Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive84

Invitation to discussion

Page watchers here may have some input to give for the move request of the featured topic candidates page: Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates#Requested move 5 January 2021. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Signpost Featured content report

So, I've been in charge of this for a few months now. I think Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-12-28/Featured content and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-11-29/Featured content are good examples of how I intend to carry on if not directed otherwise.

How are people feeling about how I handle things? Any advice or feedback? Would people like to review my drafts? My plan for the future is to finish them as early as possible, so there's plenty of time for a review phase. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 19:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

One thing I have wondered about is the order that the articles appear in. It always seems random. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye: It starts off as time order, but I try to put a roughly even amount of space between illustrations, so they get reshuffled to balance things out visually and to put enough text between articles with images that the images stay next to the relevant articles. I also try not to clump similar articles. So, basically, it's shuffled quite a bit because of page layout. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 04:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Sorry, screwed up the ping. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 14:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s looking pretty good! I don't usually read The Signpost, but enjoyed looking at these. :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Adam, tks for your efforts putting this together, it looks great. Content-wise, I think it'd be good to limit the FA synopses to one paragraph if possible. The other thing we like to do when creating the FA (and A-Class) blurbs for the MilHist Bugle newsletter is to occasionally include pithy comments from the FAC/ACR nomination statement -- these can offer insight into how the article was prepared, inspired, etc, and sometimes summarise the guts of the article quite well. The Signpost actually did this before we did in the Bugle from memory, but it hasn't been the norm in the former for a while. Just some thoughts... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this. I was thinking the same thing when I read your similar query on the FLC page but didn't say anything as I assumed there must be a reason for it (since it the lengths have been rather long for some time). I would think the size of a main page blurb would be a good example to follow. Perhaps there could even be some coordination with the whoever writes the main page blurbs for TFA. Aza24 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I do worry that, in some cases, that either doesn't give a fair view of the subject (leaving out important parts of its history, etc), or means that the resemblance to the article's text gets too distant. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 01:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You might consider leaving proposed texts on the article talk pages. Not everyone cares to read the signpost.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Change of Title

Hi editors. I am in the middle of a FA nomination over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hi-5 (Australian band)/archive4, but it was discussed that the title of the page should be changed from Hi-5 (Australian band) to Hi-5 (Australian group) - this is according to wp:BANDDAB. I was wondering, will the FA nomination be affected if I change the article's title in the middle of a FA nomination? Thanks. SatDis (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It would make life easier if you would wait until the article is either promoted or archived and the bot has done its thing before renaming. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou. I will make a note on the nomination that the name change will occur afterwards. SatDis (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Improving Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered to FA standard

Hello. I am looking to improve the article Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered to featured article status if possible, for which I have been a major contributor of and helped get to good article status not long after its creation in 2017. I do not have much experience on this side of things but I've been directed here from WT:VG to obtain a mentor for the FA process, and it was also suggested that I nominate the article for a peer review, which I will look to do, especially if more editors here concur. The responding WT:VG users considered the article to be very good and "reasonably close" to being suitable for a FAC, with a few caveats of length issues and potentially unreliable sources, which I am preparing to work towards resolving. If any users could offer further assistance and considerately put themselves forward as a mentor for me it would be greatly appreciated. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

My first thought is why does this even need to be a separate article form Call of Duty: Modern Warfare? We don't have separate articles for director's cuts of movies or remastered versions of music albums either. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Knowing little about the topic (and just glancing), considering that the remastered version came out nearly 10 years later, I suspect there are more than enough differences to warrant a separate article. Aza24 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely warrants its own article as a major update to a significant piece of game history, with a well-documented development. We'd run into size concerns very quickly if they were treated as one. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is already at FA status, and there's no real reason to disrupt that either IMO. (That said, the plot section could use some culling; the references are a mess the Legacy section is looking very thin compared to how it should... a discussion for another time). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't given the article a thorough look, but will do at peer review. You absolutely should take it through there first, like I said on WT:VG. Have a look over some other active reviews, some concluded ones (passes and fails), and then review some current candidates. It'll build up good will with other reviewers and give you insight into how the process works. Finally, check out these essays:

• User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content
• User:David Fuchs/Guide to featured writing
• Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections

Looking forward to working with you! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Hi, thanks for your help on this. Apologies for not going straight to peer review first as I hadn't yet got around to trimming the article (predominantly Development) as suggested, although I am a bit hesitant to attempt this because while a slight trim is possible for that section I would definitely struggle with trimming the others as none of them are particularly long-winded or rambling; I wouldn't call it a particularly long article overall in my opinion. So far anyway I've been focusing on compiling the sources that are potentially unreliable (what to change if they're removed, if they can be replaced with other reliable sources, etc). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: There's no need to trim before peer review. Peer review will let you find out what needs trimming. I can't commit to looking through an article and posting on the Talk page, but I can make time for it on PR; others will be the same. I think the article is in pretty good shape, and you've done a good job at curating it. If there are any problems, they aren't surface-level, and we can find them at PR. When you do nominate for PR, make sure to post on the WT:VG, and ask some editors for feedback. You don't want huge problems to become clear at FAC -- if it’s suggested that you withdraw, there's a 2 week waiting period. Have a look for the FA prep sidebar template that PR uses—it lets people will know the article is gearing up for FAC (some people put it on their Talk page so they know what's going on). Make sure the sources are mostly good, and everything else can be dealt with at PR. It means less work for you overall. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: I've yet to publish a peer review but have looked other reviews, typically in relation to the arts (especially video game articles as Remastered falls under that category). My main query is that, while I have learnt more about the process, does it matter how experienced a reviewer is when assessing an article, particularly if they're just starting out? I'm sure that many of the various issues befalling articles that other editors would find I would ultimately gloss over, with the exemption to this being confusing or unclear wording/grammar and the like that is easier to pick up on; it all seems very daunting to me, particularly if the article happens to be a complex one. I was also confused as to what you meant by review fails as I couldn't seem to find any (I recall possibly seeing an RFC for one that I'm unable to locate, and I found two reviews that were cancelled because the nominator was proven to be a sockpuppet while another nominator withdrew after finding notable copyright violations), so please could you clarify? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Sorry about the delay; I've been really busy recently. You don't need to be experienced to review an FA. You just need to take a look at the criteria; it'll be a learning experience for you! There is no rush to do your first one, but it’s not a bad idea to make sure you know what a successful candidate has before you try to determine if your article has that, if that makes sense. Regarding fails, I meant FA review fails. If they don't pass, they get archived, and there's a 2-week waiting period before you can renominate. The list of unsuccessful candidates can be found here. If you make a mistake in reviewing, nobody will be angry, but they'll let you know & you can take it on-board. That's how we all learn! Any more questions, just let me know, and sorry again for taking so long to reply. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: No worries, I saw your note on your user page. Sorry I must have got confused, I thought you were recommending I contribute to any peer review, not those gearing up to be FA's, but that explains why you mentioned passes and fails! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: The Modern Warfare Remastered peer review is underway and there's been some discussion on the sources with Le Panini but I also require any feedback for improvements to the prose. Please could you kindly comb over the article and then pop over to the review when you get some spare time? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: I shall indeed. Give me till the weekend - a lot on my plate right now. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Another MOS:LINKSTYLE question

I see that bullet 8 says "do not link to pages outside the article namespace". Can I just clarify if that means links to Wiktionary are prohibited in featured articles? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

No - it refers to links to other namespaces in enwp, not other projects. WP:SISTER is the guideline to linking to other projects. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so inline external links to "sister projects" are permitted in FAs? WP:SISTER doesn't appear to be a guideline or part of MOS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Interwiki_links is part of MOS and allows inline external links to Wiktionary. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, every day is a learning experience, I was also interested to see To avoid reader confusion, inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged. too, that's marvellous to know. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The exception for Wiktionary is clear, though, right? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That wording should probably be changed. The second bit, where things should be used is almost always the way that you would use these. Maybe worth adding to the MOS talk to change to: Wiktionary and Wikisource entries may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed), and {{Interlanguage link}} template may be helpful to show a red link accompanied by an interlanguage link if no article exists in English Wikipedia. However, to avoid reader confusion other inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged. As the important bit is the top bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Peer review

After four unsuccessful attempts to bring "Cups" up to FA. I tried the mentoring thing; that didn't work well. Most of the editors didn't respond and some said they would help but never did. I put it up for another peer review [1] if anyone can help me. I truly appreciate it. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Special:diff/998758395. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ya. Ultimate Boss would get much further if they slowed down, listened and was better prepared in any of the the 4 noms. You have quite a bit of goodwill here Ultimate, at the moment; please pay more attention to feedback and those trying to help. Ceoil (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this peer review should be archived. Currently, this user is retired. Le Panini ^[🥪] 12:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

TUB has retired twice now I think, but despite the banner, checking their contribs would have cleared that up. They also requested a self-block, if I'm remembering right...? TUB: I'll take a look at the PR towards the end of next week, since I opposed the last nomination and that only seems fair. Having glanced over the article, I'd recommend having a look at this essay on copyediting reception sections. Talk soon! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Le Panini: Nah, I am still here. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The Ultimate Boss, please don't delete things like that. It isn't allowed without seeking the permission of the users whose messages you are deleting. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If that were true it'd be impermissible to archive talk pages. Removing sections is a form of archival (as it is always available in the page history). Though it's probably better to move the section to the dedicated archives for this page. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What??? Deleting content isn't the same as moving it to an archive. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission – Aza24 (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't know. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently archiving by deletion (removal technically) is only applicable in user and user talk spaces. Though I've seen it done on article talk pages many-a-time. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template limits

We seem to be hitting up against the template limits again; FAR is not displaying for me. (t · c) buidhe 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm getting the FAR header but nothing below it. Given we just had this issue not long ago, I think it's time for some serious discussion on how to avoid this. I'm not sure if {{xt}} is being used much, but it may be time to deprecate using such templates in fac reviews. Hog Farm _Talk 18:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Before we eliminate templates that only contribute a tiny number of transclusions I think we should try to find what is actually causing the problem. I don't think the simple templates have been the problem for a long time. DrKay, is it possible to identify what templates are contributing the most? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Weird. I am getting the whole page --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 19:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

So, can I ask why exactly we have a list of nominations transcluded as we do now? Is there any particular gain we have over just linking to the individual subpages? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel like a regularly updating table (just like on the WikiCup page) could provide much more information. Not only that, but if a co-ord was waiting a particular thing on an older nomination, they could put it in the table. I made an example table here (at the bottom). The excessive length of the page... I just don't really understand it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• The highest template load appears to be in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hi-5 (Australian band)/archive4. Removing that nom sorts the problem. I've tried to reduce template load in the nom, but frankly with over 100 transclusions on that nomination before I started, and still over 100 transclusions on it now, it's not going to make a difference. There's no easy way of sorting this other than either removing that nom or not using transclusions. Nor is there an easy way I know of for discovering which nom has the most transclusions. DrKay (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Looking through the replies, we just need to get resolved issues with template usage moved onto Talk. I've moved my comments. I'll ping Panini & Aoba47—they can follow suit & that should resolve the issue? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the proposed table idea, I don't understand why we don't use something similar to this. There's already a suggested nomination guide script at the top of the talk page; surely it wouldn't be much of a struggle to simply create something for this page? Not everybody has a good enough of a device to easily navigate all the selections. People could also use images ( Done), too, which makes FAC tracking much easier. Panini ^🥪 21:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• If you want to view the page that way, you can install the script. I very much prefer the page as it is (when not overloaded with templates), and it makes FAC tracking on a larger scale much easier. Keeping the page as it is allows both of us to see it as we like. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Even with the script installed, the template limit is still an issue. The template overload needs to be dealt with by making the navigation shorter, having the script or not. Panini ^🥪 01:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Indeed. The script is great, but a workaround for an issue we don't actually need. It also loads the whole page to then collapse. Have you tried opening WP:FAC on mobile before? It's quite the mess. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• This page is completely unusable for me on mobile view. Hog Farm _Talk 15:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It shouldn't be difficult to automatically produce an alternate list, WP:Featured article candidates/simple view or something to that effect, which just links the nominations that are transcluded in the regular version. (t · c) buidhe 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• We have User:AnomieBOT/C/Wikipedia featured article candidates and the script. DrKay (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neither of these fix the underlying issue of template limits. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And no matter how you view the FAC page, the template limit problem extends to the FAC archives once the FAC closes; in fact, that is how we first discovered it. FACs are too long because they have become peer reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe move resolved comments to the talk page? Hog Farm _Talk 06:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Or put the endless nitpicking on article talk to begin with, giving a link with frequent updates along with a support or oppose. Or oppose the nomination if it is so ill prepared that the FAC needs to be so long that it stalls the entire page. The purpose of FAC is to decide if an article is at standard— not to pull it through to standard. If something is so long it needs to go on talk, a link can be provided for the Coords, with updates as things progress. No wonder Coords can no longer read through all of FAC everyday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• My investigation suggests there is nothing that can be done to avoid template limits with the current arrangement. Currently there are 44 transclusions. Say there were 50 transclusions each of 40 KB. That would give a total of almost 2 MB which is the total transclusion limit. If certain conditions applied there might be tricks to make it work, but they don't apply. That's because there is almost 2 MB of wikitext and very little of that comes from templates such as {{ping}} and {{tq}}. Possible solutions are to move comments to talk, or to use "noinclude" around them, or to use some tricky new template to transclude only the start of each (say down to but not including the first line containing "source review") and insert a view link pointing to the page. That might require other changes. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• It seems completely asanine to me to ignore that we are currently transluding 30-40 subpages onto one page. Why this has to work differently to how it is done at WP:GA, where we simply link to each review page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Because at the GAN page, only one reviewer is reviewing and promoting each nomination. This page is more like AFD, multiple reviewers and one closer assessing the discussion. AFD routinely transcludes 70-100 pages per day without problems because those pages are kept short. DrKay (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I suppose the question is - does anyone actually read these pages like this? As a closer, you might look through all of the AfDs on a certain day to see ones that are ready to close, but as a !voter? Most people would just look at ones that they have an interest in, from a wikiproject or specific category/get pinged to.

At FAC we are talking about pages that are generally open for well over a month, rather than just seven days. Keeping a discussion short is fine, but we are talking about articles being the best that they can be. The idea of going back to a state where we simply rubber stamp likely looking articles rubs me up the wrong way quite a bit. Moving this discussion to a talk page would make it much harder for me to follow a conversation.

I'd like to hear what our co-ordinators think about our current translusion style.

1. is it fine, but we need to cut down on using templates in FAC archives?
2. Should we start moving our discussions away from the FAC archives?
3. would simply linking to the individual archives make closing them much more difficult/impossible?

I think the script we use currently does a good job of indicating which archives have decent support/participation, but the fact we even need a script to make the page usable is the worry. I'm sure that a bot could do something very similar if we investigated that alternative.

Realistically, it's more up to those closing the discussions to tell us how they would like to deal with these pages, rather than us.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

does anyone actually read these pages like this? *Raises hand*. And looks like there are relatively few active reviewers who have the script installed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have mentioned many times that I did read the page top to bottom almost every single day (others have also pointed out in other discussions that I did that), I still process the page by reading it all, bottom to top (oldest first), I have never used a script or nomination viewer, and I really do not understand how the Coords can effectively know what is going on at FAC if they are only selectively watchlisting certain pages. (Since I read the whole page, I had no need to watchlist any, although I did watchlist any that showed signs of trouble, so I could get on them right away.) And we would not have 40 to 50 noms on the page at a time if they were closed more expeditiously via reviewers actually opposing ill-prepared noms. And the two times we have had issues here recently were both traceable to one out-of-control FAC (I used to restart those; that is an option that for some reason current Coords do not use), so the process is not the problem, rather how it is being used or mis-used. You now have two of the most active reviewers from the past months on record as processing the entire page (which is a good thing).

Johnuniq could you rephrase your post in Dummies for 101 speak? My understanding was that the problem was not related to size, rather template count, so I am not following what you are saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A bigger concern is that I see now two proposals on the page that aim to convert FAC to GAN plus three or four— that is, GAN is one reviewer, FAC would be same but a few more reviewers. When we reach that point—and we are approaching it—we no longer have FAs, and there is lo longer any reason for TFA. Slippery slope alert here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Some entirely personal comments as a relatively experienced reviewer and relatively inexperienced coordinator. Re Lee Vilenski's points:

1. Yes we do.
2. I do not think that would be helpful.
3. Not that I can see and it seems, as they suggest, an obvious idea.

