lovely. That is why I used to manually format citations. Try putting a comment in the field telling the bot not to alter it, or format it manually? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrospectively, no, that's way too much work for me. Graham Beards (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, just to experiment, the citation bot people have advised me in the past that putting an inline comment should keep the bot from changing it, so I did this; perhaps @Headbomb, AManWithNoPlan, and Abductive: can comment. We need to be able to cite specific pages of journal articles without having citation bot alter that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Not that I am a citation bot person, but isn't there a distinction between the |pages= and |page= parameters? Abductive (reasoning) 15:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a vauge difference (I say vague since people certainly do not always follow this difference). . The citation bot will make the dash long in pages, but assumes the dash is for section page numbers in page. The bot will also will not change page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It changed page.[2] Graham Beards (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

So in the example diff, Citation bot did that because the parameter was |pages=? Abductive (reasoning) 15:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer {{sfn}} citation style precisely because it promotes the use of page numbers. As for requiring page numbers, I think (for FA, not generally) we should require page numbers for citations to books and works over ~50 pages. Journal articles and working papers should have a page number, but it should not be a strict requirement. At least with journal articles, they're relatively short and well organized so depending on the statement, you could probably narrow down to a few pages what parts of the paper most likely contain the information; worst case they're not so long that skimming the whole thing is prohibitive. If you have trouble verifying, ask for the page number by adding {{Page needed}}. For books, finding the correct page after-the-fact is a lot harder so it's better to ask that writers provide the page proactively. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Finding all FA-related templates more easily

I have created Template:FA sidebar, as I tire of seeking all the different pieces all over creation, and want to easily see FAR notices, FAC urgents, and FAC PRs on my user talk. I am sure someone besides me could have made this more elegant, but at least it is started now.

Perhaps we could replace the clutter at the top of this talk page with this template, no expansion. There are three templates and two links at the top of this talk page that can't be archived, which is an odd way to use a talk page. The only thing now at the top of this page that doesn't have its own page is the Image and source review section.

Would sure love to have some help over at PR ... things are picking up since Tom (LT) stared the FAC PR template. If more FA regulars would pitch in, we get more of the basic stuff addressed before articles hit FAC.

I show it here with expanded=PR set to on, but you can set one on, all on, all off, as you please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see it at the top of WP:FAC, side by side with the instructions and the FA pages, with FAC urgents expanded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

How about if we start by putting it at the top of this page, in case others want to do any fine tuning or prettifying? I just copied an existing template to start ... and it's the top of this talk page that troubles ... it boggles my mind how it came to be such a conglomerate of sections that can't be archived. Unsure why any new editor would think to look there for basic info ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Great idea, this seems like something that would be very useful for FA regulars. I'm surprised and very pleased how well the FA peer review sidebar is going :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that this should have been done unilaterally. I find it difficult to navigate and heuristically it has UX problems including accessibility challenges. --Laser brain (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Improvements are welcome. Doing something, hopefully, is better than doing nothing to kick things in to gear. And I am unclear how you are using the word “unilaterally”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a mentor

Hello, I'm looking for a mentor for my upcoming first Featured article nomination (Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji). The article was copy edited recently, but I'm not a native speaker of English (the article is written in British English) and am worried I might mangle the prose in responding to reviewers' comments and their suggestions. I'm looking for a mentor with an exceptional command of the language, though being a native speaker is not a prerequisite. An interest in classical music is a plus but not imperative. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Toccata quarta: You may want to reach out to Gerda Arendt. Not only is she an experienced writer, a lot of her work focuses on classical music, so she probably knows editors who can help you, if not help you herself. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting topic, and large, and nothing I know anything about. I'm also no native speaker. How about a peer review, to get more input than just one mentor? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt: I contemplated PR but decided against it after seeing articles languish there for a month or longer without receiving any feedback. But perhaps, if considerable interest materializes here, I will initiate one. In the meantime, User:Tim riley has kindly offered some feedback on my user talk page, which has been very helpful thus far. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a hand-selected PR ;) - Tim is far more competent in both FA writing in general as composers specifically, so probably all you need. I have a few reviews waiting (Honan Chapel begun), but then will take a look if you want. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That's very helpful. Personally I'd copy that to a peer review, & continue it there, which I'm sure Tim won't mind. Others might well join in. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod: I might do that, but some of our comments in that conversation have gone somewhat off-topic and I'd rather ask him first. There are some Sorabji-related pictorial events on the horizon (i.e. Commons uploads), so a PR could be done in the meantime. Is there some guideline for how long a PR can or should be and when it is closed? I could not find any information about that. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A peer review is mostly up to you, - you can close anytime. If you don't, a bot normally closes it after some time of inactivity, - it's a free format that I like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Toccata, you could move the review into your sandbox, where you can update to your hearts content. 195.7.32.154 (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I have created a PR for the Sorabji article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji/archive1, to which all are welcome to contribute. I will also notify Tim riley of it shortly. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for October 2020

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for October 2020. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month.

It may be of interest that last month was the most productive for FAC in over five years. There were 27 nominations promoted and 22 archived, for a total of 49. The last time the total was that high was in 2015. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Reviewers for October 2020

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Image Source Content Total Buidhe 22 4 26 Nikkimaria 11 6 1 18 Hog Farm 4 11 15 Aza24 7 6 13 SandyGeorgia 13 13 Lee Vilenski 12 12 Mike Christie 7 7 Peacemaker67 1 5 6 Kosack 5 5 FunkMonk 5 5 The Rambling Man 1 3 4 Gog the Mild 4 4 HĐ 4 4 Harrias 1 3 4 Aoba47 4 4 Jo-Jo Eumerus 2 1 1 4 J Milburn 3 3 Laser brain 1 2 3 Dudley Miles 3 3 Ceoil 1 2 3 JennyOz 3 3 Indopug 3 3 Dweller 2 2 Wehwalt 1 1 2 Borsoka 2 2 WA8MTWAYC 2 2 Girth Summit 2 2 TheJoeBro64 2 2 Sturmvogel 66 1 1 2 Dunkleosteus77 2 2 Rodney Baggins 1 1 2 Graham Beards 2 2 Casliber 2 2 Hawkeye7 2 2 SatDis 2 2 Amakuru 2 2 Hurricane Noah 2 2 No Great Shaker 2 2 David Fuchs 2 2 Spicy 2 2 A. Parrot 2 2 Homeostasis07 2 2 The Ultimate Boss 2 2 Epicgenius 1 1 Indrian 1 1 CR4ZE 1 1 LOVI33 1 1 IJReid 1 1 Pendright 1 1 Binksternet 1 1 T8612 1 1 Midnightblueowl 1 1 Norfolkbigfish 1 1 Lazman321 1 1 Mardus 1 1 SuperJew 1 1 Cplakidas 1 1 213.205.194.127 1 1 CPA-5 1 1 Hekerui 1 1 LuK3 1 1 Nick-D 1 1 Heartfox 1 1 Z1720 1 1 Tintor2 1 1 Masem 1 1 JavaHurricane 1 1 LittleLazyLass 1 1 Coemgenus 1 1 Thatoneweirdwikier 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Govvy 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 Fowler&fowler 1 1 Zawed 1 1 Scope creep 1 1 Hahnchen 1 1 Therapyisgood 1 1 Kaiser matias 1 1 RetiredDuke 1 1 Serial Number 54129 1 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 Grand Total 37 26 180 243

Supports and opposes for October 2020

# declarations Declaration Editor Oppose Support None Struck support Grand Total Buidhe 26 26 Nikkimaria 2 16 18 Hog Farm 2 9 4 15 Aza24 4 9 13 SandyGeorgia 6 2 5 13 Lee Vilenski 11 1 12 Mike Christie 6 1 7 Peacemaker67 4 2 6 Kosack 5 5 FunkMonk 4 1 5 HĐ 2 1 1 4 Jo-Jo Eumerus 4 4 The Rambling Man 3 1 4 Gog the Mild 4 4 Aoba47 1 3 4 Harrias 2 2 4 Dudley Miles 2 1 3 Laser brain 2 1 3 J Milburn 2 1 3 Ceoil 2 1 3 JennyOz 3 3 Indopug 1 2 3 Dweller 2 2 WA8MTWAYC 2 2 Borsoka 2 2 Hawkeye7 2 2 Girth Summit 2 2 TheJoeBro64 2 2 Sturmvogel 66 1 1 2 Dunkleosteus77 1 1 2 Rodney Baggins 1 1 2 Graham Beards 1 1 2 Casliber 2 2 Hurricane Noah 2 2 SatDis 1 1 2 Amakuru 2 2 Wehwalt 1 1 2 No Great Shaker 2 2 David Fuchs 2 2 Spicy 1 1 2 A. Parrot 1 1 2 Homeostasis07 2 2 The Ultimate Boss 2 2 Epicgenius 1 1 Indrian 1 1 CR4ZE 1 1 LOVI33 1 1 IJReid 1 1 Pendright 1 1 Binksternet 1 1 T8612 1 1 Midnightblueowl 1 1 Norfolkbigfish 1 1 Lazman321 1 1 Mardus 1 1 SuperJew 1 1 Cplakidas 1 1 213.205.194.127 1 1 CPA-5 1 1 Hekerui 1 1 LuK3 1 1 Nick-D 1 1 Heartfox 1 1 Z1720 1 1 Tintor2 1 1 Masem 1 1 JavaHurricane 1 1 LittleLazyLass 1 1 Coemgenus 1 1 Thatoneweirdwikier 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Govvy 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 Fowler&fowler 1 1 Zawed 1 1 Scope creep 1 1 Hahnchen 1 1 Therapyisgood 1 1 Kaiser matias 1 1 RetiredDuke 1 1 Serial Number 54129 1 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 Grand Total 15 125 102 1 243

Hi Mike, just wondering: was there a reason for the switch from "struck oppose" to "struck support"? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

They’re different things — unusually we had no struck opposes this month, unless I missed one, but we did have one case where a reviewer supported and then struck that support. Those are rarer; I don’t recall when I last reported one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Mike, do you consolidate these in one page somewhere? That is, is the also the first time in five years that Opposes have returned? And that the ratio promoted (55 %) is more aligned with historical levels?

Kudos to Buidhe, Nikkimaria, and Hog Farm for October ! (Delegates used to barnstar the three top reviewers :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I used to give out barnstars but after this discussion I stopped -- SarahSV in particular felt it might encourage weak reviewing. That wasn't a unanimous opinion but there were enough comments to the effect that the lists by themselves were motivating that I thought the barnstars weren't necessary.

I do have consolidated data on a spreadsheet on my PC and I will eventually make the data available; until then just ask for anything you're interested in and I'll look it up if it's not too convoluted. October saw 15 opposes out of 140 declarations, or just over 10%. Over the last six months the oppose % numbers are May 11%, June 13%, July 12%, August 9%, and September 4%. I'd say September is the outlier here; last month's oppose percentage is just below the midpoint of that (short) list. Re promotion levels: 55% is the low point for the year, but only just; it was 56% in September and 57% in April, for example. Overall about 60% of 2020 FACs have been promoted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

PS, so what if we gave out mention instead for high page view TFAs, to encourage diversity per other criticism? The list in the section below this is surprisingly diverse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A naval battle from 2,276 years ago was the most viewed TFA in October. Astonishing. And that is a diverse range of TFAs. It would seem that TFA viewers are a catholic bunch. Do we have similar data for earlier months?Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think so, but we should. I have March somewhere, only because Tourette syndrome ran and I was curious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

March is at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2#March_mainpage_TFA_views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• It is 100 times faster to dash out a quick image review of an article with 2 images (or even 20 of them), or slap a quick comment without supporting or opposing, than close reading a long and complex article and keeping track of revisions made, or checking the literature to see whether the article actually meets comprehensiveness criteria and all POVs are appropriately represented. Topping the list for quantity doesn't necessarily mean that one is contributing the most to the process overall. Barnstars should certainly be awarded for in-depth and high-quality FAC reviewing but not on the basis of pure quantity in my opinion. (t · c) buidhe 08:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  Barnstars for high-quality reviews would be good, but it would be very time consuming to determine who would deserve one. I separate image and source reviews from content reviews because they are quite different tasks, but even within those groups it's hard to determine quality. Of the last few content reviews I've done there's at least one FAC I supported with no more than one comment; how can you tell whether I spent two hours reading that article but could find almost nothing wrong, or instead glanced through it in five minutes, found one error, and noted it down?

  For occasional reviewers there's not much more that can be done but look at the length of the review, but for regulars one gets a sense of how they usually review and I am sure the coordinators can tell the different value of a review from Wehwalt or Peacemaker67 or Ceoil or Johnbod, versus someone who has not historically been a productive reviewer. There have been frequent reviewers who added little to the process, such as Brískelly~enwiki, now blocked; I doubt any coordinator paid much attention to comments such as their review here.