Re SandyGeorgia's point: I frequently find the wall of text of a single review near impossible to analyse - one reason why I so assiduously insert sections. You could probably work out when I discovered and installed the script by noting when my regular reviewing jumped up. I boggled at attempting to read the whole set of archives, but nothing daunted gave it a go - it would be daft to ignore Sandy's years of experience. Part way through the third article up my brain melted and dribbled out of my ears. Clearly I do not possess Sandy's intellectual prowess. I shall fall back on my now accustomed, if simplistic, habit of clicking on the "Nomination" of each article from the script, starting at the bottom, reading through it, taking any action, and then moving on to the next. I am partly baffled and partly awed at the idea that anyone should attempt to take in all of the reviews as a single piece of prose, it is certainly more than I can do; but if it has its uses to some users then we should be mindful of this and not remove the facility over hastily. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandy's "intellectual prowess" .... bwaaaaahahahaha !!! No, Gog, the reason I could process the whole page is that the whole page was processable, because it wasn't extended peer reviews! I have no idea how you Coords are able to cope with what the page has become, because it is insane. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not use a script on the nomination pages. And lately, I tried to help with the whole issue by going to using '''Coord comment''' but people keep being "helpful" and changing it to ====Coord comment====. Can we STOP that, please? And can we cut down on the silly green text stuff? Just .. indent. Or something. Green text makes my eyes bleed after a while... I detest it and it makes my job as coord harder. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I use {{tq}}, also known as the green text template, a lot, and find it much easier to read comments that way, but I'll stop from now on, both because of the template transclusion limit and because it's a direct request from a coordinator. I think the coordinators use the page more intensively than even the most active reviewer, and their preferences should get priority. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

OMG, Ealdgyth, if you can remember how I despaired at the brightly colored posts, outrageous signatures taking over the pages, colored coding, that sent my brain on overload as I was only looking for actionable commentary and what had or had not been reviewed. If reviewers would please just view the pages as Coords needing to know what has been reviewed, what has not, and whether the article is promoteable or archiveable. Ditch the colors, and take peer reviews elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I hate that template wherever it appears. I left the days of green cathode ray monitors behind for a reason. If I use a white background, the green barely registers, if I use a dark mode ... it blends in. It's a curse on the wiki, I swear. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Right along with the damn pingie-thingie, which has destroyed discourse on Wikipedia, added to processing overload, reduced community interaction, and ... is probably the real cause of our now-more-serious template issue. How many times are editors pinged now to pages they should be following? Hint. If you comment on a FAC, keep it watched so you can remove your premature support if someone finds real issues later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We may be able to reduce the post-expand size by using noinclude tags. Cutting out the review section of the longest FAR like this[2] reduces the post-expand size of WP:FAR by 10%. DrKay (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Juggling the chairs on the Titanic. Leaving large, unreadable FACs to continue to become larger and more unreadable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Would it help to have a bot go through and subst or otherwise replace the innumerable uses of {{ping}}, {{u}}, and the like? There must be hundreds of them scattered through the FACs, and once they've generated a ping there's no reason not to remove the template use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so here's a question that I've never been quite sure of. Is the problem the number of individual templates, with the massive number of small xts and pings and such causing issues, or is it the number of total bytes within transclusions, with stuff like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive1, which is almost 70k bytes long being transcluded directly onto the page? If it's the former, then playing whack-a-mole with the swarms of little templates will help, but if its the latter, then things are going to be much harder to fix without changing the way we review (ei having subpages or extended commentary or doing something about the slide towards FAC "pulling through" nominations. If it's the latter case, I don't know that there's an easy solution. Hog Farm _Talk 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is an old discussion that gives more details -- search for "The issue is not" in the linked section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So it looks to me that it's a little of both, right? The size contributes, but the templates within the reviews count double. It also sounds like it's transclusions that count. So subst-ing the templates would help a little. Or just deprecating the practice of using the green color template in FAC reviews. I know some like it, but it makes the text darn hard to read sometimes, the template transclusion messes up the page byte limit, etc. I still think that the great length of some reviews is the big killer, but that'll be a hard fix, so if we can buy some time to develop a solution by playing whack-a-mole with the smaller problems, then that'll help IMO. Hog Farm _Talk 22:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike do you also read Gguy saying the section headings also contribute? Because that is a huge change in the way FACs are conducted now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, I'd heard something similar to that earlier, and tried just bolding the top of my comments section rather than creating a header, but it was converted to a header later stating that the header made it easier on the coords. So is there an expectation to header non-source/image review comments now? Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't. Please follow the instructions at the top of the list of nominations and use a fourth-level subsection. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Will do from now on. Didn't realize that it caused problems. Hog Farm _Talk 22:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm after edit conflicts: As I stated back in this discussion on my talk page, this is one of the many reasons that the instructions at FAC specifically say to rarely create these section headings. (They are sometimes useful, very sparingly, for the odd extra long conversation-- which is supposed to be rare.) The purpose of FAC is to determine if an article is at standard. That should be indicated via Comment, Support or Oppose, followed by rationale based on WP:WIAFA. Anything that gets so long it needs a section head belongs at peer review or on article talk, and should be connected to a Support, Oppose or Comment. I think it's time to uncollapse the instructions at FAC to remind people of what they actually say; that FAC has gotten away from this is causing much greater problems than template limits. It is affecting the quality and thoroughness of reviews. When an editor correctly enters commentary without a fourth-level heading, one should not be introduced. And adding Support, Oppose etc to a section heading leads to lesser reviews and false impressions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, please see Ealdgyth's post at 16:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC), where she asks others to please stop doing that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but the quickest fix would be to put FAR back on a separate page, even if only temporarily. I know it was added to the end of FAC to generate more traffic, but until we get consensus on any other approach, it would make a big difference immediately. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it will make no difference at all. It won't solve the fundamental problem at FAC. It will make FAR less viewable, but that is not the problem here. The fundamental problem at FAC is that, by converting FAC to PR, and conveying false impressions via section headings, we are getting longer and longer FACs, with less and less real review with an eye towards WIAFA. See the discussion linked to my talk. But, yes, while we are on the subject, wouldn't it be nice if some FAC regulars went over and reviewed the oldest, longest FAR, which is stalled for lack of review-- British Empire :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is as follows: If everyone reviewed like SG suggests, the reviews would stay short, there would be no transclusion issues or need for section headings. (this would probably be best IMO if we could get people to stick to it). BUT, since there are long reviews posted on FACs, it is necessary to segment with headers so that the FAC coords won't miss anyone's review. (t · c) buidhe 23:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Be kind to your Coords; you'll be sorry when they're gone :) Focus on WIAFA, put lengthy commentary (except for those few rare exceptions) at peer review or on article talk. We aren't here to be impressed by nitpickery; we're here to decide yea or nay on WIAFA :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Re your question at 15:11, 23 January 2021 above, the number of templates is not relevant. The issue is the total size transcluded by all templates.

The "Nominations" and "Older nominations" consist of entries like this:

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Example/archive1}}

That means each candidate page is transcluded into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.
In total, that contributes approximately 1,285,000 bytes of post‐expand include size.

The following wikitext is at the bottom:

{{Wikipedia:Featured article review}}

That contributes approximately 443,000 bytes.

Other templates contribute approximately 30,000 bytes.

The total include size for the whole page is roughly 1,285,000 + 443,000 + 30,000 = 1,758,000 bytes. The maximum allowed include size is 2,097,152 bytes. Template limit problems have been due to the include size exceeding 2,097,152 bytes. As Mike Christie said, a quick fix would be to remove {{Wikipedia:Featured article review}} from this page. That would save roughly 443,000 bytes—21% of the limit. All the {{ping}} + {{tq}} and other minor templates add up to roughly 100,000 bytes so fiddling with them would not achieve much. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Untranscluding FAR would have no benefit. The only effect of reaching the template limits is that FAR becomes a link at the bottom of the page instead of a transclusion. So, it's either there as a link or as a transclusion, regardless of the size of any other page or how many templates are used. Consequently, we may as well as leave it there as a transclusion: even if we do nothing, it will always be there as either a transclusion or a link. The suggestion to never have it there at all, ever, makes no sense to me. DrKay (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

DrKay, I haven't seen the page when the problem is happening, so I don't know the effect; I thought the result was that transclusions simply stopped appearing. Does it instead turn each transclusion past the point of the problem into a link? So, e.g., the last couple of transcluded FACs would also turn into links? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

That is correct, yes. You can see the most severe case at [3]. DrKay (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike, it may be helpful for you to think of this in terms of how this problem was first discovered, as that relates to your work on FAC archives. I believe I was attempting to update the tallies in either the FAC archive page, or at WP:FAS, and the tallies didn't match. After some investigation, I finally realized that all the promoted or archived FACs were not showing on the page, giving the wrong tally. But when I went in to edit mode, I could see the transcluded pages were in fact there-- the contents just weren't showing. Weird. When I inquired, the template limits issue was explained, and we made adjustments going forward. So, imagine not FAR dropping off of this page, but that when you are trying to work in the FAC archives, the closed promoted or archived nominations simply don't appear there, because the page truncates. We haven't seen it happen in archives lately only because the overall volume at FAC is so much lower than a decade ago, but should overall volume pick up, we see this problem move from this page to the archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq. I believe I understand what you are saying now, but because it is at distinct odds with everything I thought I understood previously, I may not be understanding. And it matters because it affects-- not whether FAR shows on the page-- but whether FACs are dropped out of the archives after they close. That is where we first discovered the problem, and having archived FACs be not viewable in the FAC archives is a bigger problem than seeing FAR drop off the page (which is really our canary in the coalmine).

What I understand: when FACs get out of control in size, we can first realize that on this page because FARs go missing from this page. That FARs go missing is not a big problem; in fact, it's helpful as a sign that some FACs have gotten out of control, so we know where to look. In each of the two most recent cases, it was caused by one easily identifiable FAC, and was addressed by removing an excess number of transcluded templates from only a couple of out-of-control FACs.

So, first, I am not understanding why you are now saying that exceeding WP:Template limits is not related to templates at all, rather size? I always understood it to be about the double-counted templates.

And second, it is important that we all understand that a much more significant issue is whether FACs are becoming so out of control that they will cause the FAC archive pages to truncate, making FACs unviewable in archives after they close, as well as the issue of becoming so large that they are off-putting to subsequent reviewers and difficult for Coords to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There are several reasons why a particular page might fail to display properly because it hit template limits—the different limits can be seen in the NewPP limit report mentioned at WP:Template limits. However, the only limit this page is approaching (and sometimes hits) is "Post‐expand include size". That allows 2 megabytes for the total of everything that the software has to transclude in order to display the page. Any templates that are encountered in the page once it hits that limit are ignored (you would see "Template:Example" in the displayed page rather than whatever it would normally expand to). DrKay's above comment is correct—removing FAR would not help because either it will expand or it won't. My advice to remove it was based on habit because normally a page is often edited and that is very slow when approaching the expand limit. At any rate, my point is that fiddling with templates like ping and tq won't help—the problem is that each FAC page is transcluded and some of them are very big. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

iPad typing after long day in local than teaching hospital ER, husband emergency surgery later today for sudden vision loss, detached retina. I think I have the full picture now, would like to do a mockup proposal for a better model for reviewing to hopefully address multiple concerns and issues raised on the page, but do not know how soon I can get back to this ... patience until I can return to this and several other threads on the page? Not sure what my caregiving burden is going to look like for rest of week, don’t think I have any reviews outstanding .. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Script to highlight source reliability?

Is there (or could there be?) a script for highlighting sources in an article based on their reliability according to a list like WP:RSPS? It could either colour-code them according to their level of reliability like on that list, or just highlight the ones that have been deemed unreliable or deprecated. I'm thinking of something similar to the prose size gadget. I don't know about other reviewers, but I get lost in the sea of links in many references sections. Having something to show me the references that need more scrutiny might make it easier to navigate the references section when reviewing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s not practical for every source, and I think it'd do more harm than good. A source not being on RS/PS doesn't mean it isn't reliable or useful. WikiProjects also have their own system for reliable sourcing (with mixed results). A source having no consensus doesn't mean it can't be used; it just means the nominator is going to have to defend those sources more rigorously. It'd also be difficult to perpetually update these things via a script—a lot of work and maintenance needed. It wouldn't really be able to judge based on written accounts on the Noticeboard. I see why you'd want such a thing (and it has occurred to me before), but I think just rigorously looking at the source names is pretty straightforward. That's just my opinion, though, and others might disagree. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

HJM and ImaginesTigers, this does exist already, in a few iterations - for example CiteUnseen and UPSD. As noted though, these shouldn't be taken as the final word on what is or isn't reliable, just another tool for evaluation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki! CiteUnseen looks like almost exactly what I was after. ImaginesTigers I'm fully aware of all the caveats. I want something that draws my eye to sources that we know need more careful use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell User:Headbomb/unreliable is very useful as long as you understand the limitations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LINKSTYLE question

The Rambling Man mentioned here that he's recently seen MOS:LINKSTYLE's bullets 9-11 enforced more. I'm planning to expand the explanation of the terms he listed there, per his review, but I'm curious to know if others have seen this point being stressed more, either in FAC reviews or elsewhere. I've always thought this is a point dependent on context -- a highly specialized topic, such as sheaf (mathematics), can't possibly define, say, open set, but the article on general topology can do so (and does). Disruption to the reader is what needs to be minimized -- a parenthetical explanation or footnote may be the easiest way to explain things to a reader, but too many can disrupt the readability of the text. I should say that some of the terms he picked out really would benefit from a footnote, so I'm not complaining about the review, just wondering if the rules have changed and what others' views are. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Well yes, I recently had opposition to a FAC on a football article because I felt away goals rule, aggregate score and two-legged tie were in basic English and linked and that was sufficient for the majority of general readers to understand in context. It should also be noted that the article had already been reviewed by several non-football readers and no such issues troubled them. Meanwhile, Acamptonectes was promoted with several highly technical (some non-English) terms, including:

• generalised
• Scapular girdle
• Paratype
• Binomial name
• Braincase
• Interclavicle
• Eumelanin
• Humeral shafts
• Premaxilla
• Parasphenoid
• acromial
• Trochanter
• Tubercle
• Cladogenesis
• Caudal fins
• Marine transgression
• Neritic zone
• Anoxic

I don't think "the rules have changed" but if we are now going to see people opposing on this basis, we should at the very least be approaching this consistently from FAC to FAC. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

To address this specific comment, I think it depends a lot on the individual's specialization. I study and work in the sciences. I have never watched sports and probably never will. The three sports terms that you linked make no sense to me, even though they are plain English, and I had to, naturally, click on the link to understand what they mean. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I can see, some of these are already explained or their context is given, for example "premaxillae, which formed the front portion of the upper jaw", " eumelanin pigments". I agree some more of them can be further explained, but it's a matter of judgement which and how much. I'll ping my co-nominators so they see this (I only saw this by chance): Lythronaxargestes, Slate Weasel, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It was only informally reviewed in the context of this MOS failure post-promotion. For what it's worth, I think the links provide sufficient information. However while you may think they're explained in context, I don't agree. It may be fine to say "eumelanin pigments" (for example) but I still don't know what "eumalanin" means in that context without clicking on the link. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If we take this example then, the full sentence: "Although the colour of Acamptonectes is unknown, at least some ichthyosaurs may have been uniformly dark-coloured in life, which is evidenced by the discovery of high concentrations of eumelanin pigments in the preserved skin of an early ichthyosaur fossil." What do we need to know other than this is a pigment that indicates the animal was dark in colour? I don't think it is relevant to go into how it works, or what the pigment consists of (especially since the study in question was not specifically about the article's subject), so what additional info would be expected? FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What does "eumelanin" mean? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with FunkMonk, this should depend on the context. Just because a term appears in a sentence does not mean that the reader needs to completely understand that term (without clicking on the link) in order to understand the main point of the sentence. It does not matter what the chemical structure of eumelanin is, the reader only needs to know that it is a type of pigment. Everything else is not pertinent to the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, eumelanin is a type of pigment that can indicate dark colour (as the article indicates), I'm not sure what else it has to mean in this context? But be sure, I'm not being dismissive, I think this is an important issue. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Cool. But let's not get side-tracked by a single example. The above examples were all those I had to click on to understand (me, speaking personally, so there is no "wrong" here) the words in the context of the article. I only speed-read the article so there may be more, I don't know. I'm looking for a level playing field to be applied, and when I see articles being promoted with literally a dozen or more highly technical words just linked and not further explained, then I'm not certain that equality is being applied. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, some of them seem to have slipped through, while I'd argue others are fine. And I certainly think it should be sorted out, I'll try to bring it up on the article's talk page once the discussion here has progressed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I've addressed the terms in palaeoenvironment. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In Acamptonectes, the words are technical, but there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it. The article still makes sense to read. From the lead, "Binomial name" doesn't affect my ability to understand what's been said. On the other hand, the dense language in the subheading "Postcranial skeleton" is used by the scientific community. Simplifying it makes the article less comprehensive, less concise, because they're vital to the very dry topic (anatomy). Simplifying it might actively confuse people who need to know things quickly. My hot take: readers are going to need to tolerate some technical language further into an article than the lead (which is all most people are reading anyway). In League of Legends, I transformed "mod" into "modified version", even though that's not quite right, because it’s vital for readers to understand in the second sentence of the lead. Later, in the development section, I do not attempt to make it more palatable. If people are ready to read about the development of a game, they can just click on a link to know what a mod or a "game engine" is. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS is saying that for highly technical language we shouldn't be forced to click to another article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a trade-off. We are trying our best to explain the technical terms; in particular, I make a best effort to do so in all of the text that I write on Wikipedia. But there is a conciseness that is needed for these explanations, lest the article become completely unreadable. On an article like Klamelisaurus (which I do not aim to promote at this time), if I had to write every definition in completely lay terms the Description section would probably be twice as long as it currently is. No one wants to read all that, even if it's clearer.