  The data I gather are useful for several purposes but they absolutely will not tell you who the best reviewers are. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that the data is useful in many ways, but to Buidhe's point, I can't see any benefit in the "total" column other than being misleading. I feel kind of awkward being 4th in total, when half of my source reviews probably took ~5 min and the others (usually which had spotchecks) probably more like 15 (although when there's mostly web sources it can take around 20–25 min since I usually click through most, if not all). Really I'd be below Sandy and Lee in time spent even if I'm above them in "total" Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Finally bit the bullet on SFNs and HarvRefs: error question

I finally learned them, and Portrait of a Musician showed me how to fix the stragglers (thanks, Aza24). But although I have checked that every link is working, dementia with Lewy bodies is showing up in the hidden category for "Harv and Sfn no-target errors". Is anyone here able to fix that, or to point me at someone who knows what that's about? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Done! [5] Thank you ever so much, DrKay (it was the et al). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The other et al type references need to be fixed like so. IIRC, I see error messages by importing scripts as described at Category:Harv_and_Sfn_template_errors. DrKay (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DrKay ... I will work on the rest and ping you directly if I am still confoozled ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

That did the trick;[6] thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Worthy FAC

I encourage anyone who is interested in 19th century history or American literature to check out the FAC for John Neal (writer), it was archived last time due to lack of participation but it is a well prepared article that deserves a thorough review. (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Broken FAC at Beaver

@DrKay, Nikkimaria, Casliber, and Laser brain: I can't sort what went wrong at Beaver, but even though LittleJerry appears to have used the subst correctly to generate archive2 here, the FAC is currently at the wrong page, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beaver rather than Beaver/archive 2 ... I am concerned because lots of people have been messing with templates trying to fix the article history mess, so I don't want to just move this FAC to the right page, rather make sure we know why this went wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed it from WP:FAC so LittleJerry might put a {{db-author}} tag at the faulty page and start over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

All fixed with a db-author, but still don't know how that happened, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it looks like this edit was done manually and not using the subst template. None of the main or related templates look like they have been edited in recent times. Can you verify LittleJerry? --Laser brain (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct. LittleJerry (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Lb ... and is there any way to make sure that, if someone does same in future, the template will handle it correctly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can stop someone from inserting "{{featured article candidates/something-incorrect}}" onto an article Talk page (which is what I think happened here) which will then produce the "initiate the nomination" redlink and create an incorrect subpage. It just then has to be manually deleted and fixed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Got it ... so we just fix them if they occur as we notice them here, thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR confusion, heads up

Back in January, we held an RFC at this page and relaxed the nominating restrictions at FAR. Unfortunately, the wording led several reviewers to mistakenly believe that no more than four FARs could be on the page at a time, when the actual intent was no more than four by the same nominator. It seems this misunderstanding may be partly why the backlog of articles with FAR notice given has mushroomed, so this is just a heads up in case anyone else misunderstood the relaxing of nominating restrictions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good to reword the instructions on the FAR page, so that the potential for misinterpretation is minimized? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I did that ... hope it is better now. [7] (The idea with this post is to notify anyone who may have misunderstood.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at FAR about loosening restrictions on nominations

See FAR talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed New FAC Coordinator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been open for a week and the support for Gog the Mild as FAC coord seems clear. In the near future I will edit our project pages to reflect his new role. I also wish to acknowledge those who weighed in with ideas for areas of reform for which I would encourage additional discussions and/or formal RFCs as the community deems appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Hi everyone, I've decided to step down as FAC coordinator to focus on other areas of Wikipedia and some personal projects I've been wanting to work on.

In my place, Victoria, Ian and I would like to propose Gog the Mild. As most of you know, Gog has a long history of involvement at FAC including thorough involvement as both a reviewer and a writer of Featured articles. We feel he would make an excellent Coordinator as well.

While we are happy to hold a formal RFC to confirm Gog's appointment, we would like to get a sense of whether that's necessary.

Please let us know your thoughts. --Laser brain (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Fully endorse. And thank you for your long service, which I hope will continue in other ways.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Support, and thanks for the bright ray of sunshine ... much needed today (with US elections). - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild is an amazing editor—prolific, involved, competent, and doing lots of good FA work.
  But I am concerned that the Coords are not recognizing , identifying or focusing on the core issues facing the overall FA process and the kinds of changes and innovation that will be needed to restore it to vibrancy, including on all three FA-process pages (FAC, FAR, TFA). One of the key issues is that the FA process badly needs to diversify beyond its MILHIST dominance (and I say that with great respect and thanks for how well MILHIST functions and how much they contribute to the FA pool). Proposing that two of the three FAC Coords be MILHIST editors does not recognize how badly FAC needs to branch out and bring in fresh ideas and a broader base. If Gog had been proposed as only one MILHSIT Coord of the three (that is, if he were replacing Ian Rose instead of Laser brain), I would be supporting that, but my increasing concern lately is that we are not seeing an understanding of why the FA process is faltering, and there is a failure to consider innovation. We need to reach beyond MILHIST and have a corp of Coords that represents more content areas. At a time that the stats show that MILHIST if what is keeping FAC alive, I would hope the Coords would acknowledge the need to branch out and push for same. This would be the first time in its history FAC did not have a group of Coords representing a broader content base (biology editors, literary editors, for instance, a Jimfbleak to replace Ucucha, Sarastro, Graham Beards in terms of diversity, or a SlimVirgin type of candidate who will work for change).
  On the other hand, I understand there may be no one else who will step up, and if Gog is it, at least he is competent, hard working, and respected.
  I would also be thrilled to see the corp of Coords recommit to transparency and re-invigorating FAC talk in place of off-Wikipedia communication. Prior to a suggested nomination, it would have been helpful to hear more from the community on what sorts of concerns they have, what kinds of qualities they seek in a Coord, what directions they want to see the processes head in, and the like—but frank discussion on this page has soured too quickly, too often. It would be grand to see some platforms and discussion before a rubber stamp process, because "they way we have always done it" is not keeping the FA process vibrant.
  Separately, Laser, you have been one of the most significant parts of FAC history-- long one of our most competent reviewers, and you have served long and well. The process will be less without you, I will miss you, and I wish you well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• And since I raise a problem, I should also offer a solution to this dilemma. Move Ian Rose to TFA Coord to replace Jimfbleak, and bring Jimfbleak from TFA to FAC. That allows us to have diversity at FAC, while not rejecting Gog. (But it still leaves TFA MILHIST heavy, with Dank there as well. FAR is diversified with only one MILHIST Coord, Nikkimaria.) IIRC, Ian was named after I resigned in 2012, which means he has been serving for more than eight years, which could mean its time for a change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• FTR I haven't been a MILHIST Coord in quite some time. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Gog is a great FA contributor and reviewer, and is ideal for this role. I do think that we need to consider what effect promoting one of the most prolific reviewers of the last year to coordinator will have. While I know that coordinators can still review, they tend to do so less. (And as time goes on, less still). This isn't a reason to block an obviously good candidate from this role, but needs to be a consideration for what happens next. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I feel this is like the promotion paradox. If someone is very good at their job, do you promote them to a more senior job, but lose the great work they were already doing? Do we lose a lot of fantastic FACRs, and FACs - and gain someone else helping to promote/demote articles?

I think Gog does a fantastic job (so much so, that even my highest dilengence in the cup only won by a GA), so is there scope for a coord to also promote material, or conduct reviews, and promote only those that they haven't touched?

FWIW, I have no issues with two of the three coords being from MILHIST, it doesn't effect their abilities to promote an article, and if anything likely would cause less FAs to be created from this area. I wouldn't care if all three coords only wrote about 16th century Poland cats, if they knew what an FA was supposed to look like, and could do the job.

In short, I'm happy to support this promotion, but would like to know if hybrid coords would be something we could look into, or if it was a one-or-other type deal (or if it has been discussed before) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, lack of diversity in Coords does affect promotion. And also leaves Ealdgyth in a tougher spot, as a Coord with broader experience in more content areas. Coords need to know when an article not within their area of expertise has or has not received adequate review before they decide to promote or archive. What works for MILHIST doesn't work for every other content area. As a recent example that came up on a current peer review, MILHIST editors might not know if a literary article is written within the standards for that topic, and having two Coords from one content area leaves more pressure on the remaining, broader-based Coord, Ealdgyth, to catch problems like that one. And we already have a serious problem that non-MILHIST editors are not reviewing MILHIST articles, and we should take care that we don't encourage a system that rubber stamps one content area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support, without hesitation. I've worked with Gog on a number of reviews, and have found him exceptionally reasonable, even when we're critiquing each others' work, which is often. Laser Brain, I'm sorry to see you go. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Gog, but I fear it will diminish his FAC output (and reviewing), and I'd prefer seeing more articles from him. So I'd also like to hear if he himself agrees with this nomination? FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• FunkMonk, why are we not considering you for Coord? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I personally prefer using my energy here for writing and reviewing, and I fear I would lose a lot of it if I had such obligations. I'm an admin at Commons, and I can barely even live up to my responsibilities there! FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: This proposal was put together in consultation with Gog. :) --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, then it should be fine! FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Gog, and huge thanks to User:Laser brain. My only concern is the possible loss of another reviewer, Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support great choice, Gog is highly respected as a FA producer and FAC reviewer. Thanks for offering to take this on, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. First, thank you Laser brain for all of the time and work that you have put into the FAC process. Gog the Mild seems like an appropriate choice for this position since they are a strong FA contributor and reviewer. I can understand SandyGeorgia's concern about having two of the three FAC coordinators be involved with MILHIST, but I would imagine there would still be future discussions on how to best diversify the types of topics nominated for a FAC and encourage new editors to participate in the process. Thank you for taking on this responsibility Gog, and I think you will do a great job with this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support echoing the thanks (the MANY thanks) to Laser brain for their service. I have nothing but positivity for Gog but like Lee Vilenski, have concerns over losing a great contributor and reviewer. I hope Gog will be able to continue in both forms and where necessary recuse from closing, although that may cause a bit of a slowdown in processing. Is there any reason why we couldn't have a FOURTH FAC co-ord?? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Great choice; and many thanks to Laser brain for his years of service. I hope we see more of his reviews as a result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose without formal RFC I believe Gog is eminently qualified for the role, however significant concerns have been brought up that I believe require project-wide input in the form of an RFC. Firstly, Gog is among the most prolific reviewers, and any reduction in that threatens FAC throughput. While that is a classic trade-off in promoting personnel, I believe the wider community should be asked to weigh in on the issue. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the most beneficial I believe is that it will advertise FAC's acute (and potentially growing) need for reviewers to the wider community. Secondly, his promotion would increase the MILHIST specialization of FAC which could affect the future direction of the FA process. This is not necessarily a problem given the number of MILHIST noms, but again this is a question that should be considered by the wider community. We have a large number of MILHIST candidates, so a greater number of MILHIST coords would obviously make sense. But in contrast, there are concerns about the increased workload on Victoria as the lone non-MILHIST coord, whether our current strategies are effective at increasing FA participation outside that subject area, and what directions the community wants to see FA go in as a whole. None of this is to say that Gog is unfit, rather, it seems the question extends beyond whether Gog is qualified or not. Instead, the question at hand seems to be one of organizational direction and planning. For that reason, I believe we should have a more deliberate discussion of the options before us and advertise an RfC on FA coordination. That said, if Laser Brain would like to retire sooner rather than later, I see no reason to not allow Gog to perform the duties on an acting basis given the support here and general qualification. Lastly, I want to thank you both for your past and future service. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  Commenting on just one of your points: can you clarify what you see as the MILHIST problem? Ian closes lots of MILHIST FACs and is always rigorous about looking for non-MILHIST reviewers. I'm not sure what Ealdgyth, or any non-MILHIST co-ordinator, might do that would be different -- in fact, so long as the non-MILHIST review is being sought, the co-ord's own knowledge is a plus when looking at these articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't see it as a problem per se, and having a second coord with expertise in MILHIST could even be a good thing for precisely the reason you give: "the co-ord's own knowledge is a plus when looking at these articles". My reason for opposition is procedural, and I hope that it's clear that I full confidence that Gog will do a great job should they become a coordinator. Reading the OP though, it seemed like the question was "do we need an RfC" and to that question I think the answer is yes.

  To clarify why the MILHIST point gets me there, it's largely because subject experts are typically cautious outside of their subject area and that can lead to unintentional biases. Just to name a few that pop into my head, coords (of any specialization) may not know the right people to reach out to for a review, may not notice deficiencies in reviews outside their area, or may delay promotions/archivings longer than needed out of an abundance of caution. I think of it similarly to what can happen at RFPP---if I'm not familiar with a dispute or topic, I'll let a request sit. Because other patroling admins aren't really comfortable in that topic area either, they also let it sit. Then, after a few days of languishing, someone closes it as stale. If we had someone with knowledge of the topic or dispute, it probably could have been answered sooner. It's not that anyone did anything wrong--if anything we're doing the right thing by being cautious and deferrential--but if we had a more diverse corps of RFPP admins there might be fewer such cases.

  At the same time, there are benefits to specialization, and the concerns I raised aren't even guaranteed to happen. I don't really know or have all the answers, especially because unlike most who have commented, I'm not an active participant here. Reading through the comments of those more experience than me, I feel like I want more time to learn about and consider the trade-offs at play, and an RfC on whom/how to replace Laser Brain gives us that opportunity. I hope I'm being clear? — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  That's clear. The co-ords do sometimes reach out to individual editors to ask them to review, but I think they can do that having learned from reading FACs who is a good reviewer of what topic. Every regular surely knows they can call in Casliber for astronomy articles, or The Rambling Man for football articles -- you don't have to be an expert yourself to know that. So I don't see the area of expertise as significant. As for losing Gog's reviews -- I wouldn't support any candidate for co-ordinator who wasn't a regular reviewer, so I think that's unavoidable; I don't think an RfC can fix that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support though I too worry about taking a writer/reviewer (partly) out of the loop. I will take it on good faith that the coordinators feel that four is a better number than three doing the role. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Being a coordinator didn't stop Ian from writing or reviewing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• I am not sure that I want to put down a bold-faced "oppose" but I'd like to concur with Wugapodes's arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support I have no qualms. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Beware, it's a thankless job as evidenced here. Graham Beards (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Gog is a great choice for this role. Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Gog has my confidence. Re Graham's warning above, yes it becomes a thankless duty and yes at times There Will Be Aggro; but the regulars certainly appreciate the grind and work the delegates put in, day after day, week after week, month after month. What impatient nominators generally forget that yes their article is special, but so are all the others, and human resouces < expdience and grandfathering. Ceoil (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support and I hope they can still find time to do a few reviews; they're really keeping the throughput up. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support With a steady increase in reviewers lately this is a better time than a couple months ago for Gog to make this transition. And frankly, I see an RFC as a waste of time considering the large amount of comments already here. I only hope that he will not be hesitant in suggesting changes to help keep reviewing up and the process itself, even if they change a longstanding norm. Aza24 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support pretty enthusiastically. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fourth co-ord

So this is (rightly so) a basically unanimous approval of Gog's capabilities. However, it's been near-universally acknowledged that we're reducing the scope of the co-ords' areas of expertise and "losing" a FAC contributor and reviewer (as applicable). Is there any good reason we should now find a fourth FAC co-ord? I suspect there are plenty of decent candidates who have been here long enough who would be willing to step up to help? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I think a fourth Coord will further the same problem that is growing across the processes. The "buck used to stop" most decisively somewhere, at a place where leadership was expected; the more we dilute the number of Coords, the less we find that place where the buck stops and the leaders are forced to take responsibility for initiating change, improvements, etc. I think we have too many already. (If the processes were not in continual decline, I would say more Coords is workiing-- we have no evidence that it is.) Remember, our volume is three times less than what it was when significantly fewer people Coordinated all three processes. More reviewers are what we need, along with Coords who will make it their mission to work towards that. Yet we continue to take our best reviewers out of the process ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

So to summarise, we're taking a great reviewer and contributor out of the loop, to replace a diligent co-ord/reviewer. We need another co-ordinator with a broader background than MILHIST otherwise it's just the same old "Can we get someone else to look at this please?" request. Put some feelers out for a fourth co-ord who is less inclined to create content but more to review content and monitor process. If you don't call a spade a spade and ask for what is needed, the process fails, or it just lumbers on, lame. You're saying we need "fewer" co-ords? Are we heading back to the bad old days of the Raul654 autocracy? Speaking from personal experience, I've seen FACs closed three days after all the boxes are ticked, and I've seen them closed thirty minutes after boxes are ticked. It may not be a lack of co-ords, but I can't see a problem with finding someone outside of the existing framework and outside MILHIST. Unless we want to perpetuate the feeling that FAC is a closed shop I suppose. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

October TFA pageview leaders

October TFA leaders in pageviews SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Battle of Cape Ecnomus 107,401 views October 10 User:Gog the Mild William T. Anderson 98,251 views October 26 User:Mark Arsten Portrait of Mariana of Austria 77,138 views October 29 User:Ceoil Hurricane Gonzalo 64,054 views October 12 User:Juliancolton Eastern green mamba 59,964 views October 14 User:Casliber Stucky 56,914 views October 20 User:Morgan695

• @SandyGeorgia: Apologies for the ping, but I have a quick question about this. While it is interesting to see which featured articles attract the most readers, is there a particular use for this kind of data? Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The data is only useful if we understand and take into account all of the limitations and other factors. In this case, I thought the diversity was interesting. Who knew Hurricane articles got so widely read? And yet it's hard to get editors to review them. In the case of the other month I looked at (March), when Tourette syndrome ran, it was interesting to me that TS did well even though its date relevance was cancelled due to COVID (a day in Washington DC), and that a gender-related article was at the bottom of the page view list even though it was run on some kind of women's day. And yet attracted reviewers. And that the 75th anniversary of the Tokyo bombing was significant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the response. This list has a great deal of diversity so that could be encouraging to editors who in different topic areas. I did not consider your point about the hurricanes, but it is interesting that the article was popular if that area struggles to get FAC reviews. I guess it shows that the amount of FAC attention/reviewers does not directly translate to a broader interest. It is interesting to see how readers engage with TFAs, and I sometimes go on Twitter to see if there is any engagement there (and I remember see quite a few posts on Stucky for instance).
    • You raised a lot of points that I had not considered. Are these monthly page views done for every month of TFA? I am unsure if they would need to be posted here, but it may be helpful to keep a record of them. I would be curious if anyone has ever looked into the TFA on a deeper level. For instance, while page views are useful, I would be curious if other metrics can be measured to see the level of engagement a reader has with the article (and Wikipedia as a whole). But, that is just me rambling lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I saw somewhere that Hawkeye or FACbot had tabulated all of October, but then lost track of where I saw it. And the WMF types often reference some data about few readers reading beyond the lead. That’s all I know! But if data like this helps FAC reviewers engage more articles, I am on board ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
        • I am uncertain if this kind of data would encourage more reviewers. I was more so thinking that it could possibly encourage editors who nominate articles outside of what they commonly associate with the FAC process (but even that is a stretch). I think a better way to encourage more reviewers is to first understand why editors do not review FACs or have stopped doing reviews and then proceed from there. Aoba47 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
          • The FACBot put the statistics at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs/October 2020. It generates them every month. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
            • Thank you for the link. Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for this, Sandy. Decent figures. The lowest would be interesting too, and the average/median. They seem a good bit lower than March though - just crudely, March had 11 over 60K, October only 4. There were some plum topics then though. Of these 6, the only one I'd really heard of (and seen) is the portrait. Johnbod (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I suspect that March was an exception, for several reasons, not all date-related. The 75th anniversary of the bombing of Toyko was a big deal. Tourette syndrome is a topic likely to pique interest; I had hoped for more views when the advocacy day was cancelled in Washington DC per COVID. And recall that we re-ran Introduction to viruses because of COVID. I am not sure it would have otherwise gotten so many views. There are so many factors, but I am looking for reasons to encourage reviews of weird topics :0 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  It would be nice to see all of them actually. My Rwandan Civil War TFA on the 1st got 44,876 so a bit below the six entries above, but a decent tally nonetheless.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  So, Hawkeye's FACbot is doing this, but I did something a bit different than he does ... I tallied the pageviews from ALL the days on the mainpage (that is the three days, including the two linked in subsequent blurbs). Of course, I did this for selfish reasons, knowing that Tourette syndrome is the kind of article that will pique curiosity, so that it would continue to get hits in days two and three. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  Has anyone done analysis for how many hits do various types of TFAs get depending on when they are featured on the Main Page (i.e. adjusting for time of the year, current events, holidays, etc.)? On a related note, are there analyses of how much traffic articles not impacted by school assignments get around Christmas, New Year's Eve, etc.? Does Wikipedia get more or less "generic" traffic around those dates? Toccata quarta (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  Christmas Day has the lowest views of the year for the great majority of articles, and there is a clear pattern following northern hemisphere academic years, big US holidays etc. You know how to find the "all time" views, right? I notice that, perhaps unexpectedly, views on the articles I look at have been significantly lower since March this year than previous years. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I know where to locate those. My questions, however, had more to do with adjusting for confounding variables. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The WikiCup again

As a WikiCup judge, I am considering whether the rules need any alteration for the 2021 contest. Now I know that on this page there was recently a discussion as to whether and under what circumstances a WikiCup contestant should declare their participation in the WikiCup when nominating or reviewing FACs. The WikiCup judges were never informed of the discussion, which was closed without consensus and has been archived.

The WikiCup rule requiring FAC reviewers to state that they were intending to claim points in the WikiCup was initiated this year. It was very largely adhered to during the contest (which is now finished), and I did not get the impression that anyone was attempting to game the system by undertaking shoddy reviews. I reminded some contestants of this rule when they forgot, but I did not actually disallow any FAC reviews (15 points) because the information on the contestant's participation in the Cup was omitted, and I would be very unhappy having to disallow an FA (200 points) if there was an FAC rule requiring such a disclosure and the candidate had gone through the slog of a FAC but failed to mention their participation in the Cup. As a result, I am going to propose at the WikiCup discussion page that the rule is scrapped, and that there is no need to disclose WikiCup participation when reviewing an FAC. I am mentioning this here in case anyone has any comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I always saw this as a matter of etiquette, rather than boss driven rules. Ceoil (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging

What (if any) are the ethics of pinging people when nominating an article at FAC? In particular, is one supposed (not) to ping people who took part in a recently completed peer review? Toccata quarta (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Toccata quarta, it's fine to ping people from previous reviews such as PR. The key is to make the request for review neutrally worded, i.e. simply a request to comment, not to come and support or something like that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ian Rose, thank you for this information. The need for neutral wording indeed makes good sense. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Expired nominations

On Discord, MrLinkinPark333, Epicgenius, myself, and some others had a discussion recently about FACs that expire due to insufficient attention. This is obviously discouraging to editors, and also may hamper efforts to get particularly broad/large pages to FA status, something that ought to be a priority. Would there be obstacles to changing how FAC works so that it's more like GAN, where every candidate eventually either receives a full pass or fail? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd imagine the main problem would be that a large stack of stalled FACses might eventually pile up at the bottom of the FAC page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

As many editors are reluctant to post 'oppose' reviews and tend to not review articles which don't seem to meet the FA criteria, the nominations which don't attract many reviews would likely be failed anyway. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there would be opposition. Also, it wouldn’t work. Every article at Fac already gets a promote or archive (and when did we resume calling them ‘fails’, which is discouraging). A lack of interest typically is the message. Except that Epicgenius’s most recent archive was a Wikicup issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I think there's probably another issue here too - that people might not want to review articles if it's perceived that the FAC is being nominated for another purpose, like the WikiCup. However, I think there might still be plenty of qualified articles which actually do get archived due to lack of interest. In other words, we should encourage oppose comments on FACs if possible. epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Close nomintation

I was wondering if either Ian Rose, Ealdgyth, or Gog the Mild can close the FAC for "Cups". I feel like it is going to be a lost cause like "Everything I Wanted". Editors will recommend a peer review and copyedit, and I get it done. After I put it up for nomination again, they still oppose or say to withdraw it. With my experience here, it has now discouraged me from continuing improving articles for FAC and spending hours and months on end to get an article that will never be FA. This is one more dream that I cannot make true... The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the candidate nomination page, I don't see any opposes, suggestion for withdrawal, or any other indications that the nomination can't pass. FAC is not a light process, and you should expect – with a good nomination – extensive feedback and suggestions for improvement. Withdrawing is up to you, but you might be reacting prematurely. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mr rnddude. Do you need another person to work on it with you? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Ultimate Boss: have you considered having the article reviewed at WP:GOCE? A good copy editor will not only help with an article's prose but will also identify issues with its content and structure. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Ultimate Boss, its ok to request people on their talks to have a look. Esp if they edit in the same area, or have a skill (with refs, prose etc) you think would be useful to the article. Ceoil (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Being bold, CR4ZE seems like they could help a lot here with a review, noting their general area of interest (i'm not far off myself and will look also), and recent superb prose review at the current Portrait of a Musician FAC. Ceoil (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, do you think the article has a chance of being a FA? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, from a 50% readthrough yesterday and some ce'ing it just needs a final rally around re prose...ie you need help and input, and nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't be afraid to ping other pop music editors who have FAs, many will be delighted to be asked. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Had a quick read-through as well, and it's quite decent. The Ultimate Boss, you need to get out of the mode of throwing in the towel early. FAC is not a walk-in-the-park process, nor should it be. It's important that you're prepared to address criticisms head-on; if you're truly passionate about achieving a successful FAC, there is no challenge that would be too great. Even oppose votes can be turned around with due diligence. If you have the time/capacity, I would suggest keeping the review open and waiting to see how it goes. Also AGF that commenters are on your side and want to see FAC's succeed, as more high-quality FA's benefit everyone involved in this project. If this stays open, I'll try to leave some commentary over the week (although I am quite tied up with various IRL things). Best of luck! — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Re throwing in the towel, my last FAC was my 31st (in less than two years) and received, entirely appropriately, a very thorough review which ran to 20,000 words and involved judgements from 10 reviewers. This is probably unusually long, even for a first-timer, but I mention it to suggest that FAC is, as CR4ZE mentions and as it should be, not a walk in the park. (I wish! I was even driven to comment on-Wiki the "process for this one felt a bit rough".) Yet I have come back at it 30 times, so how bad can it be? Give serious consideration to taking CR4ZE's advice, and submitting it to GoCE - a fine and stalwart bunch - for a crash-copy edit, and getting back on that horse. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Is ISBN inconsistency an issue?