I'll add that I think the way to combat this for WP:DINO and WP:PALEO in particular is not better in-text definitions. It's images. High-quality labelled images that place bones in the context of the living organism do a much better job of conveying anatomical concepts than words ever could. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the problems associated with this, but one aspect of this at MOS implies that all knowledge should be standalone in any given article, for example if someone printed it (that's apparently a use case which needs to be catered for) after which, of course, links don't work, but certainly images would help. For those of us writing non-technical articles in plain English, definitions are overkill, but the same standards should be applied whether writing a dinosaur article, a legal article or an article on a football match. Indeed, for the general reader, the need for explanation of scientific or non-English terms which are commonplace in the former article types is arguably much higher than for one written in basic English. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I like when articles tell me in context what things mean. So, for example, in introduction to viruses, I have no idea what icosahedral means, but I can work it from the full sentence: "Viruses vary in shape from the simple helical and icosahedral to more complex structures." Gog wasn't sure what "matchmaking was on League. I explained, later realised it was a straightforward change, and changed it to something like "reviewers noted long wait times for matches", wiki-linking "wait times". For technical articles, WP:TECHNICAL tells us to talk one level down. If the article is likely to be read by an undergrad student, then write for someone in secondary school; if it’s a post-grad topic, then undergrad-level writing is fine. Who is reading the "Postcranial skeleton" section of a dinosaur article, might be the question? What mainly frustrates me is that I don't want to use a brief, concise metaphor to explain "game engine", because I'm going to need to end up sourcing it. Here's another example from an article I significantly expanded, The Turn of the Screw: Wilson drew heavily from Kenton's writing, but applied explicitly Freudian terminology. For example, he pointed to Quint first being sighted by the governess on a phallic tower. Is this enough? Will a reader know what Freudian language is, or how phallic is Freudian language? I don't think it’s fair to ask for a universal standard; WP:TECHNICAL acknowledges the need for a sliding scale, depending on the article. It'd be great if we had some kind of way to say "this article should be understandable by X-year-olds". I struggle with this every time I write. I want to make Neoliberalism (literature), but I've no idea how to write it, or who to write that for :/ — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit addendum: "X-year-olds" won't work because a 15 year old reader who plays video games is going to what matchmaking is. A forty-year-old reader might not. Same with "game engine". — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

But that is contrary to MOS which is what is applied at FAC. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm just gonna stay off this page; I don't know what I'm talking about as a new contributor. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No, your view is appreciated. Sometimes things get stuck in a rut and it's always beneficial to get new thinking on it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I run into this problem with nautical jargon in my ship articles and in my experience it's clear that we cannot write a standalone article that reads well. We must rely on the links for the jargony terms to be their primary explainers. Secondarily all we can is to try and make it clearer from context (I understood both examples well enough to grasp the essentials, while missing the details. Eumelanin caught my attention until I uncoupled melanin from its prefix (it helped that I knew it was discussing pigmentation in skin). Thirdly, that requirement in the MOS must be changed to a goal that will most certainly not be reached in the vast majority of articles, as it cannot be done without spattering the page with parenthetical explanations that divert the readers attention and ruin the flow of the prose, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. This is not a paper encyclopedia, and we should be taking advantage of linking, not enforcing awkward parenthetical notes or footnotes which would be repeated time after time after time in every article of a similar subject (I think that's why a lot of subjects have a glossary article, after all). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the dinosaur project has created Glossary of dinosaur anatomy and {{dinogloss}} for this very purpose. It doesn't apply to Acamptonectes, however, since it is a non-dinosaur. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and football too: Glossary of association football terms. Perhaps this could be linked as a "see also" from all such project pages so those printing off these articles (!) could print the glossary off too...! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In general I agree that we should take complete advantage of linking, as TRM says – and in my view, all of the the words mentioned thus far from both TRM's article and the Acamptonectes one should be linked. In my mind, we should focus less on whether a reader needs to know a word, and more if they will. The eumelanin example above: sure the reader doesn't need to know what it means, but if I was reading that, I'd certainly would have no idea, and would likely hover over a link to see the preview. Making readers skip through a word they don't understand, yet don't need to know, just creates an awkward reading – most of the words I've looked up the dictionary I didn't "need" to know, but I wanted to. Also, the idea of "people with a background in science/sports would know this" seems somewhat irrelevant. Aza24 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the point about the eumelanin is that we don't need to know any more about what eumelanin is to understand the sentence in question. All we need to know is that it's a pigment that provides a certain colour (as is clear from the current text), any other aspect of it is completely irrelevant to the subject of the article, and would not contribute anything useful other than bloat. So it depends on the context. FunkMonk (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear from my perspective that's incorrect. It is far from "completely irrelevant to the subject of the article" as I needed to click on it to read about it and to understand more about it: it's a highly technical term (to use the words I think MOS uses). Whether you personally think it needs further explanation is somewhat by the by because I personally do, so that means it's grounds for opposition based on a purist view of MOS. That, in a nutshell, is the problem here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

But again, no one has explained what kind of additional information they'd like to see in this particular case. And that's a problem, as writers of course can't read the minds of readers, and it's a judgment call in each case. And I simply have no idea what additional info anyone would know about a specific pigment in an article about an animal. What it consists of? How it functions? And why is this relevant? FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, therein lies the problem. Until you know it's irrelevant, it's relevant. Until I click on the link and discover that it's just a plain old dark pigment of no special note, I don't realise it's irrelevant to a comprehensive understanding of the main topic. So, I'm "forced" to click on the link to fully understand the technical term and then discover it's like "meh". But sadly, clicking away from the article following a technical term currently contravenes MOS and can elicit an oppose. Now don't get me wrong, this is the 21st century and, for me, that aspect of MOS was (probably) designed for 1990s users, or the 0.0001% of users who "can't click on links" for whatever reason, but while co-ordinators are refusing to promote candidates based on opposition from this point, the playing field needs to be levelled. We either apply that approach to all FACs, or recognise it for what it is: an archaic throwback which is highly subjective and of no real use to FAs. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't realized coordinators were refusing to promote based on this sort of opposition. Are there recent examples of FACs that have failed for this sort of oppose? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, not failed, just not promoted. Just take a look at the 1997 play-off final article. It had five supports and one oppose so wasn't promoted because it needed "non-football/non-male" reviewers to re-check the suitability of the opposition (by a co-ordinator!) on this point. It now has seven supports and still isn't being promoted because I've been railroaded into asking even more people (including the third/fourth non-football expert and a "non-male" reviewer). Maybe even nine supports won't be enough, who knows? Meanwhile Acamptonectes was promoted with four supports and a plethora of technical terms which were not explained, by the same co-ordinator who is opposing this FAC (on three plain English [and linked]) phrases. Curious times. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to get some clarity here. From the conversation so far, I get the sense that the consensus is that the level of explanation for linked jargon terms found in the 1997 play-off article, and indeed in the Acamptonectes article, is just fine as it is. Certainly that would be my position in the matter. The dispute has arisen because one reviewer, who is also a coord, insisted that a greater level of explanation was needed for some football terms. And they did not back down from that position even after considerable demonstration that this phenomenon is widespread. And another coord said the objection was an actionable one. So given the seeming consensus that this situation is a bit off, perhaps what's needed is for us to set down formally that MOS:LINKSTYLE doesn't have to be applied to the letter in FACs, or else go over and amend what it says there. Then we can all move on with our lives. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(crickets chirping). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything needs to change. A good faith reviewer lodges an oppose, noting that it's based on their reading of the MoS. It's an actionable oppose but other reviewers may disagree with the interpretation. Other reviewers have shown up with at least one more non-football expert still to post a review. The coordinators will presumably make a decision based on the consensus of those reviewers. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? I'm doubtful that any change to WP:FACR would be helpful. You might suggest a change to the wording of that part of the MoS, and see if that can gain consensus, though I'm not sure that's really necessary either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Two non-football reviewers had already supported. But apparently it wasn't enough. I'm not really too worried about the wording, I'm worried about the wholly lop-sided enforcement by co-ords and dismissal of consensus right now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I started this thread because of your comment on my FAC, regarding some specialist words, that this requirement was now being enforced more, and since I asked about opinions re LINKSTYLE generally, this thread has really been about LINKSTYLE, not about coord enforcement or disregard of consensus, and I don't think anything very surprising has come from the discussion. I think if you feel that standards are being unevenly enforced or that consensus is being ignored it might be more productive to start a thread specifically about that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The problems are inter-related. We have a MOS point (or three) which seem to be requiring that FAs are "standalone" i.e. all technical terms are explained in sufficient detail within the scope of the article within relying on anything else, links, external sources etc. The first problem is (a) the pure subjectivity of such a requirement. As a non-expert in legal matters or a non-expert in paleontology, the MOS-mandate for me personally to be satisfied is on a very different level from that of if I was reading an association football article (for example). In my case, I want to understand where the "average" need to understand is pitched. I.e. why should someone reading the article I've written understand dribbling but not away goals rule, or corner but not aggregate score. Where do you draw the line? And that has led us to problem (b) that of the ongoing promotion of articles which are fully loaded with unexplained technical terms (some in Latin) while, in my case, three plain English (linked) terms have been cause for a major hold up (and an oppose no less). One could argue that the primary issue with (a), i.e. the purely subjective nature of what is and what is not considered to be a technical term that needs explanation has led to problem (b) because we now have co-ords looking for multiple reviews (in this case more than two which were already there when promotion was refused) from "non-sports-fans" (amongst others). So, are we to concede the point that the MOS here must apply to each and every technical term in each and every FAC? Or to just some of those technical terms? If some, how are they chosen? What benefit is there in explaining how the away goals rule works (i.e. a rule that sends teams through with more away goals) when you're not explaining what dribbling is? These terms are all linked and available either in their own article or in glossaries which many subjects have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What I think needs to happen is that Wikipedia:Featured article criteria §2 needs to be changed from It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of to It follows the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, including the provision of akin to the WP:GA criteria. The current MOS is a giant compendium of nice-to-haves, many of which can't realistically be done even for a Featured article. And a lot of FACses already pass with minor or sometimes major noncompliance with MOS; restricting its strictness so that only some key parts need to be complied with would be eminently sensible. Of course, I write highly technical FACses, so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with JJE above; I don't write terribly technical stuff, but I was just reviewing Bajadasaurus; I've asked for some terms to be linked or explained, but inserting an explanation for every term that a non-scientist wouldn't know would bloat the article to the point of unreadability. If we were following the letter of the MOS, wouldn't we have to start with an explanation of "dinosaur" What laypeople understand by the term, and what scientists mean by it, are often different. The MOS does a good job of outlining best practices, but science articles cannot really be standalone ones, and being a web encyclopedia allows us to handle that situation more cleanly than any printed work; we should take advantage of that, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought that we had already agreed on this change in an earlier discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are talking about Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive66#We are losing content editors, I wouldn't interpret the subsections as a consensus for changing the rule. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a very rationale change. The MOS is so broad and down to the finest detail now that it's like a motor vehicle inspection - they can always find something wrong if they really want to. Pointing out the most significant and relevant parts makes perfect sense here. Obviously, reviewers can and sometimes should request changes beyond those overarching ones listed in the proposed change above, but compliance with every tiny detail of the MOS volume isn't that realistic, IMO. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

While I agree we don't need everything in MOS to be slavishly followed, I think this proposal might go a bit too far the other way - there are other things in MOS besides those listed that are worth at least considering. (Does anyone know why those in particular were chosen for GA?). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Judging by [2007 discussion] the GA MOS criteria have been around for a long while, but I don't know exactly since when. Perhaps the institutional memory of Wikipedia knows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The MoS is a guideline, right? I work mostly with MOS/NOVELS and it acknowledges that compliance will vary on an article-to-article basis. Limiting it to specific sections of the MoS—where adherence is universally and unambiguously needed—makes much more sense to me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think my original issue here is that a FAC has been opposed on a purely subjective opinion that three plain English phrases have to be further explained within the article as a result of these bullets at MOS. But more importantly, this is not being applied evenly in any sense of the word. Nor is it particularly practical – the phrases in question are used in literally thousands of articles – these phrases should not be required to be defined each and every time, that's why we have "glossaries" and "wikilinks". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ironically, you opposed the Greek case FAC precisely for this reason. Direct evidence and legal remedy are both commonly used terms that are exactly what you would think (=evidence that is direct / a remedy provided by a court). (t · c) buidhe 13:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My guess is that there's no "ironically" about that at all... It looks like the oppose in question stems directly from the similar oppose that was given to TRM at the 1997 play-off final FAC. I don't myself think there's a problem with using Wikilinks to provide definitions for the linked terms in either case, and neither article should be opposed on those grounds.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, ironically it wasn't ironic. Just an attempt to provide a level playing field. I had to click on both of those links to understand what they meant. And of course you failed to note all the non-English terms I also included in the list. So no, there's no irony here at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here, people. I would strongly oppose deprecating the MOS altogether as something FAs should follow. The vast majority of its provisions are sensible guidelines which ensure consistency among articles and proper English grammar/punctuation/usage. And it should be within the toolbox of an FAC reviewer to insist on compliance with it. If we are to resolve anything here it should be limited to an assertion that WP:LINKSTYLE is not desirable in general, which I think is sensible. If every one of the terms TRM mentions above were to be defined explicitly in an individual article, it would lead to unnecessary bloating while not necessarily being of huge benefit, even to those readers who aren't familiar with the subject matter. That section of the MOS looks like overreach into something that's not style but a content decision. Given that FAs (and most other articles too) in general contain many unfamiliar terms resolvable only by WikiLink, I think it's sensible for that to be our practice. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think that hits the nail on the head, this is not really about style, it's about subjective understanding and individual need to see every single "technical term" explained within the scope of single article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've just about caught up with all of this, and my opinion is that the original review on the FA Cup article should have been more lenient, I for one didn't see issues with the items. The second issue is that TRM's subsequent reviews enforcing these guidelines was quite WP:POINTy, which I hope he agrees with me - I think it's pretty plain that he is unhappy to recieved an oppose based on what is normal practice. As a reminder, here's the bullets in question:

• Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
• Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
• The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.

In my eyes these boil down to - don't use links when a more suitable word or short phrase exists, that does the same thing. Also, don't phrase sentences based on a technical word. Even if you go straight down to the fine print of these sentences, it's hard to say something like a yellow card is something that needs to be also explained as well as linked. If we did, we'd also have to explain what a basketball hoop was, or in my case what a cue ball is. If I read an article out of my scope, I hope that the article is written in a way I can follow without too much previous knowledge but if there are terms that are out there that I am not familiar with I'd hope they are wikilinked. We should be limiting them as much as we can; but we can't expect every article to have no technical terms (I don't even agree the terms are that technical in the FA Cup FAC), nor that every technical term can be written in a short phrase instead.

If this is a thing we are pushing as the new-norm, count me out. If this is a knee-jerk reaction to a review, can we all agree what the meaning of WP:LINKSTYLE actually means, and maybe freshen up the wording a little, or just realise this is a "where possible", not a "always do". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually it would have been "pointy" if I had opposed any of the nominations but I didn't. Even the Greek case article I said it "will result in an oppose" as the nominator just dismissed the point completely out of hand. And it wasn't an FA Cup nom, it was a play-off final nom which was outright opposed on three plain English terms (which were wikilinked). If you want to find a "point" being made, I would suggest that would be the place to start. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I only skimmed the various discussions trying to gleam where all of this came from. I actually thought the article handled this all rather well. I do think it's clear that if this is how we should read the MOS, that it should be held across the board - but that I don't agree that this is how the MOS should be interpreted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries. The fatal blow for me was seeing the Acamptonectes article happily promoted with those 18 terms above (as a minimum) being ones which I clicked on to understand because I could neither understand them from the context provided nor from any explanatory inline-/foot-notes. Highly technical terms. And the promotion happened within days of the opposition to the three plain English linked terms. I simply took the cue (pardon the pun Lee) to see how this panned out on other articles to ensure we were all aiming for the same standards. Clearly (currently) we are not. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"Where possible" is an absolute prohibition because the only way out is to say that it is impossible. It directly contradicts the FAC criterion "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". We have no ability to change the MOS, so we need to scrap MOS conformance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies to all for delayed responses due to my husband's retinal detachment; I have at least three threads on this page to catch up on ... will get to them slowly.