Following up from my small lingering concerns section at the Biblical criticism FAC, is inconsistency in ISBNs in references (e.g. some using dashes, as in "978-0-567-03793-0", whereas others just being "9781589833555") an issue that should be addressed during FACs, or is it too minor/not a problem? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Making those consistent is easy. I can't remember if there is a bot or other wiki-tool for it, but I do know the Library of Congress ISBN converter will add the hyphens for you; just check the "Hyphenate ISBNs" box. --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what I do, though I use ISBN's converter, twice if necessary. You can get hyphenation by converting the unhyphenated 13 digit to 10 digit, then converting the 10-digit back to 13 digit.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

LOC's converter does not work on an Indonesian ISBN (9789790756885), but ISBN's converter works, so ISBN's converter may be better. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO it's minor and not worth fussing over. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

FAs are supposed to be "professional" or appear so; I've not encountered a journal article that did not have a consistent house style. It's just one reflection of a well prepared article. (Isn't there a bot or script to do this?) The citations at Biblical criticism were haphazard at best when I spent days listing SAMPLES only of problems; I haven't re-checked as the work was too much to undertake during a FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yea, its more a visual, good impression thing; looks a bit sloppy if there is a mixture. Just don't use both 10 & 13 formats; with 13 digit being preferred. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems the Citationbot did it automatically once, but then someone complained that isbn13 shouldn't be the default, and it seems to have stopped... FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be me, possibly among others. 13-digit ISBNs didn't go into use until 2007 and I persuaded the bot owner to limit the conversions to books published that year or later as I believe that books should use the ISBN that they were printed with. That said I do care about all dashes or none for consistency's sake. What can I say? "I am large, I contain multitudes".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe the vast majority of pre-2007 books have now been assigned a 13 digit designation. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that you're correct, but I stand behind my position.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Grand, ok, fair enough. Its not something I'm much invested in; really all would seek is consistency. Ceoil (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy, and also the fact that source reviews are often a collection of "minor" things (on purpose). As others have said, it's about a visually professional expectation for FAs, and more often than not the changes don't take much time unless there's some serious sourcing issue. When I do source reviews, I sometimes standardize the dashes myself, other times not... I guess it's just when I'm feeling nice? :) Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there's nothing in the FAC criteria that requires the inclusion of ISBN numbers, let alone that they should be consistently formatted. WP:Citing sources says they are optional so insisting they're written in a particular way seems a bit much.--Ykraps (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

My view is that as long as the isbn is accurate, ie relates to that edition of the book, it should be fine regardless of how many numbers it has in it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

ISBNs may not be required, but WP:WIAFA explicitly calls for consistent formatting of citations ... so our best work won't look like careless junk. (And if you want an easy way to find the book, clicking on the ISBN link gives it to you ... and our readers.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• ISBNs are optional but in de facto, it's mostly used or if not then people ask for them to make the reader easier to find the book if there's no link to it. If another book code is already added then it's not needed. The problem is like Ceoil told us, it looks pretty sloppy with both 10/13-digit ISBNs. I always ask the nominator to standardise them, with the hyphens I don't care which one is used it's the same with DD/MM/YYYY and MM/DD/YYYY issue Wikipedia is still suffering on it in my view. Not only because they look "professional" like SG would say or just nicer but also because some ISBNs go to another publisher 'cause it's made in the US or in the UK. It's important to use one of them. There's a debate whether or not our nominations should follow criteria if it's not included. In this grey zone, no one knows how to act and quality goes first in my opinion even if it's not included in the criteria like for instead re-ordering the citations in numerical order. It just feels nicer if every article follows the criteria and is made from high-quality. Not all articles follow the criteria but the quality isn't that good as you'd think it should. Wikipedia:Featured articles itself says "Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" thus quality is one of our priority. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Its like Nikkimaria said at the start of this thread: "minor and not worth fussing over"...because its trivially easy to at least fix the dash consistency thing, as it does stand out like a sore thumb, being blue and all. You'd fix it in 5 mins, rather than spending hours arguing. Ceoil (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

At least three editors have each spent days dealing with citation issues (samples only) at biblical criticism, and ALL of that fixing revealed problems with sourcing, original research, how to use sources, and source-to-text integrity. Citation cleanup often reveals deeper problems resulting from hurried nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for November 2020

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for November 2020. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Reviewers for November 2020

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Image Source Accessibility Content Total Buidhe 15 1 1 17 Nikkimaria 8 7 1 16 SandyGeorgia 15 15 Aza24 7 4 11 Harrias 2 2 4 8 Lee Vilenski 6 6 Mike Christie 6 6 Gog the Mild 1 4 5 Hog Farm 1 4 5 Wehwalt 5 5 Ceoil 5 5 Casliber 4 4 Jimfbleak 3 3 HJ Mitchell 3 3 Aoba47 3 3 KJP1 1 2 3 Peacemaker67 3 3 Pendright 2 2 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 1 2 Kosack 2 2 Graham Beards 1 1 2 Sturmvogel 66 2 2 JennyOz 2 2 CPA-5 2 2 J Milburn 2 2 TheSandDoctor 2 2 HĐ 2 2 Hawkeye7 1 1 2 Nick-D 1 1 2 Heartfox 2 2 Giants2008 1 1 Aa77zz 1 1 JAYFAX 1 1 Hanif Al Husaini 1 1 Vanamonde93 1 1 Esculenta 1 1 Kaiser matias 1 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 1 Jr8825 1 1 The C of E 1 1 Praemonitus 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 Spicy 1 1 Zawed 1 1 Gerald Waldo Luis 1 1 The Rambling Man 1 1 Brigade Piron 1 1 TheJoebro64 1 1 Allied45 1 1 Parsecboy 1 1 Kreggon 1 1 Johnbod 1 1 No Great Shaker 1 1 Destroyeraa 1 1 WA8MTWAYC 1 1 SurenGrig07 1 1 Amanuensis Balkanicus 1 1 Coffeeandcrumbs 1 1 ChrisTheDude 1 1 Neopeius 1 1 Richard Nevell 1 1 Ykraps 1 1 Homeostasis07 1 1 Kirill Lokshin 1 1 Chipmunkdavis 1 1 SatDis 1 1 Alexandra IDV 1 1 Coemgenus 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Grand Total 25 24 2 133 184

Supports and opposes for November 2020

# declarations Declaration Editor Oppose Support None Struck oppose Grand Total Buidhe 17 17 Nikkimaria 15 1 16 SandyGeorgia 6 9 15 Aza24 3 8 11 Harrias 1 2 5 8 Mike Christie 5 1 6 Lee Vilenski 1 2 3 6 Gog the Mild 4 1 5 Ceoil 5 5 Hog Farm 4 1 5 Wehwalt 5 5 Casliber 4 4 Jimfbleak 3 3 Aoba47 3 3 KJP1 2 1 3 Peacemaker67 2 1 3 HJ Mitchell 3 3 TheSandDoctor 2 2 Kosack 2 2 Sturmvogel 66 2 2 J Milburn 1 1 2 Jo-Jo Eumerus 2 2 Graham Beards 1 1 2 Nick-D 2 2 CPA-5 2 2 Pendright 2 2 HĐ 2 2 JennyOz 2 2 Heartfox 1 1 2 Hawkeye7 1 1 2 Esculenta 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Kirill Lokshin 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 Gerald Waldo Luis 1 1 Destroyeraa 1 1 Alexandra IDV 1 1 JAYFAX 1 1 Johnbod 1 1 Spicy 1 1 Giants2008 1 1 SurenGrig07 1 1 SatDis 1 1 Allied45 1 1 Chipmunkdavis 1 1 Jr8825 1 1 Homeostasis07 1 1 Kaiser matias 1 1 Zawed 1 1 The C of E 1 1 ChrisTheDude 1 1 Coffeeandcrumbs 1 1 No Great Shaker 1 1 Aa77zz 1 1 Richard Nevell 1 1 Neopeius 1 1 Hanif Al Husaini 1 1 Praemonitus 1 1 Brigade Piron 1 1 Ykraps 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 Vanamonde93 1 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 1 Amanuensis Balkanicus 1 1 Coemgenus 1 1 Parsecboy 1 1 The Rambling Man 1 1 WA8MTWAYC 1 1 Kreggon 1 1 TheJoebro64 1 1 Grand Total 2 97 83 2 184

Pointer: RfC on citation requirements for FACs

Please participate at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#RFC:_Does_following_style_guidelines_on_consistent_citations_mean_consistent_inclusion_of_“place_of_publication”?. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Another opinion needed on use of language in a couple of paragraphs

I'm reviewing Warner Bros. Movie World (the FAC is here), and the nominator and I think a third opinion would be useful on some language in a couple of paragraphs in the article. The issue is the park layout section, second and third paragraphs. I feel that words like "careens", "plunges", "daring" and "catapults" are too dramatic for encyclopedic language; CR4ZE, the nominator, feels that "informative language can also be colourful", which is certainly true. Am I being too dry-as-dust? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I think "careens" is rather too unfamiliar a word; I can live with others. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Plunges and catapults seem fine to me. Daring smacks of PoV. And I agree re careens, unless it is being used to describe the maintenance of sailing ships. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Gog, especially in the context of an article about an amusement park.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oop, didn't see this. Fair enough. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OPED → MOS:OPED note

A note for reviewers: The WP:OPED shortcut (which some reviewers have used fairly often) has been re-targeted to the same Signpost submissions page as WP:OP-ED. The MoS section the shortcut formerly pointed to already had (and still has) MOS:OPED and MOS:OP-ED and MOS:EDITORIAL shortcuts. In particular, if you have a custom template you use for doing reviews and it makes reference to that guideline, please update any WP:OPED shortcut in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How does such a change get approved? Doesn't it render a large amount of edit summaries, archived talk pages, etc. misleading or confusing? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, it was the outcome of a two-comment thread. That is far from ideal when such a far-reaching change is involved, I must say. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Someone should open a new discussion and get it undone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

And guess who made that nomination! Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Absurb ... a useful link redirecting to a publication no one reads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a more attended discussion would be needed before re-targeting a pretty major and common link, but just because you don't read it, Sandy, doesn't mean that nobody does-- and such derisions are both wholly unnecessary and rather un-conducive to a collaborative environment, imo. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Statements of fact relevant to the utility of a redirect, and how many people use it or read the page, need not be interpreted as derision. Fact: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-60&pages=User_talk:SandyGeorgia%7CUser_talk:Iridescent%7CWikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions%7CWikipedia:Signpost SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You've linked to a redirect rather than the actual title; the actual statistics are here. The Signpost still consistently gets fewer readers than my talkpage, but the difference isn't as dramatic. ‑ Iridescent 20:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thx, fighting with stupid ipad ... hope the point is clear, just a statement about the utility of redirecting a used shortcut to a little used one, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are talking about facts, you might as well get them right. When you look at the actual statements of fact, the signpost main page got 90,901 pageviews in 2019, and Iridescent's talk 64,614, and yours 8,245. Hardly "no one". In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's the most widely read formal english wikipedia newsletter/newspaper/magazine. Again, I don't think this redirect was the right choice, but it's rarely necessary to deride things that good-faith editors put lots of work into-- particularly when basing that derision on incorrect statistics. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I may be repeating myself. The page to which the redirect points got less hits in 2019 (6,683) than my talk page (8,245) or Iri's talk page (64,614). And I was inactive for half of 2019. In 2020, Iri's talk has 60 times and mine has 20 times what that page gets. Nobody reads that page, and the redirect takes us unhelpfully away from a useful page, that is often referenced. But Iri makes that point better with the stats below. Same conclusion: Open a new whatever we open and re-do the redirect. (As a complete aside, I hope the Signpost isn't happy that their mainpage gets only 90,000 views per year, even with a wikipedia-wide watchlist notification.) I do (as often) apologize for my iPad typos and typing, but the point remains. Why would someone propose a redirect to a page that is viewed three times a day? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

On this WP:BIKESHED internal stats trivia stuff: keep in mind (or be aware, at least) that this Signpost page is a new version, and the original op-ed submission page just soft-redirects to it. WP:OP-ED used to point to that one. So, the popularity/utility/awareness/whatever isn't quite that straightforward. It will probably adjust over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I would argue that changing a useful redirect to a nearly unused page is peak bike sheading. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You know where RfD is, and are welcome to propose a change of procedure there, to no longer normalize near-identical shortcuts to point to the same page instead of to of confusingly different targets. Or to continue doing so, but to always normalize to whichever has the most page views (or whichever is oldest, or whatever you'd prefer to advocate). And/or to change RfD practice to be more like TfD, and keep relisting things until a lot more input is received. Or just go RfD a bunch of OP-ED/OPED/etc. shortcuts to all point to where MOS:OPED does, with arguments that pertain to the particular case. I don't really care either way. Shooting at the WP:GNOME messenger won't change anything; it's just pissy for the sake of being pissy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Given how poorly attended that discussion was, and given how important that section of the MOS is, I think anyone would be justified in opening another RfD; if consistency is what we're looking for, WP:OP-ED can be retargeted as well. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Other than in discussions today relating to this move, the WP:OP-ED redirect appears to have been used a grand total of once in the entire history of Wikipedia. This particular de facto undiscussed move is currently misdirecting a link in well over 100 archived discussions. I'd be inclined to just change it back if it weren't for the inevitable tantrum it would cause; just re-nominate it at RfD. ‑ Iridescent 19:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Vanamonde. Just re-nominate it at RfD if you feel strongly and leave a neutral notification here and any other venues that might be interested in the hope that greater particiaption will produce a stronger consensus one way or the other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is one of those Don't panic! things. The old links of WP:OPED that point to the same MOS:OPED guideline location are almost entirely replaced already, page-by-page. It'll be complete in less than one hour is finished already. WP:RFD regularly normalizes shortcuts that differ by only a hyphen to point to the same page. And the entire point of the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace is to reduce the number of mnemonic strings in "WP:" that are going to MoS, since good strings for shortcuts are a finite resource. Yes, of course, if you disagree with the RfD's results, go open another RfD; RfD is the process for redirect management.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC); updated 05:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  And what happens to edit summaries? Do those also get altered? Toccata quarta (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  No, but basically no one cares. If this were actually considered an important "issue", then RfD would never do retargeting, especially of shortcuts. Yet it does. We don't obsess over this kind of stuff. Cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  Can we not make a mountain out of a molehill? This could be easily solved with a hatnote over on the Signpost page, and we could all move along with our lives. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   Done. I thought I'd done that already. Derp.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

WT:TFA#Gog

Just a pointer to Gog's new job ... yes, another one. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Template inclusion limit exceeded

See also: Wikipedia:Template limits

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Biblical criticism/archive2 is causing the template inclusion limit is be exceeded. DrKay (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A very long (158,000 KB) article, with a FAC that is now two and a half times longer than the article itself (400,000 KB when you add the FAC page, plus my extended SAMPLES ONLY at the FAC talk page). So, that means other items on the page are truncated, and that it will cause the same problem in archives. It is unfortunate that A. Parrot was not given time to finish their source review on talk before the FAC was launched prematurely. And Google Scholar coughs up a list of recent high quality sources that no one has even questioned re Biblical criticism.

WP:PR is working to become viable again; maybe we can use it.

Meanwhile, how can we solve the limit problem? DrKay will it help if some of the reviewers move their extended prose reviews to the talk page of that FAC? Or would they still be added to the transclusions if on the FAC talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing on the talk page will count towards the limit. DrKay (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I moved a few, and I see you hard at work trying to address the problems coming from Biblical criticism, but with 48 (some very lengthy noms) on the page, are perhaps some of the template problems coming from other FACs as well? I see we are not out of the template limit woods yet. There's a lot of {{tq on the page, and even if they don't get double counted in the transclusion limit problem, maybe there are enough of them that they are now a problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. I only know that if you remove the biblical criticism FAC, the inclusion limit is no longer exceeded. But that could just be because it's the largest FAC. DrKay (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Having never seen the page like this, I suspect it's the combination of all four: the length of the Biblical criticism FAC (to my knowledge, it may be a record), templates in Biblical criticism like smiley faces and multiple commentary resolved (some now removed by DrKay), the number of very long FACs on the page overall, and the number of {{tqs and other templates in each of those lengthy FACs.

@FAC coordinators: this means that some promoting/archiving is in order, and the page is being truncated by the lengthy FACs chock full of templates. But, unless tamed, there will still be a problem in FAC archives, where the oldest FACs will get truncated and won't be viewable. When this was explained to me years ago—before I started strictly removing all off-topic commentary and asking that extended prose reviews go on talk or Peer review, and not at FAC, with only a link back to FAC—some kinds of templates count once, while others count twice, which is why we discourage templates like Done, Not done, smiley faces, and the like (they count twice towards the limit of tranclusions). But it is possible that we are now at a place where even the number of those that count only once is a problem, as there is considerable prose review on the page in {{tq templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Checked the archives, and Roman Catholic Church still seems to hold the records (five of them) for the most lengthy FACs (where I spent a lot of time moving things to the talk page), and restarted two of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We should discourage reviewers from using tq and similar templates. Lengthy reviews on plain text aren't really a problem in terms of template limits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone with more technical savvy than me might have a look, but I am fairly certain that will not address the problem, nor does it strike me as logical to eliminate a useful template because of the effect from one lengthy FAC. From what I can tell, we now have so many templates on the page that we are beyond the "double counted" templates into a problem caused by the "single counted" (towards the overall limit), and those include now all templates.

Even after DrKay did some considerable amount of template reducing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Biblical criticism/archive2, it still uses over 200 templates (and that FAC is nowhere near conclusion, as line-by-line prose work is still occurring, and I haven't even entered my concerns). The vast majority of those templates (after DrKay cleaning) are {{tqs in line-by-line prose fixing. And yet, we have any number of less long FACs on the page that use a number of templates, because of things like pinging and various other templates. ALL of those are adding to the count, which is now pushed over the top by the excessive length to which FACs now run.

So, if we are to accept that FACs are allowed to run for months, even as the length of the FAC demonstrates that articles were not prepared, even as they have not garnered clear support for promotion even at the six-week mark, we would have to eliminate all templates, including pinging.

There is a much simpler solution. Shut down ill-prepared FACs early, send them to peer review. It is demotivating to reviewers to realize that we must go and swim against a sea of premature support to lodge an Oppose when the obvious is already on the page. Ill-prepared FACs are running too long; coords, please shut them down. Peer review is working again, and when line-by-line prose issues (on top of sourcing issues) are occurring at the six-week mark, FAC is being used as PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Update, 139 templates of line-by-line prose analysis was just moved to talk, so there are now only 68 templates on the main page of the Bibilical criticism FAC, and we are under the template limit for now. (Along with those commentary moved to talk, though, is one concern that is the same one I have for the article, so we now have significant issues on talk rather than on the FAC page.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I'm not disagreeing with you but we're also transcluding the whole of FAR onto FAC, and every individual FAR page is transcluded onto that page, and every template used on those reviews is transcluded onto FAR and therefore onto FAC. That's going to add significantly to the number of transclusions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with you either, but any way you count it, we have a length and template problem now. When one reviewer has problems with 169 lines of text six weeks in, Peer review is more appropriate. Because FARs are typically extremely short, they aren't adding to the problem, rather, they are our "canary in the coalmine" signal that something is amiss at FAC, causing the page to truncate. (The longest FARs have not even reached 20 templates.) It was the absence of FAR at FAC that revealed there was a problem at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the most useful discussion I've found of this problem in the archives. It appears that e.g. {{collapse top}} and {{tq}} are unlikely to be problems, but e.g. {{collapse}} is a "complete disaster". It also sounds like a bot that went through and substed templates that can be substed would help a lot; that's probably not a very hard bot function -- as I recall there's a bot that goes around doing that for {{unsigned}}. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I had forgotten that section headers (once discouraged because they were so often misleading, but now the norm to such an extent that when we don’t add them, someone else will) were also part of the problem. So we are still probably at a place where the single-counted templates are also contributing to what is causing us to reach the limit, because reviews are so long, sectioned, pinged, templated, etc. With both Gimmetrow and Geometry guy gone, I suspect DrKay is now the person who can best get to the bottom of this. But still ... if a reviewer needs to do a 100-template or 75KB review with multiple sections within sections, that can be placed on article or FAC talk with a link back to the FAC, or the FAC could be closed as clearly not ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Review a FAC now - bring a friend

There are articles from as broad a range of topics as anyone could wish at FACs needing feedback, so why not pick one and while away an hour of a winter's afternoon reviewing it? In fact, why not organise a selection of beverages of your choice, invite your friends round, and make an afternoon of it? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Gog, I have read about the urgents list (usually from a coordinator about to close an FAC because of inactivity) but this is the first time I have found a link to the list. I have also searched for this link using Wikipedia's search bar but couldn't find it. Can a link to FAC urgents be posted on the FAC page (perhaps in the blue box?) so newer reviewers like myself can more easily find it? Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Z1720, it's in the box at the top of this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Nikkimaria: I see that now but didn't think to look on the talk page when the list was mentioned in the article space. I totally understand if I'm the only one who struggled to find it, but I wanted to give my experience as a newer reviewer. It might even help if the list is wikilinked when it is mentioned by a coordinator. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You can also paste it somewhere handy. Eg I have it at the top of my talk page, where I can keep an eye on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Z1720, you can add the link at the top of this section to your talk page, to have All Things Related to the FA process easily at hand. See my talk page. And if you only want one aspect of the template to display, see the documentation on how to use |expanded= at Template:FA sidebar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help. Sorry for hijacking this thread. Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog, thanks for kicking this off by reviewing Buruli ulcer, demonstrating that reviewers need not fear the complexity of medical articles! Because Ajpolino has been unexpectedly socked-in busy, I will work on some of those tomorrow. With Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 now up and running, and as I am now mostly caught up at peer reviews for FAC, I will try to do my part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Peer review and featured lists

Articles seeking peer review
before featured article candidacy

• October 31 Hogwarts Legacy
• December 9 Central America under Mexican rule
• January 12 Gaetano Bresci
• January 18 William L. Breckinridge
• February 2 Virgo interferometer
• February 10 Born to Run
• February 17 Nurture (album)
• February 17 Idris Bazorkin
• February 20 The Sims Online
• March 3 Not Strong Enough (Boygenius song)
• March 3 Muckrach Castle
• March 6 Nezak Huns
• March 14 2020 Coulson Aviation Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash
• March 15 Arthur O. Austin
• March 20 Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945
• April 2 Rain World
• April 3 BP Refinery v Tracey
• April 5 Narwhal
• April 7 St Melangell's Church
• April 11 Chetana Nagavajara
• April 11 Ann Cook (cookery book writer)
• April 13 Charles the Bold
• April 14 Tiger
• April 17 Kes (Star Trek)
• April 24 Nestory Irankunda
• April 25 Ethics
• May 3 Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

Unanswered peer reviews here.

I have noticed that two open peer reviews were created with the goal of bringing two lists to FL status (Wikipedia:Peer review/List of victories of Rudolf Berthold/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/List of international goals scored by Phil Younghusband/archive1), but they are not included in Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Should the scope of the template be expanded or a separate one created and placed at WT:FLC? I'm pinging Tom (LT), who created the template, and SandyGeorgia, who has been actively involved in its maintenance. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this would be helpful, so I support it. It's usually obvious whether something is a list or not, based on the title, and anyway FAC and FLC aren't too different in my experience. (t · c) buidhe 10:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I’d support this as well, would hopefully bring more attention to lists at PR (which often receive too little). Although the idea that FAC and FLC “aren’t too different” is hard to follow, considering there’s 3-4 month nominations (there’s no archiving), no image reviews, low participation etc. Alas, we do somehow manage in the end over at FLC.... Aza24 (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Meh, I guess it depends on what you're comparing. I meant that the standards in terms of sourcing and quality are comparable. (t · c) buidhe 11:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t much follow FLC so cannot really comment on how much overlap there is, but so far, I am pretty much the only person scanning peer review to maintain that template, so if anyone plans to expand it, they should plan to maintain it so I don’t give up. I have worked hard this month to re-invigorate peer review so we can stop seeing ill-prepared FACs that run three times as long as the underlying articles, and I am not motivated to also have to sort through GAs, FLCs, etc. If the template grows to cover other areas, what is the difference from just scanning the entire page at WP:PR? My goal was to be able to send the ill-prepared FAC nominations somewhere and promise to meet there for improvements to lower the burden at FAC, where we theoretically expect nominations to appear prepared (they no longer do), but the November stats and still-open ill-prepared FACs have convinced me my effort may have been futile anyway, so the template issue may be of little importance. Meaning, whatever ... no difference to me, but if you want to expand it, please be the one to examine PR daily as I do to add the new nominations.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Instead of adding it to the FAC peer review sidebar, wouldn't it be more beneficial to have a separate template altogether for FLC/featured list matters? I am only asking this because the current list is in a template specifically designed for featured articles, and although the FAC and FLC processes are very similar, I am uncertain about having FLC matters put into a template that is about featured articles. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank you all for the ping. I have maintained the peer review process for the last few years, and can safely say PR before FAC is a very common reason for peer reviews. The peer reviews linger and linger until they get someone who can provide relevant feedback and I'm sure that can be quite dispiriting. Peer reviews before featured list nomination are still fairly common, but no more common than the average peer reviews. If there is a person who is active at featured lists who wants to keep the list up to date, and heaps of people who want to use constructively or for it to be placed a high visibility place, that is fine. However, I don't see this being as useful as the FAC template and personally suspect that it will not be maintained or used that much (that however is my two cents; you are welcome to take this up yourself). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominating Water Clock

I will attempt to feature the article Water Clock, as I believe that both the subject and article are exemplary.

I notice there's a lot of specific rules regarding the process, if I miss one, please let me know. If someone wants to mentor me they are welcome ( on that note @Iry-Hor: ).

I will go ahead and start the process with the information I have gathered so far. Please excuse me if I seem to cut corners on some steps, I try to be expeditous on Wikipedia.

Thank you.--TZubiri (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• @TZubiri: The FAC template goes on the top of the article's talk page, and then you click on the "initiate the nomination" red link to type in your nomination, and add it to the top of the FAC list. However, it may be more beneficial to start with a peer review before jumping directly into a FAC. Just as a quick comment, I notice two instances of MOS:SANDWICH. Aoba47 (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• According to this, it does not look like you are one of the significant contributors to the article. Have you tried contacting any of the editors who have significantly contributed to the article? Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: Thank you for the response. I believe I already initiated the nomination. I also moved the template to the top of the talk page as you suggest. Regarding peer review, I was not able to find a way to search if the article had been peer reviewed before, could you help me with that? Thanks.
• I did leave a message on the talk page of the main contributor, but they haven't edited since 2010. --TZubiri (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• If the article had received a peer review, information about it would be present on the talk page. Since there is not any information on this talk page, then this article never received a peer review. Thank you for the explanation about reaching out to the main contributor. It is not uncommon for editors to leave Wikipedia, but I am glad that you still tried to reach out to them. Aoba47 (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

First nomination

Hello, I'm trying to get this page, Bobby Fischer, Nominated for a featured article and I need some assitance on the nomination. I believe this page can become a featured article as he is one of the most notable and greatest chees players in recent history. If anybody is willing to provide help, I'll be willing to recieve it. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't do it! You don't seem to have edited the article, at least recently, and aren't very experienced. See "guidance" at the box near the top. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:Johnbod, I've had read the guidance margin at the top already. I've look over the FA criteria and the article seems to fit under the criteria. My biggest concern is the nomination might not go so well. I will tidy up the article for an FA nomination for someone elese to try before I do. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You have not created the page correctly, but might I suggest you try a WP:PR first? That will improve your chances of a good outcome and a pleasant FAC experience. User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A statistical Christmas present for FAC participants

I've been posting stats monthly at FAC for several years now, and have also been working backwards through old FACs and gathering the same data for them. I've been planning to go back to the very beginning, but when I got to mid-2007 I found there were more and more problems with irregularities in the data. Sandy's been helping me sort these out, but I think it might be time for me to stop, or at least pause, the data collection. I have complete data back to the beginning of October 2006. At that time, FAC was a very different place, and I think that drawing any statistical conclusions from 2005 and 2004 FACs would be dubious.