I think we've missed a couple of boats with this discussion:

1. Newness; this is not something new. I have been typing the words, "don't make the reader click out to understand the sentence" for as long as I can remember. There are very good reasons behind those bullet points in MOS, but they resolve to PROSE issues as much as manual of style. With as many reviews as I have done, I can't point to a specific historic oppose, but the oppose in the case of issues that Gog the Mild encountered at 1997 Football League First Division play-off Final#Route to the final is quite consistent and valid. It has been worked on somewhat since Gog's oppose, but I still can't make heads nor tails of what I am supposed to understand about how each team advanced to the final. And no amount of clicking on those links has helped me understand, because it is the prose itself that is not telling me what I need to understand how that situation resulted. I don't need to know what an aggregate is, what an away goal is ... that would be gravy. The sentences and paragraphs need to make sense, and they don't for me yet.
2. Lists of technical words, with no context supplied, taken from other articles in this case are meaningless; the issue is whether one can make sense of the sentence or paragraph regardless if one knows the specific details on a given word. The wikilink gives us a bonus, an extra amount of indepth knowledge, but the sentences in which they are used give the context that allows us to skip some detail. If one wants more depth, one can click the link to read about the term. Can the average reader understand the context in which a term is used ... is the basic prose issue.
3. Double standard is a wrong charge in more ways than one. Specifically, the argument that is advanced is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which doesn't really work anywhere for anything, but certainly not at FAC where we are lucky these days to engage three reviewers on any given FAC. In the case of complex or technical language, as I have frequently mentioned recently, one cannot buy a review for a medical article, no matter how much we beg and cajole. So, the latest medical FA passed on three supports from medical editors, and only one (bless his heart) non-medical reviewer (Gog the Mild). In other words, no matter how much we ask for non-topic-expert reviewers to please do a jargon check to make sure the article is comprehensible to laypeople, if FAC reviewers won't engage because "there are already three supports" (a concern I will address in another talk thread here), then it's just not on to claim a double standard, while ...
4. our priorities are off, because one football game can get dozens of comments within a few weeks, while Willie Mays (one of the great greats) was ignored at FAC for a month, getting commentary only from ... Ealdgyth (source review), Nikkimaria (image review) and me. If FAC reviewers are not engaging all articles equally, that is not a double standard as much as it is the Coords working with what you give them, which isn't enough. If reviewers refuse to engage medical articles (or great sports bios) to check for jargon, it's not right to claim a double standard. As much as we beg for jargon reviews for medical articles, it is regrettable to see a jargon review for a sports article so vigorously resisted. As a baseball fan, I recall how difficult it was to bring some baseball articles to a place that Europeans could follow, and how eye opening it was to realize how much we take for granted as writers.
5. MOS; nor is this strictly a MOS matter. If a reader cannot understand the context of a sentence, that is a prose matter, allowing for differences in technical use of language and complexity of the topic, and that certain parts of articles by necessity will have more complex terminology (the example of pathophysiology or mechanism in medical content comes to mind-- we expect Signs and symptoms to be digestible to everyone, but understand that pathophysiology by necessity becomes more technical). Throwing out the baby with the bath water because of one contentious review would be unfortunate.
6. FAC instructions are at Template:FAC-instructions; I suggest everyone re-reads them. There are four reasons listed for archiving a promotion, and the first is different than the second for good reason. The thrust here is on resolving actionable opposes, regardless of how many supports are piled on. We should not be shooting at the Coords when they are doing their job. Actionable opposes must be resolved. And the objection that this section, was, and remains, hard to understand because the jargon does not explain to the layreader what happened there was, and remains, a valid oppose. I will take that up on the appropriate FAC.
7. POINTY-ness in FAC reviewing is something that should never happen, and particularly not via pulling up a list of words, out of context, and claiming they need explanation. The list of words, not viewed in context, has no meaning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line; we're all doing our best, and shooting the Coords and reviewers will advance nothing, and that sort of behavior should stop at FAC. I've requested this before, and I regret seeing this thread being given elsewhere on Wikipedia as an example of FAC dysfunction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: thanks for your detailed comment here, but I regret to say that I disagree with most of it. Of course there is a double standard - it has been pointed out in black and white both above and in the FAC itself, by numerous participants, that the terms being objected did not need further clarification in the article prose. And in that regard they are identical to the biology and history terms already mentioned here and there. This is not a matter of putting things in context, it's simply that different people are knowledgeable in different things, but we must apply the same standard across all topics. I always treat the coords with respect, but at some point you have to call things out. Gog the Mild made a good faith and well-intentioned objection at the FAC, but that objection simply isn't consistent with the standards applied at other FACs, and was rejected by numerous "support" voters, which makes it non-actionable. To see other coords and yourself insisting that such a minority viewpoint must be actioned makes me deeply concerned about the direction of FAC as a whole.

As an aside, I fully agree with you about the difficulty of obtaining reviewers in certain areas. It must be so frustrating for editors who've put detailed work into something to see it rolling off for lack of attention. We discussed this a couple of weeks ago and I will endeavour to do more to rectify this situation, because I do think the pursuit of FAs is one of the most rewarding and important parts of being a Wikipedian. This fact that we need to draw attention to this issue and try to give more attention to those things doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about what's happened at the football FAC though. Two wrongs don't make a right! Cheers, and sorry if this seems blunt, but I do know we're all on the same page in where we're trying to get to with FAC, it's just disagreement on the detail.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with Amakuru, who put it really well. I think there's a double-standard being applied and that different topics are being treated differently. We all have the same ambition, and so does the MOS - good, readable text. What some reviewers are doing is applying the grey line of where they weight this, differently for (say) a Latin technical word and an English word, both of which have obscure meaning to those unfamiliar with the topic. I wouldn't expect to read an FA quality article on something related to Chemistry without having to click some links, because if it was worded for someone like me, it would by definition be clumsily written. Pretty much any topic has its technical language; we shouldn't differentiate between how we deal with them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To both, iPad typing, and I am going to avoid getting in to a long back-and-forth when I have so much catching up to do and limited time to type. We disagree. Disagreement is not a bad thing :). POINTy, snarky disagreement is the bad thing that needs to stop here, and that has taken over multiple recent conversations. I will finish up my oppose on the football FAC when I get on real computer again, and hope that we never again see lists of words on FACs, without context, as the basis for an oppose, as those would be unactionable. It is not the word or the link; it is the prose and the context. A reader does not need the definition of a genus or species to understand they are biology classifications. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm being neither pointy, nor snarky, but discussing something (in a centralised venue) that I think is a problem that extends beyond one FAC. Please don't shut down this conversation because you disagree. Wikipedia is full of disagreements. We work on consensus. More discussion is the way to find that. I appreciate your time is short at the moment, I send warm wishes to anyone who is unwell, but time on this page generally is not short. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I know, I did not say or mean to say you were being snarky; that would not be like you. Or Amakuru. Appreciate well wishes. I am not shutting down conversation, I am iPad typing, all thumbs. I have even less time on real computer now as dear hubby must have privacy in the study for client discussions. I can give more detail here when not all thumbs. I suspect my points will be more clear when I can finish my Oppose. At least I got a full night’s sleep for first time in four days. I guess the only other thing I can add is that while some of us go begging for reviewers to check our jargon, and I cannot recall a nominator so vigorously contesting a reviewer helping bring clarity, this whole business is just a very odd thing to see. We do all seek readable prose in FAs, and as a writer of very technical FAs, I sure wish I could get a dozen reviewers, and regret behaviors that chase off reviewers. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no rush. The FAC in question has been open a long time. And we need to nail this for all FACs. We'll wait for your situation to improve Sandy and then think about a suitable way forward. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have some ideas, but despair that I will never catch up, so putting forward a new idea just now feels daunting, as I cannot even follow through on my to do list. And I already have to type up another proposal for a thread lower on the page.

Some context that I hope we will all consider. At the end of my tenure as FAC delegate, FAC was plagued by not one, but three sockmasters, long-term abusers, all at once, and a (now discredited) arb who was shooting at Raul654 and me for even mentioning a violation of Right to Vanish. FAC was once lauded as the best functioning process on Wikipedia; it has never fully recovered from the damage that was done then by three LTAs. Volume at FAC is a third of what it was, and we have a hard time attracting reviewers. This thread is offered elsewhere as an example of FAC dysfunction. Please remind others to think long and hard before heading down the path of discrediting reviewers and coords, even to the point of casting aspersions at them. We are fortunate now that, compared to then, everyone in this conversation is a legit participant as opposed to an LTA/sock actively seeking to undermine FAC, so that is good news relative to history. But the pointy and snarky tone of multiple recent threads on this page is not helpful. We are on the same team. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we're more suffering from lack of participation because the whole of Wikipedia is. And I think this discussion is an example of us getting to grips with a difficulty, rather than dysfunction, but I'm content if others see it differently. Incidentally, repeated references to people behaving poorly isn't a good way to get things to settle down, even if it were true. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Pre-FAC peer review

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.

Still trying to catch up, I have just added four PRs to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. It would be grand to have some help maintaining that list, and even grander to have more reviewers engage at PR. For example, Willie Mays was resoundingly ignored at FAC, so please dip in! And, should you be inclined, please add the template to your user space to help engage Peer reviews to assure better prepared articles at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the best method to prepare a FAC for an article with references where no page numbers were used

I was planning to see if Incapillo can be brought to FAC, but when I originally wrote it I didn't give specific page numbers for each claim. To be clear not all of the sources need 'em but what is the ideal procedure for preparing the referencing of such an article for FAC? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• IDK, when I need to do this, I just open up each source and try to locate the page where the claim is made, often using search if digitized. (t · c) buidhe 20:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there's an easy way out, in similar situations I've just looked through the sources again, and made page ranges more specific. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus I converted dementia with Lewy bodies mid-FAC, which was quite daunting. I found that using loc= to describe sections was much faster for some articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

WIAFA and user essays

At a recent FAC a user expressed that they believed a certain FAC essay had more weight than another because one is listed at Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria#See also and the other is not. I wanted to bring the issue here not because of the specifics of that dispute, but because it raises a broader question that I think is worth discussing: what should be listed in that section? Should we aim to list every FAC-related essay? Should we set up a list of FAC-related essays on some other page and get rid of them there? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think advice pages belong at that page. They can be added to Template:FA sidebar, where it can be made clear under guidance that they are all user essays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

And I hope the new reviewing process proposal I am putting together will help deal with situations like that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Automatic stats for current FACs

Back in 2017 (discussion here) I proposed that we request a bot to add information to the nominations viewer showing reviews and nominations, with the idea that this would encourage more reviewing. There was no consensus on the right thing to do, and the bot request that was eventually made went unanswered. However, I think it would now be possible to create a page in the facstats tool that would provide live data for all the nominators on current FACs, perhaps including review counts and so on.

There was significant opposition to the idea last time, in particular against "shaming" those who have not reviewed much. I particularly want to ping in those who disliked the idea: @Iridescent, SlimVirgin, Victoriaearle, Amakuru, Noswall59, and Ealdgyth:. Would it be a good thing to create such a page? As it stands the tool can be used by those who want to use it without implying there's a community-wide consensus that everyone should do so. The arguments for some such tool are obvious; the arguments against are mostly listed on the discussion linked above, but I want to add another one for consideration: some editors who may review here less than others may well over-contribute elsewhere on the encyclopedia, and this tool will give no credit for that. We have multiple editors who have done several hundred GA reviews, and no doubt the same is true for MilHist A-class reviews. Those reviews contribute to the success of articles at FACs, so is it fair to ignore them in deciding which nominators deserve to have their articles reviewed?

If I were to create the page, it wouldn't have to have any official status or be linked from here; it would just be a reference for those who want to use it. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ha, I don't particularly recall that conversation from 2017... sometimes I don't remember what I did last week, let alone that long ago! If people think displaying the stats somewhere is useful then I don't particularly object to it. I think the usual maxims apply - nobody should ever feel that they are obliged to review; indeed if people genuinely don't feel they have the skills necessary to perform a review, then they should actively avoid doing so and that doesn't in any way mean those people aren't allowed to pursue their own FAC nominations. But we genuinely do need to do something about the problem of not getting enough reviewers. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suzanne Lenglen/archive2 was a real eye-opener for me, because I did a thorough review and to my eyes it looks FA ready, but nobody else reviewed. This must be very demoralising for the nominators. And if a table like the one mentioned helps us focus our efforts and ensure that everyone has their eyes on things that are slipping through, then that's a good thing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI, if you put in "<None>" in the editor query page in the facstats tool it will list all the FACs that got zero reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I presume this is a similar system like that used for WP:GAN? I'll admit it has some utility to me because honestly I'm much more interested in reviewing the efforts of regular reviewers, especially when there are persistent backlogs for reviewers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have added the FAC stats tool to the FA sidebar at the top of this talk page.
  Please add me to the strong opposition that was raised in 2017, when I was inactive, and please don't do something like this that will encourage more of the same kind of faulty reviewing that is in, now, abundant evidence in other sections of this talk page. [4] A review is not a review is not a review, and the last thing we need is to encourage more faulty reviews. There are few FAC reviewers or nominators (and certainly no Coords) who don't know the score. And this will only add more bulk to each FAC page just as we are dealing with recurring template limit issues. And FAC is not a popularity contest. And not everyone is a good reviewer. And some reviewers are pulling their weight elsewhere in the review processes before and after FAC.
  I share Amakuru's concerns about nominations that are getting no reviews, but faulty reviews are worse than no reviews, and we have other ways of recruiting more reviewers (hint: a newsletter).
  And could we please stop expecting FAC to work like GAN? Again, on this very talk page, you can see an example of how well that works. [5]
  What you might do instead is a) add the FACstats tool to the toolbox that is pre-loaded on every FAC, and b) get someone to update that toolbox! People will find the tool and get the message without adding this unnecessary bulk to each FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think I've said this before, but GAN is a process we should be modeling FAC on, and I'm saying that as someone who has done 264 GA reviews. GA is backlogged more than FAC is (hundreds of unreviewed nominations, articles waiting months to even get a reviewer), and it gets a decent quantity of low-standard reviews from reviewers just wanting to get the articles done with. The quality of GA reviews is very inconsistent between reviewers, and I've seen stuff that's of fairly doubtful quality get promoted on a regular bases. Also, like Sandy says, we have editors who are better at reviewing than writing content, editors who are better at writing content than reviewing, and editors who are good at both. And FAC reviewing isn't the only way to help out at FA, as pre-FAC peer review is important as well. I've seen (and given out) a number of opposes with the advice to take to peer review, but if peer review is a crapshoot if someone's actually going to show up, then what good does going to peer review do? The editors who focus on pre-FAC peer review, but not FAC, would be penalized by that system, when they're doing important reviewing work as well. I would not be opposed to a separate page listing all of these statistics, but I fear that including them on the individual FAC pages is just going to encourage oversimplification and undesirable behavior. Hog Farm _Talk 16:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm not proposing adding anything to any FAC page, and I don't even know how if that could be done. Instead I'm suggesting an off-wiki page, hosted at the facstats tool, which lists current FACs and stats about the nominators of those FACs. Because the tool has access to the live Wikipedia database it would be able to update in real time (though it would still be subject to the constraint that review data is only updated once per month). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Whew, that's a relief. Well, then, since I don't use the nominations viewer and have no idea what it looks like or what it does (although I'm pretty sure it is part of what ails FAC), I can't envision what this looks like. Why not just add the FACstats tool to the pre-loaded toolbox? I hate, Hate, HATE already that the nominations tool is giving faulty ideas about where any given FAC stands, and fear this will add to that problem. While creating a sense of elitism ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd support the idea of having a centralized page with all this somewhere. I've never used nominations viewer and am not familiar with that tool, so I will not comment on that angle of it. Hog Farm _Talk 16:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bare bones FACstats tool now running

I now have a minimalist version of a FAC statistics tool running in toolforge. You can access it here. Currently all it will do is accept an editor name and, optionally, a review type, and give you some statistics for that editor, restricted to only reviews of the selected type. I've spent some time cleaning and reviewing the data, and I'm now confident it's over 99% accurate, but 1% of 100,000 rows of data is still a lot of potential errors, so please let me know if you spot any mistakes. The tool looks as if it was designed by someone who learned html coding in the early 1990s, and I'm afraid there's a good reason for that. Also be aware the data only goes back to September 2006, though I plan to gradually extend it further back.

There are a lot of caveats to the data, and I'll add notes to the tool giving details, but the main one I would like everyone to understand is that this can't be used to assess the quality of anything, only quantity. A one-line review and a six-hour source analysis both count as one review in these queries, so be cautious in making any judgements based on this data.

The next thing I plan to do is make some global queries available -- e.g. "List all editors by number of reviews in the last two years", or "Show the opposes/supports by year for the last ten years". I hope to have some version of that running in the next few days. If you have any suggested queries you'd like to be able to run, let me know, either here or on my talk page. I hope y'all find this interesting and useful.

Here, as a sample of the global data, are the results of three quick queries I ran to find the most prolific reviews of the last fifteen years, for content, source, and image reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Editor	Content reviews
Tony1	1,435
Casliber	1,184
Dank	967
SandyGeorgia	914
Brianboulton	867
Jimfbleak	859
Giants2008	770
Ucucha	647
Graham Beards	616
Laser brain	540
Wehwalt	530

Editor	Source reviews
Ealdgyth	1,965
Nikkimaria	1,338
Brianboulton	980
Fifelfoo	147
Casliber	121
Laser brain	104
Rafablu88	77
Ian Rose	77
Squeamish Ossifrage	66
Lingzhi2	60

Editor	Image reviews
Nikkimaria	1,777
Fasach Nua	354
Wadewitz	354
Jappalang	331
GermanJoe	263
Elcobbola	254
Jo-Jo Eumerus	194
Crisco 1492	171
J Milburn	149
David Fuchs	126

This is very cool, Mike. Thanks for putting work into this; it’s great! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike, iPad typing, still trying to read to catch up post-surgery, my nomination stats say I have a 2020 nomination archived, I think that would be the 2020 promotion of dementia with Lewy bodies, it is backwards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC) PS, that is one CRAZY amount of work from Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria ... I hope they have trucks full of barnstars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for catching that -- transcription error on my part. The lists of nominations and reviews at the bottom of the page are clickable so you can see for yourself if there are questions like that. And yes, I initially thought there was a bug in my code -- 820 source reviews in one year? But it's real. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have known since, forever, that Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria are what holds FAC together. And that we are less without Tony1. Also, it is alarming to see that I am still a lead reviewer, after four years off when I was delegate, followed by several years away from FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I also find it a little disturbing that I've been reasonably active at FAC for almost a year, and about half those names I've never run into. We need to find a way to start cultivating some new reviewers. We've had a few doing the work of many for some time it looks like, and that's only sustainable for so long. Hog Farm _Talk 22:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So what happens if we do the same thing for, say, 2016-2020?