I plan to keep going back and adding data, but much more slowly. I'm now going to switch to looking at the data so far, and should soon be able to answer some questions that frequently get raised here, such as "when did the use of the oppose start to decline?" What I can do immediately is run reports of the sort I've been posting monthly, and also provide anyone who's ever participated in FAC with a summary of their data since October 2006. A total of 5,953 users have posted 71,334 reviews on 10,065 FACs in that time. If you'd like me to give you a summary or any details, just let me know -- I can post the information here, or on your talk page, or email it to you if you'd prefer it were private. I won't be able to do anything date-related (e.g. how many reviews did I post in 2019) for a few days, but I could give you a list of all your nominations, all your reviews, or a numerical summary. Just so you know what I mean by that, here's the summary for me: 430 reviews: 1 image review, 39 source reviews, and 390 content reviews. For the content reviews I supported 289 times, opposed 41 times, converted an oppose to a support 6 times, struck an oppose 5 times, struck a support once, and made no declaration on the other reviews. For now I will only supply the data on an editor if that editor requests it -- I think this is essentially public data but I would prefer to wait to allow queries like that till I have this running as a tool on a webpage. Email me or post here or on my talk page with any requests, and please let me know of any errors you find in what I send you -- I'm sure I've made data entry mistakes. And best wishes for the holiday season to everyone at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Best of the season to you as well. I don't have any pressing reason but I'd be curious what my lifetime stats are. That's a lot of FACs when you compile them like that! Does the number of users include the nominators? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The nominators aren't included in the review count -- I didn't treat a nomination as a review. That goes for conominations too; neither is counted as a review. Here are your numbers: first, nominations and outcomes (two of these are conoms):

David Fuchs: FAC nominations
# FACs	Outcome
Year nominated	Archived	Promoted
2007	8	7
2008	3	20
2009	1	11
2010	1	4
2011	1	2
2012		1
2013	1	1
2015		2
2016		1
2018		1
2020		1
Grand Total	15	51

Reviews:

David Fuchs: FAC reviews
# FACs	Type
Declaration	Image	Source	Content
Support			66
Oppose converted to support			3
Struck oppose	2	2	15
Oppose	5	3	61
No declaration	119	21	75
Grand Total	126	26	220

I'll create a page describing the data and the caveats to it in more detail but I should say here that I included anything that was related to the purpose of the FAC, so I excluded e.g. humorous comments that were off-topic, but a single sentence drive-by comment counts as one review, as does a 5,000-word line-by-line critique. This needs to be borne in mind before trying to draw conclusions from the raw numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see mine whenever you have time, Mike, but do please prioritise whatever else you have going on on Christmas Day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, family and dinner take over in an hour or two, but these are quick to do and it's fun for me to see the data put to use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations:

HJ Mitchell: FAC nominations
# FACs	Outcome
Year nominated	Archived	Promoted
2011		3
2012		1
2013		1
2014	1	2
2016		3
2017		8
2018		3
2019		2
2020		3
Grand Total	1	26

Reviews:

HJ Mitchell: FAC reviews
# FACs	Type
Declaration	Image	Source	Content
Support			74
Struck oppose			2
Oppose			7
No declaration	6	5	24
Grand Total	6	5	107

What an incredible amount of work (and nice gift for all of us :) I'd ask to see my stats, except I'm afraid they would be only partial, for several reasons.

1. I started reviewing in June 2006, so will wait 'til you get back that far.
2. In the olden days many more FA regulars (like me) reviewed at both FAC and FAR, so their true involvement in the FA process won't be revealed by looking only at FAC. Some of the early work to save FAs at FAR after inline citations became a requirement was monumental.
3. And, there's the 3,000-ish FACs I reviewed as delegate. I wasn't smart enough to keep my promote/archive stats on Wikipedia, and would have to go back to a spreadsheet saved somewhere on a flash drive to recover the tally.

Thanks for doing this, Mike! When you get to June, I'll ask for my numbers. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, I think I'll add one archive month per calendar month from now on, if that works for you helping with the clean-up -- that means we won't have more than two or three messes to fix each month. That'll bring up June 2006 some time this coming spring. Yes, I didn't record FAR involvement, so this does not really record work on FAs, just on FACs. Re the ones you were a delegate for: any comments a delegate posts are not treated as a review unless they are more than passing comments such as "It doesn't like <reviewer>'s comments about sourcing have been addressed"; it had to be substantive additional comments. That means all the delegates are going to be undercounted. I did think about recording which delegate archived or promoted each FAC but I decided it was too hard to get accurate data, partly because in the early days often an obviously SNOW archive would be removed by a non-delegate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Mike, I really Really REALLY do not mind doing the work now, and have been happy to help. Often, I know where to look and what happened on the pre-Gimmebot messes. And because I have had multiple past anaphylactic reactions to medications, I am stuck inside for quite a while with COVID (until they get a better handle on whether I am or am not a candidate for the vaccine), and I sure hope I can be out again come spring or summer :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Your help has been invaluable with these old FACs; I could not have done the clean up you've been doing. Let's keep going till it gets too bad to continue. I would bet we can at least get to the start of 2006. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes please, and thanks for doing this. No rush at all. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations (nine are conoms):

Johnbod: FAC nominations
# FACs	Outcome
Year nominated	Archived	Promoted
2007		1
2008		1
2009	1
2010		4
2011		2
2012		1
2013		2
2014		2
2015		1
Grand Total	1	14

Reviews:

Johnbod: FAC reviews
# FACs	Type
Declaration	Image	Source	Content
Support		1	181
Oppose converted to support			5
Struck oppose			6
Oppose			40
No declaration	1	1	133
Grand Total	1	2	365

• I am finding this fascinating. Any chance of mine Mike? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations (two are conoms):

Gog the Mild: FAC nominations
# FACs	Outcome
Year nominated	Archived	Promoted
2018		2
2019		16
2020		13
Grand Total	0	31

Reviews:

Gog the Mild: FAC reviews
# FACs	Type
Declaration	Image	Source	Content
Support			109
Oppose		1	10
No declaration	38	23	14
Grand Total	38	24	133

Thanks Mike. I record the reviews I do, and have 189 reviews down. Your total for me is 195. As I assume this includes some trivial comments which I won't have included that is a good match. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you be willing to look up mine? My FAC participation only goes back to the beginning of this year, so it should be an easier one. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

If possible, could you also look up my information? You could put it on my talk page to avoid adding more stuff on here. Apologies for asking for this during a busy time of the year ><. Happy holidays! Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd also be grateful for my stats for reviews and nominations when you have time - as with Aoba47, this could be posted on my talk page to avoid cluttering this page. Thank you, and Merry Christmas. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

All done and posted on user talk pages. I'd suggest any further requests be posted on my talk page; no need to extend this thread any longer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose frequency by year

Here's some data related to one of the most frequently asked questions at FAC: have opposes become rarer over time? This table shows the percentage of reviews that declared an oppose, by year, with the two columns separating the promoted nominations from the archived nominations:

% opposes	Result
Year of FAC	Archived	Promoted
2006	59%	6%
2007	51%	7%
2008	33%	3%
2009	24%	2%
2010	20%	1%
2011	25%	1%
2012	26%	1%
2013	28%	1%
2014	23%	1%
2015	20%	0%
2016	19%	0%
2017	19%	0%
2018	18%	0%
2019	20%	0%
2020	23%	0%

To explain: the 7% figure for 2007 in the "Promoted" column means that of all reviews in 2007 on FACs that were promoted, 7% declared an Oppose and did not retract it. This doesn't include struck opposes, or opposes eventually converted to supports. I feel confident that this isn't going to answer the question -- but if we can agree on exactly what question to ask, I might be able to produce useful data to help answer it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Mike, considering the time we've spent looking at the older archives, would you agree that 2006 and 2007 should be considered outliers and of limited usefulness in evaluating current concerns? During those years, FACs often passed even with unstruck opposes. And, because there were no limitations on who could present a FAC with what level of participation on the article and how often they could re-initiate a FAC, there was by necessity a much higher number of Opposes then because of ill-prepared FACs.

I suggest first that for any useful purpose of data analysis, 2006 and 2007 don't add much except confusion. Then, as we start looking forward from 2008, we need that timeline I promised you about when certain aspects were instituted ... things like the two-week wait, etc, intended to stem some of the abuses from a handful of editors and WikiCup. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Then, if we agree to ignore the earlier "anything goes" years, this data gives the appearance that Opposing hasn't changed much (which I argue is a misimpression). We have to view this data in conjunction with the absolute number of promotes and archives, where archivals have considerably declined. Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics#Promote/archive stats SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there some kind of table somewhere listing all FACses with title, outcome, number, number of comments, number of opposes, supports, struck opposes? Pulling out the info from such a table and putting it into graphs and correlations might be easier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, yes there is, on my PC -- that's where this data is coming from. I also have individual nominator and reviewer information for each FAC. Is there a specific graph or query you have in mind? Sandy, I will see what I can produce on the change in promotion of articles with opposes, and the total number of archives vs. promotions, but I don't think the latter will be very informative -- more nominations could be being promoted because submitted quality is better or because reviews are less stringent or some combination of both reasons. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

FAC FAQ draft

I've put a few frequently asked FAC questions and some draft answers in one of my sandboxes. Does this sort of thing look useful enough to move to, say, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frequently asked questions, and expand? I have left some dates blank and haven't dug up every relevant conversation in the archives; I'm sure others will also think of other FAQs that could be added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like there are a lot of questions there without real answers ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Even knowing that there isn't a real answer to a query can be helpful. Looks good to me. It is one of those things that had me wondering "Why don't we have this already?" Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

While I think having those resources in one place instead of having to rely on Mike or Sandy or whoever popping up with their institutional memory is great (and god knows I eat up all the stats talk when it happens), I'm not entirely sure it fits as FAC's FAQ, given that they're not really frequently asked questions to neophytes who are just looking for information about the process and aren't really questioning the statistics on pass rates over time. FAQ implies to me a level of basic foundational questions, not deep-in-the-weeds wonkery :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Are there basic foundational questions that should be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Mike, I can’t get to this today; could you give me a few days til I have time to look it over? (I will also be delayed a day on any FACs I am reviewing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

oh, well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems a decent start, but as Nikki says, the questions are better the answers. Following DWF's point, may be split all the "used to be" issues to their own section at the bottom. I'd use this to urge the readers to try PR, reviewing, following FAC etc etc before launching a nom. The most frequent actual question is surely "How dare you fail my nom?", so you might as well add that. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's just a start, and it's a mixture of questions new nominators might be interested in with "institutional memory" questions as David says. I was actually thinking of WP:PERENNIAL as the model, but both types of question are worth recording -- PERENNIAL sorts by question type as Johnbod suggests and that's probably a good idea here too. I'm going to boldly paste it into the FAQ address I linked above and suggest anyone edits it as they see fit. Sandy, there's no hurry -- I don't see this getting linked from anywhere but this talk thread for a while. I know it's more questions than answers at the moment but I was hoping to encourage others to chip in -- I can't remember every conversation we've had about short articles, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Now pasted in. I will try to put in more links to prior discussions at some point today but won't be on for a bit; if anyone wants to add or edit it please feel free. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think it ready to be pasted in, because I don't think it is actually an FAQ at all ... but I had no time to respond. An FAQ would include issues that routinely are problematic for new nominators, rather than the kind of navel gazing that we long-term institutional memory types toss about as we seek to improve the functioning at FAC. More relevant to new nominators (who may need an FAQ) are things like ... why can't I use done templates, why must I wait two weeks, etc. And the formatting could use a lot of work to make it more user friendly and readable. Unfortunately, our editor who does best at that kind of structuring, writing, formatting, clarifying and user-friendlyfying was chased off of FAC (something I wish the Coords were actively dealing with, but I digress ...) We have enough already that new nominators don't read (like the basic instructions) that we risk here having yet another unread page (I recently noticed one nomination that returned without the two-week wait, but got no comment from anyone much less a Coord, and another that was using done checkmarks, which only I remarked on ... and I third that did not consult the main contributors). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, it's back in my sandbox, with a redirect from the putative new location. I was thinking this is a Wiki, and it's an unadvertised location, but it can be worked on in user space just as well. I don't think it should just be the kind of questions new users will ask -- sure, that's useful, but I recently had a discussion somewhere about very short articles at FAC and it would have been nice to have a link to point to that listed all the different threads that have talked about that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mike and thanks for this; hope you don't mind, I took the liberty of numbering the items for easier reference here. I think it's probably more a (useful) way of collecting old discussions than an FAQ per se. Questions of lengths (points 1 and 2) do come up and perhaps should be added to our existing FAQs. Alt text (point 9) likewise (perhaps reworded to "Is alt text required at FAC?" or some such). FWIW, "why did you archive my nom?" comes up less than it used to, partly perhaps because in my time the coords have generally given a rationale for their decision to close something as unsuccessful. I think I've probably had more often the related "what do you suggest now?", although that's also something I tend to discuss when archiving, e.g. pointing to PR, the mentoring scheme, etc. Most of the time the FAC instructions answer questions, and when I'm closing things as out of process I'm invariably pointing to those instructions. Speaking of which, Sandy, we do try to check the two-week and main contributors instructions are being followed, sometimes reviewers spot those and highlight them for us as well -- can you let me know the ones you think we missed, either here or at my talk page? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Got your ping, will try to locate them, if you remind me, swamped at the moment, agree with the numbers so we can point editors to "FAQ point x", haven't had time to engage the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Mike Christie stalled: I started to put my suggestions at the talk page of your sandbox, but it is redirecting to old discussions at Wikipedia talk:Copyediting reception sections ... could you give us a sandbox talk page for commentary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Now moved to another sandbox; this one is new with no history so it will be movable with the edit history when done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Does the word limit of 10,000 count references, or just the main body? Linking to a tool there to calculate word limits would also be really helpful—I just don't know where to find this sort of thing. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, it's readable prose - you can use DYKcheck to verify. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for December 2020 plus a couple of historical graphs

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for December 2020. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Reviewers for December 2020

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Image Source Content SandyGeorgia 1 17 Nikkimaria 10 6 1 Aza24 10 6 Buidhe 13 2 Hog Farm 1 2 5 Aoba47 1 7 Mike Christie 8 Spicy 2 5 Gog the Mild 1 6 Jimfbleak 5 Funkmonk 5 Ceoil 1 3 Wehwalt 4 Ajpolino 1 1 2 Gerda Arendt 4 HJ Mitchell 1 2 Heartfox 3 Peacemaker67 3 Lee Vilenski 3 SatDis 3 Hawkeye7 1 2 Moisejp 2 1 Homeostasis07 3 Eddie891 1 2 CPA-5 3 Z1720 1 2 Guerillero 2 Red Phoenix 1 1 Jens Lallensack 2 Kosack 2 Ealdgyth 2 Hanif Al Husaini 2 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 1 HĐ 2 Ian Rose 2 Ovinus 2 Johnbod 2 Laser brain 2 TheSandDoctor 1 KJP1 1 Nick-D 1 Pendright 1 Jfdwolff 1 Esculenta 1 Slate Weasel 1 Hurricanehink 1 Graham Beards 1 Harrias 1 Kaiser matias 1 Edwininlondon 1 Ucucha 1 Indopug 1 Balon Greyjoy 1 Axl 1 LOVI33 1 The Rambling Man 1 FemkeMilene 1 Jaguar 1 Username6892 1 Amakuru 1 CR4ZE 1 J Milburn 1 Masem 1 Mirokado 1 Jr8825 1 ProtoDrake 1 Shshshsh 1 GamerPro64 1 Jasper Deng 1 SNUGGUMS 1 JustinTime55 1 Destroyeraa 1 Kyle Peake 1 Smerus 1 Ham II 1 TarkusAB 1 Adog 1 SnowFire 1 Kent G. Budge 1 Neopeius 1 LM150 1 Ceranthor 1 Sdkb 1 GoneIn60 1 Trappist the monk 1 Grand Total 32 33 169

Supports and opposes for December 2020

# declarations Declaration Editor Oppose Support None Struck oppose Oppose converted to support Grand Total SandyGeorgia 1 9 8 18 Nikkimaria 1 16 17 Aza24 5 11 16 Buidhe 15 15 Aoba47 2 3 3 8 Mike Christie 7 1 8 Hog Farm 5 3 8 Gog the Mild 6 1 7 Spicy 1 1 5 7 Funkmonk 3 2 5 Jimfbleak 5 5 Ceoil 2 2 4 Wehwalt 4 4 Ajpolino 2 2 4 Gerda Arendt 4 4 Hawkeye7 2 1 3 CPA-5 2 1 3 Homeostasis07 3 3 Lee Vilenski 2 1 3 Heartfox 2 1 3 SatDis 3 3 Z1720 2 1 3 Moisejp 1 2 3 Peacemaker67 3 3 HJ Mitchell 2 1 3 Eddie891 2 1 3 Guerillero 1 1 2 Laser brain 2 2 Ealdgyth 1 1 2 Jo-Jo Eumerus 2 2 Red Phoenix 2 2 Johnbod 2 2 Ovinus 1 1 2 Kosack 2 2 Jens Lallensack 2 2 Hanif Al Husaini 2 2 Ian Rose 2 2 HĐ 1 1 2 Mirokado 1 1 Destroyeraa 1 1 Ucucha 1 1 Neopeius 1 1 CR4ZE 1 1 J Milburn 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 Jfdwolff 1 1 LOVI33 1 1 The Rambling Man 1 1 Indopug 1 1 Harrias 1 1 Balon Greyjoy 1 1 Edwininlondon 1 1 Kaiser matias 1 1 Amakuru 1 1 Graham Beards 1 1 GoneIn60 1 1 SNUGGUMS 1 1 Adog 1 1 Axl 1 1 FemkeMilene 1 1 Pendright 1 1 Smerus 1 1 Ham II 1 1 Nick-D 1 1 JustinTime55 1 1 Trappist the monk 1 1 TheSandDoctor 1 1 Ceranthor 1 1 Shshshsh 1 1 SnowFire 1 1 LM150 1 1 Kent G. Budge 1 1 Username6892 1 1 Jr8825 1 1 Slate Weasel 1 1 GamerPro64 1 1 Esculenta 1 1 TarkusAB 1 1 Kyle Peake 1 1 ProtoDrake 1 1 Jasper Deng 1 1 Masem 1 1 Sdkb 1 1 KJP1 1 1 Jaguar 1 1 Grand Total 9 118 105 1 1 234

Also, here are a couple of graphs that were quick to produce and which use the data I've been gathering; I think these are interesting. They show, for promoted articles and then for archived articles, the number of FACs per month, the number of reviews of those FACs, and the ratio. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The ratio uses the right-hand axis, in case that's not clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

And I should also have mentioned that these are smoothed; the data is averaged over three months. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC about deprecating parenthetical citations

There is an RfC at the village pump about deprecating parenthetical citations which may interest watchers of this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Since we have FAs with parenthetical citations, I hope people here will look in ... don't want to see FAR taken over by FAs that become out of compliance because their writers were unaware of the RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that the RfC has been closed with a finding of consensus to deprecate parenthetical citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in sending FAs to FAR because Wikipedia moved the goalposts ... anyone else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear to me from the close that we'd need to do so. The closer made a change to WP:PAREN stating that "While some existing articles may still use this form of citation, new articles should not be created with it". Is this a grandfather clause? This will need further discussion at WT:CITE to determine how exactly this is adopted, since no specific wording change was part of the proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I would take it as a grandfather clause --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Me too. The Wikipedia:Featured article criteria specifically permits parenthetical citations, and WP:CITEVAR still prohibits changing articles using it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Seraphimblade: Could you formally tell whether the RfC decision affects the issues raised above regarding featured articles? It's not clear. T8612 (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • FAs weren't much discussed there at all, and I would not want to try to divine a consensus out of something that wasn't really talked about. So I would say what to do as far as FAs go is up to consensus here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    • It seems like we may need to adjust the wording at WP:WIAFA along the lines of a grandfather clause for older FAS and wrt CITEVAR for existing articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I should clear up something from the above though. The consensus at the discussion was not just for stopping use in new articles but not to change it in prior ones. It is not a "grandfather clause", just an explanation of why some remaining articles may still have it—this change may take a very long time to implement, and that's okay. But it certainly does not mean that an article should remain with these citations indefinitely even once an editor is prepared to do the work of making the change. Like any deprecation cycle, "deprecated" does not mean "gone tomorrow", but it does mean "gone eventually". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
        • It seems like we need to somehow reflect that we wouldn’t send an FA to FAR only for parenthetical citations, but neither would we promote a new FA with parenthetical citations ...tricky to word that at WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
          • (Disclaimer: I did support deprecation) Perhaps we should say that if deprecated citation styles are to be removed from a FA, it should ideally not have to go through FAR as a standard formatting change like that is not really grounds for a full-fledged FAR? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
          • Maybe 1c should be something like ... using either footnotes (e.g. <ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references.... and leave the heavy lifting to the guideline in question. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Just want to voice general support that FAs with this style should be cleaned up rather than go to FAR, but this is part of the process already as part of required step 1: issues are voiced on the talk page and sorted to see if there is a significant issue with the article in question. (I would not treat this as a significant issue unless there was some resistance; in most cases, the change is a simple text cut and paste with added <ref> or conversion to {{sfn}} or similar.) --Izno (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Agree it should not require a trip to FAR. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Disallow parentheticals in FA criteria, as they are now deprecated by community consensus. I think Izno's proposal is better + more succinct than the proposal below. Agree with JJ + Izno that simple formatting deficiencies, on their own, should be fixed rather than going to FAR. (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for criterion 2c

Parenthetical citations were deprecated in a September 2020 RFC, with "no rush" to convert existing parenthetical citations. There is traction above that existing parenthetical citations in FAs may eventually be converted, but the use of them should not be a sole reason for sending older FAs with existing parenthetical citations to WP:FAR.

Accordingly, point 2c of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria needs adjustment.

Current Crit. 2c

Proposed Crit. 2c

consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.

consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references). Citation templates are not required. Parenthetical citations were deprecated in a September 2020 RFC, with "no rush" to convert existing parenthetical citations. Their use in articles featured before then should not be a sole reason for submitting FAs to Featured article review.

Discussion of proposal for crit 2c adjustment

Getting the ball rolling on this, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought we were going to accept ("grandfather") parenthetical citations in older articles. But now we are saying that they must be changed in new FACs, TFAs and FARs? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No ???? I am not understanding your post. Seraphimblade (the closing admin) explained above that the close should not be considered a "grandfather clause", rather that there is no rush to convert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support, I think the suggested wording words well: parenthetical citations are something that should be updated in articles where possible, and if an article that has other issues goes through FAR, then they need to be updated at that point, but if the article is otherwise in good shape, then parenthetical citations should not be enough on their own to send an article to FAR. Harrias ^talk 07:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Poke. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ruthless

Someone should probably put down that FAC can be very ruthless when it comes to novice editors like myself. From my experiences here, newer editors will quit Wikipedia if they aren’t warned about how frustrating it can be at FAC and how some editors here can be huge jerks. They shouldn’t be bullied off by editors who think they are smarter than novice editors. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

From my experience (I don't know what all happened with your FAC experience), it's not so much intentionally ruthless as it is an intentionally difficult process. I've been involved in a lot of areas on Wikipedia, and FAC has probably been the single hardest at times, just because the standards here are for the very best articles on the site, so it takes a lot of work to get there. And even when I think an article is ready, there always still stuff other editors catch. So is it very difficult sometimes: yes. Is it intentionally built to discourage newer editors: not that I've seen. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Cups (song)/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cups (song)/archive3 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

When I posted a review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cups (song)/archive3 I expected that I would end up supporting the nomination after my comments were addressed. Some of these comments repeated points I had made in the peer review. Instead of addressing my comments and those left by others, you abandoned the nomination due in part to what you stated were some health problems. I hope that you are feeling better, but I'm not sure why you are blaming other people for the nomination not passing. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

This is why we always advise that editors should do reviewing before trying a nomination of their own (see previous section). Then they'll have a better idea of what to expect. Sadly this advice is often ignored (or not seen). We have a high standard, & aren't going to apologise for that. Johnbod (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I think many here are prepared to help out a rookie bringing in a reasonably well-prepared article to get it across the finish line. As others have pointed out, that does not mean we lower standards in any way. A willingness to accept advice does help.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think that some articles or some editors are always going to find FAC extremely difficult. To take a single, narrow, and hypothetical, example: an article may be plentifully referenced to high-quality RSs, and its nominator may be knowledgeable and passionate. But if they can't write to "a professional standard" then the nomination is struggling. There is absolutely no shame in not being able to do this. I mean, think about it for a moment, to a professional standard; that is a heck of a high bar. If an editor can write to that standard, why are they not in fact doing so, rather than writing for free messing around on Wikipedia? And if they can't, someone is going to have to tell them. And no matter how tactfully phrased this is unlikely to be well received. It will be perceived as "ruthless". It seems to me that this is an inevitable part of the process. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You might want to consider retracting "messing around on Wikipedia". Graham Beards (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

They might be doing both! Graham Beards (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, that was a very poorly argued point. Graham Beards (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I am pinging a number of editors who have recently had their first FAC promotion, and a couple not so recent, inviting frank, even ruthless, comments on how they found the procedure; and, given the criteria, what, if anything, they feel may make it feel less ruthless. TheSandDoctor; Toccata quarta; Aza24; Dugan Murphy; Jr8825; Bobamnertiopsis; Venicescapes; Girth Summit; SusunW. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  In response to the ping: I think that one's experience at FAC is likely to be coloured by one's own attitude going into it.

  I think that the word 'stringent' is a better fit than 'ruthless'. The reviewers are some of our best content writers, they are eager to maintain standards. Those of us who are new and less experienced should approach the process with a student's mindset - we're here to learn, and we should be grateful for the critical comments. That's not to say you just roll over and don't defend anything - but you need to be respectful, willing to swallow a bit of pride, and to accept that most of the reviewers know what they're talking about. If you approach it with that mindset, the experience is much more positive: I've been through it twice now, learned a lot both times, and can honestly say that I enjoyed it both times. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with what Girth Summit said. My second article is being reviewed now. I welcome a thorough review, mainly because my topics of choice are typically historic events that have been obscured in the public record. Since they typically fall outside of common knowledge of events, I appreciate having outside eyes which can insure that a broad range of people will be able to comprehend the complex historic context. My opinion is that each of the articles has benefited from the review process and that it helps to have people both familiar and unfamiliar with the subject matter, as they can ensure that the information is presented in logical context for international understanding. Eyes from someone who is not immersed in the subject matter bring important perspective. That being said, I personally find the nominating process stressful. But, once I take the plunge to actually nominate, the experiences and interactions with reviewers have overall been some of the best collaborations I have had on WP. Most reviewers, though not all, have genuinely been welcoming and open to discussion on complex points. Even the very few reviewers who were not particularly collegial made valid points which improved the article and I learned from them. Attitude is everything. I learn far more from writing than I ever impart, thus, I approach the review process as a learning experience. Anytime one learns something new, that is positive outcome. SusunW (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Girth Summit for the most part. I owe HĐ for allowing me to help on the one that did pass...my other attempts have been less fruitful, but it is a skillset that needs to be developed and I imagine becomes easier with time; I've even heard some talk about how FAs can basically be put down to a formula...which I have yet to discover. Emphasizing that it is a difficult process and takes preparation probably wouldn't hurt though. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say some FAs are a formula, but rather than some FAs (especially on certain narrower topics) are simply easier to produce once you've been around the track. I've done dozens of film and video game articles, and while each one can be more or less tough (<shameless plug>and some could use reviews! </shameless plug>) depending on the available content or access to sources, etc., it's easy to look at my old work or the excellent work presented by other FAs for solutions to problems or know what should be included and organized. That becomes more difficult the broader the topic, as there's more research to evaluate, more content to figure out how to summarize, more editor disagreements to arbitrate, and generally fewer good FA examples to use as a guide. The Rolling Stones is a fantastically important band with a ton of scholarship out there, that's a tough topic, and it shouldn't be discouraging that it didn't pass an FAC.

  The one bit of advice I'd have for newbies in such a situation is starting small can help you work up to the bigger topics; do a Rolling Stones album, for example, to get a feel for those kinds of articles and expected sourcing, etc. Nothing wrong with jumping in the deeper side either, but sometimes a smaller success is the best motivation for newer editors to engage with the process.