And I note that each editor's statistics come with an "Average reviews per nomination". It would be interesting to run that for all editors with, say, five or more FAC nominations. Perhaps, again, only for 2016-2020, if that is possible. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

iPad hunt and peck typing. Several observations. Gog and Hog, that I know all of these reviewers well, except one, is a reflection that volume was once three times higher than now, so even very active new reviewers would have a hard time catching up with old reviewer volume.

Lingzhi was way more active than stats show as he changed his username so often. Ditto for Eric.

Nikkimaria is now doing work historically done by many. People here do not even probably remember Elcobbola and Jappalang as top-notch image reviewers, and ec was also IP expert. See Plagiarism dispatch and two tutorials on reviewing images, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches. Does anyone get that I am (again) saying one route to re-invigorating FAC and recruiting quality reviewers is some sort of newsletter initiative akin to {{FCDW}}? I would do it if I could, but am unable any longer to even keep up with basics.

There is a very big missing piece in data—a function of life before that damn pingie-thingie. I am noticing that many of the reviewers I most depended on are missing from top reviewer list. Well, d’oh, before the pingie-thingie, one had to actually go to an editor talk page to request a MOS tune-up. I tried to never promote without a MOS review, and I am pretty sure that Karanacs and Laser did same. When an article was otherwise ready for promotion, but no one had checked MOS, I would request on user talk that someone run through, and that was usually accomplished by minor adjustments in the article with narry a mention on the FAC. So, we have FACs where MOS is never mentioned, and reviewers who routinely did that work whose contributions are undercounted. We have to always take care with apples and oranges in viewing this data, as processes changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I logged the reviews under the current user name, so you'll see for example that Adrienne's reviews are all under Wadewitz, not Awadewit. Ling's were complicated but I think I got all of them! If you see two different names that you know are the same person, let me know. Yes, the data only includes a reviewer if they posted a comment on the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Nutty Ling did not reveal all of his changing usernames. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I've now added the option of querying for a list of reviewers, filtered in various ways, so for example you can ask for the top 20 content reviewers for a range of years. Gog, I'll add an option to query a list of nominators next, including the review/nomination ratio. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

And there is now a nominator query that shows all nominators with some minimum number of nominations in a time period, and lists how many reviews they gave and received. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's nice. Looking at just the past three years startlingly few nominators have a reviewed/nom average higher than their received/nom average. Or even close. I don't know about others, but this is telling me pretty clearly who is going to get priority from me for reviews.

Mike, would it be possible to add a reviews received to articles reviewed ratio to the end of each row? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Although a lot of those numbers are somewhere between embarrassing and shameful. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So, must participants are net takers, with few givers, and very few people keeping it all working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

These numbers have always made me nervous because since I started reviewing back in the day with my other other name (not sure that's been added), I've always been aware that for every FAC nominated I've not reviewed seven articles, in other words, hangs head in shame. Some years ago, I had meant to spend a few months only reviewing to make up the shortfall, but had to leave b/c of health issues. Also, there were a couple of really unpleasant reviews (saying that mildly). The point I'm trying to make is that numbers are good, but don't always catch the full reason why people don't review. Victoria (tk) 00:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There are many reason to be cautious about how we use and interpret these numbers. They don't account for editors who are really pulling their weight at the other end of the equation, WP:FAR, or pre-FAC, at WP:PR. And not every FA writer is a good reviewer; we should be careful not to expect people to operate outside their optimal range, if that leads to faulty reviews. On the other hand, if the numbers help encourage some nominators to take some of the reviewing load off of Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria, that's grand! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec)The numbers do include your previous username. Yes, I agree; for example I just looked up my own numbers for 2007, a year in which I was the most prolific nominator at FAC, and discovered that I received 81 reviews and only reviewed 11 times. It took me a long time to realize I should be reviewing more. A new nominator is often unwilling to jump in and start reviewing, and I can't blame them, so when they decide to review, after a handful of nominations, their numbers will look bad. And I don't think it's necessary to do more reviews than you receive -- in fact it's mathematically impossible for everyone to do that, and the target is even lower because there are reviewers who rarely nominate but like to review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We still have to be ultra careful that mis-application of these numbers does not result in shooting ourselves in the foot. We are recently seeing a resurgence at Peer review; we don't want reviewers to hold off from reviewing there, because they can better their ratios here. Just as I'm working to get PR going again, we don't want people using these ratios to go the other direction! And ... We don't want to inadvertently encourage driveby reviews just so people can improve their numbers, just as we are focusing on the need to return to more serious looking at WP:WIAFA 1 (b), (c) and (d). Data is good but only if used correctly ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Not working ... I do a reviewer query, 2015 to 2021, and I do not show on list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure you do, 116 reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If you mean on the FAC nominator list Mike seems to have an entry requirement of at least one nomination in the period you select. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, so Mike, dementia with Lewy bodies must be goofed up still, since I do not appear on date-selected lists with a 2020 nomination/promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, this is fixed. I was applying the minimum number of nominations constraint to the "split nominations" and since you conominated with Colin your "split nominations" total was 0.5. If you'd put in zero it would have worked. Technically there's no error, but I can see this is very unintuitive, so I've changed it so that the "minimum nominations" number refers to the nominations count that ignores conominations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

ah, ha, I see! Thanks, Mike, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I've now added a query to look at declarations -- how many supports and opposes, along with FAC durations, by year, for both promoted and archived nominations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Holy.Cow. Mike, do you have the ability to easily generate a plus or minus two standard deviations on the average time to archival? That increase is alarming, and that it is only an average even more so ... how much spread is there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And also a query to look at how FAC durations have changed since 2006. If anyone has ideas for other queries, let me know; I will add anything else I happen to think of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not very active in FAC, and scrolling through the above discussions will give you a good idea why. However, thanks a lot for putting this together. It seems to credit me with two FAs, but I'm pretty sure I have three... (O Captain My Captain, Fabian Ware, and History of the Office of the Inspector General of the US Army) Cheers, Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • and come to think of it, my first fac ever (Presidency of George Washington) was archived what feels like a lifetime ago. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    The data only goes up to the end of December 2020; I update it once a month. “O Captain, My Captain” was promoted early this month so it will get added in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    Huh, I could have sworn it was promoted in December. January was a very long month! Thanks for getting back to me and sorry for the bother. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Duration of FACs

Sandy, here's what I think you're looking for. These two graphs show cumulative duration percentages by day -- that is, the horizontal axis is the time on FAC, in days, and the vertical axis is the percentage of FACs in a given year that were completed in that number of days or less. The 2006 line on the promotion graph, for example, shows that some FACs that year were promoted in as little as three days, and that more than half of promotions that year were done in under ten days. I'm afraid the 2012 and 2016 colours are very similar; in both graphs the 2016 line is the rightmost one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not so concerned that we are taking much longer to promote FACs; that is a function of many different factors, including fewer reviewers. But why we are taking so long now to archive FACs is a problem. That time sitting here waiting for commentary is time that the nominator could be spending off-FAC better preparing the article, including at Peer review, which we need to re-invigorate. (Recent sample, Willie Mays, who got basically no feedback.)

The data confirms that Karanacs, Laser and I aimed to know if a FAC was within reach by the two-week mark, and get it off the page if it wasn't. This benefitted both reviewers, who could better focus on the FACs that might end up promoted, and nominators, who could more quickly get information needed to turn the article around in the next FAC. Now we have FACs being archived later than a month (that is why I wanted to know how long the tails are on two standard deviations). We really need to get some feedback to the ill-prepared nominations more quickly, and send them off to begin work so they can come back more quickly.

That is, we need more of this: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hemothorax/archive1 (one-day archival, which still has medical editors occupied) and less of these: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Willie Mays/archive1 (five-week archival with very limited feedback), Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Bud (2018)/archive1 (three weeks in before sourcing issues were uncovered).

I am aggregating all of these factors, data, and different discussions into a proposal that I plan to put forward ... but I feel like there is too much on the page right now for me to do that just yet. I want to be sure we are ready to focus :) But I do have a proposal cooking for a whole new way to structure the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Am I looking at this wrong - entirely possible - or in 2020 did we not, on average, archive faster than all but one of the previous eight years? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to? Look at the Declarations page on the tool, and the average archival time by year. Through 2011, we were always under two weeks to archive, average. After 2012, the average time to archival crept up to 27 days (2013), 33 days (2014), 35 days (2016), and to 27 days in 2020; still double what we used to aim for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, yes, you are correct ... best in previous eight years, but still double what it once was. A month is just much too long to average archival-- and that means some are going longer than a month (would like to see two standard deviations to see how far out the tails are). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth remembering that this is normalized data. 60% of 2020 archived FACs were closed after 29 days, meaning that 63 FACs took longer than that to archive that year. In 2009, 91% of archived FACs were closed after 29 days, which meant that 67 FACs that year took longer to archive than 29 days, so in absolute terms we're no worse off. I also think that of course Sandy's right that we want to archive quickly when we can, but a possible explanation is that FACs are, on average, better prepared now, and better-prepared FACs just take longer to archive. This is not something the facstats tool will be able to tell us much about. I was hoping that rapid archives (less than 2 days) would correlate well with badly prepared FACs, but the quick removal rule was not around in the early days, so it would be hard to conclude much about the early years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking at the durations data, and something caught my attention. I'm about to graduate college with an auditing degree, so I have a tendency to look for anomalies in data. It's reading that of the promoted FACs, one in 2009 and two in 2017 had a duration of zero days. Is this a data error, or did three FACs really get promoted on the day they were opened? Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m sure it’s an error; will poke around and fix it. Thanks for spotting that, and please let me know anything else you see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed now; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Long and short FACs

I've added one more query, probably the last for a while -- this one lists the FACs with most or least supports or opposes, or longest or shortest FACs. This allows asking questions such as "which FACs were promoted with less than three supports?" or "which promoted FAC received the most opposes?". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Christie thanks for setting me straight on the record holders. I had completely forgotten about Samuel Johnson, as that was so traumatic and I was a reluctant participant :) But, as the top support getter, it has 32 supports, not 31. I am pretty sure you missed this one, as it wasn't properly signed (I compared to the summary I put on the FAC talk). Since SJ holds the record, perhaps you would fix the 31 to 32? If not that one, you may have missed Colin, as his support was buried mid-sentence.

And glad to see that the mostest fast supports with no opposes is shared by TimVickers's wonderful work at DNA and bacteria, although Tourette syndrome seems to remain strictly the fastest, with all the support coming in 24 hours (although the FAC was left open for a week).

What a ton of work you have done here; thank you so much for all of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, and sorting the Archived by number of supports, all five Roman Catholic Church FACs, right up there with Preity Zinta. My memory was right on those (PTSD endures). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Done; it was actually Eusebeus's support that I missed -- also midline. Did you notice one FAC was promoted with only one support, by the way? It was Monte Ne; before you were a delegate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Have not gotten to that yet ... found some other issues, but will type them up after tomorrow’s followup medical app’t ... still, great to have this tool, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Quid pro quo reviewing taking hold at FAC

This discussion having generated much heat and little light, I will take the liberty of closing it. There does not seem to be consensus for any alteration of the existing system. Whatever that is. I will state my personal opinion that it is best to minimize the number of unwritten rules around here, for the benefit of the newbie, lest they go astray in what is already a minefield for the unwary.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Unarchiving and re-opening a discussion that was closed over a holiday, with very little discussion, and after I stated I would be busy for several days. See #Re-opening SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

While processes like DYK have standardized quid pro quo reviewing as a requirement, it has always been rejected at FAC because of the potential to compromise the integrity of reviews. We don't want you supporting my articles so I'll support yours, or even the hint that I'll review your articles if you'll review mine. Unless there was a discussion in the few years I was absent where the thinking on this changed, to my knowledge the naked quid pro quo that entered into FAC reviews in 2020 was unprecedented. And frankly shocking (to me, at least—perhaps I missed something in the few years I was away).

With WikiCup about to launch a new year, it would be good to discuss this matter, and other unresolved WikiCup issues.

We not only had naked requests for quid pro quo reviewing in FAC nominations during 2020: we had at least one FAC where the first thing a first-time nominator encountered was a statement to the effect that "I may review your FAC, meanwhile, please go review mine here" (to which the nominator responded, rightly, that they did not feel qualified), along with another where the only statement on the FAC page was a request to go review another nominator's articles. What an unpleasant initiation to FAC! And we saw some nominations ignored as others were pushed through; in an environment of scarce resources, Coords need to factor things like this in to the timing of when to close or not a given nomination.

We also discussed a few months ago that Ucuchabot used to routinely flag WikiCup nominations, but with Ucucha gone, we lost that bot function. And people began to forget that this kind of transparency had always been routine, encouraged, even required at FAC. I see Ucucha has been editing again this week, and I wonder if we can get that bot feature re-instated, or have Hawkeye7 add it to FACBot? Reviewers and Coords alike should know when competitive issues have even the potential to affect reviews, and reviewers should be able to know when to opt out of a competition. For the same and more serious reasons, can we make sure there is no advertising for quid pro quo reviews at FAC in 2021? And again reassure that any WikiCup nominations and reviews are flagged by both the nominator and the reviewer, if not done by bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion about dropping the reviewing disclaimer at WT:CUP. Right now things are going cross purposes between FAC talk and CUP talk. I think there needs to be a central discussion somewhere about this. I don't want to see ill will between FAC and the cup grow because of separate discussions running counter to each other. And the cup starts in only a few days ...

Too short of a time span for an organized RFC, but my instinct on how to handle this would be make a new project page somewhere to discuss this, and then leave a notice on both fac and the cup talk pages. Having two separate discussions running counter to each other isn't going to civilly create a consensus on how to handle this. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just pointing out that how FAC functions is not determined by a different process; it is determined here, not there. FAC (not WikiCup) runs FAC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that FAC has the priority here, but adding the requirement does affect the cup, so getting the requirement hardcoded into the cup rules will make enforcement much easier. If we add a wikicup requirement but don't inform the cup people, the lack of awareness could cause issues. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that's not our problem; expecting disclosure was the norm for so many years (decade?) that it will not or should not surprise anyone. To the extent that we even had disclosure done as a bot task. I also cannot see any reason this would cause a problem for WikiCup; if it would, that would imply ... something wonky going on. The idea that a competition unrelated to FAC would determine FAC processes is concerning in and of itself, and reinforces that this could be a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not true. People review things they are comfortable with. Specialist topics need specialist reviews. No-one cares about the Wikicup when it comes to reviewing FACs, they worry about the complexity and the familiarity of the content they're about to review. The FAC process is the same, WikiCup or otherwise. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 01:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• I never participated in the cup, but I think people may have been driven by desperation when asking for reviews in that way, because a lot of articles are not getting any reviews before being archived, for whatever reason (perhaps the general stress everyone seems to feel these days). Of the reviews I've done the last few weeks, two FAcs have been archived within a week, and two more are about to be, which is unprecedented during my time. Admittedly, I kind of asked for a review in this FAC[6], since the nominator is one of the few palaeo-editors who weren't part of that[7] co-nom, and the FAC in question had been sitting for very long without reviews. In such circumstances, it's either that or pinging a lot of editors, which I think is just as annoying (notifying the paleo project wouldn't really work, as most of the active editors there are co-nominators). FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  In the current environment of reviewer shortage, you almost have to be proactive in seeking reviewers. That is not my concern, as long as it is done very neutrally and without canvassing (which was most decidedly not the case in one difficult December FAC, but that was an exception, I hope.) Actively and nakedly advertising for quid pro quos on FAC after FAC is my concern. My other concern is that competition took over FAC reviewing, affecting timing, which articles got reviewed, how new nominators may have perceived FAC ... and displayed the potential to have a real effect on another problem, which is the issue of declining diversity of TFAs for the mainpage. The playing field was not level, so to speak, the closer things got to the end of WikiCup, and the more your "driven by desperation" appeared to be a factor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that there were articles promoted to FA because of Wikicup that shouldn't have been? Can you be more specific? Or are you saying that lots of the same kind of article got nominated? Like battleships? Or moths? Or whatever people were interested in? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 01:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  I have not suggested that, nor do I have evidence that is a problem. My concern is the FACs that DON'T get reviewed, while those who advertise quid pro quo take our limited reviewing resources. That is why I won't knowingly review a WikiCup nomination, and want to know which are. I want to be sure my limited time does not go to a competition, rather is spread as equally as I can make it. (I usually end up with the hurricanes, because no one else will review them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Sure and Wikicup will continue whether you personally review them or not. We all have limited time here. FACs are not being reviewed, not because of QPQ or Wikicup, but because they are of esoteric value or interest. That's plainly obvious. Even Wikicup entries have been told to go find extra reviewers. There's nothing different between a Wikicup and non-Wikicup nomination these days, FAC is bereft of reviewers as we all know. Levelling the criticism at supposed QPQ or Wikicup is a diversion, and doesn't address the real niche issues of ownership, "super-reviewers" and other such problems which makes FAC such a terrible place for all but the most veteran Wikipedians. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 01:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's down to the death of FAC in its current guise I'm afraid. We get told after three/four weeks that a nomination will fail if it doesn't get more interest, so we ask people interested in the subject matter to opine and now that's tantamount to QPQ. I think there's a tacit acceptance that people will be fair to one another and if I ask someone to review my work I will pay it back and more, but that's not to suggest there's a QPQ-bias or some kind of favoritism going on. Wikicup is a red herring, it increases traffic but the problems still remain, and as discussed at various venues, FAC co-ords should be trusted to recognise sub-par reviews whether they be Wikicup or otherwise. FAC is an unwelcoming place, even more so when "established" reviewers start criticising other reviewers' work (for example). It shouldn't be that way but it is. I don't see a problem at all with proper QPQ reviews, e.g. would FAC co-ords be upset if someone asked me to review their FAC? If so, why? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  TRM, I am worried about explicitly advertising/asking for reviews on other nominators' FACs, including new nominators (that is, their first encounter with FAC being asked to go review someone else's work if they want their article to be reviewed). That kind of naked advertising, in the interest of winning a competition, is something FAC rejected repeatedly, for years; I have to wonder what changed such that it was tolerated this year, and I guessed that I had somehow missed an RFC or something that caused this change in long-standing functioning of FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware that such "winning a competition" things over-ruled the work of the co-ords who determine whether a FAC is ready for promotion. Ultimately, more eyes on any nomination is a good thing, and co-ords don't just count votes, so I'm not clear on the actual problem here. Unless (as discussed previously) we can't trust the co-ords to assess the validity of reviews and the quality of FACs. When we're told we need more reviews, what do you expect us to do, for example? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 01:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  We have limited resources. One problem is the articles that DON'T get reviewed while those advertising for reviews do. To bring the problem in to a different focus, could we consider the diversity issue on the mainpage? We can't change the fact that MILHIST dominates the mainpage because of their success; they are churning out the FAs right and left, and no one begrudges them that. But we've had up to seven MILHIST articles per month at TFA, and four MILHIST articles run back to back. The TFA Coords can only work with the pool of FAs they've got, and that's what they've got.

  But if we consider the shortage of reviewers, where reviewers spend their limited reviewing time affects this diversity problem. So while WikiCup participants are aggressively advertising for reviewers, medical articles can't buy a review no matter how well prepared the articles are. When I think of the thousands of ships, hurricanes, TV shows (when I don't know how to turn on my TV), football articles (when I don't know a thing about Football), you name it, that I've read, it is fairly insulting that the only way a small, well-prepared and easily digestible article like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buruli ulcer/archive1 can get an independent review is for a Coord to recuse and do it himself (thank you, Gog). If we are busy reviewing those FACs whose nominators are blatantly seeking quid pro quo, how do we get other topics promoted to address the need for mainpage diversity? We need for resources to be spread equally, without regard for quid pro quo advertising. I will review any kind of topic except a WikiCup nomination; I wish more reviewers would also review any topic equally, and not be affected by quid pro quo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see anything actionable here unless you cancel Wikicup. People nominate things they are interested in. During Wikicup they nominate a lot of them (and to be fair, Wikicup runs now for about 85% of the year). I don't see these nominations detracting from others. Where is the objective evidence to prove that please? People review things they know something about. I won't review historical articles unless I'm asked to provide a complete outside view. I will review sports articles. I think this is a bit odd really. FAC is dying on its ass and now the Wikicup which has pushed far more FACs through than ever before is being berated for upsetting the apple cart. Co-ords make us peons who nominate boring mainstream articles go look for more input, I can't understand why you'd be upset that specialist subjects would need to try harder. It's not that the people who would review my football article are being diverted away, that's nonsense. People review things with which they are familiar and comfortable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 01:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see that. We had a bot that simply flagged WikiCup nominations; the bot stopped functioning. I don't see the issue with reinstating either a manual, or automated way to flag those nominations. I also think we are well within our remit, and our history, to say quid pro quo advertising is not allowed on someone else's FAC nomination. Also, could we have this conversation this time without calling other editors' good faith concerns "nonsense"? As I've explained, I review even things I am not comfortable with, if they've fallen to the bottom of the page and need attention, and I hope I'm not the only reviewer who will do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Flag them. It won't make any difference at all. People will review what they are familiar and comfortable with. I'm afraid this is another nail in the FAC coffin, as discussed last time round. WikiCup helps FAC. If the articles being nominated aren't of interest to others, that's unfortunate. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 01:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Reviewing a medical article unfortunately requires specialist knowledge. I wouldn't feel comfortable tackling such a thing, as I have no knowledge of medical topics or indeed access to the sorts of peer-reviewed high-quality sources they require. When it comes to football, however, I have lots of knowledge and also easy access to the sources, so I can do a good and thorough review there. Thus is makes sense for TRM to ask me to review his football articles and vice versa, even if it does come across as a bit of a mutual-back-scratching exercise. That doesn't in any way imply that the reviews are less than thorough though. I sympathise with the principal of WikiCup reviews and noms being announced, so that the coords can keep their eyes alert for any possible substandard behaviour. But I don't think that it should affect that actual processes by which FACs are conducted. And as noted, if we're told we have to solicit reviews or risk archiving, then we can't really be blamed for going ahead and asking people for those reviews.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  And the last thing any of us want is to get a fake promotion. We rely on the co-ords to assess the quality of articles and reviews before promoting. If that's failing (and I don't think it is for a moment), then that's a different issue altogether. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 01:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Amakuru, that meme has made it all but impossible to get FAs on some topics, like medicine. This is why we are criticized for lack of diversity on the mainpage. You can review a medical article just as well as I can review a football article, which is 100% Greek to me; ask Hog Farm. When medical editors have already been through, all we need from others is a jargon/accessibility/layperson check for readability. Yet, the meme persists, and no one will do it. But I go and read ships, battles, hurricanes, football, television-- none of which I know anything about. And I don't choose which articles to review based on my personal likes and dislikes: I choose those where I know the Coords need help because they are stalled. What is the harm in flagging WikiCup nominations so that I can choose those who don't have the resources of a competition behind them, or who aren't advertising nakedly for quid pro quos on other people's nominations? (No one has mentioned "fake" or "unworthy" promotions, so I won't be responding any further to that claim.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, there's nothing hard about giving a layman's look at a FAC. (I gave Buruli ulcer a pre-FAC look). A specialist view is good to find in-depth issues, but it's unrealistic to expect to get three of them in most single FACs. One of my goals for 2021 is to review more FACs for subjects I'm not expert in. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you: I will have achieved something, then :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Well fair enough, if we're talking about the sort of late additional reviews you mention, and which indeed you kindly supplied on the recent football FAC which TRM and I recently submitted, then that's fine. But my understanding from what's been said earlier was that some FACs lack even a single thorough review by a subject specialist or person able to verify that the article is comprehensive and neutral within its field. I could do the layperson sanity check on a medical, and now that you've suggested it I will endeavour to do more of that. But I could never be the main reviewer. In niche topics such as some of my African articles this is going to be even tougher, and it's a big ask to expect someone without much knowledge of that subject to do a thorough review of available literature.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Every FAC needs different kinds of reviewers; we can all be looking out for that. I appreciate your offer to be more aware, just as I have always been willing to review any topic where the Coords need feedback for a decision or that has fallen to the bottom of the pile. Even if you are not a content expert, some of the skills and knowledge to be able to say, "this is not FAC ready" or "this appears FAC ready, although I am not a content expert" are transferrable to most topics. I am just asking for a level playing field for all kinds of articles, even those who don't have quid pro quo advertising to give them a boost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Round up the usual suspects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 04:29, December 31, 2020 (UTC)

• I believe that quid pro quo reviews have been going in the FAC space for some time, but I do not necessarily see them as a bad thing if it is neutrally worded and the other reviewer can feel free to oppose the other FAC if necessary without any pressure. I believe QPQ reviews are done to help encourage a FAC to get attention from reviewers, and in my opinion, if you want to lower the amount of QPQs, there should be some sort of effort to attract more reviewers from a variety of subject areas. I would put more time into finding out why editors do not participate in the FAC space, really reading and reflecting on these concerns, and figuring out ways to hopefully rectify them. I would be curious if this kind of outreach has ever been done in the past (possibly through reaching out to WikiProjects or other community spaces on Wikipedia). Maybe it's just me, but I would find that to be more helpful than going after QPQ reviewers or discussions on the WikiCup. I do understand Amakuru's point in that I do not feel comfortable either reviewing a FAC that I feel is too outside of my wheelhouse. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, Aoba47, we did do precisely that kind of outreach in the past, in an initiative launched by Raul654 (the previous FAC director) and shepherded by several of the delegates. You can find all of that past work at Template:FCDW, which contains all of the Dispatches that were run in The Signpost. I have been trying to encourage something like this be re-initiated for a long time, to no avail. Meanwhile, we've gotten peer review going again, FAR going again, and URFA launched. I think we've also been making very good progress at bringing more editors back in to the FA process via WP:URFA/2020 and FAR, where we are seeing new interest generated by those efforts. Sample.

  As to what sorts of things might lead editors to not want to participate at FAC, I will put up an example. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the links and message. I think some kind of social outreach outside of the FAC would be the ideal way to bring new people into the FAC, but I honestly would have no idea how to even go about setting that up. It is nice to see the peer review and FAR spaces becoming more active and hopefully, both of those spaces will encourage more reviewers here. I hope that my comment was not too tangential as I do not want to pull focus away from your main point. I do appreciate the addition of the image as it does add some levity to the conversation (unless there is a deeper meaning that I am missing lol). Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Since it appeared next to your post, I thought the image was yours. Hawkeye, sign your posts! [8] It's really all part of the same point, so no problem with switching topics. The real point is, the old adage, "if what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it". The stats show that what we're doing at FAC and on the mainpage isn't working. We don't have enough diversity, readers no longer want to click on TFAs. DOING works; just like we're doing at WP:URFA/2020 and just like we're doing with rebuilding WP:FAR and just like we've tried to do with launching timely relevant articles at TFA. When you see an example as off-putting as the one I give below, well, how is that helping? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• It would ideal to get more diversity in FAs, and I think it would be helpful to reach out the WikiProjects on under-represented topics (like math for instance) to see why editors are not participating on the FAC level. I am always uncertain about bringing TFA page views into this though. I know that I work on rather obscure topics that would never get even decent page views from a featured spot on the front page. I worry a focus on TFA page views could negatively impact editors who just want to work on a topic they personally enjoy and nominate that for a FAC even if it will never be popular on the main page or if it is in a subject area already well-represented in FAs. After all, Wikipedia is a volunteer service. But anyway, I should not divert the discussion further as Toccata quarta raises a point below that is more actionable. Aoba47 (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sample from first-time nominator

Is this an example of the first thing we want a first-time nominator to see when they first approach FAC? The article was not in bad shape, and the nominator had the good sense to decline, but within hours of launching their first FAC, the first response they saw was a naked request to review someone else's work and then they might review your work. This is not how we attract people to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that requests to review an article should be reserved for neutral direct comments on a wikiproject talk page or somebody's user talk page. It's not relevant to the other FAC and can be distracting. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's worse than distracting. If those people who are experienced reviewers still feel "uncomfortable reviewing outside of their own wheelhouse", imagine how that could have felt to a first-time nominator-- the idea that you have to go review something on a topic you may have never heard of, when you've never done a review before, if you want someone to review your article. Welcome to FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think a request to review another article can be appropriate in a FAC if comments have already been posted. I do not think doing so before posting any kind of review is the best approach, and it is not something that I would do for a first-time nominator. I would say that method would be more appropriate for more experienced FAC editors. That is just my opinion though, and I understand Hog Farm's point. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm generally okay with friendly banter and moderate off-topic material in its place, but I don't think a FAC is the time or place for such things, especially for a first-time nominator. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that it is not the right time or space when it involves a first-time nominator. Aoba47 (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Glad you see that :) But I don't think any of that advertising for quid pro quo reviews should have any place on an open FAC page, whether of an experienced nominator, first-time nominator, halfway finished review, or anything else ... because others will see it, and will feel exactly as you described above (outside of their wheelhouse, to even intimidated). If you, Aoba47, are "uncomfortable outside your wheelhouse", imagine how seeing this sort of thing feels to someone who is less comfortable with the whole process and does not feel qualified to review anything yet? They shouldn't see it anywhere on FAC. And by the way ... how is that helping FAC, anyway? FACs are long enough without including advertising blurbs for a contest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• I see your point. I can only speak from my own personal experience, but I would believe these QPQ requests exist because there is concern that a FAC would not attract reviewers unless editors are approached and pointed toward a FAC. I can understand that concern as someone who has engaged in QPQ reviews many times in the past. I'm not really sure how these things should be handled , but I would at least discourage these QPQ requests for 1) first-time nominators and 2) prior to posting any kind of review. I think Hog Farm's point about having this on a WikiProject page or a user's talk page is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• You'd need a bot like at GAN which tells people how many FAs/FACs each nominator has/has contributed to otherwise this becomes a headache. Adding a request to review other candidates is hardly a length issue. Do we have any evidence that these requests have actually put nominators off? In the example given, the nominator simply said they didn't feel qualified and the discussion was immediately dropped. Incidentally, in the example given, there was no dependency on a QPQ, Lee Vilenski said he might claim points, not that he might review the article if a QPQ was forthcoming. Lee has reviewed plenty of FACs without getting QPQ reviews. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I would have appreciated a ping here. Quite frankly, I have a set way of formulating a review (I do this at both GAN and FAC), I actually just substitute User:Lee Vilenski/FA Template onto the nomination. If the wording here needs a change, let me know, I am still tweaking it. I think it's worth starting by saying that no - I do not do QPQ reviews at FAC, I do review articles and leave a link to articles I have at FAC. I do however offer to review articles if someone does come by at look at mine. If I was to get an oppose or a very diminishing review - great! I'd still look at your article. I'd much rather I had a fundamental issue with an article than an article go weeks without any reviews and get archived.

If someone asks "why don't I have any reviewers looking at my article", the number one response is "have you been reviewing other articles?". I think the only difference is that I leave a link to my list of nominations, but people are free to review any content or ignore the message, just as Saha did here. Of course we are looking for reviews, because we want the content to be looked at. However, I have no idea why this is anything to do with the wikicup, as I would leave a link regardless of if I was competing in the competition or not (but as it takes up 5/6 of the year now, I don't nominate much out of season).

As for where the link is, if you have a better place for it, let me know. It's quite common for users to make their intentions to review an article explicit before they post the review, which is what I do. I then post up a review, usually quickly (I know sometimes it takes a while, my time is low!)

One of the main reasons for having the boilerplate message in the first place was that I needed to make sure I posted a "I'm in the wikicup" message on every review, and I knew I'd forget if I did it manually. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• That is true. A ping should have been sent out first before a conversation started. Apologies for that. I will leave the discussion of your FA template to more experienced editors. I think it is better to wait until the review is posted to do QPQ part, but that's just a difference of opinion and I would not consider it a major issue. My participation in this discussion was likely a mistake on my part, but I wanted to hopefully clear up that point. Apologies again for the absence of a ping, and thank you for all of the work you put into Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandy the post at the top of the thread brought me out of hiding. Just, yuck. I've not been around FAC for a fairly long time, but I've known qpq reviewing was sneaking in. In fact it's one of the reasons I stepped away from reviewing. But that kind of blatant, "I'll review your article if you do mine" isn't acceptable. Ideally FAC could revert to how it was back when a nom was listed and the nominator waited for reviewers. If they showed up, great. If not, the nom was archived. The problem with qpq reviewing (well the most egregious problem), is that quality suffers and the value of the system in general suffers. I've not read the entire thread, but if we're asking whether or not it should be allowed, I'm in the oppose qpq column. Victoria (tk) 22:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't say "I'll review your article if you do mine". That's patently untrue. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. And that's clearly not my intention. If the wording is poor, let me know, but I only leave a link to articles I have open, nothing more. The article was in this case archived before I finished writing a review. If we are to suggest that we can no longer tell people when we have nominations open, I have no idea how anyone will get enough eyes on the nominations to progress. I think you've patently misread the message into suggesting that a review will come if and only if you did a review for me, which isn't the case. I would have completed a review regardless, but this particular article was archived before I did.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, I also don't see "I'll review your's if you review mine". I see a request for a review and Lee committing to doing a review. I'm probably in the minority in believing that such requests are better for user talk pages, but the way I read that post, there's no expectation that another review be completed before Lee would review their article. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That clearly wasn't your intention, Lee, and I'm not sure why people are misrepresenting what you said. Nonetheless, soliciting reviews for your own FAC on the review page of another sort of goes against one of the many unwritten rules or social norms at FAC that we don't tell anyone about but expect everyone to know about. In this case, there's a not-unreasonable argument for the rule/norm, so as pure as your motives were, I would suggest abiding by it in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies Lee Vilenski. The wording is here: I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here, from the top of the FAC in question, link. To me this is asking for a review. And the term QPQ is there - which really is verboten here. Were it me as a newcomer to FAC, I'd assume that to get a review I'd have to do a review from the list supplied in that comment.