  Some editors should absolutely be more considerate and diplomatic when providing their feedback; some nominators should absolutely be less personally affronted by people picking apart articles they've heavily invested in. But I think it always helps to remember that everyone's trying to make these articles the best they can be, and I don't think most failed FACs that have a lot of feedback should be treated as failures. Ultimately, I've found a lot of FACs fun and rewarding, when someone who doesn't know anything about the topic learns something new, or can provide an insight I've missed, or looking at how much peer review improves the quality of writing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. For my part, I like to understand all of Wikipedia's processes (GAN, FLC, FAC) not just as gates that are being used to keep articles I've contributed to from attaining certain statuses but opportunities to continually improve them. Considering that Wikipedia by design can never be done and even individual articles about long-dead and mostly forgotten subjects are still liable to have new information come to light or new interpretations authored, there's always room to keep building and refining the work we do.

  I second Girth Summit's "student mindset" comment, in view of how almost everything I know about Wikipedia I've learned by example and from others, instead of the formal rulebook. The FA process is hard–I started editing in 2006 when I was in middle school and have used what I've learned here as I've grown as a writer (I hope!). I first attempted an FA nom in 2016 (twice, for the same article) and failed both times because I disengaged from the constructive comments other users made, viewing them as unduly negative for an article I worked really hard on. It was only this year that I got around to taking another stab at the process and it was still tough but the mindset of being able to engage with comments, even ones that challenged elements of the article, primed me to be better able to improve the article and stand up for choices that I'd made that I still believed to be the right ones.

  All that said, and while I don't know the specifics of what happened at your nomination The Ultimate Boss, I can believe some reviewers' comments were harsh. Out in the world, I work a job dealing with a lot of artists at a small theater. I know sometimes I can get snippy with them because we'll have ten different groups of artists coming in each week to perform and they all ask the same questions; of course you should know where the scissors are, what do you mean you aren't ready to open the theater doors–it's five minutes to curtain, how can you expect me to reprint all your programs because you made one typo? But then when the roles reverse and I'm putting up a show in the theater, I feel all the same worry and urgency they feel and it reminds me how important remaining kind and calm is in my role as a theater administrator. So I would encourage editors dealing with anyone (and especially first-time nominators) to remain patient and kind, even if a problem arises that you've seen in 1,000 FA candidates, because there's a good chance that the nominator might be encountering the problem for the first time. —Collin^{t c} 18:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  FAC for me has been a huge learning experience. It takes a bit to get the hang of content creation: I essentially rewrote First Battle of Newtonia three times. But once you start to figure out what is expected, it gets a lot easier. Don't give up, The Ultimate Boss. It'll be a hard process, and it's often a very slow one, but I have faith you'll get through it some day, and I hope you find FAC an enjoyable process someday. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know about The Ultimate Boss, but I often struggle in text-only communications that are anything but overtly friendly. Without tone or body language to assist us, our words, when brief, can be easily misinterpreted. And my experience is that reviewers tend to be brief. That misinterpretation is likely to be colored by "one's attitude going into it," as Girth Summit put it. I spent so damn much time building up what I thought was a baller article about a topic that, honestly, I can get a little defensive about, that I had to work hard to set aside my naturally defensive responses to reviewers' comments. After thinking on it, I realized nobody on here owed me anything and that they're likely acting on WP:GOODFAITH. I also went into my nomination knowing that I would likely come across conflicting comments or comments pointing to one Wiki policy that conflicts with another.

  Gog the Mild asked what could make the process less ruthless. I can offer a few ideas.

• I'm guessing that seeking an FAC mentor before my nomination would have meant that my article would have been promoted after one nomination rather than two, especially because my preceding peer review received so few comments that I naively interpreted this to mean that it was already a shoe-in for FAC promotion with little comment. The mentorship program appears to be years old, so I don't know why I didn't see it when I looked into FAC. If I had, I definitely would have sought a mentor before nominating. For example, the only reason I opened a peer review for the article is because it was said to be strongly recommended to do so prior to FAC. Otherwise I would have skipped it like I did mentorship. So maybe the mentorship option can be made more obvious. Or has that already been made more obvious since August 29 (when I listed my first nomination)?
• As to what I said about tone, I don't think it's feasible to expect reviewers to be that much more cautious in how their words could be misinterpreted as curt or dismissive, especially given what I see as the importance of direct language in FAC. So perhaps the solution is making it more obvious to first-time nominators that they are entering a critical space in which reviewers may write in short sentences, which may allow them to review more content in less time. I think Hog Farm is close to this in his first comment above that the nomination process is "intentionally difficult."
• One misunderstanding I had going into FAC was that if I reviewed the criteria for featured articles and decided myself that an article fit that it would glide through nomination. What I found is that there is "always still stuff other editors catch," as Gog the Mild put it. In fact, one of the most valuable comments I received was from the very last reviewer to jump in, after the point I figured the coordinators would close the nomination and it had been open for over a month (and after the preceding nomination ran a month). That is all to say that perhaps first-time nominators need to hear a clearer message that, no matter how straightforward you think your nomination is going to be, you're probably wrong, so expect lots of comments bringing up criteria you hadn't considered or highlighting lack of clarity in the prose that you thought was perfectly clear. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Just pointing out that "Gog the Mild asked what could make the process less ruthless" isn't what he asked; I did not see him agree with this characterization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: In the comment above that starts with "I am pinging," it looks to me like Gog is asking for input from recent first-time nominators on what could make the nomination process feel less ruthless. How do you read it? This request for input, in which I am pinged, is the reason I entered my above comments. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that Gog used the word "perceived" which is different than calling it same himself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Spicy: might you weigh in here along with other first-time nominators? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

HĐ

I can provide some perspectives from my first FACs, given that I, as with The Ultimate Boss, started out as editors in popular music. I hope The Ultimate Boss would finish my comments before proceeding to call others "jerks".

• I think pop music editors have a certain kind of fervency rarely found in editors in other areas. Just browse through several Music-related WikiProjects (I won't name-drop any here) and you'll see the vast amount of good topics and good articles. Thus, a "Featured article" is something we, pop music editors, regard as the most meaningful way of tribute to our favorite artists on Wikipedia. Though I am no longer obsessed with FA just for the sake of honoring my favorite singers/songwriters, I can see that this is still fashionable in Music-related WikiProjects.
• Now, coming back to the FAC problem. When I first nominated "Ain't No Other Man", a pop song, for FAC, even though it was rightfully opposed (looking back, the prose was hideous to begin with), I did not acknowledge this, and insisted that the article was just fine--full of reliable sources, looking good on the surface, content is pretty fine. So I ignored all the advice to get a copyeditor and went on for a second FAC, which this time was rightfully opposed once again. A more disheartening case was when this FAC got three opposes in a row, again for a pop song.
• From this experience, I believe the disappointment of The Ultimate Boss (as well as other music editors) may lie in the GAN process. Oftentimes GA reviewers just focus on nitpick-y issues such as ref formats, overlinks, and outline, with minimal attention to the prose. This gives a false hope for music editors that their GAs could easily qualify for FA, which in fact is not. A music-related article with a fairly good outline and content can easily pass for GA, thus when it gets opposed at FAC, the editor would get disillusioned with how things do not work out to their will. This is indeed disheartening to newcomers, who think that resolving bullet points would lead to a bronze star right away. As The Ultimate Boss said somewhere in one of their FACs, "I resolved all comments at peer review but it still got opposed!"... well, yes, FAC is not just about resolving bullet points as in GAN.
• I believe this FAC issue is mutual for all of us, but for pop music editors with over-the-top fervency, this may even get personal (as The Ultimate Boss claims that reviewers who oppose to their FACs were "jerks" or "bullies"). But the problem lies not in the FAC process per-se, but in the nominator's unrealistic expectations of an FA (What I noted about The Ultimate Boss is that they did not respond to the comments on the FACs, but repeated the same thing that roughly says "I brought this to PR so it should work this time!" which proves a case of unrealistic expectations). It is indeed tempting to see music articles promoted to FA, and it is also easy to get disappointed that your own articles are not promoted as your peers'.
• Regardless, the best thing that we could do, is to let the editors realize what works and what does not by themselves. For my case—I also got very unexpected expectations of my FACs in the past (especially the one that got three opposes in a row), but I gradually learnt to accept to look at the truth and learnt from others (this is the most important part—you have to look at what others have to say and cease to make everything about you). I therefore hope that The Ultimate Boss could lower their expectations of FAs, and keep learning. Fyi, it took six years from my first FAC to my first successful FAC, so it indeed takes a long time to learn. Given The Ultimate Boss's two years' experience, I hope they could learn with an open-minded attitude, HĐ (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a lot of truth here; the GA process is hugely variable, but generally focused on small format/MOS points. Near the top here, Nick-D, who was on the PR for this article, said that all his points there had not in fact been resolved, & he had to repeat them in the FAC, when they still don't seem to have been done. Indeed, "FAC is not just about resolving bullet points as in GAN", but you still have to actually resolve in some way the bullet points you get. Once again, at least a partial remedy to the problem of unrealistic expectations is for new noms to do some reviewing here. Johnbod (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed new nominators can learn something by reviewing FACs... but I'm doubtful whether it will work in this case (for this user The Ultimate Boss). At this FAC which I am currently reviewing, this user supports with the following reason (exact quote): This song is literally one of my favorite tracks from 2013! I have so many memories while listening to this song. I would LOVE to see the article at FA. I therefore support! It seems that this user is viewing Wikipedia as a place to brag about certain favorite pop singers without consideration of Wikipedia as first and foremost an encyclopedia. From this support I can also see that this user does not take into consideration the prose at all... which also corroborates my conjecture regarding pop music editors' over-the-top fervency above.. HĐ (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh well! Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this suggestion is in any way useful, but something which I have found useful in preparing articles for FAC is MilHist's A class review (ACR) procedure. This was especially the case when I was new to the whole post-GAN set up. Would it be possible for the various music projects to set up a combined ACR process? This, among other things, would be able to serve as a user-friendly polisher of FAC wannabes. It is likely to result in articles which have been through it having an easier ride at FAC, even for experienced nominators. Just a thought. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

You need additional reviewers for that though... Another problem I see with music articles (especially for recent artists) is the lack of sources that are not news or fanzines—these publications don't always use an encyclopaedic tone. T8612 (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to MilHist I don't think Music editors are willing to review others' articles... though the ACR procedure may prove helpful, reviewers at GAN or even peer review are few and far between, let alone ACR. HĐ (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Toccata quarta

I've been asked to provide comments on what my first FAC nomination was like, so I'll offer a few brief comments. I began preparing months ago by looking at reviews around here, to get an idea of what to expect. I sought a mentor but could not find one, so I put my (then-upcoming) nomination at PR, which proved very helpful, and a lot of the "hard work" took place there. Given how daunting I had expected the process to be, I was very pleased with how smoothly things went and how quickly the article was promoted (it did not come anywhere near the bottom of the "Older nominations" section), especially given that English is not my first language. I also found all my interactions with reviewers at PR and FAC very pleasant and good learning experiences.

As for what could be improved, I'd highlight the following:

• The "mentor" program does not appear to be functioning as it should (see my comment above, as well as Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive83#Looking for a mentor).
• Looking at other FACs, there is a clear reluctance to Oppose. As with any small community where "everyone knows each other", people may not want to make perceived or potential enemies, so silence is the standard course of action, but such a situation is not ideal.
• The FAC page says that "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism". While the case we are discussing (or responding to) is a bit of an anomaly, I wonder if the page should not state that if a nominator starts insulting reviewers in their FAC nomination, it may be archived prematurely. Many nominations get few reviews and I'm not sure if we should be expending so much energy on pointless arguments (the size of this conversation seems out of place when compared to the triviality of the complaints and insults presented at its beginning).
• As remarked by others, the FAC process can be slow, though my impression is based largely on a single nomination, which was promoted fairly quickly (even compared to other promotions) and a few days before Christmas.

That's it from me (and for now). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Jr8825

I didn't find the process to be ruthless or bullying. It was definitely demanding, but I think the rigour and methodical nature of FAC is its greatest strength. I found almost all of the feedback extremely valuable.

I can see how comments at FAC could be seen as harsh, feedback can be a bit blunt and reviewers generally express their ideas about how things should be as matter-of-fact. I think this is how it should be: reviewers are volunteering their constructive criticism, they shouldn't have to tiptoe around their concerns. Being direct is not the same as being negative. When I disagreed with suggestions I explained my rationale carefully and either the reviewer agreed or they spelt out more explicitly why they felt change was needed and I made adjustments.

I put my article through a peer review first and reached out to a couple of mentors to ask if they could provide feedback there. This worked very well – I imagine it's easier for busy mentors to provide one-off feedback in an existing forum than engage in a strung-out mentorship process. I'm sure it helped smooth out my initial FAC experience considerably. I know some work has been done under the hood at PR to ease pre-FAC reviews (PR is woefully undermanned). Perhaps suggesting first-time nominators invite mentors to leave feedback at a PR could help?

It would be nice to have a slightly more structured approach for first-time FAC nominations. Towards the end of my nomination a coordinator came along, saw it was my first FAC and noted it was customary to have a source spot-check for new FAC nominators. Steps like this would probably be more helpful at the beginning of first-time nominators' submissions (not the spot-check itself, just a coordinator note setting aside space for it). Maybe a substituted message on what to expect?

One thing I can see helping is a proper help page for FAC, right now the collection of links at WP:FA? is the best thing there is. A centralised introduction that gives interested editors an idea of FAC's nature (a rigorous process of constructive criticism, a process of improvement) and workings (a pretty unstructured process - go to PR and get lots of feedback first!) might reduce the number of premature FAC nominations. It could include a section on how to get involved in reviewing, replace/absorb some of the text-wall sitting at the top of FAC and bring together some of the scattered guidance. I'd be happy to offer my help with this if regulars think a help page would be useful, although I'm not particularly familiar with FAC myself. Jr8825 • Talk 07:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)