FAC doesn't work like that. Given the reaction, while I was off eating dinner with the family, maybe FAC does work like that, but it shouldn't. FAC is richer for having people choose which articles to read and review, just as they choose which topics to write about. I've met some wonderful people and read some really interesting articles here simply by casting a wide net and happily reviewing science articles, etc., etc., because they're interesting and not in my field of knowledge/experience. The best trick is to start at the bottom of the list and work up.

Forgot to wish everyone a Happy New Year. We all need some cheer in our lives and it feels good to move into another year. Victoria (tk) 00:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

If I was a reviewer, I'd read the actual words Lee has written, just as in this case, where the nominator declined Lee's offer to review one of his nominations. I'm bemused and shocked that two experienced people here have slurred an individual (who wasn't even notified of this discussion). This does not mean people are not free to choose which articles to read and review. That's pure hyperbole. And where does is say QPQ is "verboten"? That's just made up. Once again, this is all down to personal choice. Lee never mandated that anyone do anything in return for him kindly reviewing a lot of different candidates, yet it's him getting slighted here for a good faith attempt to keep the crumbling FAC process running at more than a glacial pace. It's as if those complaining here think the co-ords aren't able to judge if an article has been properly reviewed or as if certain reviews are not good enough or have some ulterior motivation. The wording Lee used is abundantly clear to English speakers and does not equate in any way to what is being levelled at him at the top of this thread and that is shameful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's make a bit of an end of this - as I don't really have the time to explain myself (I'm still in the process of moving house). I will change the wording of my biolerplate message to be specific that I do not expect any "reward" or any QPQ requirement for a review. I will simply leave a link to my current open nominations. If this needs to be at the bottom of my review (as some have stated above), I shall leave some headers for me to fill in later. I feel that is a suitable concession.

If anything further needs to be done, that having links to other works to be reviewed is not allowed, I would like a formal rule/consensus on this, as I feel it would negatively impact the project. I don't feel like a talk page message is in any way better than my current message, mainly as it involves pinging a user, rather than just leaving a link.

I'd also like to state again, that this conversation has little to do with the wikicup. I did over 20 reviews of FACs in October, singling out one where it was archived before I posted the review is a bit crazy. I'm happy to listen to any constructive feedback about my reviewing or my attitude on-wiki, but not about "unwritten rules". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Singling it out, mis-reading it and then not pinging you was shameful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I think what Victoria (who was talking in principal rather than specifically, and said I've not read the entire thread as was talking about methology for attracting feedback only) was getting at is that QPQs, where a +ve review would obligate another +ve, would not be desirable. Having reviewed one of Lee articles, and co-reviewed one of TRM's along side Lee, and from seeing him around over years, I don't think anyone would think he is not above board, and a diligent, prolific and valued contributor who reviews a lot more pages than he nominates. Lee's contributions on others nom pages tend to be detailed and insightful, in full consideration of the FAC criteria. What is worried about here is a "drive-by" response of the "Support - looks great" type. Ceoil (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but it's probably best to start a new section as this one got off to a truly erroneous start. I'm also confused as to what is trying to be achieved by this kind of singling out of individual reviews. Did something get promoted that shouldn't have been? Did something not get promoted that should have been? Are sub-standard reviews being made? Is there even such a thing as a "sub-standard review"? Even if people say "Support - I love it!", isn't that why we have FAC co-ords and don't just count votes?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

My worry is newer nominators getting the understanding that we work on a vote counting or rule based/checklist system, of which QPQ is seen as an institutionalised part. I totally get why it was introduced at DYK, and frankly was the right thing to do there; the problems then (as now) in that process ran/run so deep. Also, agree that this discussion should be restarted as its worthwhile going over, and the intention and interpretation of intent have diverged so much. For the record, though it seems like Rambling Man and myself are arguing just now, his is a valuable voice here, as he lead so much of the DYK reform over the years, with a block-log to show, and has insight into how things can be gamed, or not. Ceoil (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you Ceoil. I truly want to understand the problem. I get this dark feeling of stuffy, establishment, unwritten coda: "Oh, that's just NOT HOW FA WORKS" kind of thing. Times have changed and people's expectations and abilities and aspirations have too. If the problem is somehow misleading new nominators as to how the process works, that is one thing. If it's about sub-standard reviews, that's another. If it's about "team voters", that's another. If it's about not being able to allow FAC co-ords to work out whether something is allowed or not, that's another. I'd like to understand, with all the checks and measures, how this scenario could credibly be "gaming" the FAC system. Or any other similar problems? And perhaps we can do it without erroneously singling out individuals who have done nothing but make positive contributions to the project? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, for my part, I do tend to seek out reviewers for particular articles, but not randomly, its usually based on their knowledge of a particular area, and what they might bring in improvement. I don't do it during an FAC unless desperate!, its usually a week or two before, or better yet, during a pre-FAC peer-review. Here are two recent and rather rewarding examples that were hugely valuable (in improvement, but did not vote on the nom, which is unusual to be fair)[9], [10] Ceoil (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I do the same, (and have done similar for others, including you on Honan Chapel I believe!) but in a sense, sometimes that itself could be considered canvassing or even gaming because I'm effectively cherry-picking people to take a look at my work. What was being decried as tantamount to murder here was a general note that was left at every single FAC this reviewer commented at, leaving absolutely no doubt that it was just about getting eyes on nominations with no ulterior motive. What problem do we think either your or this approach is bringing to FAC? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly? I think its the risk of perception by people less experienced and diligent than Lee or any of us that this is how it works. Clock up enough one-line reviews, you'll get the same nr of one liners back...profit. Now, I don't think it endemic, or even close, and all our experience of the delegates is they can tell what not from what not, and weight S/O in a nunanced way. But we all started out here as noobs, by doing what others do, so lets not start precedent. ps, if we were actually fighting I would have used the f word an hour ago, so earlier point taken :) Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I think differently, but then I suppose I would. FAC isn't some place that people stumble on after half a dozen edits. Launching a FAC is a big undertaking and one of the key principles we should apply is that our nominators are capable of reading English. Lee's note made no such "stand and deliver" demands, in fact Lee was offering a review of a lot of topics with which he was not familiar, just to be helpful, hoping that nominators (any nominators) would learn something and be helpful in doing something similar in return. I guess if Lee had called it "paying it forward" rather than QPQ, would that have been more palatable? Because that's sure as hell what he was doing. I'm not clear what "precedent" you're referring to, is it the leaving of a note at FAC or hand-picking people away from FAC to get good and manageable reviews or is it something else? Where are these confused new nominators? I've seen new nominators getting upset when a stranger reviews their work leaving dozens of "nit picky" (but almost certainly accurate) comments, but never when they've been asked if they'd consider doing a review if they felt like it, to help keep the process running but with no strings attached? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

All legitimate points, but you are going back to the specific example of Lee again, whom I think we all respect. This totally should be restarted so we can discuss in general principals. Suggest its brought in a separate heading. By whom....dunno; I might do a bulleted summary of points later on tonight, but for now, have to eat and get back to article work. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I didn't mean to vilify anyone. TRM you should know me well enough to know that I'm not vilifying type. The point I made very poorly is that "I thought" QPQ was verboten at FAC. But Ceoil got it right re "mythology" - I must have thought last night was the beginning of 2011 instead of 2021 (ok I hated 2020 so much I wiped a decade from my brain) and the norms here have obviously changed. I struck my comments b/c it's not really good form to parachute in like that and say "OMG they're doing what!?!". All that said there are really good and strong reasons to eschew QPQ at FAC. Of course that's up to the coords, consensus, blah blah and all that. Anyway sorry for the kerfuffle, and seriously, Happy New Year to all! Victoria (tk) 20:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Not every seems to have done so though. I guess one of the points I raised above is pertinent. It's been referred to as QPQ, which probably isn't quite the right term – I think "paying it forward" is much more the case, with people providing reviews of FACs which may not be their cup of tea or area of expertise, but doing so to provide a different perspective and sometimes even to give a view so independent that it stimulates thoughts and improvements that would never have been considered if only those with deep interest had participated. I don't believe I have ever seen anyone withhold a review on the demand that one of their articles is reviewed in kind, which I think is most people's including DYK thoughts on QPQ. I'm honestly, honestly still failing to see what problem(s) have been created with any of this. If someone could bullet point them, perhaps we could address them. Cheers, and HNY to you too! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Sound like a plan. Gimme a few hours and will lay out the pro and anti arguments. After that, yer on yer own. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Clear wording

Would it be reasonable for the FAC page introduction to state if reviewers are welcome/encouraged/allowed to review articles about topics they are not familiar with? The page provides information on the process in general and what is expected of nominators, but gives little clue as to what reviewers should or should not do. Judging by the conversation here, some agreement or guideline would be welcome. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if editors could be encouraged to simply comment on nominations, instead of "reviewing", which sounds much more rigorous. A lower perceived expectation may help draw new reviewers in. CMD (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It's usually too daunting to dip into topics about which reviewers know very little. It is exacerbated by the "regulars" some of whom review other people's reviews, which is simply unhelpful. It is further worsened by the tome that is MOS, a lot of people will review things in their own style but if it doesn't meet MOS, it's pretty much a waste of time. Ultimately this is a volunteer project. People will write about topics they're interested in. People will review articles written on topics in which they are interested. There is always going to be a lack of diversity if no-one is interested in writing about the works of Bach or lakes in Michigan or hedgehogs. You could add a huge disclaimer at the top of FAC which says "all comments are welcome!" or similar, but I don't think it will change the fact we all work on things that we know/like and that FAC is a foreboding place which drives away all but the most experienced editors. And even some of those are given short shrift. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I am happy to "review" any article, because often having people look for different things is important. Whilst having at least one subject matter expert is important to make sure the info is suitable, it also needs to be readable from a non-expert.

I tend to focus my reviews on MOS issues, specifically tight in the lede, making sure the sourcing is suitable, etc. A lot of these things are very suitable things to look at, rather than put people off by asking them to do a full review. However, asking someone who works on 19th century politics to look at an ice hockey game for example is unlikely to be something the reader is interested in, so it's quite a hard sell Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

QPQ

Restarting as per above; had promised would summarise points in bullet points, in a generalised format, though of course my own POV has obviously bleed into the wording, please fell free to have at it. But anyway, and again don't have a problem with being eaten alive here (I will out-live ye all haha) but here is my surmising of the pro/anti QPQ at FAC arguments:

Against

• Reward culture, by nature, and especially competitions, encourages volume over quality, and some participants, if for example time pressured, may conceded a support to reach a secondary goal, ie points, rather than stick with a what might be otherwise an arms-length, laissez-faire, review.
• The term QPQ is taken from DYK where the bar is low and almost fully rule based by necessity as there are so many poor nominations. The rules there are so tight than a bot could almost be employed to vet, and indeed a few have tried to introduce such an approach there, and we have seen similar here. Often objections to DYK noms are rejected on the basis that this part of the main pages doesn't have to live to FAC style sourcing or prose standards.
• QPQ may give the impression to new editors that you need to clock up votes regardless of their merit or weight to succeed, and this is just how it works. We have all been noobs, and as wiki has a steep learning curve, the early tendency for most tends to be do as others do. However note how wiki has advances in 16 years; the supports in 2021 do on a platform of far more ambitious standards, and far more nuanced grounds, than those in 2005 - when it seemed friendship was at times the primary concern.
• A noob may perceive that QPQ is conditional on a forth coming review (if posted as a placeholder) and fairly surmise that the editor is waiting for one that is positive before the first respondent continues.
• Although delegates are not vote counters, they are volunteers, and don't - cannot possibly - personally vet the bona-fida's of each and every reviewer. A clever nom trying to attain a QPQ support could pick up a nom on a few bulleted prose issues, and then ignoring everything else, support once those trivial matters are resolved.
• Asking for a QPQ upfront will inevitable intimate new editors, given that FAC's tend to be highly esoteric, and the typical feeling would be...."I don't know nearly enough about that highly specialised topic to comment". In fact there are 10 criteria (5 + 3 + 1 +1), and most people are able to review on quality of sources, formatting of sources, egregious use of images licenses, prose (the latter of which includes the most usual reason for opposing...over enthusiastic, fan-ish bullshit).
• In actuality, nominators tent to seek out potential reviewers after the article has been written, before it has been polished, either via a PR, or on that selected editors talk page. This canvassing is typically based on the editor sharing an area of interest overlapping with the article topic.

Blind eye

• There is no actual evidence of QPQ's swaying delegate's decision to promote. Why are we even talking about this.
• Delegates are chosen because of their experience and presumed intelligence. Its their job to sort it out.
• A lot of seemingly drive-by and one line supports are backed up by detailed and weeks long PRs, so the perception for some of these groups of editors my be incorrect. (I find this very convincing but alas idyllic, harping back to the days of Brian B, and Tim Reily now being a scarce resource).
• If its declared up front, what's the problem
• Its what happens anyway in real life, just not so explicitly, what's the problem
• We should have a system where-in supports on certain criteria are balanced mathematically on a predetermined weight system
• Editors are not expected to have any expertise on the articles they review. Its a general encyclopedia, aimed at bright teenagers and no more. So everybody is qualified to comment, whether they are sought by the nominator beforehand, or just happen to show up at the time with another nom, and so asked.
• PR is broken. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Can we define what is perceived as meant by QPQ in the context of FAC please? It is not the same as DYK where QPQ is mandated, i.e. you don't get your own hook promoted unless you review another hook. The way it has been proposed at FAC on occasion is along the lines of "I'm reviewing your FAC now. It would be great if you could take a look at one of my nominations" i.e. nothing is being mandated, no-one is even suggesting that a review can only take place if and only if a review is provided in response. If we assume our nominators can read English then I am unaware of a single case of the DYK QPQ concept being applied at FAC. Is there any evidence to the contrary? If there is no evidence then it would appear that all this kerfuffle over perceived "QPQ requests" is wholly misguided. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the whole thread is a confusion between people asking outright for their project to be looked at (which isn't canvassing), rather than what people do otherwise (a user page message, email, a ping or offwiki comment). If you take the word QPQ out of this, which you are correct in saying is simply borrowed from DYK, you have a link to more work to look at, if you so wish. We don't have anything like this at GAN either, but it is expected that you do more reviews than nominations (which I also do at FAC), so it is more of a case of reviewing articles in the hope that someone will stumble across your article. This isn't always the best approach. If there is any evidence that my reviews, or anyone else leaving a link on their reviews is poor, or not in enough detail, we can analyse that, because that is something we can work on to get better reviews. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to get in a fight and this feels it might go that way, but bear with me. Yes, TRM is right - we do pay forward by reviewing. But each person does it in his/her own way at his/her own pace. When I was active I'd review when I didn't have a FAC in the queue - I prefer to focus on the FAC and then review at random times. To me QPQ = someone telling me that they'll review my article and would I be so kind to review something of theirs. Am I wrong? (Also sorry about being all about me, but it's best to use myself as an example at this point). Victoria (tk) 21:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Well no, QPQ means literally one thing for another. I.e. a transaction where both parties get something. This is not what is happening, nor (as far as I know) has it ever been the case at FAC. Some of us have enough time to write articles and review others. And pretty much all of us are doing it in good faith. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm mulling over what you've written. But another example: let's say I review an article, support it, and at the bottom of the review post something like "I have one in the queue "article name linked", would you please review for me? Would you say that's QPQ? Victoria (tk) 22:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"would you please review it?" almost QPQ but still not a requirement, just a request. If this is alluding somehow to the support of one being a lead-up to a support of another, then that's why we have FAC co-ords. QPQ is a mandate that one thing happens for another. As this has never happened (as far as I can see) at FAC, why are we all hung up on the "QPQ" terminology? Is that the issue here? Can we talk openly about this rather than dancing round the edges? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Not dancing TRM. I'm trying to determine whether my definition of QPQ in the context of FAC differs from yours. It does. That's all. Victoria (tk) 23:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! New reviewer here (kinda a new editor in general, started in September... I've done 4 reviews if FLs count but not nominated any). I've never been under the impression that I had to review others to get mine reviewed when the time comes. I think editors will be reviewing more than they nominate purely because of the time investment in getting something to FA. For me, reviewing has been part of the learning experience. I'm asking questions because I want to make the article better, but I also want to know what is best practice for getting my nominations through. In a way, that is quid pro quo—something for something. They get a review (which they want!), and I get to learn more about the process.

I've been reading this conversation since it started, but I don't really understand why QPQ keeps being brought up. Is it what I just described? It’s been intimated that it’s an issue because of a mandated disclosure about WikiCup participation (I might be wrong), and that's been seen as corrupting the process or frightening new nominators away. I don't think I agree? I might also be an outlier here, or maybe just wrong (as I said, I am new), but if someone is willing to nominate their article, shouldn't they also be willing to review someone else's? If they don't feel qualified to review, how would they know their article is ready to nominate? I'm speaking for myself here, as someone very new to the project. I would never nominate an article without first having reviewed others in an attempt to understand the project and the application of the FA criteria—not just the words as written. I hope I'm not annoying anyone or speaking out of turn. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Great to hear from you, Imagines. It actually was quite a problem once, specifically related to WikiCup although less severe than the current example, and we dealt with it by changing the FAC instructions. It seems that many people on this page are either unaware of history, or just don't remember even though they were here when it happened, or are too intimidated to speak up. Because of the extreme animosity on this page, though, and that those who know the history are the ones who can raise it and are then beaten up for raising it, I have unwatchlisted FAC and all FAC subpages (and disabled pings), and will weigh in as I have time to fill in the background (which won't be for several days yet). Overall, I want nothing to do with a process that allows the kind of battleground that occurs here (even if only emanating from three or four editors) whenever an experienced participant raises an issue. There are many other ways I can help others produce and maintain featured content without enduring taunts from TRM.[11] Meaning, after working most of the year to try to re-invigorate PR, FAC, FAR and TFA, if anyone would like my help on a FAC, a PR, or anything related to producing a Featured article, you will need to post to my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Re-opening

Thanks for the attempt to lower the heat, Wehwalt, but this discussion was archived only a few days after it started, over a holiday, after I had stated I would be away for several days, and then archived while I was still trying to catch up. I am re-opening it because there are too many loose ends.

First, to Lee Vilenski, my apologies for not notifying you of the discussion. Notifications are intended to make sure that people know when they are being discussed, yet it never occurred to me that you did not have this page watchlisted. We all know what they say about assumptions, and my assumption was a bad one, so I apologize for that.

Second, I consider it most unfortunate that examples have to be presented, but with now three (or four or five??) similar discussions on this talk page in the last year, where "where's the proof", "where's the evidence", "where's an example" were demanded, I reluctantly provided one. I hope in the future we can lower the heat by understanding we are all on the same team, and not demanding we make an example of someone.

Third, thank you, Lee Vilenski for approaching my talk while I was busy and unwilling to expose myself to further heat on this page, so that you and I were able to come to some compromise here. We still have areas of disagreement, but progress is progress, and appreciated.

Most importantly, though, there is considerable confusion and misunderstanding about the history of this problem at FAC, and that is why I really feel it important to finish off the discussion here, hopefully this time with less heat. In archives, we should at least have a full accounting of what the history is and what the concerns are. That's the "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" part. It would be helpful to remember that not all nominators are Lee Vilenskis, and we have rules to account for a variety of situations.

See Template:FAC-instructions:

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Those instructions came about specifically because of reward contest issues that occurred at FAC, and did significantly disrupt FAC processing. IIRC, it was not only WikiCup, as there were also other contests involved, but the main issues did occur via WikiCup nominations.

Before those restrictions were put in place, anyone could nominate as many FACs as often as they wished. Initially, we had multiple ill-prepared nominations from the same nominator. When we went to one at a time, we ended up with an abusive situation where ill-prepared contest FACs were put up, one after the other, with a new one added by the same nominator as soon as the last one was archived, and with all of the articles having the same issues. So the two-week wait had to be added. The reason Coords were empowered to provide exceptions is that most nominators are not abusing of the process, so the Coords can grant differences.

How did these nominations affect FAC processing? Only those who read the page top-to-bottom every day to decide what to archive or promote could fully appreciate the disruption, seeing it happen in real time. A new FAC nominator would put up a nomination. A reviewer would appear with a brief and unhelpful review, followed by a long sig file that was a QPQ request for reviews. The new nominator would go to the latest in that series of ill-prepared nominations, and enter a (now second unhelpful) review and support. Clearly thinking that was the best route to getting their own nomination reviewed, and not being familiar with the criteria, so entering an unhelpful support. Lather, rinse and repeat. Each time the contest nominator put up a new FAC, they would get yet another FAC newcomer to enter support, or several of them, based on an implied promise of QPQ, so there would sit TWO ill-prepared nominations with unqualified reviews, until experienced reviewers were forced to enter lengthy and detailed opposes to shut down the (now two) ill-prepared nominations-- the unsuspecting newcomer, and the long-time reward seeker. It is not ironic that as those older FAs now appear at FAR, the nominator is too busy to clean them up, in what appears to be less interest in overall quality than in reward seeking. Newcomers were taken advantage of, and experienced reviewers were as well, all in the quest from a very small number to win a contest. This was a very bad pattern that went on during several contests. It is precisely why we have the instructions we now have. I wanted to set the record straight that we did have a serious enough problem in this area that we had to adjust the FAC instructions to account for it. Hope this makes the concerns more clear, because we don't have the rule because of Lee Vilenskis; we have them because FAC was disrupted by other kinds of contest participants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Issues: Driveby supports combined with QPQ reviews

@FAC coordinators: Here's are some examples of why any QPQ reviewing at FAC should be strongly discouraged.

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kids See Ghosts (album)/archive2 (four drive-by supports over strong sourcing concerns)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Don't Start Now/archive2 (similar, many of the same supporters, again over strong sourcing concerns)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive1 (similar, drive by supports over serious sourcing concerns)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mood Swings (Pop Smoke song)/archive1 (similar, but there's more):

  see here, regarding interaction between reviewers:

  9 January Kyle Peake nominates Clique (song) GAN [12]

  10 January The Ultimate Boss picks up the GA nominee [13] but provides no feedback for over a week

  20 January TUB first comments on the GAN [14]

  21 January Kyle Peake responds to TUB [15]

  22 January 11:26 Kyle Peake says he won't review TUB's FAC until GAN is finished [16]

  22 January 19:34 And with those few lines as the total GAN review, TUB passes the GA [17]

  27 January 05:50 Kyle Peak supports TUB's FAC, while asking for further at his FAC, Kids See Ghosts [18]

  27 January 05:52 TUB supports Kids See Ghosts [19]

What we have here are a series of FACs, garnering a number of drive by supports, indications of QPQ reviewing, while Nikkimaria and Ealdgyth are working their tails off at evaluating sources, with all of their source reviewing being ignored by reviewers who are supporting regardless. I am going to be putting forward a new reviewing proposal to hopefully help stop expending our precious reviewer resources. I don't believe any of these four FACs should remain open; they will now require experienced editors to engage and review to deal with driveby, unqualified supports. This is not how FAC works, and unqualified driveby supports should be ignored. Please consider me a global oppose on any that have outstanding sourcing concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, don’t worry, I have requested for the coordinators to close the nomination. I’m in no mood to fight with you or other people over some stupid shit like this. I’m going through a tough time as someone I love has passed from Covid, my parents are getting sick and I am afraid they will also pass, and school is kicking my ass as I’m preparing to graduate. I will stop nominating and going to FAC from now on so you don’t get so angry. And yes, those two editors do work a lot to help improve FAC, but one of them has such an attitude and thinks novice editors as myself are stupid dumbasses. I’m not going to let people like that bully me. I’m just not. Kyle Peake and LOVI33 are the two best editors I know on this site. They also spent countless hours making the articles the best that they could and they still get shat on by these people with a piss poor attitude. Kyle and LOVI, don’t let these fools stop you from doing what you love to do. You both are great editors and always will be. I’m done here from now on. Goodbye. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear about how COVID has affected you, TUB, and will keep your family in my thoughts. Separately, though, we just can't have this sort of thing going on at FAC, and I hope the other nominators (@LOVI33 and Isento:) will withdraw their nominations as well. Regardless, I think this is an indication that it's time for a new reviewing model here-- one that will value the time that Nikkimaria and Ealdgyth are expending. This is just not how FAC works. Please stay well, along with your family, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My nomination doesn't warrant mention here. At least two of the four supports were substantial reviews -- not "drive-by" -- and the sourcing issue is neither serious nor arduously evaluated as suggested above. Ealdgyth has refused to engage with my responses to the remaining sources they're unconvinced by, and which are used sparingly or occasionally in the article, and of those handful sources, at least three of them are undeniably reliable and high-quality in the context of their article. I have offered to remove one of the lesser sources that offers relatively inessential detail to the article. I have asked for a second opinion and have gotten it to some degree. If editors do not have the time to examine issues much deeper than bringing them up as such, I am sorry for that. But that should not obligate me to give up. And to conflate and misrepresent any other support for the article with one editor's relatively cursory review of supposedly problematic sources is unfair. isento (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, with all this hooplah made generalizing the sourcing issue at my nom, and even griping about my tone of disagreement there, the time and effort could have just been used to individually tackle each of those five or six remaining sources. The same time and effort I put into compiling links and articles supporting their credentials and quality, in accordance with the available guidelines, including the reviewer's own. And for the record, I never solicited a quid-pro-quo review from anyone. isento (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, your "global oppose" is insulting given the time and effort I put in to thoughtfully and thoroughly responding and defending whatever sourcing issues remain in the eyes of the original source reviewer. isento (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

One of the sources dismissed was a video-recorded interview, on the grounds that the site it appears on is of questionable reliability, although I've shown proof of veteran editorial presence at the site. But the interview is still video-recorded. There's no reason to question its reliability or quality. It is undeniable proof of the subject saying what they said. And yet Nikkimaria questioned using this source with the edit summary "wtf". isento (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That edit summary was not in reference to that particular source, but rather to your rude and dismissive response to reviewer commentary. Which you are continuing and doubling down on here. As I told you there, you're welcome to disagree with the reviewer's perspective; make your case for why and let the coordinators determine whether the commentary is actionable. You are not welcome to attack reviewers just because you don't happen to agree with their views. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't attack anyone. Even Gog the Mild found my response "fair enough" ([20]). I was not dismissive and in fact have been engaging thoughtfully and thoroughly with the reviewer's points and cheat sheet all through the course of the review process. I do not feel you are painting my words and actions in good faith. isento (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I am glad Ealdgyth acknowledged this article's relative unimportance in academic sourcing, that the best available sources will be lesser to more important topics. But there is a middle ground here in my nomination's case, and to reach it requires more engagement than has been offered so far. Maybe further comments there will clarify it. I have asked around... But less than a month into a nomination is too early to quit on. isento (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Literally none of the comments by me were drive-by, even the Love for Sale one saw a worthy explanation on my part. Just because I may not have picked up on the sourcing issues with articles that you found yourself, doesn't mean you have to be so narrow-minded and not respect the opinions of other editors. Also you have picked up on the back & forth between me and The Ultimate Boss; there is literally nothing wrong with reviewing things after others have done so for you, as it is common practice to give back to others. If the "Clique" review part seems fishy, I did that because I believed I was entitled to the review being wrapped up before I delivered FAC comments, as the review had been open easily longer. Plus I only asked for comments at my FAC, which is not against WP rules like if I said "please support" or something along those lines... your comments just feel like a self-centered, opinionated attack. --K. Peake 06:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I clearly wasn't asking for a support either. Look at the last FAC for "Let's Fall in Love for the Night"; Kyle Peake clearly thought it wasn't FA material and opposed, which I totally understood after a while. We are not trying to do "qpq" or whatever the hell you're talking about. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, some of the supports my nom's gotten were more thorough than the source review, which just posed a selection of links asking how they're "high-quality" and placing the burden on me to defend them, knowing their decision would be crucial however they decide. And much of Ealdgyth's responses to each have been lazy, quite frankly. Sandy, you're overstating their effort. isento (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t think Ealdgyth—or indeed any of the co-ords—are in any way lazy. That’s very unfair and quite wrong. All the reviewers and co-ords are volunteers doing their best with RL constraints on time. Looking at the review, yes, she is asking how they are high-quality, because that’s the best way to get nominators to actively question the sources they have chosen. She could just say, ‘no, that’s not good enough’, but that won’t help you in the long run to challenge your own sources before you bring the next article to FAC. - 109.249.185.69 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone lazy. I said "much of [their] responses to each" of the source (and to my reasoning behind their quality) was lazy. They did respond with a mere allusion to WP:RSP a few times most recently, but it was a superficial reference, given that AllMusic's association with WP:RSP is other publications operated by the owning company and not the credible and reputed writers whose work is published on the site, such as Kellman. Unfairness can beget unfairness. What was even less fair was pinging me here to ask me to withdraw my nomination on the bogus claim that it had quid-pro-quo supports and serious sourcing issues. No one has yet to answer for that. It was just as gratuitous. isento (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Isento is right. I asked Ealdgyth for some help with a source review for my FAC nomination and their response was highly negative. She mentioned the word "bitch" in their edit summary. I don't know if that was targeted at me, but I digress. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The burden is on you to justify the sources you've chosen to use. No reviewer is obligated to take on the labour of getting your articles to the point that they meet the FA criteria; that's on you as the nominator. Asking you to first look at what's been questioned in other reviews is not a "highly negative" response, it's something fairly basic that you as a nominator can do to improve your prospects. Getting reviews, and ultimately getting an FA star for "your" article, is not an entitlement. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not merely a "view" that Andy Kellman is a high quality source for music articles. I've proven it as a fact. And no argument was given back saying why he isn't. At some point it does become "ridiculous," and youre just engaging in blame deflection if you're sincerely deny that. isento (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If offering more depth and engagement than responses like this, this and this is to be considered a "labour" and beyond what's obligated in the reviewer, then Sandy is right in suggesting a new review model is required. isento (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

All this said, I am thankful the review process led me to find other valuable sources to enhance some aspects of the article. But I still feel more engagement and explication of doubt is required from the reviewer before making such a decision, especially if I'm to be barred or discouraged from asking for a second opinion. Thank you. isento (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Isento, I looked at the three responses from Ealdgyth that you linked above. In all three she gave you clear feedback on the sources you're using and I don't see anything to criticize in her replies. People have suggested that FAC should function as a cooperative endeavour in which the reviewers and nominator work together to meet the criteria, but that's not currently how it works -- instead the limited amount of time reviewers have is spent giving feedback to nominators about what will prevent the article from passing. That's what Ealdgyth did for you, and it wasn't "lazy" -- a rude thing to say about someone contributing their time to your nomination. I assure you that if you assume her advice is good, and follow it, the article will be more likely to pass. But you can't assume any reviewer will fix any problem for you (though some may choose to) -- a reviewer's job at FAC is to determine whether the article meets the criteria. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The feedback did not address the sources specifically. And I don't mean there were no comments made -- "I'll leave this one out for others to decide" and "Not convinced and I'm going to go with WP:RSP" are technically responses -- but they're not responding to the content I offered, any of the credentials I've linked to support the sources in regards to her cheat sheet's criteria. In fact, there were no responses to The Shadow League or AllMusic's Andy Kellman, in light of the sizable amount of material backing their quality I posted. I apologized to her for getting carried away in my tone. But I responded thoroughly to her question of how or why they're high quality sources. I did follow her advice from the start. And I stand by what I suggested: my efforts were not met with the commensurate level of thought or effort in response. isento (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I just saw that you did apologize; thanks for doing that. Are there two points at issue, then? A disagreement over whether some particular sources meet the FA criteria, and also about what level of effort can be expected from a reviewer? To the first point, opinions on individual sources can vary, and that's why a source reviewer sometimes says they have doubts and leaves it at that, so other reviewers can express an opinion. If you and Ealdgyth disagree then see what other reviewers say. Re the second point, I haven't gone through her replies in detail, but it looks to me like she spent a good deal of time on the review, in multiple passes, and responded to you under every bulleted item, striking most of them. I would not assume she didn't read and consider your detailed responses on the unstruck points. This seems a normal level of engagement for a FAC review to me. There are a few FAC reviewers who will spend hours on a single FAC, helping to fix problems, but most will not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Their criteria for demonstrating high quality is multiples of factors like showing the writer is a member of the press, backed by a publication or company, noted as an expert in the field; or that the publication has been mentioned notably in news articles. I showed multiples of that in Kellman's case, including a variety of references to both him and AllMusic in articles indexed by Google Scholar -- the site has been cited in many academic works. I showed multiples of those criteria factors for Aliya Ewing and The Shadow League as well. But I've been repeating this ad nauseum. The point for this discussion is that my nomination shouldn't have been mentioned here. There were neither quid pro quo drive-by supports nor sourcing issues that were serious (as Sandy claimed above). The handful of remaining unstricken sources are used sparingly in the article and they are still considered reliable; even the one that she suggested is "marginally reliable" is the site; the content being cited (twice in the article) is a video, so there cannot be question as to the authenticity of what the subject is quoted as saying. The sourcing issue in this nomination's case is closer to marginal than serious. Should I really withdraw the nomination as Sandy asked above? isento (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• The unifying theme that I am seeing to all of these is that they are all contemporary American pop albums. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

With respect to those that spend time doing source reviews, I do have to say that listing a bunch of URLs and asking why they're high quality can come across as isolating and intimidating to a new nominator. How are they supposed to respond when there's barely any context or guidance given? Sometimes no reason is even given as to why such sources are being selected. I think the definition of "high quality" in the criteria should be expanded beyond whatever the opinion of a particular reviewer is and actually be a clear guideline that people know they can refer to and rely on so.. ya know... maybe other editors could understand what the criteria are and do source reviews too. This lack of clear guidance brings inconsistencies in source reviews. For example, Candy (Foxy Brown song) was promoted recently using AllMusic as a reference, but now AllMusic is being flagged in a different source review because the person doing it is different. (Does the FAC coordinator that promoted it have a different opinion of "high quality" than their peers? Isn't this a problem?!) I think that instead of blaming other people for not taking on the roles that a few are doing, the veterans here should do some internal reflection and ask why more people aren't attracted to the process. Having viewed this place for several months, it is definitely toxic... I mean you have dedicated editors with many years' experience even in FAC... and yet there is so much conflict and people abandoning. More people would want to come here if this place was actually engaging rather than so argumentative. Of course you're going to have conflict when there are barely any guidelines and inconsistency is rampant. Right now it's kind of a free for all. I absolutely agree that reforms/proposals should be considered. Heartfox (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The problem is, that "being welcoming" is often construed as "passing my article" -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 02:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)